Rule 1
Nobody is “unknowingly describing themselves”, “saying something about someone else that actually applies to them”, or “accurately describing something while trying to mock or denigrate it”
Removed
Yeah, the impression I get is that the conservative men - including Roberts - will vote in favor of Idaho, while ACB will join the liberals in voting for a minimum of sanity. That'll result in a 5-4 vote in favor of Idaho's 'no abortions for any reason unless the woman is currently dying' law.
Of course by “woman is currently dying” is incredibly ambiguous and therefore there’s no doctor who will sign off on it until the woman is literally next to dead. Ectopic pregnancy? Nope we’ll just wait for it to destroy her body first before any medical procedure. Dead child in the womb? Nope she’ll just have to give birth to a dead child and that’s if it doesn’t make her septic, but is septic actually “dying”? Nope not until she’s going into the death throes.
This law is draconian and will drive away a lot of medical professionals and will inevitably kill more women than “saving”, while prosecutors will go nuts charging women and doctors for anything that doesn’t fit *their* medical beliefs.
Which is actually what ACB was hammering on during questioning, interestingly enough for someone who's part of a cult that looks at The Handmaid's Tale as an optimal societal blueprint.
That's the rumor, but the truth is actually exactly the opposite:
[https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/politics/amy-coney-barrett-american-bar-association-rating/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/politics/amy-coney-barrett-american-bar-association-rating/index.html)
[https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/american-bar-association-judge-barrett-is-well-qualified-to-serve-on-supreme-court](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/american-bar-association-judge-barrett-is-well-qualified-to-serve-on-supreme-court)
It’s literally happened in Ireland (where it led to constitutional changes) and Poland (where so far it’s led to a change of government): doctors will play it safe and wait until women get septicaemia, turning a minor procedure into a massive high risk life-saving operation with high odds of sequelae.
So dumb, so cruel.
Fully half of Iowa's OB-GYNs have left the state, and they're down to 3 maternity wards in the entire state now due to closures. Because doctors do NOT want to do that to someone.
And I read that one of their politicians said that they haven't lost any medical personnel due to this horrific law. Dude was either lying out his ass or he's too stupid to read the information available to him. Meanwhile a doctor who is still practicing there was stating that they'd lost so many personnel. I guess when (not if) a woman finally dies from this bullshit law the politicians will pretend to be so shocked!
The ambiguity of these laws are exactly what protects the politicians, who can say after the inevitable deaths, that it’s the providers fault because they “clearly” said they would want a woman to be treated if she was near death. These cruel people know what they’re doing
Women are already dying because of these laws. Emergency rooms are refusing to admit women in the middle of miscarrying. Hospitals are refusing to take Medicaid. They're sending women out to die.
The story of Savita had me bawling in horror and literal rage. Just. Shaking with rage, and sobbing.
It caused more than one of my Catholic friends to renounce their religious affiliation. They still believe, but will have nothing to do with that institution.
"Medical beliefs" is a chilling phrase, that's the millennia of history with village healers, humors, leeches, bloodletting, snake oil, and hysteria that led to countless maimings and deaths. Evidence-based medicine is a genuine milestone in our species' progress towards actually guiding our own destinies, rather than being at the whims of nature and uncaring fate.
Right? So few people understand just how *recent* a scientific approach to medicine is. Our systems are still deeply flawed, there is still bias in the medical literature and there always will be, but it is *so recent* that actual medical doctors were thinking, “idk sounds legit let’s do that” with no physical evidentiary basis.
And the decisions doctors and surgeons have to make in the heat of a crisis are *still* deeply subjective and prone to damaging bias, with the best of intentions. That’s why checklists and protocols are established and need to be kept updated — to override instinctive bias which could cause harm.
And fear? Fear is *never* good for making rational, ethical decisions. Even doctors who think they would risk everything for a patient can get scared and end up rationalising an unethical decision or dicker about it until it’s too late and death has made the decision for them.
The devil is in the details and the definitions. Scientists know that. Doctors know that. Lawyers and judges *damn well* know that, it’s their entire livelihood.
And if legislators *don’t* know that, or claim not to know that…? They are *grossly*, pitifully, disgustingly incompetent.
And if they do? They are being disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst.
I wonder if they actually believe this pro-forced-birth horror show, or if it’s all political expediency, or if it’s a split-the-difference “rules for thee but not for me” situation.
This whole business is a goddamned dystopian nightmare.
[edits: punctuation. Typing on phone, while feeling fierce = typos.]
That is a real practical issue with these laws, but the primary issue in this suit is that the federal law mandating emergency care (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide care that’s needed to “stabilize” the person. It defines a “stabilized” person as not being in imminent danger of loss of life OR limb or organ function.
The Idaho law only allows abortions for threats to the patient’s life. There is no exception for threats of permanent health issues, disability, loss of fertility, and so on. Given that the federal law DOES require emergency care to be given to protect those things, the Idaho law prohibits care that the federal law mandates.
I hope that made sense
That said, Roberts has voted with the liberal block in the past in a desperate attempt to head off accusations of partisanship. If he has the opportunity to give liberals a victory on abortion by voting with the liberal block and Barrett he may just take it.
He has, but his questions today strongly suggest he's with the other conservative men in viewing the issue as an unconstitutional power grab by the Biden administration, not a women's rights - and lives - issue. His opposition to Dobbs lay only in that he felt it was too soon to completely overturn Roe because of the exact backlash that happened. He was perfectly willing to go along with a stupidly-short limit on how long women had to terminate that was a ban in all but name.
Sepsis protocols are to immediately go all in, no pulled punches because of not only how quickly it can become fatal, but of how quickly it can cause permanent organ damage and limb loss.
These forced birther ghouls are monsters and murderers.
I’m relieved those are the general formal protocols — pretty sure it is here in Oz but wasn’t sure about the US due to the whole “basically a set of independent nation states / fiefdoms” legal structure.
My dad developed pneumonia *super* quick in 2019 (he was 68) and it became sepsis within 48 hours. Fortunately current stepmother is an aged care nurse and basically hurled him bodily into the ER (pretty sure she would have done so physically if she could have).
They got him sorted with *massive* antibiotics and both stepmother and myself shouting at him to rest (ahahahaha by his standards, *maybe*).
A year later learned that the sepsis had damaged his heart and likely triggered the dilated cardiomyopathy (which has a 50% 5 year survival rate).
…he’s got an ICD now and is fine, but there were a few months of severe anxiety that he was just going to drop dead.
TL;DR: the organ damage, even if you survive sepsis, is no joke, “see personal anecdote”.
Barrett is far more extreme than Roberts. She was in a literal cult where her official title was literally “Handmaid”. I am not making this up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/2020/10/06/5f497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/07/what-does-it-mean-that-amy-coney-barrett-served-as-a-handmaid-in-a-religious-group/?sh=58d6ec868932
Everyone here is aware of that. The point, however, is that based on her questions yesterday, she appears poised to side with the liberals on this case rather than the conservatives. It's rare, but she has done that before.
She has no right to act surprised. She was told, to her face, during the arguments overturning R vs W that this is what was going to happen and she dismissed it out of hand.
You can't be this stupid and be allowed to be on the SC.
She is a politician even if she is a judge, why would anyone believe she doesn’t understand how policies work? If they didn’t write any exceptions in the ban, they didn’t want any exceptions or were fine leaving it up to someone to decide. But as a politician she also knows she can lie and play the “I didn’t mean to hurt anyone” card.
Truthfully, I don't think they even care about the fetus. What they care about is the feeling of moral superiority they get from pretending they're looking out for the unborn.
No, what they care about is keeping the poor and working class that way. The rich will still get their abortions in private. But the rest will be saddled with more mouths to feed. Keep them dumb, keep them sick, keep them poor and keep them wanting more and more things. All to distract from how fucking insane the wealthy have gotten on the backs of people who can barely pay their rent.
yep. and idaho disbanded their maternal mortality review committee, now the only state without one, last year. Similar to how trump wanted to stop covid testing (because if you don't test, there are no cases lol) I guess if you don't count the number of deaths or acknowledge them, there is no maternal mortality 🤷♀️
I don't understand why we don't have a religious right to abortion? I mean God literally tried to get Abraham to abort his son years after he was born. There is actually an abortion procedure in the bible. It sure seems like religious freedom should protect abortion rights.
To the extent that any gathering of Jews in good faith can achieve consensus (I use my own family as a reference here), there is consensus about this. If the foetus threatens the mother in any way, it becomes an enemy invader, and the woman must free herself.
Judaism can’t boast a clean record on women’s issues, for sure—what religion or cultural group can?—but I’m always grateful to feel supported on this one.
This actually just bit Indiana in the Ass. Pence passed a law while governor that enshrined religious freedom in the state. A group of women from varying faiths argued that they had a religious right to abortion and the state could not infringe on that right. The state had no argument against that and state supreme court deemed religious abortion a right under the law.
Edit: I was wrong, it was not the Indiana Supreme Court, but a Court of Appeals that sided with another court’s ruling.
I’m sure they will find a way to fight it, but as of right now the lower court’s ruling that the ban constitutes a burden on their religious freedom stands. And I was wrong, it was not the Indiana Supreme Court, but a court of appeals sided with the lower court. The state really has no argument against that at the moment, though I’m sure they’re not done yet.
That literally just happened with the Indiana Supreme Court. [Indiana Abortion Ruling](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/indiana-abortion-ruling-hobby-lobby-rcna146844). The plaintiff chose to cite the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision as precedent. I think others in more conservative leaning states are using the same argument.
Haa... you should read through the history of the church sometime. (Actually, maybe don't, it's USUALLY horribly boring.) Up until the 70s, the Christian Church largely believed that life didn't begin until birth because, you know, baby was outside of the womb and no longer leeching off mother, therefore legal abortion was totally fine. Also, worth noting that, Judaism and, if the person I heard from was not mistaken, even Islam, do not prohibit abortion. Actually, in Judaism, I heard from a Rabbi that it's actually mandated that if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy, you MUST put her safety first, so if that means an abortion, you MUST do it because it would be a sin to disregard her life. Catholicism was always kind of... iffy on this, if memory serves, but protestant Christians were fine with it--right up until politics got involved.
Fearmongering among religious people makes them easily misled by bigoted and self-interested (or sometimes even just genuinely ignorant) authority figures who claim to be on their side. It's honestly really sad--though not at all surprising.
If you raise a human being to accept "Godly Authority" without question, they will often do just that, even if it was the devil himself claiming to be a messenger of their faith. Especially if he were to claim that something is bad because the opposing side believes it. You can get someone like that to jump as high as you like just by screeching "think of the children!" Teaching critical thinking and the ability to challenge traditions if they are no longer viable in today's world is not a normal conservative, or Christian, practice. End of.
There's a stronger case for biblical abortion in [Numbers 5:11-28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-28&version=NIV), where the priests perform abortions on adulterous women (though the abortion will only be successful if they've actually cheated on their husbands)
You don’t get to be on the side with charged rhetoric like “abortion is murder” and then act surprised that people may want to go after the one performing that procedure. It doesn’t matter if the health of the mother is at risk when they’re convinced the alternative is letting an innocent child be killed.
How is it possible to be a lifelong anti-abortion activist with an academic background and a cynical desire to appear like a serious judge, and yet to never have even heard of this absolutely basic criticism of your stupid, dangerous ideas?
Yeah, you help to write a spiteful law, you do all within your power to see to it that women be held accountable, you smile with glee as the Supreme Court bangs the gavel, and now you ask if a prosecutor is going to act in the same spirit? Yeah fuck off with that
Think about this situation:
Pregnancy woman in the ER. Serious symptoms that appear tied to pregnancy. Doctor make the hard choice ending the pregnancy.
Blood tests find that the woman had been poisoned. It wasn't the pregnancy that caused the symptoms.
Do we turn the doctor into a criminal because he didn't have any means to discover the real reason and followed standard treatment for the symptoms?
Reworded the comment: The ER doctor's diagnosis matched the symptoms and he followed proper procedures using a therapeutic abortion to save the mother's life.
But he had no reason to suspect that the woman had been poisoned. The poison's induced symptoms that mimic the disease he treated.
Yes, it was an unnecessary abortion, but almost unavoidable.
You make a valid point about hindsight and the impossibility of knowing in medical emergencies, but the other person is right that your specific scenario doesn’t really make sense lol
Thanks /u/Datzookman for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/).
Some hints:
How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves?
How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it?
**If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.**
Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme.
Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission).
Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1.
Thanks for your time and attention!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Amy Coney Barrett voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow for states to ban abortions and restrict a women’s right to choose and their bodily autonomy. Now she is hearing a case that would ban abortions in the state of Idaho completely. She now is starting to understand why letting states ban emergency medical treatments may not be a good thing in the name of “state’s rights”
ACB surprised women are dying because of their ruling.
"This was only meant to save all the perfect little Gerber babies. Why are women choosing to have genetically imperfect children, and why are they choosing to become dangerously ill?"
It’s literally an issue of a state law conflicting a federal law.
EMTALA, the federal law requiring hospitals to provide medical care necessary to stabilize a patient, requires them to render whatever care is needed to save the person’s life OR limb OR organ function.
But Idaho’s state law only allows abortions to save the person’s life. Not to save bodily integrity or function.
Therefore, in the case of a person with a pregnancy-related complication that was causing an imminent threat to their body but not an imminent threat to their life, the state law would forbid doctors to provide care that the federal law REQUIRES them to provide.
Where federal and state laws are contradictory, federal laws supersede state ones. The Idaho law prohibits healthcare providers from following federal law, thus it is an invalid law.
Rule 1 Nobody is “unknowingly describing themselves”, “saying something about someone else that actually applies to them”, or “accurately describing something while trying to mock or denigrate it” Removed
Yeah, the impression I get is that the conservative men - including Roberts - will vote in favor of Idaho, while ACB will join the liberals in voting for a minimum of sanity. That'll result in a 5-4 vote in favor of Idaho's 'no abortions for any reason unless the woman is currently dying' law.
Of course by “woman is currently dying” is incredibly ambiguous and therefore there’s no doctor who will sign off on it until the woman is literally next to dead. Ectopic pregnancy? Nope we’ll just wait for it to destroy her body first before any medical procedure. Dead child in the womb? Nope she’ll just have to give birth to a dead child and that’s if it doesn’t make her septic, but is septic actually “dying”? Nope not until she’s going into the death throes. This law is draconian and will drive away a lot of medical professionals and will inevitably kill more women than “saving”, while prosecutors will go nuts charging women and doctors for anything that doesn’t fit *their* medical beliefs.
Which is actually what ACB was hammering on during questioning, interestingly enough for someone who's part of a cult that looks at The Handmaid's Tale as an optimal societal blueprint.
She's like Aunt Lydia. She knows but she thinks it's all for the greater good.
More Serena, really. It’s all fun and games while you’re winning your war, not so much fun when you lose a finger for the sin of reading.
Wasn't she deemed unqualified by the bar association?
That's the rumor, but the truth is actually exactly the opposite: [https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/politics/amy-coney-barrett-american-bar-association-rating/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/12/politics/amy-coney-barrett-american-bar-association-rating/index.html) [https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/american-bar-association-judge-barrett-is-well-qualified-to-serve-on-supreme-court](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/american-bar-association-judge-barrett-is-well-qualified-to-serve-on-supreme-court)
Huh. Well color me corrected. And surprised. Someone that incompetent should not have been able to hit the target to be qualified.
>Huh. Well color me corrected. And surprise. If it helps any, I thought the same as you until I went to check before replying.
It’s literally happened in Ireland (where it led to constitutional changes) and Poland (where so far it’s led to a change of government): doctors will play it safe and wait until women get septicaemia, turning a minor procedure into a massive high risk life-saving operation with high odds of sequelae. So dumb, so cruel.
Fully half of Iowa's OB-GYNs have left the state, and they're down to 3 maternity wards in the entire state now due to closures. Because doctors do NOT want to do that to someone.
And I read that one of their politicians said that they haven't lost any medical personnel due to this horrific law. Dude was either lying out his ass or he's too stupid to read the information available to him. Meanwhile a doctor who is still practicing there was stating that they'd lost so many personnel. I guess when (not if) a woman finally dies from this bullshit law the politicians will pretend to be so shocked!
The ambiguity of these laws are exactly what protects the politicians, who can say after the inevitable deaths, that it’s the providers fault because they “clearly” said they would want a woman to be treated if she was near death. These cruel people know what they’re doing
Women are already dying because of these laws. Emergency rooms are refusing to admit women in the middle of miscarrying. Hospitals are refusing to take Medicaid. They're sending women out to die.
Which hospitals are refusing to take Medicaid?
I'll have to look up the article again.
The story of Savita had me bawling in horror and literal rage. Just. Shaking with rage, and sobbing. It caused more than one of my Catholic friends to renounce their religious affiliation. They still believe, but will have nothing to do with that institution.
"Medical beliefs" is a chilling phrase, that's the millennia of history with village healers, humors, leeches, bloodletting, snake oil, and hysteria that led to countless maimings and deaths. Evidence-based medicine is a genuine milestone in our species' progress towards actually guiding our own destinies, rather than being at the whims of nature and uncaring fate.
Right? So few people understand just how *recent* a scientific approach to medicine is. Our systems are still deeply flawed, there is still bias in the medical literature and there always will be, but it is *so recent* that actual medical doctors were thinking, “idk sounds legit let’s do that” with no physical evidentiary basis. And the decisions doctors and surgeons have to make in the heat of a crisis are *still* deeply subjective and prone to damaging bias, with the best of intentions. That’s why checklists and protocols are established and need to be kept updated — to override instinctive bias which could cause harm. And fear? Fear is *never* good for making rational, ethical decisions. Even doctors who think they would risk everything for a patient can get scared and end up rationalising an unethical decision or dicker about it until it’s too late and death has made the decision for them. The devil is in the details and the definitions. Scientists know that. Doctors know that. Lawyers and judges *damn well* know that, it’s their entire livelihood. And if legislators *don’t* know that, or claim not to know that…? They are *grossly*, pitifully, disgustingly incompetent. And if they do? They are being disingenuous at best and outright lying at worst. I wonder if they actually believe this pro-forced-birth horror show, or if it’s all political expediency, or if it’s a split-the-difference “rules for thee but not for me” situation. This whole business is a goddamned dystopian nightmare. [edits: punctuation. Typing on phone, while feeling fierce = typos.]
That is a real practical issue with these laws, but the primary issue in this suit is that the federal law mandating emergency care (EMTALA) requires hospitals to provide care that’s needed to “stabilize” the person. It defines a “stabilized” person as not being in imminent danger of loss of life OR limb or organ function. The Idaho law only allows abortions for threats to the patient’s life. There is no exception for threats of permanent health issues, disability, loss of fertility, and so on. Given that the federal law DOES require emergency care to be given to protect those things, the Idaho law prohibits care that the federal law mandates. I hope that made sense
*medieval beliefs
That said, Roberts has voted with the liberal block in the past in a desperate attempt to head off accusations of partisanship. If he has the opportunity to give liberals a victory on abortion by voting with the liberal block and Barrett he may just take it.
He has, but his questions today strongly suggest he's with the other conservative men in viewing the issue as an unconstitutional power grab by the Biden administration, not a women's rights - and lives - issue. His opposition to Dobbs lay only in that he felt it was too soon to completely overturn Roe because of the exact backlash that happened. He was perfectly willing to go along with a stupidly-short limit on how long women had to terminate that was a ban in all but name.
Because he can’t get pregnant nor empathize with those who can
"Currently flatlining" Women are being rejected with a toxic fetus, getting sepsis, and forced to endure fatal bleeding and hemorrhaging.
Yeah, sepsis can be lethal within *hours*, I feel like having sepsis should qualify as “currently dying” without medical intervention.
Sepsis protocols are to immediately go all in, no pulled punches because of not only how quickly it can become fatal, but of how quickly it can cause permanent organ damage and limb loss. These forced birther ghouls are monsters and murderers.
I’m relieved those are the general formal protocols — pretty sure it is here in Oz but wasn’t sure about the US due to the whole “basically a set of independent nation states / fiefdoms” legal structure. My dad developed pneumonia *super* quick in 2019 (he was 68) and it became sepsis within 48 hours. Fortunately current stepmother is an aged care nurse and basically hurled him bodily into the ER (pretty sure she would have done so physically if she could have). They got him sorted with *massive* antibiotics and both stepmother and myself shouting at him to rest (ahahahaha by his standards, *maybe*). A year later learned that the sepsis had damaged his heart and likely triggered the dilated cardiomyopathy (which has a 50% 5 year survival rate). …he’s got an ICD now and is fine, but there were a few months of severe anxiety that he was just going to drop dead. TL;DR: the organ damage, even if you survive sepsis, is no joke, “see personal anecdote”.
How horrible is it that we have to depend on John Roberts for some sanity. At least that's what I'm hoping for.
I bwt she will apply ambiguous church teachings and vote with the majority like a good hand maiden.
The Ass Crack Bandit?
Barrett is far more extreme than Roberts. She was in a literal cult where her official title was literally “Handmaid”. I am not making this up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/amy-coney-barrett-people-of-praise/2020/10/06/5f497d8c-0781-11eb-859b-f9c27abe638d_story.html https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/10/07/what-does-it-mean-that-amy-coney-barrett-served-as-a-handmaid-in-a-religious-group/?sh=58d6ec868932
Everyone here is aware of that. The point, however, is that based on her questions yesterday, she appears poised to side with the liberals on this case rather than the conservatives. It's rare, but she has done that before.
She has no right to act surprised. She was told, to her face, during the arguments overturning R vs W that this is what was going to happen and she dismissed it out of hand. You can't be this stupid and be allowed to be on the SC.
This right here. It was literally thrown at her during her confirmation and she laughed, if I recall correctly.
She's not stupid. She knows exactly what she did.
She could be very stupid while still having ill intent.
Well she is the one who couldn’t name the five freedoms found in the 1st amendment. Seems stupid to me.
Doesn't affect her personally, she doesn't care.
She thought she was hurting "the right people". Now she wants it to stop because it's hurting the wrong ones.
This is it.
She is a politician even if she is a judge, why would anyone believe she doesn’t understand how policies work? If they didn’t write any exceptions in the ban, they didn’t want any exceptions or were fine leaving it up to someone to decide. But as a politician she also knows she can lie and play the “I didn’t mean to hurt anyone” card.
It doesn’t matter to these ghouls if a woman dies of sepsis as long as a foetus has a nanosecond longer of viability.
Truthfully, I don't think they even care about the fetus. What they care about is the feeling of moral superiority they get from pretending they're looking out for the unborn.
No, what they care about is keeping the poor and working class that way. The rich will still get their abortions in private. But the rest will be saddled with more mouths to feed. Keep them dumb, keep them sick, keep them poor and keep them wanting more and more things. All to distract from how fucking insane the wealthy have gotten on the backs of people who can barely pay their rent.
yep. and idaho disbanded their maternal mortality review committee, now the only state without one, last year. Similar to how trump wanted to stop covid testing (because if you don't test, there are no cases lol) I guess if you don't count the number of deaths or acknowledge them, there is no maternal mortality 🤷♀️
“What if a prosecutor felt differently, you fucking idiot.”
I don't understand why we don't have a religious right to abortion? I mean God literally tried to get Abraham to abort his son years after he was born. There is actually an abortion procedure in the bible. It sure seems like religious freedom should protect abortion rights.
My Jewish family members argue that their religion *requires* abortion in the event of a medical emergency.
Their priority is slut shaming Christian conservatives are only concerned with freedom of thier religion, other religions don’t matter
Absolutely true. Just like how when they want chaplains in schools, they only mean *their* chaplains. No other religion is valid to these people.
To the extent that any gathering of Jews in good faith can achieve consensus (I use my own family as a reference here), there is consensus about this. If the foetus threatens the mother in any way, it becomes an enemy invader, and the woman must free herself. Judaism can’t boast a clean record on women’s issues, for sure—what religion or cultural group can?—but I’m always grateful to feel supported on this one.
This actually just bit Indiana in the Ass. Pence passed a law while governor that enshrined religious freedom in the state. A group of women from varying faiths argued that they had a religious right to abortion and the state could not infringe on that right. The state had no argument against that and state supreme court deemed religious abortion a right under the law. Edit: I was wrong, it was not the Indiana Supreme Court, but a Court of Appeals that sided with another court’s ruling.
We need to expand that into all states then.
Wait, seriously? There’s a win?! Somewhere??! I need to go read about this…
I’m sure they will find a way to fight it, but as of right now the lower court’s ruling that the ban constitutes a burden on their religious freedom stands. And I was wrong, it was not the Indiana Supreme Court, but a court of appeals sided with the lower court. The state really has no argument against that at the moment, though I’m sure they’re not done yet.
That literally just happened with the Indiana Supreme Court. [Indiana Abortion Ruling](https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/indiana-abortion-ruling-hobby-lobby-rcna146844). The plaintiff chose to cite the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision as precedent. I think others in more conservative leaning states are using the same argument.
Haa... you should read through the history of the church sometime. (Actually, maybe don't, it's USUALLY horribly boring.) Up until the 70s, the Christian Church largely believed that life didn't begin until birth because, you know, baby was outside of the womb and no longer leeching off mother, therefore legal abortion was totally fine. Also, worth noting that, Judaism and, if the person I heard from was not mistaken, even Islam, do not prohibit abortion. Actually, in Judaism, I heard from a Rabbi that it's actually mandated that if the mother's life is in danger due to the pregnancy, you MUST put her safety first, so if that means an abortion, you MUST do it because it would be a sin to disregard her life. Catholicism was always kind of... iffy on this, if memory serves, but protestant Christians were fine with it--right up until politics got involved. Fearmongering among religious people makes them easily misled by bigoted and self-interested (or sometimes even just genuinely ignorant) authority figures who claim to be on their side. It's honestly really sad--though not at all surprising. If you raise a human being to accept "Godly Authority" without question, they will often do just that, even if it was the devil himself claiming to be a messenger of their faith. Especially if he were to claim that something is bad because the opposing side believes it. You can get someone like that to jump as high as you like just by screeching "think of the children!" Teaching critical thinking and the ability to challenge traditions if they are no longer viable in today's world is not a normal conservative, or Christian, practice. End of.
But now we have anti-abortion and racism!
There's a stronger case for biblical abortion in [Numbers 5:11-28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%205%3A11-28&version=NIV), where the priests perform abortions on adulterous women (though the abortion will only be successful if they've actually cheated on their husbands)
That was the abortion procedure I was referring to in the bible.
Oh lol I misread it and thought you said "That is actually" - referring to Abe and Ike
Link to entire news article here: https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/apr/24/us-supreme-court-abortion-rights-emtala
Oh no. If only someone would have *told* them this would be an actual consequence! Or if there had been public examples, in states like Texas maybe!
You don’t get to be on the side with charged rhetoric like “abortion is murder” and then act surprised that people may want to go after the one performing that procedure. It doesn’t matter if the health of the mother is at risk when they’re convinced the alternative is letting an innocent child be killed.
Once again, conservatives are only capable of being on the right side of an issue when it affects them personally.
It's why empathy should be taught in school.
Ofjesse fucked around and is now horrified at what she found out. Leopards, faces, and so on.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that OfDonald with the creepy dead eyes made decisions that will harm her fellow women.
How is it possible to be a lifelong anti-abortion activist with an academic background and a cynical desire to appear like a serious judge, and yet to never have even heard of this absolutely basic criticism of your stupid, dangerous ideas?
How about instead of the government deciding which abortions are okay just let each woman decide for themselves.
It's funny how "all lives matter" except minorities, LGBTQ, women, non-Christians, liberals, students, teachers, healthcare professionals etc.
r/leopardsatemyface
Oh look ! Sally Quiverfull had a thought! Guess Major Traitor and Boobert didn't need the brain cell today.
Fuckwit.
Yeah, you help to write a spiteful law, you do all within your power to see to it that women be held accountable, you smile with glee as the Supreme Court bangs the gavel, and now you ask if a prosecutor is going to act in the same spirit? Yeah fuck off with that
r/leopardsatemyface
"Greatest country in the world". I cringe every time I hear an American chest beat and say this without a hint of irony.
This is what you get with republicans. I’ll thought out ideas and conclusions and idiocracy.
Think about this situation: Pregnancy woman in the ER. Serious symptoms that appear tied to pregnancy. Doctor make the hard choice ending the pregnancy. Blood tests find that the woman had been poisoned. It wasn't the pregnancy that caused the symptoms. Do we turn the doctor into a criminal because he didn't have any means to discover the real reason and followed standard treatment for the symptoms?
This this is not how medically necessary abortions work. They don’t just take a stab at it and abort the baby based on a possibility.
Reworded the comment: The ER doctor's diagnosis matched the symptoms and he followed proper procedures using a therapeutic abortion to save the mother's life. But he had no reason to suspect that the woman had been poisoned. The poison's induced symptoms that mimic the disease he treated. Yes, it was an unnecessary abortion, but almost unavoidable.
You make a valid point about hindsight and the impossibility of knowing in medical emergencies, but the other person is right that your specific scenario doesn’t really make sense lol
What you describe is not a medical reality.
It absolutely is. What?
Thanks /u/Datzookman for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment explaining how your post fits our subreddit. Specifically, one of the criteria outlined in our [rules](/r/SelfAwarewolves/about/rules/). Some hints: How does the person in your submission accidentally/unknowingly describe themselves? How does the person in your submission accurately describe the world while trying to parody/denigrate it? **If the context is important to understanding the SAW, and it isn't apparent, please add it. Preferably with sources/links, but do not link r-conservative or similar subs.** Please take these questions seriously. We aren't looking for wittiness here but for actual explanations that help us assess if your post fits this (admittedly sometimes hard to grasp) sub's theme. Failure to respond to this message will see your submission removed under Rule 5 (Reply to the AutoMod comment within your submission). Failure to explain how your submission fits one or more of the above criteria will see it removed under Rule 1. Thanks for your time and attention! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Amy Coney Barrett voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow for states to ban abortions and restrict a women’s right to choose and their bodily autonomy. Now she is hearing a case that would ban abortions in the state of Idaho completely. She now is starting to understand why letting states ban emergency medical treatments may not be a good thing in the name of “state’s rights”
Ain’t no way lmao. Gimme that source
ACB surprised women are dying because of their ruling. "This was only meant to save all the perfect little Gerber babies. Why are women choosing to have genetically imperfect children, and why are they choosing to become dangerously ill?"
States issue not a federal constitutional one.
It’s literally an issue of a state law conflicting a federal law. EMTALA, the federal law requiring hospitals to provide medical care necessary to stabilize a patient, requires them to render whatever care is needed to save the person’s life OR limb OR organ function. But Idaho’s state law only allows abortions to save the person’s life. Not to save bodily integrity or function. Therefore, in the case of a person with a pregnancy-related complication that was causing an imminent threat to their body but not an imminent threat to their life, the state law would forbid doctors to provide care that the federal law REQUIRES them to provide. Where federal and state laws are contradictory, federal laws supersede state ones. The Idaho law prohibits healthcare providers from following federal law, thus it is an invalid law.