116

Why the rift between anti-abortion activists and Republican lawmakers is growing (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Alabama supreme court’s decision causing a temporary halt in IVF care shines spotlight on problem between two groups

There is a growing rift in the decades-old marriage between anti-abortion activists and Republican lawmakers.

The problem came into view last month, after a bombshell decision from the Alabama supreme court temporarily halted in vitro fertilization (IVF). The ruling, which described frozen embryos as “extrauterine children”, unraveled when the Republican-controlled legislature passed short-term protections for IVF providers.

Under a new law signed last week by Republican governor Kay Ivey, IVF providers are temporarily protected from civil litigation and criminal prosecution in the event of “damage or death of an embryo” during treatment.

…

The move offered a helpful, if limited lifeline, to IVF patients in the state. The new law does not refute the Alabama supreme court’s controversial position that an embryo, stored for the purpose of IVF, is a person. Nor does it permanently shield IVF providers from legal penalties.

Despite its limited scope, the Republican-backed law took a step to align the GOP with US public consensus, which overwhelmingly supports IVF. It also invoked the wrath of rightwing Christian activists.

all 14 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 88 points 7 months ago

Nancy Reagan presented herself as a had core, dyed in the wool, 100% Right To Lifer. That all flew out the window when someone explained that fetal stem cells might help her husband's dementia.

They are always strictly guided by their unshakable religious faith until it bumps into something they want.

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 45 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Because - shocker - they’re a bunch of selfish, self-serving, lying hypocrites and even their so-called “religious faith” was, itself, only ever a means to an end.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I'd like to see one time one of these 'religious' leaders actually suffered for their faith. Martin L. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference people went to jail and suffered violence for their faith. Can anyone name an American Rightwinger who was in physical danger from their crusades?

Edit = I meant to say 'Rightwing leader.' Then I remembered Herman Cain.

[-] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 3 points 7 months ago

Was that guy who decided to go to North sentinel island to try to convert the natives to evangelical Christianity and got himself killed a conservative? I would imagine, given the religious position

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

I'll edit. I meant to say 'leader.' and I forgot about Herman Cain dying of Covid after attending rallies.

I'm sure many Rightwingers have lost money, like the folks who brought Trump's NFTs without knowing how to store them.

[-] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 31 points 7 months ago

The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

This should be read before any 'pro-life' debate.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Like how Alabama wants to classify embryos created during IVF as "potential life" to get around that whole "we believe life begins at conception, therefore all abortion is murder what do you mean IVF makes a bunch of life that has to be thrown away?" problem.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago

https://youtu.be/j8ZF_R_j0OY

Well, there's always a 'loophole.'

nsfw

[-] Crank_it@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

Let them fight

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 2 points 7 months ago

Let us eat popcorn

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 15 points 7 months ago

So it's the No True Scotsman fallacy in the flesh?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Scotsman? Naw thems “Patriots”. Or if you prefer, “real muricans”

this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024

116 points (97.5% liked)

politics

19072 readers

1805 users here now

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 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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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 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