cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21198558

Missouri’s attorney general has renewed a push to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, arguing in a lawsuit filed this month that its availability hurt the state by decreasing teenage pregnancy.

The revised lawsuit was filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, alongside GOP attorneys general in Kansas and Idaho. It asks a judge in Texas to order the Federal Drug Administration to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone, one of two medications prescribed to induce chemical abortions.

The trio of attorneys general were forced to refile the litigation after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the original lawsuit after concluding the original plaintiffs — a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations — did not have standing to sue because they couldn’t show they had been harmed.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    I…what?

    I don’t even understand what’s being argued. Usually I can argue against a stance, because I see their logic and disagree with it.

    In this case, I don’t even get the logic.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      82
      ·
      2 months ago

      Simple: they’re now mask off about wanting women to become de facto brood mares and house slaves before they turn 20.

      #JustFascistStuff

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Is that the legit reason? I mean, in the times I grew up in, I would assume you’re being dramatic to prove a point.

        But it’s 2024…the absurd is reality. What you said has just as real of a chance at being true as anything else with these people.

        Trump is over here talking about using the American military against American citizens for being against him. Meanwhile republican voters are in pure denial that he would ever do that, despite him saying so. Word for word. AND he has attempted to do exactly that in the past.

        So I don’t have the luxery of being able to use common sense to dismiss things as being not credible to be reality. We live in the dumbest timeline. You could make up any dumb shit, and I have no way of dismissing it as being too dumb to be real.

        “Hey, Trump just shot Kamala Harris with a gun on stage at a debate”

        And the ONLY thing that makes that stand out as obviously false is the fact that trump is too scared to debate now.

        This is the time we live in.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Is that the legit reason

          With a very high degree of certainty, yes. They’ve really tripled down against women’s rights and for returning to the 50s (1850s, that is) in recent years and saying shit like this out loud, rather than being ashamed of privately thinking it, is completely in step with that tendency.

          I mean, in the times I grew up in, I would assume you’re being dramatic to prove a point

          I know exactly what you mean!

          I’m not old enough to remember the Reagan years clearly, but was growing aware of US politics a few years before Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich really kick started GOP’s turn towards more and more demagoguery and extremism.

          With the Dems utterly failing to stop them pulling the Overton window ever rightward and the well-established GOP policy of ignoring or denying any inconvenient truth, the current fascist lunacy was sadly the inevitable outcome.

          “Hey, Trump just shot Kamala Harris with a gun on stage at a debate”

          And the ONLY thing that makes that stand out as obviously false is the fact that trump is too scared to debate now.

          This is the time we live in.

          Yup 😮‍💨

          As a little bonus info in case you don’t loathe him already: this is also the AG who tried to block the release of at least two exonerated death row inmates in the last few months.

        • Leviathan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Is that the legit reason? I mean, in the times I grew up in, I would assume you’re being dramatic to prove a point.

          Have you considered that you always misunderstood people’s goals and they were actually trying to warn you of this exact coming situation?

          This isn’t some stupid timeline, it’s the result of 50 years of very specific effort by the right that the people you thought were being dramatic were just plainly warning you about with the appropriate level of urgency.

          I really don’t understand how in the face of all this people still choose to bury their heads in the sand.

        • meneervana@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Wait Trump is talking about using the military against American citizens??? (Maybe I missed this, I am Dutch so I don’t watch American news all day)

    • Azzu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I’m confused how you don’t see the logic. It says right there.

      He claims that the lost “potential population” from teen parents will cost the state revenue and political representation.

      A person pays taxes. Less people = less tax income. More people = more tax income.

      It’s entirely idiotic, but it’s not hard to understand?

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I guess from an ultra-rightwing christian fundamentalist perspective, abused post-pregnancy teens are what you want. They’re the easily impregnable (in all senses of the word) future hardline voters.

      • glimse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You phrased that way too tame for how they’re thinking about it.

        More teen pregnancies = more mouths to feed = poverty = more wage slaves

        • Azzu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Of course, but I’m talking about what was literally said. The further reasons, like you describe, are easy to deduce as well, but I was just responding to the comment that didn’t seem to understand anything, neither the overt nor the covert reasons.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        So he’s agreeing to socialism? Or he’s openly stating that they would like to manipulate the country by brutally oppressing the people in their state…

        • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          He’s admitting to brutally oppressing people. Unfortunately, there are enough hateful/stupid people in the (heavily gerrymandered) key voting districts, it doesn’t matter.

      • yuknowhokat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        So, to restate your point hopefully in a way that I understand it better, he wants more population to suck money from the federal government but doesn’t give a living s*** about helping his constituents.

    • Maestro@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      From the article:

      …the attorneys general contend access to mifepristone has lowered “birth rates for teenaged mothers,” arguing it contributes to causing a population loss for the states along with “diminishment of political representation and loss of federal funds.”

      • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think the population loss in these states is directly related the totalitarian theocratic governments that have been scaring people into leaving.

    • cybervseas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 months ago

      We need more teen pregnancies because we need more babies to become low wage grunts to work and pay into our social services systems so old people can retire…?

      I assume it’s similar to the argument Texas or Alabama or whoever used to argue they have standing against federal student loan forgiveness.

    • RangerJosie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because there is none. None whatsoever.

      Some old bastards read an old book of fairytales and in that book of nonsense it says women are nothing more than brood mares and fuck puppets for men. Then they decided to take that book of fairytales and turn it into the law of the land. At a time when humans CAN GO INTO FUCKING SPACE we still have to deal with these shrimp brained fuckwits.

      We are touching the edges of Fusion Energy and we’ve still got to deal with these morons.

    • WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah. Same. There no nuance to this at all. The quiet thing was said far more than just simply out loud.

      It was shrieked from the mountain tops.