I developed pre-eclampsia in my last week of pregnancy and, three days after I got out of the hospital from my cesarean, was readmitted for another two nights because the retained fluid was putting noticable stress on my heart and lungs.
Happily, I had gotten to 37 weeks before disintegrating so my son was just fine being hatched and had my parents and husband to care for him while I was readmitted. But let me tell you, as I waited for cardiology to come tell me if my lab results were pointing to something that would kill me in a few years (so far, they are not) I thought a lot about the possibility of leaving my baby without a mother and I did not find it to be beautiful.
"Limbo" is a RCC thing, and this whole thing is going on in Idaho. Not a hotbed of Catholicism, there just might be a bunch of raving evangelical nazi aszholes. But no limbo, mon.
Serious question. Can the Supreme Court be sued for dereliction of duty (or whatever the equivalent non-military term would be)?
Is there anyway to hold them directly accountable for undue pain and suffering caused by a decision they defer making. Note, I'm not suggesting that they be sued for a decision that folks don't agree with ... but can they be sued for failing to immediately step in when that failure will directly lead to harm, up to and including death?
If not (which I very much suspect is the case), why not? What possible justification can there be to say "yes, we know you punted on this, but leaving it up in the air has caused people to die, provably, but you get a pass just because"
Probably not -- government likes to make itself exempt from whatever rules the rest of us live by. So you also probably couldn't sue the Idaho legislature for wrongful death because your wife/sister/daughter/mom died from complications that could have been taken care of if she had been able to get an medically-necessary abortion before she was on death's doorstep.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is what comes of letting the fetus incubators get ideas above their station in life. They start to think that they're real people, and worthy of rights and stuff. Thank goodness there a so many religious enthusiasts who are willing to stand up to this kind of nonsense.
Thing is, they still want women to die when the fetus is already non-viable, as the Kate Cox case has already shown. Because Jesus will miracle away any fatal defects.
This is what government by depraved theocratic monsters looks like, folks. And yet somehow a large minority of the people seem actually to want this kind of government. They're even willing to put up with the reckless antics of a hedonist like Donald Trump to get it.
Why the fuck did they choose to lift the injunction?!? IANAFL, but seems like they could have left the injunction stay in place while they mull this very legally perplexing (I'm joking) issue?
The only real question is whether in the period up to the end of the civil war it was common practice for the federal government to force hospitals to perform treatments that law makers banned in their states for whatever reason.
I think some evangelical Christians also believe that the pregnant person (and all adults) are sinners (either repentant or unrepentant), whereas the baby is without sin and innocent and so is more worth saving than the pregnant person
It depends on the variety of evangelical and how much they actually know about what they claim to believe. I have a coworker that takes a strictly Calvinist view of sin and acceptance of Christ. He will tell you plainly that hell is full of toddlers and babies, because they lack the ability to reason and accept Christ as their savior. It directly influences his stance against abortion because he believes the abortion is condemning the unborn to hell.
It's one of the more logical arguments I've heard for it, but it's batshit insane to go through life like that.
I give him some props for being willing to say that hell is full of babies. That usually makes the average lower educated Christianist real uncomfortable.
I developed pre-eclampsia in my last week of pregnancy and, three days after I got out of the hospital from my cesarean, was readmitted for another two nights because the retained fluid was putting noticable stress on my heart and lungs.
Happily, I had gotten to 37 weeks before disintegrating so my son was just fine being hatched and had my parents and husband to care for him while I was readmitted. But let me tell you, as I waited for cardiology to come tell me if my lab results were pointing to something that would kill me in a few years (so far, they are not) I thought a lot about the possibility of leaving my baby without a mother and I did not find it to be beautiful.
𝑨𝒕 𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒖𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒓 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑩𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏 𝒂𝒅𝒎𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒄𝒂𝒏 𝒓𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒓𝒆 𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒑𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒔𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒓𝒆𝒈𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒂𝒅𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒐 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒇𝒆𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝑬𝒎𝒆𝒓𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒚 𝑴𝒆𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝑻𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑳𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒓 𝑨𝒄𝒕 (𝑬𝑴𝑻𝑨𝑳𝑨) 𝒘𝒉𝒆𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒕𝒘𝒐 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒇𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒕.
What is the point of having federal law if it doesn't automatically supersede state law?
We should start calling it what it is: sadistic FORCED BIRTHS.
Can I just say that "EMTALA" sounds like something from an 8th grader's D&D game?
(Incidentally, I have a long-standing theory that the names of most prescription drugs come from the researchers' D&D games.)
"Limbo" is a RCC thing, and this whole thing is going on in Idaho. Not a hotbed of Catholicism, there just might be a bunch of raving evangelical nazi aszholes. But no limbo, mon.
When did Limbo not become a thing? And why wasn't I notified?
Fucking Church.
When did Limbo not become a thing? And why wasn't I notified?
Fucking Church.
I do not think it has ever been a thing with evangelicals. RCC only.
Serious question. Can the Supreme Court be sued for dereliction of duty (or whatever the equivalent non-military term would be)?
Is there anyway to hold them directly accountable for undue pain and suffering caused by a decision they defer making. Note, I'm not suggesting that they be sued for a decision that folks don't agree with ... but can they be sued for failing to immediately step in when that failure will directly lead to harm, up to and including death?
If not (which I very much suspect is the case), why not? What possible justification can there be to say "yes, we know you punted on this, but leaving it up in the air has caused people to die, provably, but you get a pass just because"
In general, no. Sovereign immunity makes it impossible to sue the government, unless it waives immunity or otherwise allows the lawsuit.
See the Wikipedia article for details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_United_States
I suggest you direct your question to Leonard Leo or Harlan Crow. You probably won't like the answer, but you might get a nice lunch out of it.
Wonder if I could swing an Alaskan fishing trip out of it ... that would be fun. Although the company would suck donkey balls.
I think all you get is the very inadequate and unlikely specter of impeachment and conviction.
Probably not -- government likes to make itself exempt from whatever rules the rest of us live by. So you also probably couldn't sue the Idaho legislature for wrongful death because your wife/sister/daughter/mom died from complications that could have been taken care of if she had been able to get an medically-necessary abortion before she was on death's doorstep.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: This is what comes of letting the fetus incubators get ideas above their station in life. They start to think that they're real people, and worthy of rights and stuff. Thank goodness there a so many religious enthusiasts who are willing to stand up to this kind of nonsense.
Thing is, they still want women to die when the fetus is already non-viable, as the Kate Cox case has already shown. Because Jesus will miracle away any fatal defects.
How are medical schools dealing with this shit. Like, can medical schools in restrictive states teach new doctors how to do the abortin'?
They transfer to other states. Along with residents and Drs...
This is what government by depraved theocratic monsters looks like, folks. And yet somehow a large minority of the people seem actually to want this kind of government. They're even willing to put up with the reckless antics of a hedonist like Donald Trump to get it.
Worry not! If you don't count the number of deaths during pregnancy (at the state level) it's like they never happened!
https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2023-07-07/idaho-maternal-mortality-review-committee-dissolve
Why the fuck did they choose to lift the injunction?!? IANAFL, but seems like they could have left the injunction stay in place while they mull this very legally perplexing (I'm joking) issue?
The only real question is whether in the period up to the end of the civil war it was common practice for the federal government to force hospitals to perform treatments that law makers banned in their states for whatever reason.
I think some evangelical Christians also believe that the pregnant person (and all adults) are sinners (either repentant or unrepentant), whereas the baby is without sin and innocent and so is more worth saving than the pregnant person
It depends on the variety of evangelical and how much they actually know about what they claim to believe. I have a coworker that takes a strictly Calvinist view of sin and acceptance of Christ. He will tell you plainly that hell is full of toddlers and babies, because they lack the ability to reason and accept Christ as their savior. It directly influences his stance against abortion because he believes the abortion is condemning the unborn to hell.
It's one of the more logical arguments I've heard for it, but it's batshit insane to go through life like that.
I give him some props for being willing to say that hell is full of babies. That usually makes the average lower educated Christianist real uncomfortable.
Well gee, his god sounds nice. {{ eye roll }}