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 -
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).
Really? I could believe e.g. that some fundamentalist voters (a small minority) believe that the non-viable fetus is still a living creature and therefore deserves protection. I could also believe that Ken Paxton is an attack dog who will go after suffering mothers because it's in his political interest. But the median voter? If you brought a case of a late term miscarriage, would the median voter really insist doctors wait for weeks before offering medical care?
Admittedly, I don't have great evidence for my view. I haven't looked at voter surveys on this question for example (are there any?). I do have some evidence: the Tx legislature clarified the law in HB 3058. But what evidence do you have?
And if the median voter doesn't have such a hardline view, we're back to my original question. Why would the Texas Legislature impose such a blunt guideline instead of a more nuanced one?
The pro-life movement is funded and staffed by fundamentalists, and they wrote the legislation. By and large, the pro-life movement do support an exception for sufficiently dangerous-to-the-mother pregnancies . They don't support an exception for non-viable fetuses, which forms part of a pattern where pro-life Christians (particularly Catholics) support heroic intervention to keep non-viable babies like Charlie Gard alive for as long as possible, as well as their opposition to withdrawing treatment from effectively non-viable adults like Terri Schiavo. I think pro-life Christians are consistent in their attitude to these cases and that it reflects their religious beliefs, but I profoundly disagree with them.
I don't know why Ken Paxton chose to noisily go after a mother who wanted to abort a non-viable fetus, but he did. I hope the median general election voter applies condign punishment, but given the nature of Texas politics I doubt it. My best guess is that Paxton is positioning himself to run for governor, and the main obstacle is a Texas Republican primary in which the median voter is well to the right of Donald Trump. One weakness of the American electoral system is that in a 60-40 state like Texas it tends to elect a government that represents the median Republican, not the median voter. And given that almost 40% of Americans claim to be young-earth creationists when polled, I don't think that fundamentalists are going to be a small minority of Texas Republicans.
HB3058 doesn't cover non-viable fetuses, it clarifies two particular cases where there is a genuine threat to the life of the mother (as opposed to the fake threat to the mother's continued fertility that Cox's lawyers tried to use to work around the lack of an exception for non-viable fetuses). Unlike danger-to-mother cases where there is clearly a desire to produce workable rules that allow a reasonable margin of discretion to the doctor treating an emergency case without opening a loophole the size of a barn door, I see no movement from the pro-life right in the US on this point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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