• vaseltarp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • nhombrenovalido@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

    • CoffeeAddict@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

  • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • emanon458@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    Hypocrisy is pretty on brand for Republicans.

    More proof that the anti-abortion movement is about controlling women, not about being “pro-life”.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The argument from the Texas attorney general’s office appears to be in tension with positions it has previously taken in defending abortion restrictions, contending all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court that “unborn children” should be recognized as people with legal rights.

    “Just because several statutes define an individual to include an unborn child does not mean that the Fourteenth Amendment does the same,” they wrote in legal filing that noted that the guard lost her baby before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion established under its landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

    That claim came in response to a federal lawsuit brought last year by Salia Issa, who alleges that hospital staff told her they could have saved her baby had she arrived sooner.

    While working at the prison, Issa began feeling pains “similar to a contraction” but when she asked to be relived from her post to go to the hospital her supervisors refused and accused her of lying, according to the complaint she filed along with her husband.

    Issa, whose suit was first reported by The Texas Tribune, is seeking monetary damages to cover her medical bills, pain and suffering, and other things, including the funeral expenses of the unborn child.

    Laura Hermer, a professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, described Texas’ legal posture as “seeking to have their cake and eat it too.”


    I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • AttackBunny@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 years ago

      So, they’re hypocrites. Yeah. Seems on brand. It’s either a person and has rights or it’s not. I wish someone would/could bring criminal charges against the supervisors for murder.

    • Shanedino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 years ago

      Sounds like she was more a prisoner than the actual prisoners. Denied access to health care seems so wrong, and to be told she was lying on top of it all.

  • CoffeeAddict@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 years ago

    I wish I could say I’m surprised.

    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.

  • Jordan Lund@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Remarkably consistent.

    “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.”