politics

19104 readers

2491 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

300

Alabama is using the notion that embryos are people to surveil and harass women (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Even before the court ruled in favor of this vulgar fiction, state authorities relied on the concept to intimidate and jail women

Something that’s important to remember about last week’s ruling by the Alabama supreme court, which held that frozen embryos were persons under state law, is that the very absurdity of the claim is itself a demonstration of power. That a frozen embryo – a microscopic bit of biological information that can’t even be called tissue, a flick laden with the hopes of aspiring parents but fulfilling none of them – is equivalent in any way to a child is the sort of thing you can only say if no one has the power to laugh at you. The Alabama supreme court is the final court of review in that state. It cannot be appealed. For the foreseeable future, frozen cells in Alabama have the same legal status there as you or I do. Is this an absurd elevation of the status of an embryo, or an obscene degradation of human beings? The answer, of course, is both.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 46 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The ruling will get replaced by a new piece of legislation that "fixes" the loophole and re-legalizes IVF. Probably reasonable quickly. Even the lunatic fringe conservatives didn't intend to shut down IVF.

The real scandal here isn't even the chaos caused by the court going wild like this -- though that certainly is a scandal.

What we should be concerned about is the fact that a member of a fringe religious cult that actively believes in doing away with the separation of church and state (the Seven Mountain Mandate) is not just actively and enthusiastically legislating from the bench, but is citing actual religious principles and scriptures in his decisions. And nothing is being done about it.

This justice sincerely believes literal demons have infiltrated the government and need to be engaged in holy war. He's a fundamentalist zealot. He is violating his oath to the rule of law on a daily basis.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The ruling will get replaced by a new piece of legislation that "fixes" the loophole and re-legalizes IVF. Probably reasonable quickly. Even the lunatic fringe conservatives didn't intend to shut down IVF.

I wouldn't be so sure on that. The "lunatic fringe", as you put it, has absolutely no problem sacrificing IVF on their altar. And even if the legislature passes a law to "patch" the issue, they know they have a sympathetic ear on the bench. They will have to challenge that law, and they know there will be at least one vote on the Alabama Supreme Court who will be sympathetic.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Agreed. This was on someone’s list.