More dead women please
Idaho wants to see women killed by their own pregnancies.
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a challenge to Idaho’s near-total ban on abortions, which the Biden administration said conflicted with a federal statute that allowed for some exceptions. In scheduling arguments for April, the court also temporarily revived the law, which had been partly blocked by a federal trial judge.
…
President Biden criticized the court’s action. “Today’s Supreme Court order allows Idaho’s extreme abortion ban to go back into effect and denies women critical emergency abortion care required by federal law,” he said in a statement.
It’s not even as if the woman’s death will mean the fetus will survive. The fetus will die along with her, but that’s ok, it’s worth it to make sure the uppity bitch dies.
Under the state law, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar told the justices, “an emergency-room physician who concludes that a pregnant woman needs an abortion to stabilize a condition that would otherwise threaten serious and irreversible harm may not provide the necessary care unless and until the patient’s condition deteriorates to the point where an abortion is needed to save her life.”
Remember Savita Halappanavar and Galway University Hospital? That’s exactly what they did – wait until her condition had deteriorated so far that she ended up dead. That’s what Idaho wants: more of that kind of thing.
H/t Tim Harris
Maybe the thinking is that if the woman can’t carry a living baby to term, what good is she? Maybe not blatantly, mind you…I’m sure God will figure in it somewhere.
It’s not really thinking. It’s fanatical thoecrattery plus hatred of women.
Dr. Mitch McConnell;
This is your doing. Blocking Merrill Garland and rushing through Amy Coney Barrett led to this.
I hope I have the chance to piss on your grave.
Merrick* but yes
The Merrill/Merrick confusion led me to muse on the phenomenon of famous people with unusual names, and then I remembered the odd rules about referring to such, so as not to cause offence or upset to the bearers of those names. I was taught that I was never to refer to such names as Susan, John, Mary, David etc. by saying “That’s such a common name”; but, instead, to say “That’s such a popular name”. However, for rare names, I’m not supposed to say “unpopular”, I’m to say “uncommon”. Small wonders that non-native speakers get confused; it’s hard enough for those of us who grew up with English to grasp the counter-intuitive nuances.