this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2026
201 points (99.5% liked)

politics

30930 readers
1946 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
201
Rest assured, the new CDC director thinks ‘abortion surveillance’ is essential (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to c/politics@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

My wife was arguing with her father, who has 4 daughters, that his stance on abortion could get one of his daughters killed should she ever have an ectopic pregnancy or other medical complications from a pregnancy that needs to be terminated. His response was that if her or her sisters ever absolutely needed an abortion, he had the money to make sure they got one. He saw absolutely nothing of concern with that response or the fact that plenty of less well off fathers would lose their daughters that did not have his financial privilege. It drives me absolutely insane how selfish Consevatives can be. Truly, the older I get, the more it seems the difference between conservatives and leftists is that the former can't/won't/don't care to see past the concerns of themselves and their immediate loved ones.

[–] hoppeduponcoffee@lemmy.zip 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

“All for me and none for thee.”

Sadly, these people won’t get it until the leopard eats their face.

[–] raze2012@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

He really just said "the only legal abortion is my abortion" out loud. I bet he also complains about his healthcare too, huh?

[–] Snowies@lemmy.zip 19 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

I’ve never understood the pro-life argument.

First of all if you’re “pro-life” because you think abortion is murder — You should be vegan. If you’re really being consistent because you truly care about life, you shouldn’t be buying into an industry that kills 2 trillion living beings per year.

“LIFE IS SACRED! Excuse me for one second. Hi! Yes. Thank you. I’ll have one dead animal meat sandwich please. Yes. Medium rare. Perfect. Alright… where were we… right…”

Second, contraception is never perfect, and also rape happens. Bodily autonomy of a person who already exists overrides the rights of a person who doesn’t exist yet. You would never argue otherwise under any other circumstances. If men could get pregnant, this would not even be a question. Healthy people who haven’t been traumatized by lifetimes of misogyny and/or religious zealotry do not wish to bear the children of their rapists.

Third, Sperm can live in testicles for up to 3 months. If you jerk off and shoot sperm anywhere other than into an ovary, you murdered one to eight of your potential children, in favor of whatever sperm remains until your body generates more. You just shot the child “God wanted for you” onto a sock or a tissue, and it died.

If abortion is murder, so is male masturbation.

Fourth, most of the people arguing against abortion on TV have mistresses they pay to get abortions for. If you’re willing to fuel the fire of misogyny and social division, you’re probably willing to be a hypocrite about it too. These people don’t have standards or morals. They only have bank accounts and vested interests.

Fifth, if the mother would be killed bringing the child to term, the consensus is that we try to save the mother first. She’s already here. She’s already alive. She is already a member of society.

We already know that the person who is pregnant and everything he or she is, comes before the “potential person” who is currently nothing at all in the whole world… other than a fetus in a womb.

[–] volvoxvsmarla@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I agree with 1, 2, 4 and 5, completely, but the logic of 3 surpasses me. Sperm isn't a seed. Male masturbation and female periods aren't equal to abortion and murder.

Other than that solid points. There is so much hate for human life on the side of conservatives.

[–] raze2012@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I just post this everytime:

The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you.
They are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor.
They don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct.
Unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy.
Unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare.
Unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike.
They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn.
You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone.
They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe.
Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."

-Methodist Pastor David Barnhart

In my eyes, any shred of legitimacy about pro-life in the US disappeared when the GOP told voters to forget about the Epstein Files and they collectively went along with it.

[–] invertedspear@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago

First, they don’t equate animal life to human life. Human life is the only thing that matters to them.

Second, there are several factors here as pro lifers have a wide range on this subject. Some argue that it’s ok for instances of rape, others say every conception is God’s will and shouldn’t be contested

Third, this is why they specifically argue that life begins at conception. Otherwise every wet dream and period would be a sin

Fourth, yeah, they’re a bunch of hypocritical batards that also claim to support traditional family values

Fifth, and she can produce more kids! But if we’re going to criminalize abortion and apparently miscarriages recently, this is a sacrifice they’re willing to make.

The pro life argument falls apart once you remove religious brainwashing from it. Then you can see it’s all about control. They need more poor people to steal labor from. They need more poor kids who get to 18 with no better prospect than military service or law enforcement. They want more desperate people.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

They're the CDC...

Is birth a disease now?

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

All government agencies are now part of the panopticon.

Right now at the CDC, every good body has been fired. All programs you know the CDC for were cancelled. It doesn't research diseases or pandemics anymore. It is no longer following up on or preventing outbreaks.

The CDC is now tasked with "medical surveillance". It is starting with trans people and abortions. It will eventually move to "mental undesirables", starting with autistic people. Eventually, if we don't stop this entire regime, it will be going after people who simply have certain genetic markers that might cause "undesirable" offspring.

For anyone unaware; whatever you knew the CDC as last year and before, is dead:

https://www.wired.com/story/cdc-gutted-rif/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/cdc-databases-disease-health-data-b2908066.html

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5387723/cdc-communications-cuts-social-media-public-health

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/06/09/rfk-jr-cdc-panel-vaccines.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/cdc-quietly-scaled-back-surveillance-program-foodborne-illnesses-rcna227089

https://www.the-independent.com/news/health/cdc-measles-outbreak-south-carolina-b2904851.html

https://apnews.com/article/cdc-hantavirus-cruise-ship-trump-who-2eaf686534d31e8ad67482f05e1ec870

[–] bunnybunny@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 weeks ago

In America yes

[–] sculptor0725@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Pretty concerning that he's saying "abortions were committed"...

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Josh Hawley is probably exactly as awful as you might expect. This is the guy who raised a fist in solidarity to the terrorists of J6, then later seen fleeing those terrorists here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EIeHq9P3q4

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

When a few months ago I read that headline, Trump picks qualified, normal health leader to head CDC I thought: where's the catch?

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Crazy Damned Cunt

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Josh Hawley is exactly the kind of douchebag I have in mind when I hear how precious things would be if only we didn't have a "gerontocracy".

Josh is only 46 and seems rather spry, but even if he can flee his own mob, I don't think that makes him any better at the job or any good for America....and the manosphere is raising lots more like him. Someone like Fuentes is barely a fetus himself and he has a younger audience that looks up to him.

I think policies, experience, wisdom and character matter a hell of a lot more than the number of times someone has been around the sun.