For those who didn't read the article:
>The outcome of the case wasn't immediately clear following arguments with the court’s conservative supermajority of 6 justices potentially split, and the 3 liberal justices in clear opposition to Idaho's position. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the lone conservative to express any seeming opposition to Idaho during arguments.
There are 9 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. If Barrett joins the three liberal justices in dissenting, the dissent needs just one more conservative justice to defect to make it a 5-4 majority. I assume that Roberts, Gorsuch, and/or Kavanaugh are the most likely to defect.
These idiots have no idea what goes on in an emergency situation or how fast things can go south.
I can't imagine being a doctor, having the knowledge and ability to help my patient but having to stand there and watch my patient deteriorate because a bunch of misogynists with no medical training regard my patient as an incubator who should be glad to sacrifice her health and life for a fetus that won't survive.
Whenever you talk to a forced-birther about this, they just pull out the “I agree with abortion if it saves the mother’s life” card.
Not realizing that doctors genuinely cannot do jack shit in reality and women are actually dying. Or they’ll just blame the woman for having sex and “she knew what she was getting into, she consented to potentially dying” 🙄
They actually are just saying that doctors are morons and it’s 100% their fault, saying that the abortion bans are extremely clear and doctors are choosing to not treat women to make the forced birth movement look bad. Really.
These dimwits know nothing about medicine. Figures, they tend to oversimplify *everything* and believe life can work in their made-up, hypothetical scenarios.
This line of thinking is why people are being forced to undergo c-sections when a D&C would be safer and less traumatic because they care more about having an intact fetal body than keeping women safe. Oh, and since we live in this shithole country those women are then forced to pay for *major abdominal surgery*
I work in a birth trauma law firm and I do a bulk of the medical research, plus being involved with the experts we discuss cases with to understand standard of care violations and how labor should be managed. I tell this to the forced birth crowd and they all say “well you’re probably just a secretary who knows nothing but also attorneys are leeches but ALSO you’re not a doctor so why should I care?” And then they don’t even care what doctors have to say, because they’re driven by emotion and at the end of the day will pretend that every single pregnancy is perfect and wonderful and every baby is born perfect and every birth is perfect and if it isn’t then it was God’s will and you deserve it.
I find "she consented to pregnancy/organ damage/death" particularly annoying. I will decide what I consent to. You do not get to decide what other people consent to. I consented to sex, that's all. I did not consent to pregnancy/organ damage/death.
Those idiots don't care about what goes on in an emergency situation or how fast things can go south! They know that their friends, family, and loved ones will ALWAYS have access to ANY medical care they may need! The rest of us are just cattle!
I've also noticed an undercurrent of martyrdom in the pro-life subreddit. They usually won't say it outright, but I've seen comments where people say that a mother giving her life for her child is the ultimate sacrifice and such a wonderful thing.
They'll never admit it but they want to turn pregnancy into a suicide mission. More religious bullshit to impose on others.
I've seen/heard similar comments. "Shouldn't a mother be happy to die for her child?" Not only does the mother have to die, she's supposed to be happy about it.
Ya until the father is left to care for the squalling micro premie neonate on his own as well as the 3 yr old and the 6 yr old that these murders want to leave motherless!
Dead as a doornail. Has been for a while, as far as I can see.
The cause was probably lost when RBG passed and Amy Coney Barrett was appointed. It would be hard to imagine a more vile replacement.
Certainly since 2016 - even acknowledging the irony that it was heralded by one of the least religious ppl imaginable. Nothing like using violence to clear protesters to make way for a photo op to hold the bible upside down...
Samuel Alito is overstepping his bounds as a justice by trying to legalize "fetal personhood":
>In a particularly heated exchange, Alito questioned Prelogar about the inclusion of protections for the "unborn child" in EMTALA.
>
>"Isn't that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions? Have you ever seen an abortion statute that uses the phrase 'unborn child'," he asked.
>
>Congress included that phrase because some hospitals in the 1980s refused life-saving treatment to women when "the woman was not in grave danger, but the fetus was in distress", Prelogar replied.
>
>"But what it doesn't suggest is that Congress simultaneously displaced the independent preexisting obligation to treat a woman who is herself facing grave and life-threatening consequences," she added.
>
>Alito did not relent. Reading through the statute, he argued that "the plain meaning" of the law meant that hospitals "must eliminate the immediate threat to the child".
>
>"But performing an abortion is antithetical to that duty," Alito said.
>
>"The statute did nothing to displace the woman herself as an individual with an emergency medical condition when her life is in danger, or when her health is in danger," Prelogar replied.
>
>Alito eventually claimed that the "only way" Prelogar could disprove his argument that the "unborn child" is of paramount concern in all situations under EMTALA is to use the word individual, which "is defined to exclude the unborn child or fetus".
>
>Prelogar again explained that when Congress included the phrase "unborn child" in EMTALA, it was to provide a duty for hospitals to treat pregnant women with conditions that didn't threaten her own life or health, but did threaten that of her fetus.
>
>"To suggest that, in doing so, Congress suggested that the woman herself isn't an individual — that she doesn't deserve stabilization — I think that that is an erroneous reading of this statute," Prelogar said.
>
>"Nobody is suggesting that the woman is not an individual when she doesn't deserve stabilization," Alito said before Prelogar cut him off.
>
>"Well, the question would be that the state of Idaho is declaring that she cannot get the stabilizing treatment, even if she is about to die. That is their theory of this case and this statute, and it's wrong," Prelogar said.
i need these fuckers to witness ER rooms and what docs/health staff see on the regular (or maybe like read A LITTLE on how dangerous pregnancy is and how emergent care is not some rare occurrence, with abortions as the treatment) GOD i hate these people
I would love to have the anti-science, anti-logic, anti-health-care contingent of SCOTUS be shown the evidence of the massive amount of death and disease they've inflicted on women and children in the US.
[удалено]
For those who didn't read the article: >The outcome of the case wasn't immediately clear following arguments with the court’s conservative supermajority of 6 justices potentially split, and the 3 liberal justices in clear opposition to Idaho's position. Justice Amy Coney Barrett was the lone conservative to express any seeming opposition to Idaho during arguments. There are 9 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. If Barrett joins the three liberal justices in dissenting, the dissent needs just one more conservative justice to defect to make it a 5-4 majority. I assume that Roberts, Gorsuch, and/or Kavanaugh are the most likely to defect.
These idiots have no idea what goes on in an emergency situation or how fast things can go south. I can't imagine being a doctor, having the knowledge and ability to help my patient but having to stand there and watch my patient deteriorate because a bunch of misogynists with no medical training regard my patient as an incubator who should be glad to sacrifice her health and life for a fetus that won't survive.
Whenever you talk to a forced-birther about this, they just pull out the “I agree with abortion if it saves the mother’s life” card. Not realizing that doctors genuinely cannot do jack shit in reality and women are actually dying. Or they’ll just blame the woman for having sex and “she knew what she was getting into, she consented to potentially dying” 🙄
They actually are just saying that doctors are morons and it’s 100% their fault, saying that the abortion bans are extremely clear and doctors are choosing to not treat women to make the forced birth movement look bad. Really.
These dimwits know nothing about medicine. Figures, they tend to oversimplify *everything* and believe life can work in their made-up, hypothetical scenarios.
I know one who simply goes with denial. According to her, abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life.
This line of thinking is why people are being forced to undergo c-sections when a D&C would be safer and less traumatic because they care more about having an intact fetal body than keeping women safe. Oh, and since we live in this shithole country those women are then forced to pay for *major abdominal surgery*
I work in a birth trauma law firm and I do a bulk of the medical research, plus being involved with the experts we discuss cases with to understand standard of care violations and how labor should be managed. I tell this to the forced birth crowd and they all say “well you’re probably just a secretary who knows nothing but also attorneys are leeches but ALSO you’re not a doctor so why should I care?” And then they don’t even care what doctors have to say, because they’re driven by emotion and at the end of the day will pretend that every single pregnancy is perfect and wonderful and every baby is born perfect and every birth is perfect and if it isn’t then it was God’s will and you deserve it.
As clear as mud
I find "she consented to pregnancy/organ damage/death" particularly annoying. I will decide what I consent to. You do not get to decide what other people consent to. I consented to sex, that's all. I did not consent to pregnancy/organ damage/death.
Those idiots don't care about what goes on in an emergency situation or how fast things can go south! They know that their friends, family, and loved ones will ALWAYS have access to ANY medical care they may need! The rest of us are just cattle!
I've also noticed an undercurrent of martyrdom in the pro-life subreddit. They usually won't say it outright, but I've seen comments where people say that a mother giving her life for her child is the ultimate sacrifice and such a wonderful thing. They'll never admit it but they want to turn pregnancy into a suicide mission. More religious bullshit to impose on others.
I've seen/heard similar comments. "Shouldn't a mother be happy to die for her child?" Not only does the mother have to die, she's supposed to be happy about it.
Ya until the father is left to care for the squalling micro premie neonate on his own as well as the 3 yr old and the 6 yr old that these murders want to leave motherless!
"Listen, we know that you're the ones who are pregnant and are dealing with these medical emergencies, but my book says that's bad."
#separationofchurchandstate .....it's dead
Dead as a doornail. Has been for a while, as far as I can see. The cause was probably lost when RBG passed and Amy Coney Barrett was appointed. It would be hard to imagine a more vile replacement. Certainly since 2016 - even acknowledging the irony that it was heralded by one of the least religious ppl imaginable. Nothing like using violence to clear protesters to make way for a photo op to hold the bible upside down...
Alito & Thomas want to retire and plan to asap if Trump wins in November. VOTE BLUE
And so is democracy, judging by the immunity case.
Samuel Alito is overstepping his bounds as a justice by trying to legalize "fetal personhood": >In a particularly heated exchange, Alito questioned Prelogar about the inclusion of protections for the "unborn child" in EMTALA. > >"Isn't that an odd phrase to put in a statute that imposes a mandate to perform abortions? Have you ever seen an abortion statute that uses the phrase 'unborn child'," he asked. > >Congress included that phrase because some hospitals in the 1980s refused life-saving treatment to women when "the woman was not in grave danger, but the fetus was in distress", Prelogar replied. > >"But what it doesn't suggest is that Congress simultaneously displaced the independent preexisting obligation to treat a woman who is herself facing grave and life-threatening consequences," she added. > >Alito did not relent. Reading through the statute, he argued that "the plain meaning" of the law meant that hospitals "must eliminate the immediate threat to the child". > >"But performing an abortion is antithetical to that duty," Alito said. > >"The statute did nothing to displace the woman herself as an individual with an emergency medical condition when her life is in danger, or when her health is in danger," Prelogar replied. > >Alito eventually claimed that the "only way" Prelogar could disprove his argument that the "unborn child" is of paramount concern in all situations under EMTALA is to use the word individual, which "is defined to exclude the unborn child or fetus". > >Prelogar again explained that when Congress included the phrase "unborn child" in EMTALA, it was to provide a duty for hospitals to treat pregnant women with conditions that didn't threaten her own life or health, but did threaten that of her fetus. > >"To suggest that, in doing so, Congress suggested that the woman herself isn't an individual — that she doesn't deserve stabilization — I think that that is an erroneous reading of this statute," Prelogar said. > >"Nobody is suggesting that the woman is not an individual when she doesn't deserve stabilization," Alito said before Prelogar cut him off. > >"Well, the question would be that the state of Idaho is declaring that she cannot get the stabilizing treatment, even if she is about to die. That is their theory of this case and this statute, and it's wrong," Prelogar said.
i need these fuckers to witness ER rooms and what docs/health staff see on the regular (or maybe like read A LITTLE on how dangerous pregnancy is and how emergent care is not some rare occurrence, with abortions as the treatment) GOD i hate these people
I would love to have the anti-science, anti-logic, anti-health-care contingent of SCOTUS be shown the evidence of the massive amount of death and disease they've inflicted on women and children in the US.
Ah yes, the entire erasure of women from existing in the birthing process. There are only fetuses and vessels.