To the right, the “rights of a fetus” are only relevant when its convenient to their agenda. Otherwise, they don’t exist. They’ll shamelessly use whatever arguments are in their arsenal to achieve their version of reality. Consistency and hypocrisy be damned.
Imo the baby isn’t really important here. It’s the fact that she wasn’t allowed to leave after experiencing abnormal pain while pregnant! We should be taking so much better care of pregnant people.
Maybe I’m missing something like sarcasm or something but, we do. Maybe you are trying to make this a talking experience so we all could learn but I can’t tell.
As a Jew, I can attest that they don’t like the Old Treatment either. Too much “don’t eat bacon” and “don’t worship a golden calf.” Not enough “worship the rich, especially those who art named Trump.”
Now the Revised (with gold sharpie) Old Testament… that they’ll follow.
Completely independent of the baby having rights or not it is obviously endangering someone if they do not let them leave to see a doctor when the person has pain.
If she’s having a medical emergency, is she capable of supervising the prisoners? Seems to me like they were unsupervised whether she was there or not.
They don't actually give a shit as long as there is an ass in a chair and a stamp in the logs. Unless something goes wrong, then it would have been her fault.
Exactly. Swap out the pregnant woman having pains with a man having a possible heart attack. Saying “sorry, but you can’t leave for to go to the hospital for at least 2 hours” would be a massive violation of that worker’s civil rights and would open the employer to a huge lawsuit.
Of course, the added “fetus’ rights” element just exposes the hypocrisy of the Texas government. When it benefits them, every fetus is a full blown person and doing anything that could hurt said fetus is murder. However, when it doesn’t benefit them, then the fetus has no rights and contributing to its death should have no legal repercussions whatsoever.
As far as I can tell it’s more about the state wanting to have it both ways. They want to be a champion of the unborn while denying the fetus was a person because of it happening before Dobbs.
“We control your body, you don’t. Need an abortion? Too bad. Need to see a doctor? Too bad. Pregnant with abnormal pain? Too bad. Need childcare? Too bad.”
The takeaway is that being pro-life is a very profitable enterprise until it isn’t, then it’s just another liability to the bottom line that needs to be stripped away. This is what it looks like to serve greed
I honestly hope they’re too far up their own asses to realize its a liability yet. If they consider it profitable into next years election cycle, and the trend of the last few special elections holds, then having them double down could really benefit the democrats.
Then, maybe the US could get the majority required to enshrine abortion rights into law nationally and put an end to this nonsense.
I acknowledge this could all just be wishful thinking, however.
I don’t think its fair to characterize itcall as laziness. I wanted to vote in my state’s Supreme Court election, but the booth was in a megachurch; not super workable for me as a trans woman.
I disagree only slightly. This is what it looks like to control women’s bodies and deny any sense of agency.
Doctors tend not to believe women when they are in pain, or what they experience in their own bodies. This is even worse for black women, which is why more black women die during or after childbirth. Even Serena Williams almost died after giving birth because the doctors didn’t believe her.
Personally I don’t see a difference. Controlling women’s bodies and denying them free agency causes financial strain and keeps the funnel of resources flowing in one direction. Any moral justification or religious zealotry is just part of the act used to sell this idea to the small brained and weak willed, lining pockets is the real endgame. How women are treated by doctors is simply a symptom of the system.
Add comment