US Politics Thread

[Moxie]

In the very sad case of Kate Cox, a woman with an inviable fetus in Texas who can only get an abortion by petitioning the courts?

Here is the lead-up:

Texas woman asks judge to let her terminate pregnancy after lethal fetal diagnosis

In an emergency request, the Center for Reproductive Rights is asking a judge to allow Kate Cox to terminate her pregnancy after she received a lethal fetal diagnosis.

www.texastribune.org

The Texas courts granted her request, but the Texas AG is going to fight it.

Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocks ruling that allowed woman emergency abortion

Texas woman Kate Cox appeared remotely for a hearing in her lawsuit against the state. She asked for an abortion to preserve her fertility.

abcnews.go.com

Meanwhile, this is a mother of 2 who wants a bigger family, and is trying to protect her own life, and her own fertility. All she is asking for is that the decisions about her health be left between her and her doctor.

 

[tented]

Now this one, I sat on for a couple of days, ran it by a few people, because it seems so incredible, shocking, ground-changing, that I wanted second, third and fourth opinions. Basically, the video tells us that George Floyd wasn’t murdered, that Derek Chauvin is innocent, that evidence was suppressed at the trial, and that the police body cam footage tells a completely different story.

One of the friends I showed it to - a fellow poster here - said a doctor in their extended family said as much when he saw the footage back in 2020, that Floyd OD’d on fentanyl and that his death wasn’t consistent with neck compression.

I put this here because if it’s true, there’s been many injustices, caused by a racist rush to judgment. I made the same rush to judgment, by the way - I believed he’d been murdered. But newly released evidence showed he wasn’t, apparently. And so the aftermath to his death has to be seen in a different light.

The rise of BLM, Ibram X Kendi, the take-the-knee charade, the defund-the-police hustle, the wanton criminality on the streets, the politicising race during a presidential election in favour of one candidate over another, the blatant exploitation by the left of this horrible moment, was morally cynical, reprehensible and damaging.

This man’s death and deification in the aftermath affected the whole of the western world.

It still has to be litigated, and proven in court, but I can see there might be clear grounds for doing that.

Meanwhile, bear this in mind, Derek Chauvin was stabbed 22 times recently, in prison.

It’s an interesting, informative documentary, and I hope everyone watches it.

A few key points in relation to the autopsy:

- The initial autopsy “revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation”
- He had “preexisting health conditions including a heavy heart and some coronary artery disease, including at least one artery that was approximately 75% blocked”
- He had both methamphetamine and fentanyl in his system. The latter was at an 11, which the autopsy states was a level “which could cause pulmonary edema. His lungs were 2-3X their normal weight at autopsy. That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances”
- “No medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation”

Photos taken from a different angle than the angle shown by the witness video depict Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s shoulder, not neck. The head of police verified this on the witness stand. The documentary also showed that in the Minneapolis Police Dept’s training manual, there is both a photograph and a drawing depicting a cop restraining someone in this manner, despite a few cops stating otherwise.

Evidence from at least one other officer’s body cam was not permitted as evidence, nor was body cam footage from a previous drug arrest allowed in, which showed Floyd eating the drug evidence during the arrest.

Another key issue was how long it took the ambulance to show up, despite a cop radioing in to get one as soon as Floyd said he couldn’t breathe, which was early on, when he was still standing. He did not first say he couldn’t breathe when he was on the ground. The ambulance was based only a few blocks away, and should have taken only a few minutes to show up, but because of a miscommunication between the dispatcher and the EMS crew they didn’t arrive for about 20 minutes. Body cam footage from another officer, which was not allowed, has one of the ambulance attendants admitting this is what happened.

In short, several pieces of key evidence were excluded, there’s the indication some cops lied on the witness stand about the method of restraint, and the autopsy depicted the cause of death as not being related to a knee on the neck/strangulatIon. I don’t know what the status is of an appeal, but there does seem to be enough doubt cast on the events to allow another look at what happened.

Now, I’m not stating Chauvin was completely innocent, either. In my opinion, he had no reason to keep Floyd in that position for as long as he did. While Floyd did initially put up resistance when the police were trying to get him into the cop car, by the time he had been on the ground for even a minute or two, he had given up any form of resistance, so I don’t think Chauvin was justified in restraining him for about 8 minutes. I don’t know the legal definitions of negligent homicide, for example, but Chauvin could be considered guilty of that.

 

[Federberg]

In the very sad case of Kate Cox, a woman with an inviable fetus in Texas who can only get an abortion by petitioning the courts?

Here is the lead-up:

Texas woman asks judge to let her terminate pregnancy after lethal fetal diagnosis

In an emergency request, the Center for Reproductive Rights is asking a judge to allow Kate Cox to terminate her pregnancy after she received a lethal fetal diagnosis.

www.texastribune.org

The Texas courts granted her request, but the Texas AG is going to fight it.

Texas Supreme Court temporarily blocks ruling that allowed woman emergency abortion

Texas woman Kate Cox appeared remotely for a hearing in her lawsuit against the state. She asked for an abortion to preserve her fertility.

abcnews.go.com

Meanwhile, this is a mother of 2 who wants a bigger family, and is trying to protect her own life, and her own fertility. All she is asking for is that the decisions about her health be left between her and her doctor.

I simply don't understand the logic of the politics here. Even conservative women will be terrified of this happening to them. What on earth is the AG thinking. This isn't some frivolous elective abortion

 

[Fiero425]

It’s an interesting, informative documentary, and I hope everyone watches it.

A few key points in relation to the autopsy:

- The initial autopsy “revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation”
- He had “preexisting health conditions including a heavy heart and some coronary artery disease, including at least one artery that was approximately 75% blocked”
- He had both methamphetamine and fentanyl in his system. The latter was at an 11, which the autopsy states was a level “which could case pulmonary edema. His lungs were 2-3X their normal weight at autopsy. That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances”
- “No medical findings that showed any injury to the vital structures of Mr. Floyd’s neck. There were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation”

Photos taken from a different angle than the angle shown by the witness video depict Chauvin’s knee on Floyd’s shoulder, not neck. The head of police verified this on the witness stand. The documentary also showed that in the Minneapolis Police Dept’s training manual, there is both a photograph and a drawing depicting a cop restraining someone in this manner, despite a few cops stating otherwise.

Evidence from at least one other officer’s body cam was not permitted as evidence, nor was body cam footage from a previous drug arrest allowed in, which showed Floyd eating the drug evidence during the arrest.

Another key issue was how long it took the ambulance to show up, despite a cop radioing in to get one as soon as Floyd said he couldn’t breathe, which was early on, when he was still standing. He did not first say he couldn’t breathe when he was on the ground. The ambulance was based only a few blocks away, and should have taken only a few minutes to show up, but because of a miscommunication between the dispatcher and the EMS crew they didn’t arrive for about 20 minutes. Body cam footage from another officer, which was not allowed, has one of the ambulance attendants admitting this is what happened.

In short, several pieces of key evidence were excluded, there’s the indication some cops lied on the witness stand about the method of restraint, and the autopsy depicted the cause of death as not being related to a knee on the neck/strangulatIon. I don’t know what the status is of an appeal, but there does seem to be enough doubt cast on the events to allow another look at what happened.

Now, I’m not stating Chauvin was completely innocent, either. In my opinion, he had no reason to keep Floyd in that position for as long as he did. While Floyd did initially put up resistance when the police were trying to get him into the cop car, by the time he had been on the ground for even a minute or two, he had given up any form of resistance, so I don’t think Chauvin was justified in restraining him for about 8 minutes. I don’t know the legal definitions of negligent homicide, for example, but Chauvin could be considered guilty of that.

Well it certainly reads as giving Chauvin an out! I can't imagine being laid out like that for so long as other cops stood around w/ witnesses a plenty! I'm still disgusted even though I took this incident as just another of many! Watching the news, this $#!t happens every day somewhere in the country! We have a serious issue, but we can't say "cut the cops!" It's already the fk'n wild west out there! We need those cops even if mentally deficient! The people are just as crazy w/ Karens & Kens terrorizing neighborhoods just as much as criminals!

 

[Moxie]

I simply don't understand the logic of the politics here. Even conservative women will be terrified of this happening to them. What on earth is the AG thinking. This isn't some frivolous elective abortion

This is the point I was making before about taking these recent laws to their conclusions. You and others were so worried about elective abortion. ("Frivolous" is a subjective word here, IMO, though I know that's a sticking point between us.) The laws also make it complicated for what you might call non-elective abortion. This woman knows she has a fetus with an abnormality that means it will die in utero, or shortly after birth. Carrying this fetus to term risks her future fertility. But does it risk her life? That seems to be what the TX AG is standing on. So the question is: she might become infertile, but won't die? Or "probably" won't die? (When a fetus dies in utero, the risk of sepsis for the mother is increased.) He's threatening doctors with prosecution if they give her the abortion that the courts allowed. This woman's health is in hands of the courts, and the Texas attorney general, and she's got a ticking clock.

You say you don't understand the logic of the politics on this. You're right about that...you don't, because you're looking for logic. Or some middle-ground conservative, yet reasonable option to Roe v. Wade, which you figured everyone would find? That's not what's happening, in more than a few states in the US. These laws are a threat to the general health of women, in lots of states. This case is merely the tip of the iceberg, I fear.

 

[Federberg]

This is the point I was making before about taking these recent laws to their conclusions. You and others were so worried about elective abortion. ("Frivolous" is a subjective word here, IMO, though I know that's a sticking point between us.) The laws also make it complicated for what you might call non-elective abortion. This woman knows she has a fetus with an abnormality that means it will die in utero, or shortly after birth. Carrying this fetus to term risks her future fertility. But does it risk her life? That seems to be what the TX AG is standing on. So the question is: she might become infertile, but won't die? Or "probably" won't die? (When a fetus dies in utero, the risk of sepsis for the mother is increased.) He's threatening doctors with prosecution if they give her the abortion that the courts allowed. This woman's health is in hands of the courts, and the Texas attorney general, and she's got a ticking clock.

You say you don't understand the logic of the politics on this. You're right about that...you don't, because you're looking for logic. Or some middle-ground conservative, yet reasonable option to Roe v. Wade, which you figured everyone would find? That's not what's happening, in more than a few states in the US. These laws are a threat to the general health of women, in lots of states. This case is merely the tip of the iceberg, I fear.

I have an issue with abortions as an alternative to contraception and I'm not backing away from that. I'm not so sure that in the longer term this will be part of any tip of the iceberg. The results are coming in and it's undeniable. The idiots who are being unreasonable and draconian on the abortion issue are being vaporised at the polls. In Darwnian terms they will not survive and the consensus will win in the end. It's just a question of how long it takes for them to be swept away. I'll say this... Biden is probably rubbing his hands with glee. He needs more morons like this to keep the issue hot

 

[Kieran]

Well it certainly reads as giving Chauvin an out! I can't imagine being laid out like that for so long as other cops stood around w/ witnesses a plenty! I'm still disgusted even though I took this incident as just another of many! Watching the news, this $#!t happens every day somewhere in the country! We have a serious issue, but we can't say "cut the cops!" It's already the fk'n wild west out there! We need those cops even if mentally deficient! The people are just as crazy w/ Karens & Kens terrorizing neighborhoods just as much as criminals!

I think brother, you need to prepare yourself - as I had to - to think differently about the death of George Floyd. There are bodycam angles and a suppressed autopsy that show conclusively that George Floyd wasn’t murdered.

That Derek Chauvin didn’t murder him.

That race wasn’t an issue in the attempt to arrest him for committing a crime.

That Floyd was already saying he couldn’t breathe long before he was on the ground, and it was because he was pumped full of drugs.

That there were previous arrests of Floyd that ran a similar course to this, and they were good arrests.

That the police were trying to help him, not kill him, and that there was confusion that delayed the EMS.

I agree with everything @tented posted, especially this; “I don’t know what the status is of an appeal, but there does seem to be enough doubt cast on the events to allow another look at what happened.”

Bodycam footage, police testimonies regarding the propriety of how they handled themselves, and shocking and very disturbing footage of how traumatised and affected good police officers were when they were thrown to the wolves and jackals of rioters who burnt down the Third Precinct police station. The terror they felt, the lack of leadership and the close escape they had getting out the back with the police armaments while rioters were coming in the front.

The escalation of violent ‘protests’ and looting of historic and world-affecting levels - and all because of something that appears to be a lie.

Now placing all this in the context of everything happened after, ask yourself this simple question: was there a rush to judgement?

There was a stampede to judgment! From presidential candidate Joe Biden to Nancy Pelosi, to people like you and me, there was a conviction that George Floyd was murdered and that the jury ought to make what Joe Biden unbiasedly called, “the right verdict.”

There was a lack of moral courage among national politicians, cynical race agitators, and local leadership in Minneapolis - to say the least. Dismantle the police, defund the police, abolish the police, all ways of saying the police are the problem, the criminals are the victims.

We know the historic effect of George Floyd’s death, we know the political effect, we know who rose and who fell.

I would definitely recommend you watch it, and @Moxie too, and anyone who still thinks of the cops that day (all now in prison) as racist murderers. If one hour forty two is too long, personally I think the original 15’ video I put up catches both the extent of it but also the ramifications. Glenn Loury and John McWhorter aren’t political activists, reactionaries, far-right agitators. They’re reasonable thinkers, a liberal and a conservative, heterodox when it comes to modern race theory and activism, sure - but they both thought that Derek Chauvin was a murderer, and now they don’t.

As one of them says in the video, “yet again we’ve been lied to about violent interactions between black men and the police.”

You’re correct, by the way, when you say “it’s fkn Wild West out there.” They show stats of how violent crime has risen. The culture has changed. The criminals are being infantilised, and their victims are considered to be oppressors, especially if they’re white...

 

[Moxie]

I have an issue with abortions as an alternative to contraception and I'm not backing away from that. I'm not so sure that in the longer term this will be part of any tip of the iceberg. The results are coming in and it's undeniable. The idiots who are being unreasonable and draconian on the abortion issue are being vaporised at the polls. In Darwnian terms they will not survive and the consensus will win in the end. It's just a question of how long it takes for them to be swept away. I'll say this... Biden is probably rubbing his hands with glee. He needs more morons like this to keep the issue hot

The woman at the center of this particular issue has apparently chosen to go out of state for her abortion. This is unfortunate for her, because it means that she will be treated by strangers, rather than her own doctors. It's also fortunate for her that she has the means to do that. Remember that she has 2 children at home that need caring for, too.

On the political side, it seems the court case will remain active. Not sure what that means. In election terms, you're right that the abortion issue is poisoning things for the Republicans. This is exactly the kind of thing that the majority of the electorate objects to in terms of the abortion question. Privacy was one of the things that originally decided Roe. Most Americans would leave these kinds of decisions to the woman/the couple and their doctors.

The Texas law says: "Physicians are able to terminate pregnancies after six weeks if there’s a risk of “substantial” harm to pregnant women." But that is sufficiently vague. Katie Cox considers the risk to her fertility to be substantial harm. The Texas AG doesn't seem to agree.

You say that, "in the longer term" you're not sure this will be the tip of any iceberg. Maybe not, over time. But in the short-term, women will continue to get pregnant and need care. There are still "unreasonable and draconian" laws on the books, and not just in Texas. I hope you're right that some middle-road will be found, eventually, but I'm not sure I share your faith. Certainly not for the short-term.

 

[tented]

The woman at the center of this particular issue has apparently chosen to go out of state for her abortion. This is unfortunate for her, because it means that she will be treated by strangers, rather than her own doctors. It's also fortunate for her that she has the means to do that. Remember that she has 2 children at home that need caring for, too.

When I researched abortion stats a few months ago, one thing that definitely stood out was the number of women who already have children. They will certainly be among the ones who will vote against the Republicans.

 

[Kieran]

When I researched abortion stats a few months ago, one thing that definitely stood out was the number of women who already have children. They will certainly be among the ones who will vote against the Republicans.

They may not, brother. They may have children for a reason.

But the abortion issue will settle once each state has passed its own legislation. There’s an election next year that’ll focus minds…

 

[tented]

They may not, brother. They may have children for a reason.

But the abortion issue will settle once each state has passed its own legislation. There’s an election next year that’ll focus minds…

They already have the number of children they want, therefore get abortions because they don’t want anymore. They’ve been paying very close attention to what’s been going on. It’s not a coincidence the anti-abortion candidates have lost repeatedly. What’s going on in Texas right now will be noticed by all of these women, and they’ll remember when they vote …

 

[Federberg]

The woman at the center of this particular issue has apparently chosen to go out of state for her abortion. This is unfortunate for her, because it means that she will be treated by strangers, rather than her own doctors. It's also fortunate for her that she has the means to do that. Remember that she has 2 children at home that need caring for, too.

On the political side, it seems the court case will remain active. Not sure what that means. In election terms, you're right that the abortion issue is poisoning things for the Republicans. This is exactly the kind of thing that the majority of the electorate objects to in terms of the abortion question. Privacy was one of the things that originally decided Roe. Most Americans would leave these kinds of decisions to the woman/the couple and their doctors.

The Texas law says: "Physicians are able to terminate pregnancies after six weeks if there’s a risk of “substantial” harm to pregnant women." But that is sufficiently vague. Katie Cox considers the risk to her fertility to be substantial harm. The Texas AG doesn't seem to agree.

You say that, "in the longer term" you're not sure this will be the tip of any iceberg. Maybe not, over time. But in the short-term, women will continue to get pregnant and need care. There are still "unreasonable and draconian" laws on the books, and not just in Texas. I hope you're right that some middle-road will be found, eventually, but I'm not sure I share your faith. Certainly not for the short-term.

that's interesting. I thought there were laws preventing people from moving across state lines to get this stuff done once they're on the radar? Regarding 'tip of the iceberg' I was responding to your use of the phrase which implied that you thought there was more to come from anti-abortionists. I'm not so sure. The problem is they've won. Even the poll numbers right now I think might be illusionary. There are many anti-abortionists who were single issue voters who will respond in polls approving of Trump. But will they be energised enough to go to the polling booth? I'm not so sure. The lion with a full belly will often let the zebra walk close by them

To be clear... there are conservative politicians pushing this issue, but they often have agendas that are inside the bubble. Nothing about winning elections if you really study it. This is the great weakness for the GOP. The things that appeal to the base is repellent to general election voters

 

[Kieran]

They already have the number of children they want, therefore get abortions because they don’t want anymore. They’ve been paying very close attention to what’s been going on. It’s not a coincidence the anti-abortion candidates have lost repeatedly. What’s going on in Texas right now will be noticed by all of these women, and they’ll remember when they vote …

That maybe, or it might be that they don’t commodify children and think in that way, that they’d subject one child to a cruel fate that they spared the others from. It might be difficult to look at the ones who got their shot at life.

Either way, though, this will go to each state to legislate and people will get to have their say at the ballot box, which wasn’t the case with Roe..

 

[tented]

That maybe, or it might be that they don’t commodify children and think in that way, that they’d subject one child to a cruel fate that they spared the others from. It might be difficult to look at the ones who got their shot at life.

Either way, though, this will go to each state to legislate and people will get to have their say at the ballot box, which wasn’t the case with Roe..

That’s exactly how they think. They already have X number of children, and don’t want another, so they get abortions.

People are already having their say at ballot boxes, hence every attempt to pass anti-abortion legislation or to amend their State Consitution since Roe was repealed has failed. The Supreme Court repealing Roe has turned out enough people to stop such attempts in places as conservative as Kentucky. That’s huge.

 

[Kieran]

That’s exactly how they think. They already have X number of children, and don’t want another, so they get abortions.

People are already having their say at ballot boxes, hence every attempt to pass anti-abortion legislation or to amend their State Consitution since Roe was repealed has failed. The Supreme Court repealing Roe has turned out enough people to stop such attempts in places as conservative as Kentucky. That’s huge.

That is huge and legislation is the way forward. It was wrong to impose abortion by the Supreme Court, and though it just might take longer in some places, people will finally have their say…

 

[Moxie]

that's interesting. I thought there were laws preventing people from moving across state lines to get this stuff done once they're on the radar?

Apparently not, though you can see that the law is untested, so the provisions are as yet unclear. There is a class action lawsuit in TX, in which the plaintiffs describe going out of state, (though only those with the means, and not all had them. At least one had to carry her inviable fetus to terms, and she died just hours later. She had to do a GoFundMe just to bury the baby.) Still, at least one women was so worried about that that she used an untraceable computer just to search for a doctor that would abort her unviable fetus, outside of Texas.

Regarding 'tip of the iceberg' I was responding to your use of the phrase which implied that you thought there was more to come from anti-abortionists.

No, my point was that there will be many more women's lives and fertility threatened by these laws.

I'm not so sure. The problem is they've won. Even the poll numbers right now I think might be illusionary. There are many anti-abortionists who were single issue voters who will respond in polls approving of Trump. But will they be energised enough to go to the polling booth? I'm not so sure. The lion with a full belly will often let the zebra walk close by them

To be clear... there are conservative politicians pushing this issue, but they often have agendas that are inside the bubble. Nothing about winning elections if you really study it. This is the great weakness for the GOP. The things that appeal to the base is repellent to general election voters

There may be some voters who will no longer feel they have a need to vote if they feel abortion is settled in their state. I think that would be a small minority. If they ever voted, there is a chance they will continue to vote, and frankly, I hope they do. I believe in general enfranchisement. There are plenty enough people who rail against the government, and policies, but never vote. They won't start now. But I do agree that the GOP has tipped over to a place that is repugnant to a lot of the general electorate. I guess we'll see how strong the pull of Trump and Trumpism is in the next 11 months.

 

[Moxie]

They already have the number of children they want, therefore get abortions because they don’t want anymore. They’ve been paying very close attention to what’s been going on. It’s not a coincidence the anti-abortion candidates have lost repeatedly. What’s going on in Texas right now will be noticed by all of these women, and they’ll remember when they vote …

I think you were already clear on this, but the woman in the case we're discussing DID and does want more children. But I take your point that a lot of abortions are performed on women who already have children, and some of them are elective. That's sort of what "family planning" is about. Many use birth control, but, when it fails, they opt for abortion. Women and families have many reasons for deciding that they cannot financially or otherwise bring up more children than they have already.

I do think a lot of women, and men, will consider these stories when they vote. If you ask me, the general voting public is pretty libertarian on a lot of issues. They've certainly proven themselves to be on the issue of abortion, in the sense that, while they might be personally against it, they don't want the State to tell people what they can and cannot do, either.

 

[Moxie]

I thought about posting this, or not, but I think it's worth a read. It's the court case for the class action against Texas and the AG. It's actually very readable. The first pages are informative, but if nothing, just skip to P. 5 and the Plaintiff's cases. This will tell you a lot about why late-term abortions are necessary, when they happen, and what these laws in Texas are doing to women and their heath:

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf

 

[Kieran]

I thought about posting this, or not, but I think it's worth a read. It's the court case for the class action against Texas and the AG. It's actually very readable. The first pages are informative, but if nothing, just skip to P. 5 and the Plaintiff's cases. This will tell you a lot about why late-term abortions are necessary, when they happen, and what these laws in Texas are doing to women and their heath:

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf

The Center for Reproductive Rights is a far left abortion advocacy group, I can guess what they want. The far left are the ones you need to examine more closely, their outcomes are always negative…

 

[Federberg]

I thought about posting this, or not, but I think it's worth a read. It's the court case for the class action against Texas and the AG. It's actually very readable. The first pages are informative, but if nothing, just skip to P. 5 and the Plaintiff's cases. This will tell you a lot about why late-term abortions are necessary, when they happen, and what these laws in Texas are doing to women and their heath:

https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf

I don't think anyone here has disputed that late term terminations can be necessary for medical reasons and even where some sort of sexual violence/molestation has occurred. Not sure where you're going with that. I would like to see the stats for the aforementioned versus what I would consider to be more elective abortions. That's the issue, and I'm pretty sure you already understand the nuance that has been repeatedly stated here. It seems like poor taste to use this example of this poor poor woman to push an agenda