This came up in my health care forum.

Right now, you can legally detain someone medically when they are a danger to themselves or others for up to 72hrs. The details vary by state, but this is how we lock down individuals trying to suicide or someone mentally off the rails making threats of violence.

This variation on that law would also make opposition to Trump qualify.

Civil commitment can follow as with individuals who have profound mental illness and are not safe to be out in the world.

This is the loudest scream that democracy is dead short of hauling people out into the street and shooting them.

It’s important to note the police are currently the people who bring individuals in for the 72hr mental health holds.

  • ubergeek
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Assuming it passed, that’s what the bill said. Any disagreement with Trump is a clear sign of a mental disorder.

    • sfu@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      No, it does not say any disagreement with Trump. That alone would not qualify.

      Don’t worry though, with walz as gov, it won’t pass.

      • ubergeek
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        No, it does not say any disagreement with Trump

        It literally does. That’s how it defines “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

        But yes, Walz will veto it, thankfully.

        • sfu@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Its only part of what defines it. Disagreeing alone would not qualify.