Hacker News Reader

Comment by NoImmatureAdHom | Hacker News Reader

A "comprehensive mask ban" would presumably include exceptions for people who are immunocompromised, actively sick with an upper-respiratory infection, etc.

Steelman, don't straw man.

View on HN

"presumably" is carrying a lot of water here. For instance women are bleeding out in Texas parking lots because doctors are afraid to give abortions even on women who could potentially die from complications because it's not a sure thing. This is the MAGA mentality

Let's be realistic: how many doctors have ever been held accountable for performing abortions to avoid complications? How do you even imagine a trial against such a doctor? Women are bleeding out in Texas parking lots because doctors wants them to bleed out to make a political stunt.

>how many doctors have ever been held accountable for performing abortions to avoid complications?

I got at least one: https://apnews.com/article/abortion-doctor-maggie-carpenter-...

https://www.texastribune.org/2025/03/17/texas-abortion-midwi...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/13/us/texas-abortion-doctor-...

it's very recent law but the cases are already racking up. And it's just basic game theory. Help and you might be arrested, don't help and leave it to the state to battle between negligence vs. upholding the law.

>How do you even imagine a trial against such a doctor?

As seen in the DOJ, I expect a kangaroo court, of course.

That's exactly my point: all three articles says nothing about any doctor's responsibility for abortion with the goal to prevent harm to pregnant woman. No arrests, no charges, no fines, nothing, not even single case (as far as I know; your links also describes zero such cases).

And still women are bleeding out. What else could it be other than doctors' political stunts at the cost of women's lives?

That's open to interpretation. That's the problem. We've seen how Republicans treat anything that deals with nuance.

I mean...the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is really clear, and the Democrats have weaponized it to help the constituencies they're pursuing. Whether that's morally correct or not is beside the point, because that's not why the party machine is doing it. They've institutionalized racism and sexism at a scale we haven't seen since the civil rights movement brought merit ("...by the content of their character.") to the fore.

> Whether that's morally correct or not is beside the point

ignoring if you claim is even correct: morals drive logic for most laws. That's why every first world organization says "killing is bad". And then cut further saying "killing is justified if your life was in danger".

Morals ostensibly drive logic for some (not most, most are boring tax stuff) laws, but what's really going on is some group of people thinks the law will advantage them and so pushes it. Blue Team doesn't inherently care about black people, they care about getting black Americans' votes. You'd hope the moral and the instrumental would align, but not always.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com