Everything is bigger in Texas applies here, I suppose.
That’s by design.
It’s almost like the decision to make the lives of actual people less important has consequences.
Who could have possibly seen this coming.
Gobs plan
How could this have ever been predicted, though? My flabbers are gasted.
Exclusive analysis finds the rate of maternal deaths in Texas increased 56% from 2019 to 2022, compared with just 11% nationwide during the same time period.
Curious what the percent change is for just states that didn’t implement abortion-restricting measures is…
Curious about why maternal death growing nation wide is a not seen has a problem.
Texas isn’t a small state, population wise. If the rate rose dramatically (55%) for Texas, and similar rates occurred in other abortion banning states, that would likely account for the 11%.
Anyway, more to the point than just that, the people who care about that nationwide growth already care and are clamoring about it. They’ve been clamoring about it since Roe v Wade was overturned. The other half of the equation could care less about women, and the rising rate is probably making them smile.
Who doesn’t consider it a problem?
Your quote state “compared with just 11% nationwide” that lecture chill me. It would be more honest to state “11% nationwide and it’s worst in Texas with 56%” This inversion is really a way to put that awfull stat under the rug
People who hate women and children.
You know, Republicans.
People who don’t know about it because it’s not widely reported.
“We’re saving innocent babies from the baby murdering liberals.”
- Christian conservative republicans.
NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for NBC News:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Its only a problem if influential white women die though.
Keep Texasing, Texas. You’ll get there.
What a surprise! As if nobody ever said abortion bans kill women…
s/
Opinions on abortion are strong indicators of psychopathy. Nobody against legal abortion has a functional moral sense. Some are just incredibly morally stupid. Others are religious zombies. But they’re all dangerous and fundamentally animalistic. We can coexist with these creatures, obviously — we already do. But the widespread delusion that they’re just like us has been incredibly dangerous and possibly world-ending. It’s no coincidence they’re the same “people” who support pollution and celebrate ecological depredation.
Out of pure curiosity, is your statement linking abortion opinions and psychopathy based on any studies you can link?
I’m not sure if that research’s been done, but it would be highly surprising if psychopaths were not the ones in favor of limiting women’s reproductive freedom.
What I can tell you is that abortion rights are an “easy” moral issue. Every year or two there’s a survey among professional philosophers, who of course disagree on basically everything. However, the item with the most consensus is abortion. That’s because there are simply no good arguments against abortion rights. The only reason someone might be against reproductive freedom is… well… moral imbecility.
My guess is that in the next few decades, research will show that moral reasoning exists on a spectrum of competence. That some people are so bad at it that it’s pathological, and that some percentage of these people are also narcissistic enough to be called “psychopaths.” It’s a disorder; it’s on a spectrum, and anti-abortion zealots are on that spectrum.
Dehumanization isn’t good no matter what side you’re on.
Do you dehumanize bears when you acknowledge that they lack certain abilities? I like bears. They’re great! Doesn’t mean I have to pretend that they’re civilized or intelligent.
Do I dehumanize a creature which is not human? No, dehumanization doesn’t work that way.
By “human” you might mean
- an animal whose DNA falls within a specific probability distribution, or
- an animal that embodies various virtues or transcendental capacities, etc.
We should acknowledge that countless creatures meet condition 1 but not 2. So what?
Your second definition is usually referred to as “person”, not “human”.
Awwwww that baby holding a finger looks soo cute
Pro life was never about being actually pro life, It’s always been about pro religio, control and power.
For politicians it was about getting the crazy fundies to support said politicians.
For the fundies themselves it’s just another step of them applying their religion and control onto everyone else. Their rules apply to you, because you too must be delusional and believe in their particular Easter bunny.
No fundie or politician ever gave a single frack about women dying due to the removal of abortions. No fundie ever gave a shit about the baby that was actually born and now needed help and funds to grow up. Funds? Money? Frack that shit, we aren’t spending money on babies now, they’re on their own.
I hate these people, they form the lowest ranks of what humanity has to offer, yet they want to be about to except their control and their rules Mon everyone, frack the consequences.
I’m a practicing Christian. I also believe in abortion and birth control like I personally invented them. I worked with a gyne who performed them and it’s such a nothing of a procedure. Every pathology report said the same thing “spongy hemorrhagic tissue with no fetal parts”. The fuss is literally over a tiny bit of tissue.
Nobody should have to be pregnant if they don’t want to, ever.
