politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
She remembers taking each of their lives. I don't understand how a sain person would want to be eventually free after those memories. I'd be too afraid to be around anyone let alone want to continue fighting a legal battle and being on national news. We should be focusing our energy on the tens of millions of parents struggling that still have their children. Those are the heros who's names should be all over the news.
She tried to kill herself. She didn’t want to be around after the murders.
Yes, and are you saying that attempting absolves someone of responsibility? What is she doing now? Wanting accountability for herself? No. She wants to start her new life and move on. Other parents who know they harmed their family under similar situations accepted their fates. Their stories are far more deserving. We are falling for a wealthy persons paid PR campaign, without seeing the bigger picture.
I will say this until I am blue in the face and die on this hill. This woman does not deserve to be the face of postpartum mental illness. There are tens of millions of parents fighting mental illness who do not harm their families. There are those who have, who are willing to actually have their message be positive and not performative. Championing this particular case will have negative repercussions for parents and children. It will lower the bar needed to take children away from homes and lower the legal competency of women.
I was responding to this part of your comment:
She wasn't sane. She tried to kill herself. She didn't want to be around anyone after the murders.
Doesn't deserve to be the face? Do you hear yourself? Who "deserves" to be the face of a psychotic break? You have a clear misunderstanding of the level of control someone has when they are experiencing postpartum psychosis.
You are glossing over everything inconvent. Do you hear youreself? Pick a better person to be the message of postpartum psychosis. That's all! It's dangerous to put this case up as the message. I 100% know what it's like to be in psychosis. Once medicated, I remember essentially waking up from a 3 year autopilot. It waxes and wains, you can point the rocket in general directions for those breif moments you are awake, but never actually in control. Mental Illness covers psychosis, I'm making the difference because no provider diagnosed her with psychosis until after. I think this case was picked to be in the spot light because means those women with less resources are dangerous. We are handing them the argument that will be used in front of the Supreme Court. It's saying even the best off women is less accountable and competent. Millions of parents are struggling with extreme mental illnesses including psychosis, who still have their children. I'm focused on what we need to do to help them. Ya it's a gut wrenching prospect to cast someone aside for the bigger picture, but we are losing the argument when our current options are this binary. I wish there was a better option but currently this is the 2026 version of OJ Simpsons.