A Kentucky woman Friday filed an emergency class-action lawsuit, asking a Jefferson County judge to allow her to terminate her pregnancy. It’s the first lawsuit of its kind in Kentucky since the state banned nearly all abortions in 2022 and one of the only times nationwide since before Roe v. Wade in 1973 that an adult woman has asked a court to intervene on her behalf and allow her to get an abortion.
Pregnancy comes with medical risk to the mother. Restricting abortion access is a clear violation of the 14th amendment.
Abortion is healthcare.
I mean, “other people” also comes as a health risk. This by itself is not an argument.
And if I interact with you the state doesn’t try to deny me medical treatment for whatever condition you gave me.
Sadly even that isn’t true anymore. Someone I used to work with died recently of an unknown upper respiratory infection after being turned away by his local hospital 3 times. He eventually coughed until something ruptured and he died due to internal bleeding.
He had a decent paying job with health insurance and likely contracted his infection at work, yet he was denied admission to the hospital for some reasons that his widow and daughter may only find out with a lengthy court battle they can’t afford.
Welcome to the dystopia, it’s just getting started.
being turned away by his local hospital 3 times
state run hospital or private entity? only asking because the answer is obviously the latter and this is an apples to oranges argument
I wonder if he was turned away for being unvaccinated…
I don’t know but I suppose it could be a possibility. My assumption is that he was probably turned away because of understaffing. The hospital he was trying to go to was almost completely staffed with travel nurses a year or two ago and many of those nurses left as working conditions deteriorated. It’s all just speculation from me though. The whole thing is quite sad but also infuriating.
Do you mind sharing the state?
He lived/died in Arkansas.
Yes, the healthcare system needs to be fixed. That is definitely a concern with the healthcare system, but unless there was a law denying them treatment that is a different discussion.
Unless it’s a pregnancy.
That was exactly the point, yes.
Keep in mind, the main reason why your camp uses this rhetoric is because you want to tie abortion rights to the constitution. That way, it becomes mandatory for all states to respect them.
Yes, all states should protect women’s rights, are you kidding?
The other side thinks abortion is not a right.
Your side wants it to be a right so states can’t decide for themselves.
As the constitution is written right now, tying abortion to an amendment is a stretch. This is why the ruling that gave constitutional protection of abortion was overturned.
The only good faith argument I’ve seen is that democrats should’ve tried harder to explicitly add it to the constitution. That way they don’t have to contort the interpretation of amendments to suit their agenda.
But, as tribalists go, it’s okay when your tribe does it (14th amendment) but bad when other tribes do it (2nd amendment.) And the worst people of all are the ones who call it out.
The other side thinks freedom from slavery is not a right.
Your side wants freedom from slavery to be a right so states can’t decide for themselves.
You 160 years ago.
That’s completely true. Good thing we amended the constitution to ban slavery so it can’t be overturned as easily as Roe v. Wade.
So you’re saying we can’t amend the Constitution to codify abortion rights but it’s a good thing we amended to Constitution to ban slavery?
No. What makes you think I’m saying that?
Too bad it’s effectively impossible to amend the Constitution anymore.
Yes. In an ideal world we would be able to add abortion protections to the constitution.
Unfortunately, in the world we live in, I feel it’s up to the states to prove their way is better. Just like with marijuana.
Your side wants it to be a right so states can’t decide for themselves.
Meanwhile on the other side States are trying to make it illegal to pass through them on the way to get an abortion, and to ban the abortion pill Federally.
Sounds less like “letting States decide for themselves” and more like “letting these states decide for everyone else.”
How about letting people decide for themselves?
“letting states decide for themselves” is the narrow end of the wedge. just like how the confederacy wanted to “let states decide for themselves” about slavery, then insisted the federal government override free states, tried to militarily annex territories that wanted to be free states, and put it in their constitution that no member could be a free state. they’ll “let states decide for themselves” as long as they make the right decision, then they’ll decide federally for the states that “decided for themselves” wrong.
conservatives only respect two freedoms: the freedom to do what they want, and the freedom to force you to do what they want.
A factual correction: the Confederacy did not want to let states decide for themselves whether to allow slavery. The main difference between the US and Confederate constitutions was that the Confederate one explicitly denied states the right to ban slavery.
and put it in their constitution that no member could be a free state
that seems to be what I said
How about letting people decide for themselves?
I’m all for that.
Meanwhile on the other side States are trying to make it illegal to pass through them on the way to get an abortion, and to ban the abortion pill Federally. Sounds less like “letting States decide for themselves” and more like “letting these states decide for everyone else.”
Of course, they’re not above that. They absolutely want to push the needle so they can push it further. Overturning Roe v. Wade was just another step along that path.
One of these is to allow women to terminate a life threatening pregnancy or one that they don’t want, perhaps from rape, or because they can’t afford to have a child and it would be living in poverty.
The other one is an effort to stop people machine gunning children in schools, shooting people for using their driveway to turn around or shooting people though thier front door when they knock on it.
If you think those two stances are comparable and both should be cancelled out because of technicalities then you need to get your head examined.
Okay.
Your side wants it to be a right so states can’t decide for themselves.
only republican doublethink can cast police jailing people for receiving basic healthcare as “freedom”.
“Basic healthcare.”
There you go obscuring your arguments to make it seem like there is no opposition.
What is that healthcare? See what I mean about arguing in bad faith?
I’m sure people in Egypt will argue Female Genital Mutilation is “basic healthcare.”
that healthcare is abortion. basic healthcare agreed upon worldwide outside of a tiny sliver of americans in a child genital mutilation cult that has established minority rule.
basic healthcare agreed upon worldwide
No, it really isn’t.
Healthcare that’s needed to prevent someone from funny sounds pretty fucking basic to me.
Wtf do you think “well regulated” means?
It means “functioning as expected”.
Who do you think is in the militia?
(edit: source https://www.constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm )
Name one other context where anyone uses “well regulated” to mean that. You can’t, because it’s a bad faith argument based on pretending words mean something other than what they plainly do.
Definition 3. Remember, the English you speak isn’t the exact same as English spoken over 2 centuries ago, in this context the obvious and predominant meaning at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment is that “well-regulated” didn’t mean “regulation” as you imagine it now, it was more along the lines of well-functioning/trained/maintained/whatever.
But the meaning isn’t even relevant because the “right to bear arms” isn’t bound by it:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
From a linguistically unbiased standpoint, it’s clear that the first half, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is a reasoning for the directive, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The usage of commas has changed over time, which is where a lot of the confusion comes from nowadays, a more modern reconstruction would only use one comma.
The term for it would be “absolute clause” – it serves many purposes, and in this case it gives reasoning for a something, but doesn’t lock that something to the reasoning.
Politics has seeped deep into peoples’ view of the linguistics of the amendment, but it’s really simple, this is basic grammar. It doesn’t say nor imply “The right of a well-regulated Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, they specifically wrote it as “the right of the people” for a reason.
Making it an argument of the 2nd Amendment only applying to militias is arguing in bad faith – it’s clear that the amendment was written for everyone to have the right to bear arms, regardless of militias (although motivated by the security of the state, which well-armed militias can supply).
The only argument is whether the 2nd Amendment is suitable for the modern day, whether we should repeal/overwrite it, or at the very least to what extent protecting the “right of the people to bear arms” can be applied – obviously prisoners/felons can’t bear arms, there are a lot of regulations on who can bear arms and which arms you can bear (not even “the militia” can just bear any arms they like). And of course other first world countries are faring much better without a “2nd Amendment”, and with much tighter gun control.
Whatever you want it to mean.
Bodily autonomy enshrined in a nation’s most important document? Yeah that sounds pretty good.
Enshrining it is fine. But taking a weak stance to link it to an amendment that never had it in mind, well, opens you up for its interpretation to get overturned.
Seriously! Remember how when they wrote the 2nd ammendmen, they absolutely had modern firearms in mind, right? How is bodily autonomy a “weak stance”?
The other side argues that the unborn child has rights and that the 14th amendment does not protect abortion.
You’re trying to tie abortion to ‘bodily autonomy’ because you want abortion to be protected by the constitution. That way, states don’t get to decide for themselves.
Abortion would have better protections with its own amendment, but you know how difficult (impossible?) that will be, so it’s imperative that you find a way to tie it to existing amendments.
You’re trying to tie abortion to ‘bodily autonomy’ because you want abortion to be protected by the constitution. That way, states don’t get to decide for themselves.
In what universe are they not tied together? There’s no good-faith argument against this.
In the universe where people believe an unborn child has rights.
Should expectant mothers be allowed to engage in activities that harm their children?
And yet the other side is calling for a federal ban.
The ‘states’ rights’ crowd waffles between arguing for state or federal control depending on which is more convenient to a particular conversation.
Yes. Both sides are happy to cry ‘slippery slope’ and then engage in it when it is favorable to them.
And what’s wrong with that? It’s something, especially compared to your plan of doing essentially nothing until an amendment is ratified.
And what’s wrong with that?
Well, your ruling might get overturned!
that the 14th amendment does not protect abortion
This is completely irrelevant. The 9th Amendment says a right does not need to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to be protected, nor are other rights lesser to those that are explicit.
SCOTUS has been spitting on the Constitution for a long time.
deleted by creator
It’s not weak. Originalism is weak. It basically asserts that the constitution and all amendments must have been written by psychics who could predict every situation that would arise in the future, forever.
Of course things written decades or centuries ago couldn’t predict what’s relevant today or five decades from now, so of course they should be open to interpretation as the needs of society change. It’s the difference between following the spirit or the letter of the law, and it’s why most laws aren’t merely prescriptive, but outline motivations and goals.
It basically asserts that the constitution and all amendments must have been written by psychics who could predict every situation that would arise in the future, forever.
Not really. The constitution is a living document and was meant to grow with the times.
The problem is that it’s next to impossible to add amendments to the constitution now due to how divided the nation is. This means that in order for abortion to receive protection under the constitution, it would need to be tied to an existing amendment that was not drafted with abortion in mind.
That’s why it’s so crucial to make arguments like “abortion is bodily autonomy” rather than “abortion is a guaranteed right under the xth amendment.”
You are contradicting yourself all over the place in these comments.
Okay.
They were arguing against the term “originalist”. Guess you missed that bit.
The ability to remove stuff from your body seems pretty damn important, though. Infected wisdom teeth, fatty tissue removal, cysts, appendixes infected or not…there’s very good reasons why someone might want to be able to remove something from their body. Seems un-American to infringe on someone’s rights.
That’s fair. I think the other side is arguing any angle that will put the power to legislate back into the hands of states.
Pretty sure they are not. Moving the power closer to the people would be making it a personal choice. Also they would happily adopt a national ban.
Also they would happily adopt a national ban.
I agree.
Or, (and I know this is shocking), none of the rights in the Constitution work if privacy and bodily autonomy aren’t protected. Everything just falls apart.
What’s your point?
Exposing bad-faith arguments on both sides.
Neither of you are above tribalism or hypocrisy and should be criticized as such.
Oh, fuck off. Fucking "both sides"ing abortion? Really? Just fuck off.
Argue in good-faith and you would be free from my criticism.
This isn’t just about abortion. It’s about abortion being protected by the constitution.
Funny how you just proved my point, lol.
I’m not making an argument. I’m telling you to fuck off.
Ok. Thanks for proving my point and being uncivil about it.
The problem here, sweetie, is that you’re assuming both sides have bad faith arguments.
In this case, they both do.
The problem is that you don’t want to admit that because you’re biased.
Or you just don’t understand it
I mean, your tribe would say that.
Or you just think it’s fine to force people to medical events they don’t want.
“your camp”
Yes, this is what tribalism results in.
The respecting women tribe ? Count me in.
It is deeply upsetting that this is where we are at in the U.S. That said, I hope she kicks their ass in court.
Classic conservative move – getting a vaccine during a deadly pandemic is an affront to bodily autonomy rights, but it’s totally okay to force a woman to carry a pregnancy because of religious beliefs.
I don’t necessarily disagree, but they would counter this argument by simply flipping it: “If you can get an abortion why should I have to get a vaccine?”
And, of course, the logic here is that the vaccine helps you and everyone else because the virus won’t spread as much, and the abortion affects — bodily — just the woman. But that won’t matter to their argument.
Didn’t we cover all this in 2021?
Nobody was ever punished for not getting a vaccine in a way that’s remotely comparable to the punishments women and doctors are threatened with for abortions.
Nobody was ever forced to get a vaccine against their will. Forcing women to give birth against their will is the whole point of abortion laws.
Abortion isn’t contagious. Having one doesn’t put people around you in any kind of risk. Being unvaccinated does greatly increase the likelihood that people around you will get sick.
Vaccine mandates were only a thing in the middle of a pandemic. They’ve all been rolled back since the crisis has gotten under control. Abortion restrictions, OTOH, are not temporary and were not created in response to some special circumstance.
But they didn’t get the vaccine and now these women still can’t get abortions. Maybe if they were forced to get the vaccine they could argue that but they weren’t. There was no law requiring normal citizens to get a vaccine but there is a law now stopping normal citizens from getting an abortion. So it seems the group has won both arguments with conflicting hypocritical information
Utilitarianism sucks. Violating sovereignty is wrong in either case. You can refuse to treat someone with Covid because they didn’t get the vaccine when they had the opportunity to. You can shun the person socially for getting an abortion and reject them from your groups. But you can’t reasonably interfere with their body.
The primary ethical punitive act any individual or group may apply to another is to remove one’s presence from their life. If they survive without you, then that’s fine.
Sovereignty resolves a fuckton of organizational and legal issues. Even with it being fairly implicit in the minds of most, it is a massive foundational issue that underpins any reasoning about rights. When the push for mandatory covid vaccines came along, I knew immediately we were at risk of losing abortion, because body sovereignty was on the line - and without sovereignty, there can be no valid moral community.
And if your community isn’t moral, I will simply make my choices, having an abortion if needed, and choosing to get covid rather than getting a vaccine. If you fight me on it, I’ll fight right back, up to the point that you cease to impose your will on me, or on those I recognize as my community.
If the social contract is compulsory, that is called slavery.
TBF It also affects the baby
Fetus*
What baby?
So do school shootings, lack of healthcare, lack of parental leave, lack of affordable housing, lack of public funding for education or childcare or anti-vax tendencies.
Are you sure you didn’t misspell “fetus?”
I love to compare conservative support for vaccines with conservative support for abortion. Now that the GOP caught the dog, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more conservative support for abortion rights than vaccines.
deleted by creator
Kentucky woman sues state over abortion ban so she can
terminate her pregnancymurder her child.There, fixed that for you.
Fetuses are not children. Or do you think my balls contain half children?
What about this woman?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
Fuck all the way off, asshole.
You’re a hypocrite and a liar.
Let me tell you why: Infant mortality (live births that died under 1 year of age) in the US rose by 3% in 2022, increasing for the first time in 20 years from 5.44 per 1000 live births in 2021 to 5.60. (data from the CDC)
Comparing with Europe, you let almost twice of your babies die.
I’m talking about real babies here, babies whose fathers have held them in their arms, changed their diapers, sang them lullabies… And you let them die.
Why is infant mortality in the US the highest of any industrialised nation?
Two reasons: because maternity care in the US is utterly appalling, and because you limit access to abortion. Read more.
You don’t care about children. You care about controlling women. Land of the free allright…
No, sparky, “terminate her pregnancy” was correct. No child is murdered by an abortion. Claiming otherwise requires profound ignorance of biology and what happens during pregnancy.
From the article, a nonviable child. So with no abortion it will die anyway probably in pain while also risking the mother’s life.
Even The Bible says that life begins at first breath, so nope. Not murder.
Scientifically the fetus is a parasite right up until it isn’t, and as long as it cannot live without its mother, it’s not alive. You cannot murder that which was never alive.
So your argument is that tapeworms, vampire bats, mistletoe, and a significant percentage of mushrooms aren’t alive?
There are excellent arguments for abortion access, so FFS please drop this one. It’s counterproductive.
Are you fucking high?
Nah they’d probably have empathy if high
You’re the kind of person who’s kids are going to put them in a home, and you’ll deserve it.
Maybe it’s not the murder you should be making peace with but the idea of all the suffering caused by not having the abortion of a nonviable fetus. People ask What right do we have to end it? Wrong question. What right do we have to force such a thing upon another human? And all anyone is asking you to do is make peace with yourself so another does not suffer. See it as mercy.
So you want women to be forced to give birth to babies that will only survive a few hours or days and be in agonizing pain the entire time.
Noted.
/s or serious?
Probably serious, but it’s funny watching him use the same tactic I see in just about every thread.
“Headline should be what supports my agenda.”
There. Fixed it for you.
hey fuck you too, you’re the other person arguing against reproductive rights and that’s all i know about you!
I was never arguing against reproductive rights.
then you fucked up, because you very clearly were. for someone so enthusiastic about judicial rulings, squibbling over definitions, acting neutral and claiming no opinion… it’s funny how all your arguments happen to support fascist policy. Just an oopsie daisy?
and if you want to teach a lesson on tribalism, instead of just pretending to be in the fascist tribe you could try being more human than just a box of contrarian statements against human rights
You’re too far gone.
Wow nice tribalist thinking. You don’t know anything about me except a couple random comments and you think you can make that evaluation? You’re evaluating an ideology not a person at this point - but keep pretending to call out tribalism while doing it yourself!
I think the title was fine as-is, thanks.
Good, let the squishy blob get flushed down a gas station toilet. Let another kid have a better chance.
