2y ago

Kentucky woman sues state over abortion ban so she can terminate her pregnancy

www.kentucky.com /news/politics-government/article282806113.html

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.

125 comments

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.
- 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?
  
  Bodily autonomy enshrined in a nation's most important document? Yeah that sounds pretty good.
  
  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.
  
  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?
  
  "your camp"
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
- 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.
Sorry Christian blood god needs blood.
Democrats had fifty freaking years to get something on the books and they did nothing. Shove it into a must pass bill. Fifty years of "it's decided by the courts, no reason to go further" attitude.
- Republicans will literally legalize hunting gay people for sport and the white left is still gonna find a way to make it the Dems' fault
  
  I mean, being the lesser-evil doesn't make you good or free from criticism. Lol.
  Maybe dems should elect better reps! Then we wouldn't be in this situation.
  
  You must ask yourself how the Republicans are able to pass such legislation while the Dems can't ever seem to get anything done "because the Republicans interfere with it", even with a Democratic super majority.
  Doesn't make much sense.
  
  Lemme put it this way. If Democrats choose to let Republicans hunt gay people for sport, after they've had decades to type some words on a piece of paper that would prevent it, the Democrats are partially to blame when they do.
  Why would you defend people who've not only not done shit to defend you, but have actively made it easier for you to be in danger?
  Please, enlighten me if I'm wrong. Don't just downvote and insult me. Is there a good reason why Roe V Wade wasn't codified? Are y'all just upset to see reminders that the Democratic party isn't flawless?
- It was on the books! It was already decided at the Scotus level.
  Stare decisis should have applied and Scotus shouldn't have even heard the case under precedent.
  The idea that a constitutional amendment needs to be made for something to be "on the books" is absurd.
  What happened here is Scotus broke their own rules. They ignored the 9th and the 14th and violated their own principles.
  This court is corrupt. Several justices should be impeached and removed.
  Roe was settled case law. Pretending it wasn't is a joke.
  
  I wish it was far more common knowledge that SCOTUS doesn't just ignore the 9th amendment, they flagrantly violate it. The amendment says they a right does not need to be explicitly mentioned to be protected -- which makes a lot of sense when you think back on American history, because opponents of the Constitution felt that only our enumerated rights were protected and no other freedoms. Hence, why the 9th was made.
  The actual text goes further and says that the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution should not be used to disparage or forbid our other rights. This is exactly what SCOTUS disobeys, because the "a right must be guaranteed by an amendment" philosophy they've adopted for abortion flies in the face of that.
- At what point in the last 50 years did Democrats have a majority of pro-choice congresspeople with a president who wouldn't veto such a bill? Because I'm close to 50 and I don't remember when that was.
  
  Remember when Obama care got passed? I think we had the votes at that time
- That's what the party of 'lesser-evil' gets you.
  The 'lesser' evil. Lol.
Kentucky woman sues state over abortion ban so she can ~~terminate her pregnancy~~ murder her child.
There, fixed that for you.
- What about this woman?
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
  Fuck all the way off, asshole.
- Fetuses are not children. Or do you think my balls contain half children?
- 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...
- 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.
- 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.
- You're the kind of person who's kids are going to put them in a home, and you'll deserve it.
- 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.
- I think the title was fine as-is, thanks.
- Nope.
- Good, let the squishy blob get flushed down a gas station toilet. Let another kid have a better chance.

125 comments