Wow, I did not read that article title correctly at first.
suddenly seemed to change his tune by half a note on Monday, saying he would consider adding an exception to the state’s extreme abortion ban that would allow the procedure in cases of rape and incest.
oh can we all witness these careful considerations in action!!? @#$!!! these vile patriarchal misogynist medieval @#$! need to be ridden out on a rail! so many horrid ghastly political @#$!!s sliming about these days; but these are the absolute worst (words fail) @#$! !!!&% (too pissed to find a meme)
Dems need to hold their feet to the fire: “To clarify: do you believe that all unborn life is sacred, in which case - why does it matter how it was conceived? Or do you think that circumstances matter?” Drive a wedge between him and the purists…or those who think no exception is draconian.
republicans know exactly what they’re doing. they’re deliberately going extreme so as to make the slightly less-extreme positions that they end up “compromising” on somehow seem moderate or acceptable. they’re not.
Obviously this isn’t really much of a concession in practice because it would require a woman or girl to somehow prove her pregnancy was the result of rape or incest before she was allowed to seek medical care.
All fetus worshipers can go fuck themselves. They all seek total bans. It’s just a matter of how long the will make the effort. No accommodations are possible or needed.
We should not be talking about exceptions to abortion bans. We should be talking about abolishing any such ban. The decisions are between a woman and her physicians. Politicians and nosybodies have no business in it.
And let’s be clear, this is no exception at all. States with draconian forced birth laws still prosecute doctors and hospitals who rely on this exception, so no hospital will allow it. And that is entirely by design.
Oh yeah, Daniel Cameron, the guy who previously publicly pledged to criminalize birth control. Yeah, I’m sure he can be reasoned with…
Now that he’s past the primary, whenever anyone brings up his previous pledge to outlaw hormonal birth control, he simply flat out denies it because he recognizes it’s not a generally popular position. These guys will just bare-faced lie when it suits them, saying whatever they think their particular current audience wants to hear. It doesn’t drive any wedges because the purists remember his previous pledge.
They don’t need to do that. In many places they are passing the extreme laws they want. They don’t need to compromise.
Laws so poorly written even women who aren’t pregnant, but have some other gynecological issue can’t get treatment because it may run afoul of their shit laws.
I’d argue they don’t know what they are doing, because it is a hugely unpopular move to have restrictive abortion bans. It cost them the midterms and energized a segment of people who weren’t very political.
It does not matter, since women are already dying thanks to their policies.
Believe them, because they are telling you exactly who they are and what they believe in. Let’s stop giving them the benefit of the doubt that these are just for the votes.
He’ll “consider” it? Well, gosh, ain’t that jest feckin gracious of 'im.
That leads to doctors leaving the state because they can’t give the care they are bound by their medical oaths. Soon, no more obstetricians/gynecologists can be trained because there is no-one to train them and no trained doctors want to move in from other states.
Thus it becomes a complete ban in effect if not in law.
Another effect is that the lack of experts compromises sexual/reproductive health care for women who want to have children.
Same here. It should be rephrased as 'Woman who was raped as a child calls out […]"
The ability to feel no shame, combined with a media that doesn’t care about truth and just reporting everything as a race, is a super power.
I’m all in favor of a politician changing a stance based on new understanding. When they do, the media should question them on the reasons for the change. They should report on those reasons, if they’re just “the audience changed”, they should report that they’re a big fat lier and not fit to represent anyone. Without that reporting, it just enables ignoring things that used to be scandals or shame politicians. Of course, they’ll never do this anymore in fear of being called bias and fake news. Ironic that not doing this actually makes them biased and fake news by ignoring the truth and only reporting the race.
Not just you!
This! I mean, if the woman survives, how can it be proven that her life was in danger? She did not die! And the doc will be facing up to felony murder prosecution. No, it is not an exception at all.
Writer John Rogers talked, many years ago, about how shamelessness was a super-power for (right-wing) politicians, but boy, it wasn’t until the Trump era that it really struck home exactly what that meant. That the media are effectively complicit in it is quite the recipe for the end of democracy.