this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
294 points (99.7% liked)

politics

24899 readers
2863 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The 2025 Medical Ethics Defense Act allows physicians to deny care to patients whose lifestyles they disagree with

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] moakley@lemmy.world 88 points 4 days ago (2 children)

My wife was denied care in Texas because there was a possibility she could be pregnant. There were no signs she was pregnant or anything; there was just a non-zero chance, because we're sexually active, so they refused to perform a mammogram on her.

Never mind what could happen if she needed that mammogram, if it might catch something and save her life. Never mind the two kids at home who need her. A hypothetical fetus is more important than her medical care.

It took her weeks to get the appointment, and they just turned her away. She ended up taking a pregnancy test in a Whataburger bathroom. The state of women's healthcare in parts of the US is absolutely abhorrent.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Even in Canada, the insane push to make people have more children is put above letting people make choices for their health. My sister's friend already had two or three children and couldn't get the doctor to tie her tubes because she was still young and could want more children. I'm reminded of The Handmaid's Tale. I don't even think people should be having children of their own when there are already children in need of a home.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 days ago

This is not typical in Canada.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Washedupcynic@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

The only reason why I even knew this was a thing was because of a Joni Mitchel song called, "Magdeline laundries."

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 30 points 4 days ago (2 children)

What happened to the right wanting to protect all unborn children no matter how impractical?

[–] SPRUNT@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

The right doesn't want to do anything but impose their authority. For a conservative, the only valid abortion is my abortion. The only valid exception to any rule is my exception.

Oh she can still go to jail if she tries to get an abortion. That's their protection.

[–] Tiger666@lemmy.ca 23 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I guess it's the hypocritic oath from now on in the US.

[–] Apytele@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I wish the practice / physician was named, I'd like to write a letter to their alma mater, especially if it's from a part of the country that might actually care.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago
[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Move to a civilized country where "your religious rules don't apply to others" is in the constitution. You only have religious freedom if you have freedom from religion.

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It does say that, but SCOTUS is full of christo-fascists who don't care, and the legislatures are full of other fascists who also don't care.

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

Canada has a much better process for choosing judges. They have to be lawyers and they have to be non-partisan.

[–] laranis@lemmy.zip 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It is in ours, too. We just decided "fuck it, full fascism speed run".

[–] MapleEngineer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

The problem is that your supreme court is full of activists and abjectly corrupt.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] marud@piefed.marud.fr 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

To me it sounds more a religion (aka """"values"""") issue than a political one.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

How are those things different/mutually exclusive? This is literally a law, drafted and passed by politicians, that allowed someone's "values" to be used to deny someone medical care. How isn't this political?

[–] foggy@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Well we didn't lose Roe v Wade under trump...

So I'm not saying it isn't political, but the person you responded to is more correct than OP, objectively.

It is less "Trump's America" than it is the result of religious values.

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The loss was due to judges pushed by Republican govt and Trump who had falsely declared that there is no overturning of the judgement when asked in their confirmation hearings. So even if the timing was off this was Trump's doing.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not saying it wasn't.

Saying it is definitionally less accurate to call this Trump's America than is to blame it on religion.

Both are accurate. One is more accurate.

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

It is Trump's America only because inspite of what people might say America is far closer to be like Saudi Arabia than any Nordic countries.

[–] BarrelAgedBoredom@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

...religious values* (values being a stand in for religious organizations ~~bribing~~ lobbying) politicians to pass laws enabling discrimination.

What does the word political mean to you? To take the most liberal (as in political affiliation) definition, this is the consequences of a law passed by elected leaders. This law was only allowed to take effect because an anti trans healthcare bill (also from Tennessee) was upheld by the supreme court. The contents of this article is entirely a consequence of our political process. If fascists weren't actively promoting discrimination, this bill wouldn't exist and this woman wouldn't have been denied care she needed. Just because a law has the word "ethics" in it doesn't mean it ceases to be political.

Even ignorning that, religion is political. Doubly so in America. We have politicians writing laws that religious leaders want. We have politicians writing laws alienating people due to them being non-chrisitan. We're living through a fascist coup. Religion is a large part of fascism

[–] foggy@lemmy.world -2 points 4 days ago

You might need to try rereading or something. Your response seems to have completely ignored what I said. Reading this in response to my post is... Baffling.

I know it was really long, so I can understand missing this:

I'm not saying it isn't political,