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.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nah, they like term limits.

    The people with the real power aren’t running for president.

    The reason both parties supported term limits, was progressives like FDR who would keep getting elected while both parties had to make up excuses for why they were obstructing progress.

    The rich who fund our political machines knows there’s no shortage of “pretty faces” they can throw up there. And if they’re a revolving door, they can keep telling voters either “it’s him or the other party” or “this one will be different I promise”.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Term limits are not the win/win everyone thinks they are. There are lots of very bad drawbacks.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hear, hear! Term limits just mean that the wealthy have to spend a few minutes every two years looking for fresh faces. Also, term limits mean that the crooks in office have to hustle harder to make their fortune before getting kicked out.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep, a revolving door just means a steady supply of people who will do anything for a few million.

        And consolidates the power to unelected people. Either donors or the people running the parties.

        Because as the DNC argued in court:

        A primary isn’t a real election. So we can influence as much as we want because at the end of the day if we wanted we could nominate anyone, so be happy we even hold primaries.

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s funny that I’m getting down voted and you’re getting upvoted. We’re saying pretty much exactly the same thing.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’ve found you need to be very specific when phrasing things on here.

            With a lot less users, it only takes a few misunderstandings to have an effect.

            And if you’re already negative, people often just carry on the momentum.

            Not that internet points matter tho