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.
  • Optional@lemmy.world
    11·
    2 months ago

    Its only a problem if influential white women die though.

    Keep Texasing, Texas. You’ll get there.

  • WalrusDragonOnABike [they/them]@lemmy.today
    23·
    2 months ago

    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…

    • Yomope@lemmy.ml
      14·
      2 months ago

      Curious about why maternal death growing nation wide is a not seen has a problem.

      • BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org
        91·
        2 months ago

        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.

  • silence7@slrpnk.net
    39·
    2 months ago

    It’s almost like the decision to make the lives of actual people less important has consequences.

  • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
    161·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • punkaccountant@lemm.ee
      1·
      2 months ago

      Out of pure curiosity, is your statement linking abortion opinions and psychopathy based on any studies you can link?

      • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
        21·
        1 month ago

        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.

        We already know 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.

      • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
        3·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • Drusas@fedia.io
          2·
          1 month ago

          Do I dehumanize a creature which is not human? No, dehumanization doesn’t work that way.

          • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
            2·
            1 month ago

            By “human” you might mean

            1. an animal whose DNA falls within a specific probability distribution, or
            2. an animal that embodies various virtues or transcendental capacities, etc.

            We should acknowledge that countless creatures meet condition 1 but not 2. So what?