367
top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

Republicans: But that is a sacrifice I'm willing to make.

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Until it impacts me or my family personally. Then it’s just an unfortunate situation that we’ll go out of state to “handle”.

[-] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Who woulda thought that total ban on abortion is stealth oppression on women, huh? Even the most moderate measure to terminate pregnancy if it harms both the health of the baby and the mother is off the table for conservatives.

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 66 points 1 day ago

“For months, Ms. Walker had been asking for termination of her pregnancy — even though this was a wanted pregnancy — because she did not think she would survive the pregnancy. Tragically, she was right,” the lawsuit states. “An abortion at any point during her pregnancy would have saved her life.”

Listen to women

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago

Yes, but what if they think they actually deserve autonomy!?? /s

In all seriousness, it's horrifying to think that if she only lived in a free state vs. a Gilead state, she'd still be alive.

Back in 2022, I had some of the Tone Police trying to shut me up on Denver Post comments when using a term like "Gilead state" by the way, claiming I was being nasty and mean and hyperbolic and hysterical or unfair to conservatives, etc. I wish it was only hyperbole; this woman likely died because of the closely held beliefs of other people in her state.

These were some of the very same people that were bleating about how conservatives were being silenced, censored, or "cancelled" and other imagined horrors like being "shadowbanned" on social media, etc. If one of their hateful posts doesn't go viral on Facebook or pre-Elon-Xitter, it's because Big Tech, being so very notoriously liberal, has shadowbanned them because Silicon Valley doesn't want cons to have free speech. The same people that think spreading Russian influence nonsense meant to sway an election to donnie's favor is a right that they have.

Meanwhile, Jehovah forbid anyone were to accurately point out what cons are up to. Because it's quite true to state the cons were getting ready to monitor women traveling over state lines very early in all this: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/abortion-travel-restrictions-texas-republicans-1385437/

Hell, "JD" "Vance" has called for monitoring of women.

https://www.themarysue.com/am-i-ok-with-it-jd-vance-dodges-question-about-his-stance-on-women-traveling-freely-for-abortions/

[-] hopesdead@startrek.website 1 points 1 day ago

In a Gilead state, she would have not been allowed to have sex on her own. She would have be selected to carry a man’s child. Her wanting sex would not have been allowed. The autonomy of the choice to be pregnant would have been taken away in such a reality.

[-] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

The comparison is not trying to make the case that those states map directly onto the circumstances of the book/show. That would require other things such as widespread infertility and extreme environmental disasters.

[-] velma@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago

You’ve never heard criticisms of women choosing the wrong men to father their children and such? It’s there, right on the edges and waiting for more of this to be normalized.

Our society is very quick to lay blame on women for choosing the wrong men, for their children not being good enough, and for getting pregnant when they shouldn’t.

[-] Malica@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago

Best I can go is diagnose hysteria - misogynistic doctors

[-] Murse@slrpnk.net 21 points 1 day ago

I remember trying to research this in nursing school - specifically, [DO NOT image search this - it's about as NSFL as it gets] intrauterine fetal deaths (IUFDs) and the resulting maternal complications/mortality... and getting really frustrated at the availability of data. After Dobbs, there just wasn't much published, especially from red states where that data would make them look bad. What we did find was exactly what you'd expect: IUFDs became more common, and with it, maternal sepsis and death.

We also came across some legal stats regarding prosecution of women for having a miscarriage. Our findings were that if you live in Alabama and have a uterus, you need to get the fuck out of there like yesterday.

[-] bertlewirth@lemy.lol 13 points 1 day ago

in which the baby...... also dies. So.... yeah....

Kill the baby, or kill the baby AND the mother? Fuck abortion bans.

[-] Murse@slrpnk.net 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, that was the gist of our presentation. Even taking the right wing talking points at face value "a fetus is a human with rights n' shit!" ...like, okay? The policies they're pushing for are still destructive to their own fucking goals. Now you've taken two human lives and caused a whole shit ton of unnecessary suffering.

...that was back when I thought you could show them why their own reasoning doesn't add up and they'd change their mind. I've since accepted that the cruelty is the point, and they don't actually give a fuck about the on-paper veneer they use to package their evil shit.

[-] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

But at least they can both go to heaven together, right?

— Nutjob

[-] AgentSeven@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago

They're ambivalent about her death because they are mentally deranged and one less abortion in the world is more important to them than her living.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago
[-] joyjoy@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago

God is real and he's an asshole.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago
[-] Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 3 points 1 day ago

A spoiled toddler, probably

[-] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

He made Trump in his image

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago

"Feature, not a bug WONTFIX" ~Texas gop

this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2026
367 points (99.7% liked)

politics

31142 readers
2763 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS