"Keep her legs closed!": Republicans are mad one of them said the quiet part out loud
3 years ago by ZeroCool to c/politics
I am always amazed any women are Republicans. Except maybe the moms for liberty crowd (aka klanned karenhood).
That is as perfect a description of Mom's for Liberty as could be imagined.
Peak
Meet New Jersey state Sen. Edward Durr, a truck driver-turned-politician who has a habit of saying the quiet parts out loud.
"A woman does have a choice! Keep her legs closed," Durr wrote in a 2020 Facebook post, in which he also called a pro-choice woman an "idiot." He also "liked" a post that called for "spaying women like dogs."
Yeah that was wild to read. I can't imagine hating anything as much as the average conservative hates women. I feel bad for any woman unfortunate enough to grow up with a father like that. It can't be easy.
I can imagine it.
I hate the average conservative at least as much as the average conservative hates women, minorities, non-Christians, and poor people.
Because the intolerant cannot be tolerated.
But south park once compared being intolerant of intolerance to being like a Nazi, so checkmate you fool, you unbelievable cretin. I am very smart.
If taking up this battle makes me a fool, then so be it.
I don't seek approval from believable cretins anyway.
I suspect I was born defective; too sensitive towards and with too much affinity for justice. And possessing a wanton disregard of my physicality in defense of the truth.
So be it.
They pretend to support hypothetical exceptions to abortion bans, which for the most part do not apply in actual reality.
I'm glad they pointed this out. Many Republican abortion bans will say they don't apply if the women's life is at risk, but they word it so vaguely, raise the penalties so high, and put the doctor's freedom in the hands of a jury to determine if the woman was "dying enough." The result is that women aren't given life saving abortions until they are actively dying.
Even if the fetus has such severe abnormalities that there's zero chance of a "baby" at the end of the pregnancy, the woman will be told that she needs to risk her life and carry it to term because "pro life."
Yup, or if you look at rape exemptions it's the same. The victim is required to identify their rapist with harsh penalties for a false identification.
Particularly terrible when you think of the position this puts a child in with their family members. Further, those laws often require victims to submit to a rape screening, something that's hard to pull off given how underreported rape is.
And of course if there's any question the legal system will prevent an abortion forcing a birth. You can't wind back time and cases taking a year or more to resolve are extremely common.
An Alabama woman was imprisoned for endangering her fetus. She gave birth in a jail shower
But over the next seven months of incarceration for “chemical endangerment” in the Etowah county detention center (ECDC), Caswell was denied regular access to prenatal visits, even as officials were aware her pregnancy was high-risk due to her hypertension and abnormal pap smears, according to a lawsuit filed on Friday against the county and the sheriff’s department. She was also denied her prescribed psychiatric medication and slept on a thin mat on the concrete floor of the detention center for her entire pregnancy.
In October, when her water broke and she pleaded to be taken to a hospital, her lawyer says, officials told her to “sleep it off” and “wait until Monday” to deliver – two days away.
During nearly 12 hours of labor, staff gave her only Tylenol for her pain, the suit says, allegedly telling her to “stop screaming”, to “deal with the pain” and that she was “not in full labor”. Caswell lost amniotic fluid and blood and was alone and standing up in a jail shower when she ultimately delivered her child, according to the complaint and her medical records. She nearly bled to death, her lawyers say.
So, jailed for endangering a fetus but not given prenatal care while in jail and forced to give birth in a jail shower when her labor signs were ignored - all of which actually endangers the fetus they are so concerned about. They don't care about the fetus, they just hate women and want to punish them for having sex. It couldn't be clearer.
You're off a few points...since she was at (or near) full term, it was no longer a fetus...it was an actual child. That being the case, the only real way to protect it was by assaulting a trans person or with thoughts and prayers.
You know what they'd have called him in Nazi Germany?
Herr Durr.
Fascist.
Good good, his name is Durr the writers are clearly still on strike
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
The TLDR of the article near the end:
"Once a woman has sex, there's really no limit to the pain that Republicans believe is her just deserts. Bleeding out from an untreated miscarriage, losing a job, delivering a baby to watch it die on the table, struggling to feed young children, being stuck in an abusive relationship: They understand perfectly well that these are among the likely outcomes of forced childbirth for women. But of course, making women suffer is, and always has been, the point. Ed Durr's only mistake was saying so out loud."
save