975
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MdRuckus@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] teft@sh.itjust.works 166 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. Texas
  2. Oklahoma
  3. Louisiana
  4. (tie) South Carolina
  5. (tie) Alabama
  6. Missouri
  7. Indiana
  8. Tennessee
  9. Arkansas
  10. Florida
[-] Ohthereyouare@lemm.ee 85 points 1 year ago

I personally agree with this list. But, we have to be pragmatic here. This is what CNBC says they did:

"The study measures quality of life issues including crime, health care, childcare and health care, as well as inclusive policies on discrimination and reproductive rights."

See, the last two skew this study. People in these shit hole states (not all, but at least enough of the voting public) don't want inclusive policies or reproductive rights. So, to them, this metric is backwards. They would argue that living in California or New York was way more terrible because of the brown people and gays.

This isn't exactly a scientific study. It's taking objective data to reach a subjective conclusion. Neat headline though.

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

I mean… if you want to move to one of these states as potentially any type of person (ie. perhaps not white and straight) then the inclusive policies are not an optional feature. If you’re a woman, having the government meddle in your health decisions can actually be life threatening.

For white, straight folks, and especially males, it’s easy to think these other two factors just subjectively improve life, but that’s because they already have a baseline level of respect and power in society.

Based on your take, I’d guess you’re straight, white and male.

[-] OwenEverbinde@reddthat.com 12 points 1 year ago

Granted, I'm also straight, white, and male... But there are a hell of a lot of women who support abortion bans AND adore Mr "Grab 'em by the Pussy!"

I know one who doesn't believe God would allow a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy to take hold in (or in the case of ectopic pregnancies, outside of) a woman's uterus. She just doesn't believe something as sacred as a uterus can have that kind of flaw built into it.

And even if you could convince her dangerous pregnancies were real, I think @Ohthereyouare@lem.ee was saying that Republican women would not agree that their ability to survive an ectopic pregnancy is good or worth it if it also helps the "sluts" they despise to have more "convenience abortions."

Surviving might seem pretty good to you and I, but that doesn't make that ability objectively desirable to the people voting against their own interests. And they would be offended if their access to healthcare was deemed "better" in a quality-of-life metric than access to a set of theocratic restrictions.

They would tell you, "well I'm happier. Liberals think they can speak for me just because I'm a woman and my opinion doesn't matter! But if they asked me, I'd tell them I would prefer to live in a place where the sanctity of life was valued! They'd have to censor me and edit me out of their videos because I wouldn't support their narrative!"

[-] TechyDad@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I know one who doesn't believe God would allow a dangerous, nonviable pregnancy to take hold in (or in the case of ectopic pregnancies, outside of) a woman's uterus. She just doesn't believe something as sacred as a uterus can have that kind of flaw built into it.

But I guarantee that the second that she (or any other woman with similar views) had a pregnancy that threatened their life, they'd opt for an abortion ASAP. They'll rationalize that their abortion was justified and blessed by God, but all those other abortions are just "liberal sluts who want to kill babies" or something.

[-] ArcticCircleSystem@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

So what are we supposed to do to get them to stop choosing to be horrible like this? Can't do nothing... ~Cherri

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (49 replies)
this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2023
975 points (94.1% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2924 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS