Summary
An Idaho doctor testified that confusion over the state’s strict abortion bans left a miscarrying patient “passed around like a hot potato” as doctors avoided treating her out of fear of legal consequences.
The 14-week pregnant woman, suffering heavy bleeding and anemia, was denied care during three ER visits before being admitted against hospital rules, miscarrying, and requiring a blood transfusion.
The testimony is part of a lawsuit challenging Idaho’s abortion laws, which ban most abortions with few exceptions, leaving patients in dangerous situations without timely care.
At this point these abortion bans should be called Matricide Approvals
Genuinely, they should be called Matricide Laws. Tank it the same way Republicans keep trying to tank “Obamacare”
Matricide is too fancy a word.
Give it something simpler and more outrageous, like “Killing Moms Law” and talk about the Trump death panels who chose this.
Nah you gotta balance the number of syllables in each word to make it catchy. “Dead Moms Law” or “Mommy Murder Law”
Mother killer laws.
Widower-maker.
They’re the ones who came up with the name Obamacare, so that it would tank on name alone.
Yes, exactly. Which is why people should start going to town hall meetings, Senate hearings, etc. and asking various questions about “Matricide Laws.” When they get corrected that these are abortion bans, explain that the law is killing hopeful mothers and these lawmakers are okay with it—if matricide wasn’t the point, it certainly appears to be a welcome side-effect.
Remember when Republicans hated the idea of death panels?
Every private insurer has a death panel that is only accountable to share holders. Progressives need to start framing stuff in those terms instead of letting the Republicans bully them into accepting their framing.
The republican party is constantly able to dominate the conversation. Every election cycle they decide whether immigration/economics/war/whatever is what will be discussed and the democrats try to play defense instead of just calling them out.
“Death panels already exist do you want them to be purely for-profit?” it’s not even that hard they’re just incompetent.
Part of it is that they want to placate their “moderate” wing too (read: the donors). If your plan is Medicare for All, you can say that and it’s easy to explain to people. If your plan is the Affordable Care Act, you’ll still have the for profit death panels, so you’d have to say something like: ‘we’ll regulate the existing death panels slightly more and force you to sign up to them’, which doesn’t actually sound that great.
Every accusation is a confession. These won’t be the only death panels, either. Far, far worse is to come. They’re willing to kill anyone in defence of their supposed ‘superior morals’.
These aren’t death panels, they are death funnels.