this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
709 points (98.4% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3799 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.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The ad was released hours after Trump said that he believes abortion laws should be left to the states, sidestepping the national ban that some of his supporters want.

President Joe Biden's campaign released its latest abortion ad of the election hours after former President Donald Trump said he believes abortion laws should be left to the states, sidestepping the national ban that some of his supporters want.

The 60-second ad, which first aired Monday on MSNBC, focuses on Amanda Zurawski, a Texas woman who sued the state after, she said, she almost died from a miscarriage. In the video, Zurawski and her husband, Josh, discuss how they had started buying things for the baby while Amanda was pregnant, including a baby book.

"At 18 weeks, Amanda's water broke," the ad's text said. "She had a miscarriage."

As the couple continued to recount memories of the pregnancy, text on the screen read, "Because Donald Trump killed Roe v. Wade, Amanda was denied standard medical care to prevent infection, an abortion."

Doctors were forced to send Amanda home and three days later, Amanda wound up in the ICU with sepsis, according to the ad.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The pro-lifers that think there should just be an exceptions when mother’s life is at risk need to also hear that the Texas law already has an exemption for when a doctor uses their "reasonable medical judgment" that the life of the mother is at risk or the pregnancy poses "a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function."

All pregnancies are a risk to the mother’s life, anytime a doctor performs an abortion in Texas they risk losing their license, and possibly even prison time. Which is why we have these case of mothers with unviable pregnancies that aren’t terminated until they’re almost dead.

If you care about life, why on earth would you support a law that takes informed medical decisions away from doctors and their patients to put it in the hands of lawyers and lawmakers?

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago

Bruh, Kate Cox, actually got a judge in Texas to agree that she should be able to get an abortion because both her AND her baby were at risk of not surviving. Her baby, unfortunately, wasn't going to live long if it made it to term anyhow, it was going to have a difficult short life full of suffering, and she was at risk of dying if she delivered. She also already had 2 children at home.

And Ken fucking Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, fucking overturned the judges allowance and Kate Cox ended up having to flee with her husband to a different state to get the procedure instead.

It was the quintessential "Hey, I'm dying, I need Healthcare" and the Texas government going "LOL get fucked." I cannot imagine what her and her husband went through mentally. To know that the government was actively stepping in to prevent anyone from saving that woman's life.

More people need to see/hear/know about what's happening in Texas. These ads need to highlight how much worse it really is here after the repeal of RvW (and it was pretty fucking bad before).