this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024
326 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18625 readers
3826 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Post Roe v Wade abortion law in South Dakota only allows for exceptions to save life of mother

During a Sunday morning appearance on CNN, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem was asked whether she thinks there should be exceptions for survivors of rape and incest when it came to abortion laws.

Apparently, she does not.

Ms Noem’s interview with Dana Bash on *State of the Union *covered a wide range of topics given that the governor is seen as a leading contender to be Donald Trump’s running mate.

On abortion, she spoke in favour of the issue being decided by individual states post-Roe v Wade, referencing a decades-old trigger law that came into effect in her state after the Supreme Court struck down the 1973 decision.

Abortion is now banned in South Dakota, with the only exception being to save the life of the mother.

all 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee 115 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Damn. Republicans really like rape and incest.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I think they hope that neglected or unwanted children will grow up to be grateful for any minimum wage job.

If only there were a way to maintain our population during a birth decline without forcing women to have children against their will.

[–] rezifon@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Also as a pipeline of fresh meat for the military

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

“Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers.”

-George Carlin

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago (4 children)

The whole "rape or incest" addendum needs to be called out for being bullshit. This is just a distraction. Conservatives don't care about this point but use it to demonstrate how reasonable they are. They are not reasonable. Same party talking about lowering the age of consent and marrying cousins. Never pay attention to their words, only their actions.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Exactly. Especially when you consider that, in order to qualify for those exceptions, the pregnant women often have to prove their case in court.

This parody of a court proceeding usually takes so long to get started and complete that they're past the arbitrary time limit for which there are no exceptions and leads them bankrupt from the legal expenses/loss of income for not having a job that lets them take time off.

Even the "to save the woman's life" exception requires a ridiculous burden of proof that means most doctors won't risk it.

The so-called exceptions are almost never granted, but still they get credit for being "more humane" for including them. Fuck that!

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 11 points 4 months ago

This exception has never made sense. If abortion is murder (it's not) then it doesn't matter if the would-be baby was conceived via rape. You can't murder a 20 year old because they were conceived illegitimately.

It's just a way to get fence sitters to side with the anti-abortion people

[–] uberdroog@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago
[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

It's important for getting these laws struck down or voted out. Having no rape or incest exception is massively unpopular (75% oppose even in red states). But allowing an exception undermines their justification for making abortion illegal. You can't have an exception and make the arguement that fetuses have personhood and therefore equal rights to the mother. Pressing on this issue makes a lose/lose situation for Republicans. They either lose at the ballot box or lose in the courts.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 48 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The only thing the Bible says about abortion is how to perform one, and many American Christian organizations were on the side of safe abortions performed by medical doctors until recently. Their scriptures didn't change, medical science didn't change, so why do they now oppose abortion? The primary reason I can see is clergy and politicians working together to undermine women's rights. They don't care if they are hypocrites or hurt people because they feel justified by their faith despite faith being an awful reason to believe anything is true. I don't understand how anyone can say churches are apolitical and deserve tax free status.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago

Abortion as a right wing talking point is a long-con that began during Reagan in order to bamboozle a bunch of fucking Jeebus hicks into voting republiQan.

Worked like a charm.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 42 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Say it with me:

Pro life policies kill women and empower rapists.

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They’re not pro-life they’re anti-choice. George summed it up well.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Listening to his standup makes me feel like a giant idiot. Republicans have been the same party for decades, they've just tried less and less to sugarcoat their views.

[–] TheJims@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Defenders of rape

Champions of incest

Forced birth for child brides

[–] Subverb@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

You sound like you want to empower women. The fuck.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 months ago

Everyone knows this: liberals and conservatives alike. You're yelling at a brick wall.

[–] xhieron@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What she actually said (from the article):

“We rely in South Dakota on the fact that I am pro-life and we have a law that says there is an exception for the life of the mother, and I just don’t believe that a tragedy should perpetuate another tragedy.”

If Trump wins and she's his running mate, it's statistically more likely than not that she'll be president.

[–] baru@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

What she actually said (from the article):

She considers abortion likely as a tragedy, no? So seems she is saying that there shouldn't be any exceptions.

[–] criitz@reddthat.com 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

There are a lot of old men, and a lot of fat men, but there aren't a lot of old fat men.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

At least she’s consistent. If abortion is murder, an exception to save the life of the mother is self defense (or in defense of another).

IIRC Arizona’s governor was like “Abortion is murder and you can’t do that here. But it’s okay to drive three hours away to commit murder”

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago

IIRC Arizona’s governor was like “Abortion is murder and you can’t do that here. But it’s okay to drive three hours away to commit murder”

No that was Kari Lake, who also doesn't know she's not the governor.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 16 points 4 months ago

It's worth watching the 2 minute video in the article just to see her try to weasel her way out of answering the question. It's like she knows that her opinion is deeply unpopular, so she tries multiple times to dodge the question. Major props to the reporter for not accepting a non-answer and continuing to press.

[–] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Abortion is SUCH IMMORAL MURDER that not even RAPED people should get one! Also it should be left up to the STATES to decide if it's illegal or not because it's not actually that bad!

[–] Eccitaze@yiffit.net 6 points 4 months ago

And this is why any pro-forced birther who says it should be "left up to the states" should be treated as if they're lying. If they truly believe it's murder, then there's no world in which they would tolerate a state choosing to keep abortion legal, and if given half a chance they would immediately ban it everywhere.

"It should be left to the states" is code for "I would happily sign a national ban but I won't say it because I know it's political suicide."

[–] unreasonabro@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why is it that there's only one way to teach republicans sympathy?

[–] mojo_raisin@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Empathy, just like any other trait exists on a spectrum. Republican's capacity for empathy is on the very low side, so sympathy is hard to come by.

What is "capacity for empathy"? Ebeneezer Scrooge is the perfect example of a person with high capacity for empathy but lived without sympathy (and therefore acted without compassion) until he was shown why he should have sympathy and changed his behavior Most people are not like this.

For the grifter subset of right wingers (the other subset is their victims), I don't believe they have much capacity for empathy, there's nothing they could be shown to increase their sympathy until the negative effects reach all the way into their tiny circle of compassion which often consists of just themselves, sometimes children or spouses (successors).

[–] oxjox@lemmy.ml 9 points 4 months ago

I just don’t believe that a tragedy should perpetuate another tragedy

she spoke in favour of the issue being decided by individual states

Rape or incest are not valid exceptions for abortion but an invisible line is totally fine.

[–] soba@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago

When the polls show that your ideas are unpopular with the vast majority of people the only thing to do, apparently, is TRIPLE DOWN on the most hard line version of the unpopular thing. I guess? White evangelicals are only like 15% of the population. They can't save you on their own.

[–] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I wonder what the over/under is on whether she’d get an abortion or double down if it happened to her.

[–] Ghyste@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

Both. No question.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Many people do both!

[–] macaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago

The real tragedy is that a baby could be born in a context exclusive of love. Pain and suffering was always the objective.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 4 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


During a Sunday morning appearance on CNN, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem was asked whether she thinks there should be exceptions for survivors of rape and incest when it came to abortion laws.

Ms Noem’s interview with Dana Bash on State of the Union covered a wide range of topics given that the governor is seen as a leading contender to be Donald Trump’s running mate.

There was a swift reaction to the clip online with podcast host Fred Wellman writing on X: “Rape isn’t a ‘tragedy’.

Former Obama White House staffer Tommy Vietor wrote: “Kristi Noem is considered a leading contender to be Trump VP pick.

And indeed the Biden-Harris re-election campaign was quick off the mark, reposting the clip with no additional comment other than: “Trump VP contender Kristi Noem says she thinks rape survivors should be forced to give birth.”

Where Ms Noem has changed her view on abortion rights is that she now agrees with Mr Trump that the issue should be decided at the state level.


The original article contains 645 words, the summary contains 171 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!