this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
333 points (97.2% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3619 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

His comments appeared to be a shift from June, when he said during a CNN debate, "I will not block it."

The idea of directing the FDA to revoke access to mifepristone is a core policy plan in Project 2025, a 900-plus page document written by conservative groups and organized by the Heritage Foundation that lays out a governing plan for the next GOP presidential administration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Shelena@feddit.nl 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

Even if you are against abortion and feel your opinion is so important you need to force it upon others, it makes no sense to block this medication. There are many medical reasons for needing it. I needed it twice myself because I was pregnant, but the pregnancy was not vital and my body did not miscarry on its own. I would love to have children, but in those cases there was no unborn life to protect as it would have never become a baby. I was very happy to have access to this medication, because being pregnant for months while wanting a baby and knowing that you will not have a baby is very difficult and confusing psychologically. Taking the medication was difficult as well, but in the end I was glad I did.

(I am not against abortion, I just cannot see why it would be logical to ban this medication even if you are.)

[–] tinfoilhat@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I phone bank with the DCCC and had a conversation with a woman last night about how she's morally against abortion, but still believe people should have access to abortion if they so choose.

I thought it was really heartwarming that she wasn't imposing her beliefs on all of America. It gave me hope

[–] Shelena@feddit.nl 2 points 1 month ago

Yes, I can completely respect that people do not want to have an abortion themselves or maybe even have difficulty with it. But I think it is not right to impose this believe on others. It is very good to meet people like that sometimes and see the other side. My christian friend is the same.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

medical reasons

ah you've lost them already I'm afraid. They just don't care about silly things like your health or being able to live through pregnancy, or even if the child lives postpartum. If both mother and baby die during childbirth then at least there wasn't an abortion.

[–] Shelena@feddit.nl 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That is just really sad. Evil is defined by a lack of empathy and this way of thinking clearly shows a lack of empathy.

[–] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

I know it's technically a strawman but there's a lot pushing for a no-exception abortion blanket ban and that's what that means, even if they are sketchy about admitting it publically