771

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it claimed to be removing the judiciary from the abortion debate. In reality, it simply gave the courts a macabre new task: deciding how far states can push a patient toward death before allowing her to undergo an emergency abortion.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit offered its own answer, declaring that Texas may prohibit hospitals from providing “stabilizing treatment” to pregnant patients by performing an abortion—withholding the procedure until their condition deteriorates to the point of grievous injury or near-certain death.

The ruling proves what we already know: Roe’s demise has transformed the judiciary into a kind of death panel that holds the power to elevate the potential life of a fetus over the actual life of a patient.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 132 points 2 years ago

Wait wait wait….. wasn’t “death panels” what the right was screaming about with Obamacare?

[-] DemBoSain@midwest.social 80 points 2 years ago

Death Panels are only good when Insurance Corporations and Republicans are making the decisions.

[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 54 points 2 years ago

You're thinking of the bad kind of death panels. Those are the good kind of death panels, obviously.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 49 points 2 years ago

It's always projection with fascists.

[-] FishFace@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Yes, because "death panels" is just emotional language, not a well-defined thing. So polemicists on the left and right use it to try and make people angry about something they might not otherwise be angry about.

The fact that polemicists on the right labelled something as X in order to criticise it, but then later people on the right generally support something that polemicists on the left also labelled as X, is not indicative of anything at all, because there is no reason to think that the common labelling represents any actual similarity between the two things, or even represents any underlying truth whatsoever.

This is even more the case because the people who push these lines often deliberately (misguidedly, in my opinion) pick labels used by the other side for something they dislike, thinking it will aid the cause. This means there's a motivation to stretch labels inappropriately.

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

That’s a lot of words for “both side bad”

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I at least agree that a term like "death panels" is a loaded label. I can still agree that judicially restricting life-saving treatments is a terrible practice, without shorthanding it to a "death panel".

EDIT: Fixed double negative

[-] FishFace@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

No, it's not "both side bad" (and the implication there is that any time when someone says "both sides do this badly" is unhelpful, which I disagree with).

It's "both sides are doing something similar here but that thing isn't part of the reasoning or decision making of each side, and you're treating it like it is."

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

My original statement was an observation of the irony here, not a social commentary on what a “death panel” actually is. Whether the panels of death came about intentionally or not has nothing to do with the fact that they are creating what they were crying about years ago.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 12 points 2 years ago

Using the term this way is to point out the hypocrisy. Republicans are against "death panels" in Obamacare. These were nothing but a means to decide how certain end of life care should be done, and exist in every medical system going back to when we were striking flint to make fire. Republicans have just handed women actually bad death panels in the form of judiciary and legislative branches that can hold back medical care until it's too late.

[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

No. The right mutters aloud what they're thinking then cat he's themselves and points a finger at the left saying "ummm... I mean.. THEY want the thing I was just fantasizing to myself about".. later the right does the thing and the left calla it out.

The vernacular is the same bc the left is calling the right for the same behavior the right falsely accused them of.

Not bc both sides bad same

Shut the fuck up. Stop equivocating. One side has infiltrated the govt with an autocrat at the steps of the executive branch. The other are at worst disconnected over educated corporate-gifted, while releasing weed convictions, dropping student debt, and feeding poor kids.

[-] charonn0@startrek.website 5 points 2 years ago

The difference, of course, is that in this case there is an actual panel and death is actually on the table.

[-] FishFace@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

That's a difference but there are many more, which is why them getting the same label is unimportant.

this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
771 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24969 readers
2511 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 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.
  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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS