this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2024

564 points (99.6% liked)

News

22987 readers

4275 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

564

Calif. sues Catholic hospital for ‘refusing abortion to mom whose life was at risk’ (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 14 hours ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“It is damning that here in California, where abortion care is a constitutional right, we have a hospital implementing a policy that’s reminiscent of heartbeat laws in extremist red states,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said.

A Catholic hospital in Northern California is facing a lawsuit by the state’s attorney general after it reportedly refused to perform an abortion on a woman whose pregnancy was not viable and whose life was in danger.

Anna Nusslock was already in severe crisis when she and her husband Daniel arrived last February at Providence St. Joseph Hospital in Eureka, according to the suit, which AG Rob Bonta filed Monday in Humboldt County Superior Court. A doctor examined Nusslock, who was 15 weeks pregnant with twins, and told her they would not survive, the suit explains.

Without a dilation and evacuation procedure, or, what is commonly known as "an abortion," Nusslock was also at risk of death, the complaint contends.

However, it goes on, “Providence refused to allow Anna’s doctors to treat her, as the hospital’s policies prohibited them from terminating a pregnancy so long as they could detect fetal heart tones. The only exception was if the mother’s life was at immediate risk, a high threshold that Anna apparently did not yet reach. Only at some poorly defined point in the future, when Anna was close enough to death, would Providence permit her doctors to intervene. Until then, Anna and her physicians could do nothing but wait, worry, and hope.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world -5 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

You don't need religion to do that. I got two words for you: Donald Trump. And it isn't whataboutism, it's filling in more context to make a truer and broader point. It just kills the anti-religion jackoff fest the internet loves so much.

There's plenty that can be awful about religion, and we just make ourselves look stupid when we wrongly try to make its evils singular, exclusive to itself. It's far less comfortable to see that this is a human thing, rather than a religious thing. Pretending It's only a religious thing and then not being religious pushes the problem away to a nice, safe distance, where we can talk about "them" and fundamentally leave ourselves out of it.

Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it's conservative or authoritarian, a pattern that holds for many things outside of religion as well, and with startling consistency.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

The comment was:

Daily reminder that religion is a monstrous evil.

And you wrote:

Religion is not necessary...

That's the definition of whataboutism.

Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it’s conservative or authoritarian

Religions claim authority and are authoritarian by definition, religion is extremely harmful just by the fact that it preaches immortality. You also don't need to be conservative to believe in faith healing. There may be few exceptions to the rule, but by far the most religions contain these harmful doctrines.

[–] Senal@programming.dev 2 points 6 hours ago

Do note that religion only ever seems to be a problem when it’s conservative or authoritarian, a pattern that holds for many things outside of religion as well.

That's disingenuous at best.

Religion is a problem when it used to push principles on to other people ( specifically when those principles are harmful and unwelcome ), conservative and authoritarian principles happen to lend themselves to this kind of behaviour quite readily which is why you see criticism aimed at those types of religions.

and with startling consistency.

Perhaps it might be worth looking in to why this consistency exists.