• Gork@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    354
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    15 years in prison for “endangering a fetus”? Then giving birth only for that child to not have a mommy during childhood, adolescence, and teenage years?

    And this is considered good policy by those who create these laws?

    wtf

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      conservatives dont create logical policies. there is absolutely nothing logical about their ‘platform’… except maybe ‘brainwash masses to accumulate wealth’

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        ·
        9 months ago

        The conservatives’ platform is entirely logical:

        1. Removing education, opportunities, and social safety nets keeps people ignorant, poor, and vulnerable.

        2. Without government willing to help, people in need are forced to turn to the church.

        3. Religion breeds more conservatives.

    • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Its not about creating healthy environments or being concerned about the sanctity of life.

      its about punishing the “other” for reproducing and dictating everything a woman can do.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      46
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      These are people who believe in generational punishment. You should be punished for what your parents did.

      Remember, we’re all paying for what Adam and Eve did.

    • arin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s about control over women, none of the pedo conservatives care about the well being of kids at all.

    • frickineh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think it was for previous charges after she violated probation. But yeah, if we’re going to talk about endangering a fetus, then everyone who had a hand in her jail conditions and who ignored her when she went in to labor should also be in prison because every one of them is guilty of endangerment.

      • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        9 months ago

        No she was one of several women imprisoned under a new Alabama statute for “chemical endangerment of a fetus.” You know, a “crime” that already can’t be committed again by the time the imprisoned reach trial for it because of the way our “justice” system works.

        Those women aren’t allowed to endanger a fetus, but the all-knowing authorities are, apparently. (Yes, let’s forcibly cold-turkey detox a pregnant person who was using. Great idea.)

        • frickineh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh I read the article last week and misremembered what the 15 years was for. Either way, not one person was actually interested in protecting her fetus.

        • trash80@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          a “crime” that already can’t be committed again by the time the imprisoned reach trial for it because of the way our “justice” system works.

          What do you mean? The article says that she has faced several chemical endangerment charges over the years.

    • spider@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      9 months ago

      And this is considered good policy by those who create these laws?

      It’s only good for the private prison industry that funds their campaigns, and bad for pretty much everyone else.

    • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      9 months ago

      Did you read the article?

      accusations that she’d tested positive for methamphetamine while pregnant

      Pretty sure a child being raised in foster care is safer than one dying in the womb from narcotics poisoning.

      • Misconduct@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Safer physically? Maybe. Questionable give the state of our foster care system. It’s almost never a better alternative. 15 years for that is vile.

        • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          Questionable give the state of our foster care system

          Right, so, death is better than foster care. Noted.

          • Misconduct@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I highly encourage you to talk to some of them and educate yourself. Go read some threads about the abuse they experience.

            I don’t know why I’m still engaging with someone that thinks 15 years for doing drugs while pregnant is even remotely acceptable. Especially since it’s clear they didn’t give a shit about the baby at the end of the day. I guess I just hope that some of you will still come around and realize that women are humans who fuck up and we don’t deserve to be held ransom every time some dipshit knocks us up.

            If you do feel this strongly about babies then I hope we can at least agree that child support starts at conception and men that endanger babies by impregnating drug addicts should be in prison with them.

            • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I don’t know why I’m still engaging with someone that thinks 15 years for doing drugs while pregnant is even remotely acceptable.

              I don’t know why I’m engaging with someone who insists on misrepresenting my statements, so let me do a favor for the both of us and block you, goodbye 👋

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Who conducted the tests? What is the false positive rate? Was retesting done to ensure accuracy? Does CPS get to choose the testing labs, maybe the ones that get the results that they want? Did the sample have identification on it that a manager at the testing center could trace to the person?

        I will start believing the criminal justice system the day I don’t read weekly stories of missing body cam footage.

            • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              What does any of this have to do with the police department? Do you have a response that is actually tangentially related to my comment?

              • HerrBeter@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Lmao pretend you can’t even fathom what he meant, that the system is rigged and that they got the result they wanted because the US is seemingly inherently corrupt.

                Nonetheless it’s no surprise, this woman would’ve needed help and care. There’s only speculation that could be done regarding circumstances, but I think it boils down to the “pro life” - laws being ironic

                • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I know exactly what they meant. What I don’t know is how it’s related to what I said.

                  We can have a conversation about how our prison systems treat prisoners. Which we’ll likely agree on

                  Or we can have a conversation about police abuse of power, which we’ll probably also agree on.

                  Or we can have a conversation about our broken criminal justice system, which seems boring because again, we’d probably just agree.

                  Or we can have a conversation about whether pregnant mothers, in general, should be allowed to be imprisoned for attempting to kill their unborn children, but it seems like people just want to derail the conversation with irrelevant arguments.

                  But you go on with ya bad self, Mr. Straw Man.

          • Resonosity@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            You quoted the article as reporting on “accusations” that the mother tested positive for meth while pregnant. Your interlocutor seems to have glossed over that since it is possible for a party to claim something without evidence backing it up.

            But say they did have evidence that she ingested meth. In a state like Alabama, there is a strong incentive to skew evidence to support the widespread belief that women don’t have a choice over whether they reproduce or not: if you have sex, then you must have your kid.

            So, your interlocutor was merely calling into question the source that produced the accusations, as well as any other sources that produced evidence that showed she ingested meth recently while pregnant, possibly leading to the accusations.

            The point about whether foster care is more or less sufferable than dying pre- or postnatal is not what your interlocutor was addressing.

  • WideEyedStupid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    145
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Jesus, what a nightmare story. That entire article is filled with horror. She must have felt so terrified and alone.

    “After Caswell delivered her baby alone and lost consciousness, staff still refused to render aid and instead took photos of her baby without her consent, her lawyers allege. When she returned to the jail from the hospital, staff denied her access to her prescribed breast pump and ibuprofen.”

    Wtf is wrong with people? It’s so fucking petty and mean. I’m gonna assume that none of the staff will actually face any consequences…?

  • CeeBee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    This case shows they’re doing precisely the opposite,” said Roth, who said the abuses Caswell endured were tantamount to “torture”.

    No, it was full-blown torture. There’s no room for interpretation here.

    Women across the country have increasingly been jailed for pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriages and stillbirths.

    Geez. I don’t even know what to say. Miscarriages are way more common than people realize. In fact, it’s possible that miscarriages out number full-term pregnancies. There are so many NORMAL biological factors that could trigger a miscarriage.

    It’s an incredibly complex and nuanced field of biology, and this simplistic mindset of “miscarriage means bad woman” is both disturbing and alarming.

    • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve read estimates that miscarriages make up as much as 75% of all pregnancies, but many are early so women just think their period was late.

      • CeeBee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Ya, I was going to mention that also, but I didn’t want to write too much in my comment.

        Edit: I mean about the late period thing. It’s incredibly common.

        • bufordt@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Earth and human.

          The high rate comes from estimating the number of miscarriages that happen in the first 6 weeks, often before someone knows they are pregnant and the miscarriage is dismissed as a heavy or late period.

          The traditional miscarriage stat comes from only looking at known pregnancies, and even it is likely higher than most people realize.

          Regardless which stat you use, miscarriages are way more common than most people think.

          • GreenM@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            I see so mothers of age 20-30yrs in Germany have same chance of miscarriage as 50-60 years olds North Korean mothers, that is 75%. Since evidently demographics doesn’t matter.

            Now seriously, why i asked that: No source stated. Every age, country etc has this ratio different. Some countries have problem due to late pregnancies (35+yrs) due their culture. Other have trouble because of malnutrition. Some have better conditions.

            So before i take number as fact and start to spread it as such, i want to know it’s a fact or at least narrow it down to the demographics and possibly the source.

            Otherwise tomorrow there will be new expert say it’s actually 1% or 99% and according to this logic we would have to update our knowledge every-time.

      • CeeBee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sorry to hear that. We were in a similar situation. It’s rough. My wife still breaks down emotionally on the projected delivery date of the first one we lost. All the what could have beens. 😭

        I do think about it every so often, the only reason I don’t get as emotional is because I have terrible memory for remembering specific dates. Took me almost 10 years to get my wife’s birthday right. Still get it wrong sometimes.

        • shasta@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          A lot of miscarriages happen because something is wrong with the fetus. The “what might have been” would likely have been a lower quality of life than anyone deserves.

    • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      In their minds, women have one job. And if the baby dies, then the girl obviously did a bad job.

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’ve never heard of it, but now I’m disturbed and alarmed about the people who hold that opinion.

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, but god and Jesus and stuff, let’s punish women because we believe in Bronze Age myths.

      • LostWon@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Actually, even in Bronze Age myths, life begins when the baby takes its first breath. If anyone wants, you can listen to an in-depth (and often very funny) discussion on Data Over Dogma’s “Abortion and the Bible” episode here.

        • hperrin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Sure, but we still need to punish women for having sex. (Genesis 38:24, Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:21, Leviticus 19:20, Deuteronomy 22:23-24, Leviticus 20:18)

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          This (and policies of not naming a child until it’s lived a certain length of time) are direct consequences of high rates of prenatal and neonatal mortality. That is, life begins at the first breath because otherwise you have to consider an outright crushing number of dead babies. And when you are arguing divine justice is a thing, that gets real hard real fast.

          • LostWon@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Absolutely. I’m sure high infant mortality rates had a huge influence on the parts of Hammurabi’s Code that got adapted into laws in the Bible. Until it could survive on its own, a fetus was basically the property of the would-be father (though so was the would-be mother, yuck), so they were obviously quite desensitized.

  • Bri Guy @sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    9 months ago

    what a “pro-life” move right? letting a mother and a newborn baby almost fucking die in prison

  • qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think women should maybe leave these places if they can. I wouldn’t even let a man think about having kids with me if I were a woman in any of those shit states.

    • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      106
      ·
      9 months ago

      …maybe leave these places if they can.

      These laws are targeted towards poor women who can’t fight back. This one is making the news because she’s suing. I guarantee that if an attorney hasn’t taken up the fight, you’d never hear about it.

      • persolb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        9 months ago

        This seems like a good place for a charity… although the cost isn’t just a bus ticket but also probably temporary housing/income as well.

        Shit. I just realized I’m suggesting a refugee agency for US states.

      • SirStumps@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        I completely agree with your statement. The issue with OPs statement is that it’s ideal for those with means but unrealistic for those without.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          In some ways the opposite. When I left my shit tier flyover village I had nothing. Nothing was connecting me back home and there was no backup plan. It would be a lot more difficult for me to move now given all the roots I have put down.

          What we think we control ends up controlling us. That mortgage that was supposed to make us free of landlords, that house we can’t sell, that car that we struggle to find parking for, that career we worked so hard on building. I am not advocating giving anything up I am pointing out you have absolute freedom when you have nothing to lose and can’t stay where you are.

      • Crow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        If you are poor, wouldn’t it make more sense to be poor somewhere else? Starting over when you never had much would be my top priority rather than stay in these places.

        • Misconduct@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          With what money? You can’t just travel across the country for free lol. Getting to another state alone is a good chunk of money for gas a lot of the time. Then what? Sleep in their car? Alone? In a place completely bereft of any kind of support or familiarity?

          • Crow@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Why can’t you travel the country for free? Or at least bus tickets are very cheap.

            • Misconduct@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yeah, you just don’t get it and I don’t know how to explain how difficult it would be to do that alone with nothing. I don’t know if it’s something that can be explained to someone that hasn’t struggled.

              • Crow@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                I’m literally speaking from experience. And I also don’t own a car because it’s a money sink. I left everything behind I couldn’t fit in a box and moved across my country because I figured if I was going to struggle anyway, it may as well be where the grass is green. And while I have left all my family support behind, I have actual social support. There is so much more to where you live than what you have.

                • Misconduct@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Are you a dude? I’m not asking this to be argumentative I just need you to understand that it is extremely different when you have to worry about if you’ll be molested or worse when you sleep. I’m not saying it isn’t hard for men to strike out on their own at all. I’m also absolutely not saying that men don’t also get assaulted. I promise, I know it can be so difficult for anyone. Women have so many additional hurdles on top of that. I was homeless at 17 and the amount of people that “helped me out” but then expected sexual favors in return was fucking gross. No Kevin, you don’t get a blow job because you brought me some stale ass donuts from your convenience store job ffs 🙄

                  I’ve been there too and the fact that men can just sleep on a bus stop, out in the open, in relative safety automatically gives them a privilege we simply don’t have. Women’s shelters can be great if you can find one with space. Even then some of them are grossly religious and as stifling as the situations these women want to escape from. A woman got kicked out of one of the shelters I stayed in because she had condoms in her dresser drawer. I guessing men don’t get kicked out of anywhere because someone found out that they might be having sex.

    • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      those people are so incredibly brainwashed by conservatives, they will happily vote to their own detriment. but yay. fox news. free market. yay.

      • qooqie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Minorities and vulnerable populations are in the best position to not be brainwashed. And if they leave those states hopefully they can go to a state that respects them as humans

        • FraidyBear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Minorities in these places are typically facing poverty levels that most people in the US can’t imagine. How are they supposed to move when they can barely afford rent? As for the other women, the white women in these places genuinely don’t believe that these laws will affect them. There is this sense that they think that their adjacency to white men will prevent them from being treated the same as others, that somehow it will make them immune. They are getting a massive wakeup call that white men in power only care about other white men. It’s a tale as old as time. White women are and have always been our barrer to equality. Once things get bad enough for them they will jump on the side of minorities and equality again. They just don’t usually view themselves as one of us, they always think that this time will be different.

          • qooqie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah… I know. I just hope their lives can change for the better and they can exit these places. I just want people to have equal rights and be happy. It’s apparently asking a lot of religious old people, but fuck them

        • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          ·
          9 months ago

          How? How are they supposed to leave? I lived in southern Louisiana and I was desperately poor then. Nobody I knew could afford to leave.

          • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            9 months ago

            Whether we like it or not, it’s going to take widespread class solidarity and a generation of grassroots activism to undo this shit. The politically active will never give a shit about the politically inactive until they’re outnumbered. It sucks that people just trying to make ends meet have to start becoming grassroots activists on top of their already demanding jobs and lives, but rights were never freely given to the disenfranchised. They were taken.

          • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            reminds me of an old sam kinison bit regarding people who live in deserts and then suffer droughts. but agreed… those most in need of relocation are least capable.

      • systemglitch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        The true detriment is a two party system. You are like a dog being thrown scraps by whichever party you vote for, and things are only getting worse while people continue to pick one side or the other and don’t overthrow the entire system they keep supporting.

        • Blackbeard@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          No, the true detriment is civic illiteracy and widespread apathy. If people voted in droves and stayed engaged in the decisions that affect their lives, the institutional power of political parties would be nullified. The parties are powerful specifically because most people don’t give a shit. There’s a vacuum, and the party apparatus fills it.

          • Sabre363@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Perhaps it’s different in other places, but in my experience people do give a lot of shits. The system is just built against us in such a way that it’s almost impossible to either have any hope of changing anything or see any changes that do happen. A huge cause of that disparity is the party system with it’s incessant bickering and corrupt propaganda.

            • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              The majority party in this country is the party that doesn’t vote.

              The second major party is the party that complains endlessly about “both sides”.

              The third major party is the party that votes one way because that’s what they’ve been told to do their whole life.

              The fourth major party is the one that actually does research and engages that’s being driven mad by the other three.

          • irmoz@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Lol sure. So why try and improve things? You’ll only make it worse. Enjoy the scraps.

            • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              9 months ago

              Please show me where I said to do nothing. Why don’t you try imagining new ways of improving things rather than repeating the mistakes of the past? Of the revolutions in the 18th-20th centuries, I think only the American revolution accomplished anything close to what it was intending. And that’s because it didn’t destroy all the existing institutions while in the process of implementing new ones.

              (Not that I agree with what the American revolution was intending, but we did get mostly what they set out to do without thousands of poor civilians starving to death in the process.)

              • krolden@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                The american revolution upheld slavery in America so yeah you’re not wrong.

                • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Our institutions are not the problem, our policies are the problem. I want to see a transition to UBI, but a dramatic overhaul that dismantled WIC and SNAP before we got UBI in place would be an unmitigated disaster for the very people we were intending to help.

                  It’s not the reform that I’m skeptical of. It’s the lust for revolutionary destruction as a path to reform that I’m skeptical of. It’s emotionally satisfying without regard to its actual efficacy in accomplishing the proposed reforms. Because history does not show us evidence that this works out well in the short nor the long run.

            • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              By starving millions of them? Because that’s exactly what transpired during most of those revolutions. And the long term outcomes have not turned out to be better for poor people than the American revolution was.

              • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Revolutions often happen because of starvation. Not the other way around.

                And I can tell you this… Billionaires and their conservative minions are making many of us extremely hungry.

                • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Well they solved starvation by dramatically increasing it and then replaced old systems with new ones that have all those same old problems. So consider me unconvinced. I think we need to find a new way to change these systems that’s more resilient for the future

    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      We could move if we wanted to. We aren’t, at least right now, because we’d leave behind our entire social network. Even if we moved where we know people, they wouldn’t help as much with our two young children. I know and understand and accept that. They don’t have to help with our kids, but we’d lose the people who can. We’d lose our kids friends and the network we are building in the neighborhood, which of course can be rebuilt, but that’s also a consideration. I’d probably only see my sister once a year if that because she can’t leave the state due to a custody agreement. Funds would also be an issue.

      I also worry about too many democratic people leaving and making the state more red as a result and leaving behind those who can’t move, like my sister and her kids, who will suffer as a result of increasingly authoritarian laws. Some regressive politicians have outright said that it’s their goal to make it miserable for democratic and liberal people to force them to move, make the state redder, and thereby gain even more power.

    • kibiz0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Most Americans can’t afford a $500 emergency. Transplanting to a new state is off the table for a lot of people, especially women. If you have enough money to move, you probably also have enough money to take a weekend trip to get an abortion in a neighboring state.

    • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Unless these things in the US seriously changes, I will never step foot there. I used to want to see all of the beautiful landscapes, animals, and buildings. I really did. Now, not so much.

      If I have a medical emergency, I don’t want to be somewhere where they’ll delay necessary life saving treatment to first check if there might be a fetus.

      Nope. Tbh, that also kind of sounds very similar to the things that they get angry at other countries for doing to women.

  • madcaesar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    If you are a woman, voting republican, you should be fucking ashamed of yourself. This is what this party thinks of you and your kind.

    • ilmagico@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Agreed, but then again, let’s say you don’t like democrats either, for whatever reason. What choices do you have? Any other party has zero chances. It’s time the US changes its voting laws to allow more than 2 parties to meaningfully exist, so people don’t have to always choose the lesser of the two evils.

      • rurutheguru@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah okay, but if you’re a woman voting republican, you’re clearly choosing the more evil of two choices? I fully agree with the flawed two party system, but there’s an obvious better choice here. We’re talking about a singular issue: female reproductive rights.

  • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    9 months ago

    How anyone could vote for any republican is beyond reason. On top of being worthless traitor filth, they actively oppress women and endanger our future generations. Simply unfathomable.

    • CoderKat@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 months ago

      A sizable number of them are simply glad about articles like this. It’s not about protecting children or anything. It’s about punishing women. I think a lot of GOP supporters don’t even explicitly think “I want to punish women”, but they implicitly enjoy when it happens. It’s more about imposing their religious beliefs than about anyone’s life or the likes.

      And another sizable chunk are just apathetic. They’ll be willing to ignore stuff like this because it’s worth it in their mind to hurt LGBT people or whichever other GOP policy drives them. They’ll tell themselves this is just a tragic accident in their quest for the greater good, never viewing this as an entirely foreseeable consequence or even the outright goal.

  • Aurolei@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    What about the risk for the mother? Holy shit, she didn’t even have access to a basic maternity ward. America is fucked.

  • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Toss ALL jail employees of the past 7 months in jail for torture, and toss the jailers.for that birth night in jaolmfor torture, and attempted murder of mother and child. I’m heavily against the death penalty but I’d make an exception for these religious fuckers.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      If they believe they’re right about it all, they also believe they’ll live eternally in happiness when they die. They should welcome it.

    • IamRoot@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The baby can sue the state and the mother. It was trapped by the mother first.

      Unlawful detention.

  • WaterChi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s never been about the children. It has always been about controlling and dehumanizing women as this story so clearly demonstrates.

    • SwedishFool@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yep, I thought everybody knew that already. They only care about the children as long as they’re inside the woman, the second she pushes that baby out they don’t have a care in the world anymore.

      On the other hand, I DO believe some sort of intervention is needed when a drug addict gets pregnant, but I’m talking rehab and not prison.