When President Joe Biden gave bumbling remarks about abortion on the debate stage this summer, it was widely viewed as a missed opportunity — a failure, even — on a powerful and motivating issue for Democrats at the ballot box.

The difference was stark, then, on Tuesday night, when Vice President Kamala Harris gave a forceful defense of abortion rights during her presidential debate with Republican Donald Trump.

Harris conveyed the dire medical situations women have found themselves in since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the national right to abortion in 2022. Harris quickly placed blamed directly on Trump, who recalibrated the Supreme Court to the conservative majority that issued the landmark ruling during his term.

Women, Harris told the national audience, have been denied care as a result.

“You want to talk about this is what people wanted? Pregnant women who want to carry a pregnancy to term, suffering from a miscarriage, being denied care in an emergency room because health care providers are afraid they might go to jail and she’s bleeding out in a car in the parking lot?” Harris said.

  • CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I 100% agree, and IANAL, but it’s my understanding that it is for legal purposes… even though we all “know” it’s true, asserting that someone lied opens a can of legal worms.

    • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The only legal excuse for this is the slander/libel laws, which only apply in cases where calling someone a liar is untrue. If you’re calling out verifiable lies as lies (e: and you can bring receipts, which they can), that’s not slander.

      They’re just pussies.

      • tromars@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        My guess would be that the word „lying“ implies the intent to claim something untrue, which is hard to prove (not saying this isn’t the case here), opposed to „falsely claiming“ which includes situations where you actually believe what you’re saying even though it’s objectively false.

        • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The law doesn’t make that distinction, though. ‘Untruth’, falsely claimed’, and ‘lied’ are all the same under the law. The only thing those laws care about is whether your words were true. If I call you a liar in a headline and I can prove you actually lied, you have no case.

          Weasel words don’t protect them from lawsuits, it’s just another part of the degradation of journalism and the fact that whitewashing and softening their language gets them more clicks & eyeballs, because it’s less likely to offend people who disagree.

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The supreme court says the law does make a distinction if it’s a public figure. Better check your hypotenuse, science bitch.

            • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              With public figures, the bar to meet slander/libel includes that it must have been done with ‘actual malice’ – not anything different about which words were used.

              Private figures must show that the defendant acted "negligently.“

              Public figures must show that the defendant acted with “actual malice.”

              The bar for bringing such a case is even higher for public figures than private people, but it’s still not about the word ‘lie’ vs ‘untruth’.

              If you’re aware of a single case where synonyms like that mattered, I’d love to know.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ostensibly, sure. And as a general rule, that’s fine and prudent. When it comes to trump, though - he’s so far over All The Lines that they really have been taken hostage by his outrageous disregard for the truth and his consistent desecration of the spoken word.

      Will he sue? Possibly. He’s currently $100 Million dollars in debt just for legal fees and depending on what they say he “lied” about, He Will Lose.

      Say that he lied about the 2020 election being “stolen”. Let him sue over that. That’ll be a trial to watch, the news outlet would make their money back plus interest just covering their own trial. Plus he’d lose.