How about a bill urging deadly force for rapists? Deadly force for congressional insider trading? Deadly force for using deadly force without an act of congress? Deadly force for fraud? Deadly force for accepting "gifts" while in office? Deadly force for ignoring congressional subpoenas? Deadly force for using the justice dept to harass rape victims? Deadly force for using office to make billions? Deadly force for hiring your own kids and placing them in office?
this post was submitted on 28 May 2026
501 points (99.0% liked)
politics
29907 readers
2623 users here now
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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
They do understand killing the mother kills the fetus too right?
Understanding is too big of a word for MAGA.
Let's do a little transitive property game.
The bill presupposes that there is an absolute moral duty to protect the unborn.
A theoretical woman is considering an abortion, so it must therefore be okay to murder her.
Therefore, it is okay to murder someone to protect an unborn person.
This bill would make it okay to murder women to protect the unborn.
But that would kill the unborn!
So, it must therefore be okay to kill in order to prevent this bill from passing.
So by this bill's own logic, it would be morally correct to kill Keith Kidwell.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS PURELY AN EXERCISE IN ARGUMENTUM AD ABSURDUM AND NOT AN ACTUAL PROPOSAL. DO NOT DO MURDERS.
Wait a second... If someone is going to kill the mother, they are almost certainly killing the fetus. Therefore wouldn't it be totally legal to shoot anyone who is trying to shoot a pregnant woman as your defending the fetus too?
make it legal to murder women for having abortions
effectively makes it legal to murder women who are pregnant
now you may legally murder / assault any woman, under the guise she was pregnant/was going to have an abortion, if the woman is even a little bit pro abortion or just isn’t a pro”life” psycho, it will be proven that “this man believed she had endangered her baby within reasonable doubt”
Not only would this sexist, misogynist, murderous law allow people to murder women with near impunity, but it is just another piece of legislation that is attempting to legalize Republicans killing any democrat, leftist or otherwise. They tried to do it with Rittenhouse, J6, and inch closer and closer with their “legal” jargon like this all the time, now
I firmly believe this is the end goal of American and other oligarch capitalists when it comes to laws like this. I really hope it would be like “fighting words” where it’s not very enforceable in practice, but that doesn’t matter when women are being killed or even dying being denied healthcare.
They don’t care about the “unborn”. They want to force you to have children so your children can become their worker slaves or even worse with what we’ve seen in all this Epstein stuff. God I hate this place
We're a Christian nation after all.
Praise be 🥲😵💫🙏🛐
How any woman could vote Republican is beyond me.
It's like a black person voting for the KKK
Like wtf is wrong with you?
How any woman could vote Republican is beyond me.
because "The only moral abortion is my abortion"
because " I'm against this because those filthy non-whites use it, but its okay once I need it"
because " I support this because it hurts people that arent me " ( cue inevitable wailing about the unfairness and cruelty of it all when it comes home to hurt them too.)
In one word: hypocrisy
One of people's historical favorite passtimes
"I never thought the leopards would eat my face"
- Person who voted for the "Leopards Eating Faces Party" after having their face eaten.
They vote whoever their priests tell them to vote for, because apparently, church-state separation was something made up by woke liberals or something.
load more comments
(1 replies)
'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]
- a woman is going to have an abortion
- someone goes after her to kill her
- someone else goes after the person above to kill them, protecting the woman
- repeat as many times as you wish
Cherry on top: this gets into court, and judge goes "it's all woman's fault, jail her for life"
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ummm. Wouldn't that also kill the baby?
When was the last time someone checked the lead levels in the drinking water in North Carolina?
You're assuming the bill is about mothers. When you realize it's about doctors, things make more sense.
That would only be relevant if their intent was to protect unborn fetuses.
It's never been able the babies. It's about abusing and controlling women.
If they cared about kids, they would be angry about Trump and the other republicans raping them.
load more comments
(7 replies)
use deady force on a woman to stop an abortion
Do... Eh. Do these people understand how life works, and that ending the mothers life would surely stop the abortion, but also kill the fetus? Like, do I need to explain this?
Talking about throwing out the baby with the bathwater
Nothing says that your pro-life like murdering people.
So you could kill your pregnant wife and unborn baby then claim she was seeking an abortion. Cool
ah fuck thats exactly what they want isnt it
"Pro-life" is an intentional misnomer.
Lot of antisemites described themselves as "anti-usury" and "anti-predatory loaning" instead of antisemite. Lot of anti-queer people describe themselves as "anti-grooming" and "for the diversity of opinions" instead of anti-queer.
Likewise anti-women's rights people are describing themselves as "pro-life". Sure, some pro-lifers are true believers, otherwise it's the same kind of emotional manipulation militant vegans use when they call people "zoocannibals" instead of using actual arguments (which there are a lot actually).
I asked the "Ask Conservatives" subreddit if they thought murdering a doctor about yo perform an abortion would be a just killing. I guess I have my answer.
I for one think it's pretty ironic to stop unwanted pregnancies from being terminated by ordering law enforcement to carry out 153rd trimester abortions upon the doctors...
cause they arent pro-life.
they are pro-fetus.
because a fetus is an amazing tool.
They can force any idealism they want on a fetus, and the fetus has no way to say no.
Liking young things that cant say no is kind of a running theme among conservatives.
Pro-life, amiright?
Inb4 this is clearly an excuse for men to murder their pregnant partners and wipe it away as “she was trying to get an abortion” so he can get off scot-free as dead women can’t say anything to defend themselves.
Lol as if they would have to actually be pregnant.
This is just going to lead to any man murdering any woman and claiming its about abortion
so how long before people start spreading rumors to encourage stochastic violence? "I heard the governor's daughter is going out of state to get an abortion in Maryland."
So to defend the life of an unborn baby they're going to make it legal to kill the mother carrying it? What the actual fuck do they think would happen to the unborn baby in that scenario? Dumb beyond belief doesn't even come close to describing this and is a prime example why religion should be absolutely nowhere near law making.
Also stochastic terrorism against women health clinics and doctors
I think this really is the goal. The health professionals are the realistic target.
As everyone notes, the concept of killing the mother to stop an abortion makes zero sense, but open season on any providers...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Let's kill the mothers, that'll save the children.
Makes perfect sense.
Okay, aside from the obvious "that would also kill the fetus," that's also some really dangerous wording...
states it would be permissible for a person to use deadly force on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion,
"permissible" implies there would be no accountability
"a person" implies that anyone would be permitted to do it
"use deadly force" implies that they can literally murder pregnant mothers
"on a woman they believe is seeking an abortion" implies that they don't need any solid evidence; only the mere belief is enough.
Put it all together, and this bill would give any person in the state free license to murder any pregnant woman, or potentially any woman, for any reason, as long as they claim that they believed she was seeking an abortion.
If anyone needs me to explain why that's bad, then they might be suffering from some sort of brain damage or other cognitive impairment.
Only in a fascist hellscape could a bill like this become law.
This could also extend to killing men that you think are about to murder a woman.
Any man could be about to murder a woman they think is pregnant, and anyone has the right to protect their life or another's.
This is just legalizing murder, full stop.
They wouldn't interpret it that way, but a plain reading of the text supports it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Ah yes, defending an unborn child by checks notes murdering the person carrying the child and therefore also the child
They should just give the embryo the gun
Wait wait wait. Let me make sure I understand. In order to save the fetus you would kill the only entity capable of keeping it alive?
it was never about the fetus
The only psycho backing this bill is Keith Kidwell who represents the tiny coastal district 79.
You remember how they were looking up taking braindead women and using their bodies as human incubators? Seems kinda related
Just waiting for a Jewish legal group to sue for breaching freedom of religion protections. The life of the mother takes precedence.
An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until 40 days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Why not just call yourself anti-abortion instead of pro-life? You aren’t doing anything to prevent a death here.
view more: next ›