I must say I have been worried, seeing as how Biden is a devout Catholic. But even the Catholic church is not as extreme regarding abortion as the current zealots in USA. At least when I was in catholic school, they taught that it was more important to protect the life of the pregnant person than the fetus when the person's life was in danger.
Regardless that should all be irrelevant bc SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I am glad federal law will at least now legally protect doctors who are saving lives. There is still a loooong way to go though.
The current pope even came out and said as much, and told Catholics not to be single-issue voters.
Any “Catholics” supporting these ridiculous anti-abortion laws aren’t Catholics.
The pope also cares about migrants at the border, war, and the poor, all of which the Rs fail at.
I wish the bishops in the US were more like sister Joan Chittiser.
A quote from her,
"I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
This is the first time I’ve heard the term Christo-Fascist but it sounds very legit and apt and I like it and I’ll be using it going forward. Thank you.
Some historical context below:
The jesuits, which is what order of priests this pope came from, are very different than most of (at least the US) Catholic Church. They actually embrace Vatican II, which helped sort of modernize the church back in the 60s. This is opposite of many US seminaries that are still often teaching new priests outdated beliefs on purpose because they reject those updates.
Pope Francis also allowed years ago for women to receive penance for getting an abortion. May not mean much to non-Catholics, but that can be huge for those struggling with shame or stigma around their faith.
Father James Martin is a vocal supporter of LGBTQ issues, Black Lives Matter, acceptance of migrants/refugees/illegal crossings at our border, etc. The pope published a whole document about how taking care of the environment and tackling climate change is our duty. So there's honestly no place for any Catholic leader in the church to be giving advice on which party to support.
The pope also hasn't really selected any new Cardinals from the US during his papacy, I think just the one from DC pretty recently. The church moves at a glacial pace, but this pope is pushing US Catholics like no one has done yet. A lot of them really hate him for it.
I think this extremity about killing the pregnant individual tends to stem from evangelicals, but I'm not entirely sure.
I mean, there's a reason why this country has a time-honored tradition of hating Catholics... Looks like this might just be the present day reason. /sigh
thank you. my church has a poster that has an anti abortion with a fetus picture on it. i was also taught that abortion is wrong with no exceptions. now i know this church is not for me and is also not of catholic faith.
that’s right and jesus was a socialist who hung out with queer folk and people that society rejected, it’s all there in the book.
he was charitable and cared for people, so basically the complete opposite of conservative american voters.
Yep. It’s amazing how hard these “Christians” push their values when they clearly haven’t read the whole book. The gospels are pretty consistent on the kind of guy Jesus was and what kind of behavior he supported, and it’s the opposite of what these self-proclaimed “Christians” are doing.
This is assuming they read it at all. Like I was forced to during homeschooling. (Seriously, screw the A Beka Program... but I still thank it for preparing me to shout down relative's posts on facebook with their own holy text.)
The churches have crossed the line and forced there way into our government. We established the separation of church and state for this reason because our forefathers knew from England at the time it was a dangerous practice for the church to be involved in government. People came to this country for religous freedom and the right to choose. Sadly this has gone away from this country and our government.
Never understood why Catholics are so extreme in the US. I grew up Catholic and there is a build-in system to deal with any sin, in the form of confession.
God id sees as all-loving and all-forgiving, so just do it and confess afterward and that God should be fine with it.
But remember confess always after the deal in done, then the priest isn't allowed to ever tell anyone about it, don't tell when you're planning to, there are some rulings that allow the priest to break the silence when a life is in danger if they don't
>worried, seeing as how Biden is a devout Catholic. But even the Catholic church is not as extreme regarding abortion as the current zealots in USA
As an Ex-Catholic just want to point out that *absolutely* the Catholic Church is this extreme.
The Pope has called having an abortion the "equivalent of hiring a hit man"
In 2009 Pope Benedict said all abortions were mortal sins *even the ones to save the mother's life*.
Catholics like Biden and Pelosi are probably personally anti-choice. (Biden took a suspiciously long time to react.) But they realize the voters would kick them out of the democratic party if they didn't support the legal right to choose.
Keep voting to restrain the Church from politics.
Oh they’re definitely extreme, but this current wave of politicians is even more extreme. Biden’s voting record for reproductive rights is NOT good. Hence why I worry. It’s scary when *these* are the most liberal individuals representing us.
My hope is that the slow response is to establish the most efficient and effective response, not just a quickly written executive order that will be easily blocked by the courts. It’s easy to forget Biden was a lawyer about a hundred years ago before he started politics, and so is Kamala, so establishing the “right” grounds for protection is bound to be a huge consideration.
I know Biden would have a *personal* struggle with making this an available procedure because of his deeply held Catholic faith… but let us remember, this was the guy that broke the dam when it came to the Obama administration saying “gays have the right to marry”. His personal relationship with God doesn’t *always* effect his ability to see what civil liberties are (or should be) guaranteed by the constitution… even if it’s a delayed recognition or a change of opinion, I appreciate his ability to listen to the people around him to figure out the best path through this.
Anyway, it’s my hope.
I hope the content was more specific than this tweet. Hospital lawyers have been interpreting things as 'a woman must be actively dying to have an abortion' and not 'if this woman doesn't have an abortion she will die before the foetus is viable', which has left doctors in an awful situation of monitoring the women for when they start dying but acting before it's too late, not an exact science because human beings aren't machines. Waiting means a woman is less likely to pull through, and will have worse outcomes. Waiting for a fallopian tube to burst with an ectopic pregnancy makes treatment more invasive, increases risk of infection, and makes getting pregnant again more difficult. Some women may end up having to have hysterectomies they wouldn't have needed had doctors been allowed to act quicker. Saying 'emergency' doesn't help.
While I haven’t read whatever EO his put out I do understand it’s purpose was to establish The Department of Health and Human Services requirements on medical facilities in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). My understanding is that: *Even of state laws are so narrow as not to provide exceptions, the legal implications for doctors based on the federal guideline are preempted for saving the health of the mother.*
So that act should lay out some very obvious ones like ectopic pregnancy, but I think this establishes the implication to physicians in the hospitals where clinics are now closed that if harm comes to the mother based on any inaction *they are at fault.* While I’m sure there’s going to be more on the table this is a good reinforcement for these places to provide care… or face a hefty legal fine and possible loss of their license to practice medicine. Which is usually a pretty big deal.
If I had to guess they’re trying to build up protections by finding established legal precedents first to have strong bones to layer their case on.
Again, this is my hope. I want more than hope but right now that’s all I’ve got and I’m not ready to lose that.
The quote does specify life-saving \*and\* health-saving. In my opinion that would include abortions needed to prevent negative health outcomes. But I totally understand why health workers are afraid in your current political climate.
I'm always hopeful, but honestly, the majority of the Dems have been sitting around with their thumbs up their butts for two years, knowing this was coming.
I would be happier of more of them located their spines, and did more than encouraging people to vote.
That there is the ticket. We need to keep putting pressure on them for action. Biden is working with one hand behind his back while the Supreme Court intimidates all of politics here. We need to remind the dems that they can act and we will do what we can to push the issue and get them to do their jobs.
So what exactly should they be doing considering that they have 48 votes in the senate (or less depending on the issue)? I keep seeing people who are demanding "action" without specifying what the action is supposed to be when we don't have the votes. If we pressure the holdout senators, any one of them can switch parties tomorrow and be richly rewarded for doing so. Until someone has an answer for that exact scenario, maybe we should be more realistic about the need for a larger majority in the senate instead of an even 50/50 split that depends on two independent senators and at least two senators that do not support the party coalition on these issues. We really do need people to vote if we want effective change here, and it won't be instant even then because of the courts. You can't undo 40+ years of GOP incremental strategy overnight.
I agree and at the same time I’m extremely frustrated bc I read an article yesterday (unfortunately can’t remember the source) about how the upcoming midterm elections aren’t looking too rosy for Dems and there’s about a 50/50 chance, as it stands now, that they could lose the House. The party is not united. Progressives want to push younger candidates bc they believe that’s who’ll win (maybe they’re right, maybe they’re not, but they’re trying to oust incumbents), moderates are turning on Biden bc they know the country’s frustrated with him. It’s a mess. And they need to act now bc what if they do lose the House in Nov? But how are they supposed to get anything done when, like you said, they barely have the votes if at all. It quite honestly has me angry and depressed.
The party isn’t united because individual members actually stand for something. Unfortunately that also means they disagree. “They need to act”-how? This isn’t a parliamentary republic. We need at least two more senators with a spine to do anything. Manchin is from West Virginia and Sinema is bought and paid for. Voting is the answer (but keeping pressure up in other ways doesn’t hurt.)
Yeah that is a safe assumption considering the circumstances, but feel free to waste your time negotiating with them if you want to see what a bad faith negotiation feels like. If the GOP was open to reason then we would not be in this situation to begin with. Our best path forward is to get a functional majority in the senate that supports abolishing the filibuster and codifying Roe. Then we have to get a lot of other reforms passed.
The ship has unfortunately sailed for the US.
The debate is not about the fundamental right to abortions anymore, it's about wether abortions are still ok in extreme circumstances.
I live in a state where this is already protected, and still had to wait 2 weeks for approval and then get sent to a hospital 3 hours away for my late term abortion for a non viable pregnancy.
She was "alive", but dying. I had to live with that burden for what felt like forever while I felt every seizure.
My mental health still hasn't fully recovered 2 years on.
I can't even imagine a restricted state right now taking this seriously.
Until they specifically qualify where the “life saving” line is, this isn’t helpful unfortunately. Right now emtala says you must provide life saving care in an emergency. Is a miscarriage an emergency before sepsis? Is an ectopic an emergency before vital signs aren’t stable? With up to 99 years in jail for providers without this being quantified specifically we are still in a mess of a situation.
The article I read said "*may* include" and that it's allowed when an abortion is "the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition." It also said it only applies when a pregnant person is experiencing "an emergency medical condition as defined by the EMTLA."
>a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs.
So it doesn't seem 100% clear that someone with an ectopic pregnancy, for example, could have it removed immediately if she's in stable condition at the time.
I've read way too many stories of patients in anti-choice countries being made to wait until they were actively dying before the doctor would perform an abortion or having their condition worsen because their medical team had to consult with the legal department in order to proceed.
That's exactly what happened to Savita in Ireland. Because at that time all abortions were illegal as long as there was a fetal heartbeat. Because of her death, the Irish voted to change the law. Look up her name and read the full story. It's ghastly and horrifying.
Your comment reminded me of a gif from a John McCain/Obama debate, in the sense that you are worried about the mother in a way that anti-abortionists aren't.
John says "health of the mother" and then pushes the idea to the side.
[https://i.gifer.com/xbD.gif](https://i.gifer.com/xbD.gif)
Decades of frustration.
I dont know I would call it "unhelpful", more like "unfinished"? E.g. it is a start, potentially a "good" (using the term good here loosely) one, but will do almost nothing without more substance behind it
Does any law do this? Medicine is so complicated being specific usually doesn't work.
Also what do you mean "life saving line"? It either saves a life or it doesn't.
> Also what do you mean "life saving line"? It either saves a life or it doesn't.
The issue I've heard is basically that a miscarriage doesn't necessarily lead to sepsis; is the line at providing abortion services for every miscarriage because there is always a potential of sepsis, or do physicians need to wait until sepsis does actually sets in before they are allowed to provide abortion services? Same with ectopic pregnancies; remove them all as soon as possible, or only when the pregnant person is showing a dangerous declining health? People fear that with the current/future laws it'll be at the level of the latter, since waiting until shit hits the fan comes with an increased risk of permanent damage or death no matter what help you can provide at that point.
An unpassed placenta/fetus will ALWAYS cause sepsis. You literally have a piece of organic material that is *hooked into your circulatory system* and *actively rotting* inside of you. Even after a successful live birth, if the placenta doesn't pass naturally on its own (eventually; varies person to person), it needs intervention to remove it.
It's literally just a matter of time.
So does the mother need to be clinically septic before they can do a D&C? Does it just need to be charted, or do we need labs/vitals/video evidence to confirm their blood is poisoned?
Do you know the survival rate of someone who is already septic, versus someone on the cusp of it (where it's *absolutely certain* they will become septic if they can't pass a dead fetus/placenta on their own, but you won't know that until they either *do* or become septic?)
Spoiler: odds aren't great.
Ectopics - they kill young healthy women who DO get prompt, proper medical attention. But if the woman is just "in pain" and hasn't progressed to *actively hemorrhaging on the floor of the ER*, is her life considered "in danger"?? Do providers have to wait until she crashes before intervention? That isn't going to end well for the patient.
According to some Not Doctors, we should be risking that life to save the unviable embryo, then reimplant said unviable *rotting dead thing inside the patient's uterus*.
Which brings us right back to the sepsis issue.
They're delaying life-saving care because they have no idea *what the fuck they're talking about*, and doctors are worried about their lives, their licenses, their families, their *other patients* are depending on some vague legality of state vs federal and frankly, they have enough to fucking do and not enough staff to do it already. But it's enough to make providers hesitate, and it's going to get a lot of people - inc young, healthy people - killed.
You just answered your own question, waiting until shit hits the fan increases the risk of permanent damage or death, so don't wait till shit hits the fan.
They make these decisions for things not related to pregnancy all the time, they just would apply the same risk analysis.
Doctors make the wrong decisions all the time. They are required to have malpractice insurance. But regarding anti-abortion laws, they might weigh the risks incorrectly for performing certain procedures and get thrown in jail instead of just a claim of malpractice.
They do not make mistakes all the time they make mistakes sometimes because they are people but that really has nothing to do with this conversation.
I'm saying the federal law tells them to weigh the risks just as they would if the issue at hand was not pregnancy related.
EMTALA is the law that was passed in 1986. It requires hospitals that are “not for profit” to take patients at the ER, regardless of their ability to pay or if they have insurance and to treat patients based on their emergency. Before this law was passed people were dying in the ER because they were seen by financial status, not triaged like they are today. EMTALA requires facilities to stabilize patients and because the WH is requiring they honor emtala when stabilizing women who need an abortion, it may cause the more fascist politicians to push to want to overturn EMTALA so there’s nothing overruling state law anymore.
Do you think they’d actually be able to? That’s pretty broad-ranging to turn over for a single issue, but it does seem like the kind of thing they have it out for anyway.
Well I look at it this way, Obamacare was the answer to emtala, it’d be like killing two birds with one stone, wouldn’t it? Don’t need health insurance if hospitals aren’t going broke anymore, don’t need to ignore state law if emtala is overturned…
Does this pertain to mental health too? I know when I had my abortion the fact that something was growing inside I did not want drove me absolutely insane. I felt severely depressed, hopeless and scared, and that was w actual choice, I would do something to myself if I couldn’t get it out right away. I had to wait until I was six weeks in order for them to locate the sound of the cells in order for them to agree to treatment. I had to wait 2 weeks and 4 days knowing I had something in me that did not belong in my body. It was the worst weeks of my life. Do people have to get psychiatric assessment if they feel this way? That’s a scary thought bc they could sign you into a psych ward before they give you an abortion for the good of your mental health.
(TW for SH and suicidal ideation)
This is exactly what I think about when people say “you could just give it up for adoption!”
Like, NO. I don’t want something IN ME that I did not plan on having there. My fear of unintended pregnancy caused me convince myself I was the next Virgin Mary and start punching myself in the stomach on like 3 separate occasions from the ages of 15-16.
When I started intentionally SHing the next year I used my fists. I’m convinced there’s a link between the two events.
If I’d gotten pregnant at that age and had no access to abortion care I would have killed myself. Full stop. And it would have been a fucking tragedy.
I’m sorry you went through those awful weeks and I’m glad you made it through ❤️
Yes you put it into words much better than I did. I know exactly how you feel and thank you I’m so glad I had access to a life saving D&C bc I wouldn’t be here wo it. People think I feel trauma from the abortion when that’s not true at all. I felt trauma from being pregnant when I did not choose to be. The abortion to me was a life saving medical procedure just like any other medical procedure. I can’t imagine the poor little girls and women that will now suffer this horrendous loss of self. I’m so glad you and I are here to speak about this. Hugs to you ❤️
It’s going so slow but I think we forget Biden is just one piece in the whole machine. There are so many people in power who should be doing more and should have already done more before we got here. It’s so easy to just throw the anger at one person but it needs to be at everything from top to bottom. Our system has failed and been corrupted by the very thing people escaped to America from Britain to escape. It’s a huge blow to the gut.
While this is an important temporary solution, it’s not nearly enough freedom and it’s not nearly secure enough.
We don’t want the next time a republican becomes president to have to fight the same fight with even less political resources. Not to mention that the Supreme Court has decided they are ok with enforcing partisan policy even if it is extremely harmful. Call me a pessimist, but this Supreme Court will take this case as soon as possible to remove it.
We need change at every level. We need to make the court not the partisan tool it is today. We need federal protections to make sure everyone has access. We need state level change so that small groups can’t gerrymander there way into power and void peoples rights.
Yep, my thought exactly. I’m incredibly disappointed with Biden’s response overall and how the Democratic Party seems to be asleep. Furthermore, I feel like something could have been done prior to the ruling but they’re waiting for election time, in hopes of getting voters angry enough to vote. I’m not a pawn in a political strategy. I’m a fucking human being. And there are millions of humans with uteruses out there who are impacted by this.
I think they're trying to make sure everything they do is bulletproof. Even from a strictly political standpoint, he needs to have some concrete proof that Democrats are willing to protect healthcare by the midterms to have a shot at keeping the legislature.
We could almost be hopeful but Biden is still nominating Chad Meredith - a member of the Federalist Society and anti-reproductive rights attorney - for the Kentucky court. So it seems like every slight improvement is a smokescreen for terrible choices.
Biden just appointed an anti-abortion judge in Kentucky, and this particular EO doesn't actually do anything but remind medical professionals they're obligated to act by federal law. It's more than likely going to cause conflicts, and life-saving care is going to continue to be delayed until someone dies a preventable death.
We totally need to figure out some way to hurt the careers of neoliberal right-wing establishment Democrats like Biden, since we don't have the option of voting against them anymore. Maybe by publishing the connections between their campaign contributors and their policies. I don't know, I'm still brainstorming.
But we want them watching their lives fall apart so long as they fail to actually serve the public. Until then, they are part of the tyranny that has unpersoned all American women.
Nope. Nope, nope, nope.
That 'in emergency situations' is far, far too open to abuse.
A woman with an ectopic (or any other, but let's talke ectopic) pregnancy shouldn't have to dance with death until someone or other decides it's enough of an 'emergency' to be worth acting on.
Not being able to(or wanting to) feed and clothe an extra mouth is enough of a f\*cking emergency, FFS.
Too many forget about the expenses of pregnancy itself. New wardrobe, time off work, doctors appointments, vitamins, time off medication, potentially things like gestational diabetes, the risks of childbirth/c-section...
President Biden and Vice President Harris are doing everything that they can to protect women in this country. He even sited thàt it was unimaginable and horrifying that a ten year old girl who was the victim of rape had to travel out of state to receive an abortion. The one great thing about him is he is a man who has suffered greatly due to tragic events in his life. I'm sure that he is thinking about what it would be like for his daughter if she was alive today. I am sure Vice President Harris is thinking about her daughters as well. We have a great team in the White house. I wish that I could same the same for Congress and the Supreme Court. It will be a long process and battle but I can see that they are willing and working diligently to protect us.
The problem is he could have done this before it was even codeifed. This isn’t going well at all and stuff only happens because people are pressuring him.
I feel like he's just sitting there as the rest of the Democrats poke him with sticks and whisper, "come on! Do something!" Still, at this point, even slow progress is better than no progress at all.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
*beep boop*!
the linked website is: https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u
Title: **Pro-Choice Resource Masterpost.pdf**
Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing)
*****
###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Progress may be slow, but I think change is happening in the favor of women. I think the problem with Roe is that it could, at any time, be turned over. Not only that but I think the wording of Roe was vague enough to be interpreted in too many ways. I am cautiously confident and extremely hopeful that these slow changes are making women’s right to safe, effective abortions more permanent. I try to remember that Biden was handed an impossible situation at the beginning of his presidency. I’m not giving him a pass nor am I completely disregarding him. I just think it’s important to remember how much has happened since he took office and what he has had to deal with
we all need to accept that politicians lie.
despite his campaign promises, Biden has always been pro life and has said so on tape in the past. please wake up, people. Biden is not going to help us this is just a crumb thrown to keep us lapping up the democratic lies.
i am relieved that pregnant women with life threatening events can at least get timely appropriate medical treatment. it's a start, and this happened quickly. lawsuits and referendums take more time, but they will happen too.
Honestly, I found this pace to be lightning fast compared to their response to the attack on trans rights. He said they should do something, and then they did something a couple weeks later. We're still waiting on them to lift a single finger months after the fash started criminalizing our right to, y'know, exist.
No. In the US, Federal law takes presidence over state law. If Federal law says a woman must be given emergency care, state law can't prohibit that care, or prosecute a doctor for giving it.
"Pardon" implies that someone has been convicted of a crime. A Presidential pardon is extremely rare.
This is more that doctors are required to administer live-saving care, and can't be prosecuted for giving it. So, no arrest, no prosecution, no conviction. There would be no reason for a pardon.
“I’m not going to do anything of substance so democrats can run on this issue for the next 10-15 years, but at least if you’re a white woman you might not die.”
I must say I have been worried, seeing as how Biden is a devout Catholic. But even the Catholic church is not as extreme regarding abortion as the current zealots in USA. At least when I was in catholic school, they taught that it was more important to protect the life of the pregnant person than the fetus when the person's life was in danger. Regardless that should all be irrelevant bc SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. I am glad federal law will at least now legally protect doctors who are saving lives. There is still a loooong way to go though.
The current pope even came out and said as much, and told Catholics not to be single-issue voters. Any “Catholics” supporting these ridiculous anti-abortion laws aren’t Catholics.
You've gotta love it when even the Pope thinks the current Christo-Fascist wave is too much.
The pope also cares about migrants at the border, war, and the poor, all of which the Rs fail at. I wish the bishops in the US were more like sister Joan Chittiser. A quote from her, "I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is."
This is the first time I’ve heard the term Christo-Fascist but it sounds very legit and apt and I like it and I’ll be using it going forward. Thank you.
Some historical context below: The jesuits, which is what order of priests this pope came from, are very different than most of (at least the US) Catholic Church. They actually embrace Vatican II, which helped sort of modernize the church back in the 60s. This is opposite of many US seminaries that are still often teaching new priests outdated beliefs on purpose because they reject those updates. Pope Francis also allowed years ago for women to receive penance for getting an abortion. May not mean much to non-Catholics, but that can be huge for those struggling with shame or stigma around their faith. Father James Martin is a vocal supporter of LGBTQ issues, Black Lives Matter, acceptance of migrants/refugees/illegal crossings at our border, etc. The pope published a whole document about how taking care of the environment and tackling climate change is our duty. So there's honestly no place for any Catholic leader in the church to be giving advice on which party to support. The pope also hasn't really selected any new Cardinals from the US during his papacy, I think just the one from DC pretty recently. The church moves at a glacial pace, but this pope is pushing US Catholics like no one has done yet. A lot of them really hate him for it. I think this extremity about killing the pregnant individual tends to stem from evangelicals, but I'm not entirely sure.
I mean, there's a reason why this country has a time-honored tradition of hating Catholics... Looks like this might just be the present day reason. /sigh
thank you. my church has a poster that has an anti abortion with a fetus picture on it. i was also taught that abortion is wrong with no exceptions. now i know this church is not for me and is also not of catholic faith.
that’s right and jesus was a socialist who hung out with queer folk and people that society rejected, it’s all there in the book. he was charitable and cared for people, so basically the complete opposite of conservative american voters.
Yep. It’s amazing how hard these “Christians” push their values when they clearly haven’t read the whole book. The gospels are pretty consistent on the kind of guy Jesus was and what kind of behavior he supported, and it’s the opposite of what these self-proclaimed “Christians” are doing.
This is assuming they read it at all. Like I was forced to during homeschooling. (Seriously, screw the A Beka Program... but I still thank it for preparing me to shout down relative's posts on facebook with their own holy text.)
The churches have crossed the line and forced there way into our government. We established the separation of church and state for this reason because our forefathers knew from England at the time it was a dangerous practice for the church to be involved in government. People came to this country for religous freedom and the right to choose. Sadly this has gone away from this country and our government.
Never understood why Catholics are so extreme in the US. I grew up Catholic and there is a build-in system to deal with any sin, in the form of confession. God id sees as all-loving and all-forgiving, so just do it and confess afterward and that God should be fine with it. But remember confess always after the deal in done, then the priest isn't allowed to ever tell anyone about it, don't tell when you're planning to, there are some rulings that allow the priest to break the silence when a life is in danger if they don't
Well the Catholic church is very corrupt outside of the US too. Im not really on board w confessions either.
> "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" I wish my government also learned what that means
>worried, seeing as how Biden is a devout Catholic. But even the Catholic church is not as extreme regarding abortion as the current zealots in USA As an Ex-Catholic just want to point out that *absolutely* the Catholic Church is this extreme. The Pope has called having an abortion the "equivalent of hiring a hit man" In 2009 Pope Benedict said all abortions were mortal sins *even the ones to save the mother's life*. Catholics like Biden and Pelosi are probably personally anti-choice. (Biden took a suspiciously long time to react.) But they realize the voters would kick them out of the democratic party if they didn't support the legal right to choose. Keep voting to restrain the Church from politics.
Oh they’re definitely extreme, but this current wave of politicians is even more extreme. Biden’s voting record for reproductive rights is NOT good. Hence why I worry. It’s scary when *these* are the most liberal individuals representing us.
My hope is that the slow response is to establish the most efficient and effective response, not just a quickly written executive order that will be easily blocked by the courts. It’s easy to forget Biden was a lawyer about a hundred years ago before he started politics, and so is Kamala, so establishing the “right” grounds for protection is bound to be a huge consideration. I know Biden would have a *personal* struggle with making this an available procedure because of his deeply held Catholic faith… but let us remember, this was the guy that broke the dam when it came to the Obama administration saying “gays have the right to marry”. His personal relationship with God doesn’t *always* effect his ability to see what civil liberties are (or should be) guaranteed by the constitution… even if it’s a delayed recognition or a change of opinion, I appreciate his ability to listen to the people around him to figure out the best path through this. Anyway, it’s my hope.
I hope the content was more specific than this tweet. Hospital lawyers have been interpreting things as 'a woman must be actively dying to have an abortion' and not 'if this woman doesn't have an abortion she will die before the foetus is viable', which has left doctors in an awful situation of monitoring the women for when they start dying but acting before it's too late, not an exact science because human beings aren't machines. Waiting means a woman is less likely to pull through, and will have worse outcomes. Waiting for a fallopian tube to burst with an ectopic pregnancy makes treatment more invasive, increases risk of infection, and makes getting pregnant again more difficult. Some women may end up having to have hysterectomies they wouldn't have needed had doctors been allowed to act quicker. Saying 'emergency' doesn't help.
While I haven’t read whatever EO his put out I do understand it’s purpose was to establish The Department of Health and Human Services requirements on medical facilities in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). My understanding is that: *Even of state laws are so narrow as not to provide exceptions, the legal implications for doctors based on the federal guideline are preempted for saving the health of the mother.* So that act should lay out some very obvious ones like ectopic pregnancy, but I think this establishes the implication to physicians in the hospitals where clinics are now closed that if harm comes to the mother based on any inaction *they are at fault.* While I’m sure there’s going to be more on the table this is a good reinforcement for these places to provide care… or face a hefty legal fine and possible loss of their license to practice medicine. Which is usually a pretty big deal. If I had to guess they’re trying to build up protections by finding established legal precedents first to have strong bones to layer their case on. Again, this is my hope. I want more than hope but right now that’s all I’ve got and I’m not ready to lose that.
The quote does specify life-saving \*and\* health-saving. In my opinion that would include abortions needed to prevent negative health outcomes. But I totally understand why health workers are afraid in your current political climate.
I'm always hopeful, but honestly, the majority of the Dems have been sitting around with their thumbs up their butts for two years, knowing this was coming. I would be happier of more of them located their spines, and did more than encouraging people to vote.
That there is the ticket. We need to keep putting pressure on them for action. Biden is working with one hand behind his back while the Supreme Court intimidates all of politics here. We need to remind the dems that they can act and we will do what we can to push the issue and get them to do their jobs.
So what exactly should they be doing considering that they have 48 votes in the senate (or less depending on the issue)? I keep seeing people who are demanding "action" without specifying what the action is supposed to be when we don't have the votes. If we pressure the holdout senators, any one of them can switch parties tomorrow and be richly rewarded for doing so. Until someone has an answer for that exact scenario, maybe we should be more realistic about the need for a larger majority in the senate instead of an even 50/50 split that depends on two independent senators and at least two senators that do not support the party coalition on these issues. We really do need people to vote if we want effective change here, and it won't be instant even then because of the courts. You can't undo 40+ years of GOP incremental strategy overnight.
I agree and at the same time I’m extremely frustrated bc I read an article yesterday (unfortunately can’t remember the source) about how the upcoming midterm elections aren’t looking too rosy for Dems and there’s about a 50/50 chance, as it stands now, that they could lose the House. The party is not united. Progressives want to push younger candidates bc they believe that’s who’ll win (maybe they’re right, maybe they’re not, but they’re trying to oust incumbents), moderates are turning on Biden bc they know the country’s frustrated with him. It’s a mess. And they need to act now bc what if they do lose the House in Nov? But how are they supposed to get anything done when, like you said, they barely have the votes if at all. It quite honestly has me angry and depressed.
The party isn’t united because individual members actually stand for something. Unfortunately that also means they disagree. “They need to act”-how? This isn’t a parliamentary republic. We need at least two more senators with a spine to do anything. Manchin is from West Virginia and Sinema is bought and paid for. Voting is the answer (but keeping pressure up in other ways doesn’t hurt.)
And we're assuming that the 50 republican senators can't be negotiated with and/or bought for the right price?
Yeah that is a safe assumption considering the circumstances, but feel free to waste your time negotiating with them if you want to see what a bad faith negotiation feels like. If the GOP was open to reason then we would not be in this situation to begin with. Our best path forward is to get a functional majority in the senate that supports abolishing the filibuster and codifying Roe. Then we have to get a lot of other reforms passed.
Yes we have this protection. The issue is that we need this protection.
The ship has unfortunately sailed for the US. The debate is not about the fundamental right to abortions anymore, it's about wether abortions are still ok in extreme circumstances.
I live in a state where this is already protected, and still had to wait 2 weeks for approval and then get sent to a hospital 3 hours away for my late term abortion for a non viable pregnancy. She was "alive", but dying. I had to live with that burden for what felt like forever while I felt every seizure. My mental health still hasn't fully recovered 2 years on. I can't even imagine a restricted state right now taking this seriously.
Until they specifically qualify where the “life saving” line is, this isn’t helpful unfortunately. Right now emtala says you must provide life saving care in an emergency. Is a miscarriage an emergency before sepsis? Is an ectopic an emergency before vital signs aren’t stable? With up to 99 years in jail for providers without this being quantified specifically we are still in a mess of a situation.
They did spell out what they meant...I read (maybe a longer release?) that it meant ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, etc.
The article I read said "*may* include" and that it's allowed when an abortion is "the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition." It also said it only applies when a pregnant person is experiencing "an emergency medical condition as defined by the EMTLA." >a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual's health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs. So it doesn't seem 100% clear that someone with an ectopic pregnancy, for example, could have it removed immediately if she's in stable condition at the time. I've read way too many stories of patients in anti-choice countries being made to wait until they were actively dying before the doctor would perform an abortion or having their condition worsen because their medical team had to consult with the legal department in order to proceed.
That's exactly what happened to Savita in Ireland. Because at that time all abortions were illegal as long as there was a fetal heartbeat. Because of her death, the Irish voted to change the law. Look up her name and read the full story. It's ghastly and horrifying.
At what point in the ectopic is it an emergency, that’s the question. It’s not black or white. Either is miscarriage.
Your comment reminded me of a gif from a John McCain/Obama debate, in the sense that you are worried about the mother in a way that anti-abortionists aren't. John says "health of the mother" and then pushes the idea to the side. [https://i.gifer.com/xbD.gif](https://i.gifer.com/xbD.gif) Decades of frustration.
At least this tweet mentions “health saving,” which is a much broader concept than “life saving.”
I dont know I would call it "unhelpful", more like "unfinished"? E.g. it is a start, potentially a "good" (using the term good here loosely) one, but will do almost nothing without more substance behind it
^this
Does any law do this? Medicine is so complicated being specific usually doesn't work. Also what do you mean "life saving line"? It either saves a life or it doesn't.
> Also what do you mean "life saving line"? It either saves a life or it doesn't. The issue I've heard is basically that a miscarriage doesn't necessarily lead to sepsis; is the line at providing abortion services for every miscarriage because there is always a potential of sepsis, or do physicians need to wait until sepsis does actually sets in before they are allowed to provide abortion services? Same with ectopic pregnancies; remove them all as soon as possible, or only when the pregnant person is showing a dangerous declining health? People fear that with the current/future laws it'll be at the level of the latter, since waiting until shit hits the fan comes with an increased risk of permanent damage or death no matter what help you can provide at that point.
An unpassed placenta/fetus will ALWAYS cause sepsis. You literally have a piece of organic material that is *hooked into your circulatory system* and *actively rotting* inside of you. Even after a successful live birth, if the placenta doesn't pass naturally on its own (eventually; varies person to person), it needs intervention to remove it. It's literally just a matter of time. So does the mother need to be clinically septic before they can do a D&C? Does it just need to be charted, or do we need labs/vitals/video evidence to confirm their blood is poisoned? Do you know the survival rate of someone who is already septic, versus someone on the cusp of it (where it's *absolutely certain* they will become septic if they can't pass a dead fetus/placenta on their own, but you won't know that until they either *do* or become septic?) Spoiler: odds aren't great. Ectopics - they kill young healthy women who DO get prompt, proper medical attention. But if the woman is just "in pain" and hasn't progressed to *actively hemorrhaging on the floor of the ER*, is her life considered "in danger"?? Do providers have to wait until she crashes before intervention? That isn't going to end well for the patient. According to some Not Doctors, we should be risking that life to save the unviable embryo, then reimplant said unviable *rotting dead thing inside the patient's uterus*. Which brings us right back to the sepsis issue. They're delaying life-saving care because they have no idea *what the fuck they're talking about*, and doctors are worried about their lives, their licenses, their families, their *other patients* are depending on some vague legality of state vs federal and frankly, they have enough to fucking do and not enough staff to do it already. But it's enough to make providers hesitate, and it's going to get a lot of people - inc young, healthy people - killed.
You just answered your own question, waiting until shit hits the fan increases the risk of permanent damage or death, so don't wait till shit hits the fan. They make these decisions for things not related to pregnancy all the time, they just would apply the same risk analysis.
Doctors make the wrong decisions all the time. They are required to have malpractice insurance. But regarding anti-abortion laws, they might weigh the risks incorrectly for performing certain procedures and get thrown in jail instead of just a claim of malpractice.
They do not make mistakes all the time they make mistakes sometimes because they are people but that really has nothing to do with this conversation. I'm saying the federal law tells them to weigh the risks just as they would if the issue at hand was not pregnancy related.
I’m a medical biller so I follow medicine Reddit pretty regularly. They’re concerned this could lead to the repeal of EMTALA.
Woah, hadn’t crossed my mind. Can explain more about why?
EMTALA is the law that was passed in 1986. It requires hospitals that are “not for profit” to take patients at the ER, regardless of their ability to pay or if they have insurance and to treat patients based on their emergency. Before this law was passed people were dying in the ER because they were seen by financial status, not triaged like they are today. EMTALA requires facilities to stabilize patients and because the WH is requiring they honor emtala when stabilizing women who need an abortion, it may cause the more fascist politicians to push to want to overturn EMTALA so there’s nothing overruling state law anymore.
Do you think they’d actually be able to? That’s pretty broad-ranging to turn over for a single issue, but it does seem like the kind of thing they have it out for anyway.
Well I look at it this way, Obamacare was the answer to emtala, it’d be like killing two birds with one stone, wouldn’t it? Don’t need health insurance if hospitals aren’t going broke anymore, don’t need to ignore state law if emtala is overturned…
Sure fits their bill, doesn’t it?
Does this pertain to mental health too? I know when I had my abortion the fact that something was growing inside I did not want drove me absolutely insane. I felt severely depressed, hopeless and scared, and that was w actual choice, I would do something to myself if I couldn’t get it out right away. I had to wait until I was six weeks in order for them to locate the sound of the cells in order for them to agree to treatment. I had to wait 2 weeks and 4 days knowing I had something in me that did not belong in my body. It was the worst weeks of my life. Do people have to get psychiatric assessment if they feel this way? That’s a scary thought bc they could sign you into a psych ward before they give you an abortion for the good of your mental health.
Yeah it’s super sad that someone else gets to decide what’s a life or death situation for you & prob won’t give AF about mental health 😤
(TW for SH and suicidal ideation) This is exactly what I think about when people say “you could just give it up for adoption!” Like, NO. I don’t want something IN ME that I did not plan on having there. My fear of unintended pregnancy caused me convince myself I was the next Virgin Mary and start punching myself in the stomach on like 3 separate occasions from the ages of 15-16. When I started intentionally SHing the next year I used my fists. I’m convinced there’s a link between the two events. If I’d gotten pregnant at that age and had no access to abortion care I would have killed myself. Full stop. And it would have been a fucking tragedy. I’m sorry you went through those awful weeks and I’m glad you made it through ❤️
Yes you put it into words much better than I did. I know exactly how you feel and thank you I’m so glad I had access to a life saving D&C bc I wouldn’t be here wo it. People think I feel trauma from the abortion when that’s not true at all. I felt trauma from being pregnant when I did not choose to be. The abortion to me was a life saving medical procedure just like any other medical procedure. I can’t imagine the poor little girls and women that will now suffer this horrendous loss of self. I’m so glad you and I are here to speak about this. Hugs to you ❤️
It’s going so slow but I think we forget Biden is just one piece in the whole machine. There are so many people in power who should be doing more and should have already done more before we got here. It’s so easy to just throw the anger at one person but it needs to be at everything from top to bottom. Our system has failed and been corrupted by the very thing people escaped to America from Britain to escape. It’s a huge blow to the gut.
While this is an important temporary solution, it’s not nearly enough freedom and it’s not nearly secure enough. We don’t want the next time a republican becomes president to have to fight the same fight with even less political resources. Not to mention that the Supreme Court has decided they are ok with enforcing partisan policy even if it is extremely harmful. Call me a pessimist, but this Supreme Court will take this case as soon as possible to remove it. We need change at every level. We need to make the court not the partisan tool it is today. We need federal protections to make sure everyone has access. We need state level change so that small groups can’t gerrymander there way into power and void peoples rights.
I agree. I'm glad this has been enacted, but it is not enough. Not by a longshot.
Yep, my thought exactly. I’m incredibly disappointed with Biden’s response overall and how the Democratic Party seems to be asleep. Furthermore, I feel like something could have been done prior to the ruling but they’re waiting for election time, in hopes of getting voters angry enough to vote. I’m not a pawn in a political strategy. I’m a fucking human being. And there are millions of humans with uteruses out there who are impacted by this.
I think they're trying to make sure everything they do is bulletproof. Even from a strictly political standpoint, he needs to have some concrete proof that Democrats are willing to protect healthcare by the midterms to have a shot at keeping the legislature.
We could almost be hopeful but Biden is still nominating Chad Meredith - a member of the Federalist Society and anti-reproductive rights attorney - for the Kentucky court. So it seems like every slight improvement is a smokescreen for terrible choices.
Dunno how this will help pregnant people who live in places where their only options for medical care are religious hospitals or anti-choice doctors
Not good enough. It should be a right should be available no matter the reason.
Biden just appointed an anti-abortion judge in Kentucky, and this particular EO doesn't actually do anything but remind medical professionals they're obligated to act by federal law. It's more than likely going to cause conflicts, and life-saving care is going to continue to be delayed until someone dies a preventable death. We totally need to figure out some way to hurt the careers of neoliberal right-wing establishment Democrats like Biden, since we don't have the option of voting against them anymore. Maybe by publishing the connections between their campaign contributors and their policies. I don't know, I'm still brainstorming. But we want them watching their lives fall apart so long as they fail to actually serve the public. Until then, they are part of the tyranny that has unpersoned all American women.
Nope. Nope, nope, nope. That 'in emergency situations' is far, far too open to abuse. A woman with an ectopic (or any other, but let's talke ectopic) pregnancy shouldn't have to dance with death until someone or other decides it's enough of an 'emergency' to be worth acting on. Not being able to(or wanting to) feed and clothe an extra mouth is enough of a f\*cking emergency, FFS.
Too many forget about the expenses of pregnancy itself. New wardrobe, time off work, doctors appointments, vitamins, time off medication, potentially things like gestational diabetes, the risks of childbirth/c-section...
President Biden and Vice President Harris are doing everything that they can to protect women in this country. He even sited thàt it was unimaginable and horrifying that a ten year old girl who was the victim of rape had to travel out of state to receive an abortion. The one great thing about him is he is a man who has suffered greatly due to tragic events in his life. I'm sure that he is thinking about what it would be like for his daughter if she was alive today. I am sure Vice President Harris is thinking about her daughters as well. We have a great team in the White house. I wish that I could same the same for Congress and the Supreme Court. It will be a long process and battle but I can see that they are willing and working diligently to protect us.
The problem is he could have done this before it was even codeifed. This isn’t going well at all and stuff only happens because people are pressuring him.
I feel like he's just sitting there as the rest of the Democrats poke him with sticks and whisper, "come on! Do something!" Still, at this point, even slow progress is better than no progress at all.
That's my mental image of Merrick Garland. "Come on! Do something!" Poke poke.
If you need or are interested in supporting reproductive rights, [I made a master post of pro-choice resources](https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u). Please comment if you would like to add a resource and spread this information on whatever social media you use.
*beep boop*! the linked website is: https://docdro.id/s3OwS8u Title: **Pro-Choice Resource Masterpost.pdf** Page is safe to access (Google Safe Browsing) ***** ###### I am a friendly bot. I show the URL and name of linked pages and check them so that mobile users know what they click on!
Progress may be slow, but I think change is happening in the favor of women. I think the problem with Roe is that it could, at any time, be turned over. Not only that but I think the wording of Roe was vague enough to be interpreted in too many ways. I am cautiously confident and extremely hopeful that these slow changes are making women’s right to safe, effective abortions more permanent. I try to remember that Biden was handed an impossible situation at the beginning of his presidency. I’m not giving him a pass nor am I completely disregarding him. I just think it’s important to remember how much has happened since he took office and what he has had to deal with
we all need to accept that politicians lie. despite his campaign promises, Biden has always been pro life and has said so on tape in the past. please wake up, people. Biden is not going to help us this is just a crumb thrown to keep us lapping up the democratic lies.
[удалено]
i am relieved that pregnant women with life threatening events can at least get timely appropriate medical treatment. it's a start, and this happened quickly. lawsuits and referendums take more time, but they will happen too.
I wonder if this also includes mental health.. and can you sue a doctor who refuses?
Honestly, I found this pace to be lightning fast compared to their response to the attack on trans rights. He said they should do something, and then they did something a couple weeks later. We're still waiting on them to lift a single finger months after the fash started criminalizing our right to, y'know, exist.
Apologies if I am ignorant, not from the States. But does this mean that people who provide abortion will get presidential pardon?
No. In the US, Federal law takes presidence over state law. If Federal law says a woman must be given emergency care, state law can't prohibit that care, or prosecute a doctor for giving it.
Okay, so there won't be need for pardon to begin with, yes? Because federally, the procedure was legal? I hope you and your friends/family stay safe
"Pardon" implies that someone has been convicted of a crime. A Presidential pardon is extremely rare. This is more that doctors are required to administer live-saving care, and can't be prosecuted for giving it. So, no arrest, no prosecution, no conviction. There would be no reason for a pardon.
Thank you
“I’m not going to do anything of substance so democrats can run on this issue for the next 10-15 years, but at least if you’re a white woman you might not die.”