@cassandra17lina @SenescentDrummer13
It’s even worse than that: the Fifth Circuit literally wrote in their decision what an “individual” meant then said HHS didn’t understand that a born individual also meant an “unborn child.”
The decision is so awful it would be funny if women weren’t going to die.
@BrentSullivan @cassandra17lina @SenescentDrummer13
It’s weird. I read it in Slate and went, “Nooo, they couldn’t have really said that,” looked it up and DAMN, they literally said parenthetically that HHS didn’t understand that an individual also meant “unborn child” — it was truly a “What. In. The. Actual. Fuck!” moment.
@BrentSullivan @cassandra17lina @SenescentDrummer13
Here is the text in the actual Fifth Circuit court decision — read and tell me if there is an inconsistency:
@feloneouscat @cassandra17lina @SenescentDrummer13
Yep
"Individual" now means something that cannot survive if separated from a person.
"Community" requires that words have meaning
"Control" doesn't
Republicans are about control and are killing community by denying that there are facts and that words have meaning
@BrentSullivan @cassandra17lina @SenescentDrummer13
My favorite part is “HHS reading is misplaced” when the Fifth Circuit literally said the opposite of what they quoted.
Fifth Circuit: Who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes?
@feloneouscat @cassandra17lina @SenescentDrummer13
Silly me, I always thought personhood would be a barrier to these crazy laws. At a minimum, a person must have self awareness and some agency.
We've previously recognized different levels of personhood and allowed them to be treated differently. Think about minors, persons with severe mental and physical disabilities, and the aged. We allow persons to make decisions for their lives, but now a collection of cells >a fully formed person