• samokosik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    7 days ago

    If someone says, “I support this because I am conservative,” you actually mean, “I support this because I am a cock.”

  • Podunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    8 days ago

    Please support Elevated Access in any way you can. Even if you are not a pilot or know jack shit about general aviation, you can help. Donate to them or reach out and drive a friend to a local ga airport. Its probably outside of your hometown. Ill land on a dirt strip to help.

    I personally fly for them. Many pilots in texas do. We can cross state borders to get texas women the care they need and deserve. Colorado or new mexico doesnt have to be a ten hour drive. Ken Paxton and his ilk want to shut down the state highways to stop pro choice in Texas, but they cant stop federal airways.

    • Reyali@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      7 days ago

      I knew about Angel Flight but wasn’t aware of this. Thank you for sharing, and for flying! My dad was the top contributing pilot for Angel Flight in Texas a few years back. If he was still able to fly, I’d be pushing him to take this on as well.

  • Bruhh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    7 days ago

    For the party of “small government”, they sure like getting in people’s business.

  • Warjac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    7 days ago

    I’m not aure why they don’t consider the fetus a home invader and try to invoke stand your ground laws.

        • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Okay, so is staff included in that? And what’s the legal basis? What law could they be charged under for this?

          • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            Depends on how involved they were in the laws creation. Probably not enough to matter though. Their bosses could be charged with involuntary manslaughter on an individual basis, conspiracy to commit murder as a group or individual.

            • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              Involuntary manslaughter would probably not stick as a charge

              https://zealousadvocate.com/resources/law/involuntary-manslaughter-texas-legal-insights-and-real-world-perspectives/

              Involuntary manslaughter refers to the unintentional killing of another person, usually through reckless behavior or negligence. It’s different from other homicide offenses because it doesn’t require intent, deliberation, or premeditation.

              The following factors influence criminal liability:

              • Actus reus (guilty action or conduct): evidence that the accused committed an unlawful act that directly led to a person’s death or acted in a way that demonstrated criminal negligence or recklessness.
              • Mens rea (intention or knowledge): while intent to kill is not required for Involuntary Manslaughter, there must be evidence of negligence or recklessness. For this, the accused should have been aware, or at least reasonably should have been aware, of the risk or danger their action (or inaction) would create.
              • Causation: There must be no doubt that the accused’s reckless or negligent behavior led to the victim’s death. In other words, the victim’s death would not have occurred without the reckless or negligent behavior of the accused.

              It’s the actus reus part that I don’t think checks out with this charge. They weren’t acting unlawfully. They weren’t acting criminally. They were doing their jobs within the law.

              https://www.dwilawyerstexas.com/tx-penal-code-15-02-criminal-conspiracy/

              Texas law prohibits criminal conspiracy, which is the agreement to commit a crime. If two or more people devise a plan to commit a felony, and at least one of them acts in furtherance of the plan, each person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit the object of the conspiracy.

              Again, they weren’t acting unlawfully.

              It’s actually legal for legislatures to pass legislation that kills us “passively.” Otherwise, if it wasn’t legal, homeless people could sue for their conditions and win. People who die from lack of medical care could sue and win. People who die in car accidents could sue because we dont have public transportation due to oil industry. We could sue due to climate change effects and government policies that worsened that. They currently cannot sue lawmakers and win those cases.

              I am 100% for having laws in place that charge lawmakers with crimes for policies like this. But they currently don’t exist how we want them to.

    • Soup@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 days ago

      This is the only logical answer for this. Otherwise- their deaths mean nothing.

      • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        That’s not logical? It doesn’t even have a legal basis.

        The real logical answer to bad government management is the French one - protest

        • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          7 days ago

          And if protests dont work as they often dont, then what? The guillotine. Thats a french thing nest pas?

          • Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            We might be headed toward the same conditions that spawned the French revolution. I’m not in favor of that but once the wealth transfer gets to a certain point there’s historical president to draw upon.

            • Soup@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              That isn’t going to happen. And in the very off chance that it does- the government is guaranteed the win, and the people will suffer.

              Greatly.

              • LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 days ago

                The government is made of people. Those people might refuse to do their jobs too.

                A protest is SUBSTANTIALLY more likely to happen than the original suggestion of charging state lawmakers with murder. There’s no murder charge that would qualify.

                • Soup@lemmy.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Riiiiight. Well, have fun storming the castle. Just don’t make a mess on my street, okay? I don’t want to have to clean that shit up.

                • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Reckless endangerment and manslaughter.

                  They were warned that women would die due these laws and they didn’t listen. They recklessly put those laws there and people died… resulting in manslaughter.

                  I’d prefer homicide too, but I feel like manslaughter charges would stick better because you don’t have to prove intent, just that someone died because of their actions.

      • dubious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 days ago

        the logical answer is something else entirely. definitely don’t hold your breath for the state to make them accountable.

        • Soup@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          I I’m not. Because the american government follows no logic whatsoever.

  • Mwa@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    fully banning it too far its only rlly good for saving a womens life

  • umbrella@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    7 days ago

    this was predicted. this is probably how the people who made this happen intended it to be.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    155
    ·
    8 days ago

    This is a form of class warfare: it isn’t the rich women - they can go out of state or country to get proper medical care if they need it… it’s poor women that are bearing this awful cost.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      Oddly enough, it’s the poor that are making this happen to themselves by voting for these people. Religion is a hell of a drug.

    • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      I’ve literally heard religious people say that women are supposed to be willing to die for their babies. If a woman wants to live and aborts a septic pregnancy she’s a bad, immoral person.

      It’s super fucked up how much conviction they have when they say it too. Women are basically just a disposable womb to them. I always feel gross when I’m near someone saying that kind of shit.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      7 days ago

      Let’s rephrase your question a couple of times:

      “How difficult is it to remain abstinent when you’re married and don’t want a kid since birth control might fail?”

      “How difficult is it to remain abstinent when you have been given inadequate sex education in your red state school and don’t understand how to have safe sex?”

      And then there’s-

      “How difficult is it to remain abstinent while you’re being raped?”

      • LunchMoneyThief@links.hackliberty.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        63
        ·
        8 days ago

        It’s really difficult. You have to draft legislation, deliberate over it with room full of bureaucrats, hope and wait for it to pass sigh good session, guys, now where to for lunch?!

        Meanwhile, the decentralized solution is to refrain from recreational sex. It’s super easy to do! I use Arch btw.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      how difficult is it to remain abstinent when you want a kid but pregnancy complications means if you don’t abort the pregnancy the woman is going to die?

      if there’s something wrong with the pregnancy that you wanted, just go back in time and don’t have sex with your spouse.

      #fucking moron.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      ·
      7 days ago

      They were never pro-life. They were never even pro-birth. They’ve never argued for anything like free pre-natal care. If something is wrong with your baby and you and your baby are going to die, that’s god’s will, so don’t you dare get an abortion.

      They are not pro-anything. They’re anti-abortion. That’s as far as it goes whether they admit it or not.

      • Westdragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        I call them forced-birth, which sums up their position well. They care nothing for the woman having the child and care nothing for the child after it’s born. It’s all about forcing that birth by whatever means… then walking away.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 days ago

          But they don’t even care if there’s a birth. If the fetus dies inside the mother and then the mother dies- god’s will.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          7 days ago

          I know. I just don’t think they should be allowed to get away with calling themselves that unchallenged beyond the “and you call yourselves pro-life?” I feel the need to point out that they literally could not give less of a shit whether or not any given fetus lives or dies as long as medical intervention isn’t required for the latter.

          • On the one hand, I absolutely think it’s worth calling out. On the other hand, they’ll often be very quick to try and turn it around on you, calling anyone pro-choice pro-death or saying they “want to kill babies”.

            Obviously those aren’t quite the same thing, but they see it as the same and I just wish there was a way to bridge that gap and have everyone listen to each other…

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              7 days ago

              At which point, I tell them that it’s not about the fetus, it’s about the fact that people have a fundamental right to their own bodies and no one should be allowed to use their body without their consent. Just like we have people consent to organ donation.

              If they want fetuses to live, great. Start working on artificial womb technology. They don’t seem interested.

              • Jojo, Lady of the West@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                7 days ago

                Again, I agree with you. I just see the danger of refusing to acknowledge how a group conceptualizes their own position, even if they’re being deliberately blind to other factors.

                And I wish people could spend more effort trying to understand each other’s perspectives, because otherwise how does it ever change?

                I’m only barely talking about pro-life/anti-choice or pro-choice/pro-death here, too. The same kind of thinking and focusing on aspects the other person isn’t addressing is everywhere in discourse these days. And a lot of them are very close to home for me and I guess I want them to be able to consider my perspective. But they won’t, because they think of the world this way, so they see me as a problem and a problem-causer just by being me.

                Any way… Rant over I guess

                • kofe@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  How does it ever change? The 70+% of people that disagree show up to vote. I was raised by forced birthers and have been to family therapy with them to try to talk with a neutral third party. The therapist gave us all a blanket statement that we’ll never change each other’s minds. So, fine. My brother and I just have to cancel out their votes and get more people to tip the scales.

                  Every state that’s been able to vote on it has upheld protections for abortion. More are on the ballot for November. Check your state and be ready to show up.

    • Kalysta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      7 days ago

      They’re not pro life. They’re anti women having sex, and want to punish women for doing something as natural as breathing. It’s going to bite them in the ass, but it will be too late for so many before it does.