This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The relevant standards under current Texas law are here: https://www.tmb.state.tx.us/dl/1C5CBA1C-052B-403F-A0D1-FAF22ADD05CB
They were updated to respond to cases like this. That seems like relevant information.
It is worth noting that under these standards the loss of a limb does not constitute a medical emergency. The definition of "abortion" is strict so doctors who X-ray a pregnant woman with a broken leg are safe despite the risk to the fetus, but I can see why this sort of thing does not engender trust between the medical profession and the Texas authorities. [With this definition of "medical emergency" and fetuses entitled to 14th amendment protection as people, it arguably would be illegal to X-ray a woman with a broken leg because it irradiates a nonconsenting fetus, although I suppose the father could consent on behalf of the fetus]
There is also an interesting bit of drafting, in that the list of "major bodily functions" in section 4 is arguably surplusage, because section 3 says that only life-threatening conditions can count. A cynic would say that section 4 is designed to make the exception look broader than it is. There are definitely pregnancy complications which are not life-threatening but are sufficiently dangerous to the bodily functions listed in section 4 that a doctor could be obliged (by the usual canons of medical ethics, and EMTALA) to perform an abortion that Texas law prohibits.
This is just wrong. The court opinion is very clear that loss of major bodily function would be a sufficient justification for an abortion (and the loss need not be imminent, just addressable by abortion).
I'm happy to believe that a court interpreted the document @hydroacetylene linked to to mean other than what it says, but I'm not wrong about words on a page. You can check by clicking the link.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Or the mother, who is closer at hand and has an easier time proving guardianship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks! That's useful. However, that document does not address the situation that the plaintiffs (and I) brought up which is a non-viable fetus that is still alive (e.g. a spontaneous late-term miscarriage).
That's because the Texas authorities specifically intended (based on both the text of the law and Paxton's jawboning in the Cox case) to make women carry non-viable fetuses until medical confirmation of fetal death - or to term, for non-viable fetuses which don't die until cut off from the placenta.
The issue in the Cox case is that Texas Republicans want Cox to go through several months of pregnancy, an unnecessary C-section, and six figures of medical bills (which Texas Republicans think she should not get help with, because the government fucking you in the ass is just life, but the government taxing me to pay for the lube when it fucks you in the ass is socialism) in order to achieve the spiritual benefits of watching a baby die in an incubator instead of aborting it. SCOTUS in Dobbs correctly ruled that this is within the powers of the State of Texas, but it didn't rule that it was a good idea.
This isn't even a case where rare corner case is acceptable collateral damage in order to prevent the large number of elective abortions. Paxton's intervention was widely praised by the pro-life movement because this is a type of case they care about. (Obviously not enough to support parents of severely disabled children who would be eugenically aborted if that was legal, because socialism again, but enough to ruin lives because it's for the children works on both sides of the aisle).
Not commenting on your main question, but when it comes to whether someone gets help with Medical expenses I'm confused what you are referring too.
Texas has not expanded Medicaid, so if this person is somehow <138% FPL but not eligible for Medicaid otherwise they might be in trouble (weird coverage gap thing Congress should absolutely fix by just making everyone <138% FPL eligible for CSR 94 plans + highest level of APTC subsidies), but #3 would still apply.
Conservative Republicans want to cut Medicaid and ACA subsidies. They haven't said where or how much by, but they're in government now and are going to have to start making decisions. I acknowledge that both GOPe and MAGA republicans like to talk a good game about cutting spending and not do it, but if you take the right seriously about their spending plans then ACA subsidies are on the way out and Medicaid is going to see deep cuts in order to protect Social Security, Medicare and military spending.
enhanced ACA subsidies might be on the way out, which were new in the last few years. The status quo subsidies I have seen nothing about cutting.
I too would like to see our gerontocracy see deeper cuts but that seems to be politically untenable, to say nothing of the giant wealth transfer to them that was our COVID policy...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s mentioned in the decision, at least.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link