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.

131 points

Pregnancy comes with medical risk to the mother. Restricting abortion access is a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

Abortion is healthcare.

permalink
report
reply
-70 points

I mean, “other people” also comes as a health risk. This by itself is not an argument.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

And if I interact with you the state doesn’t try to deny me medical treatment for whatever condition you gave me.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Unless it’s a pregnancy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-120 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
76 points

Yes, all states should protect women’s rights, are you kidding?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-60 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

Bodily autonomy enshrined in a nation’s most important document? Yeah that sounds pretty good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-40 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-19 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

What’s your point?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-27 points
*

Exposing bad-faith arguments on both sides.

Neither of you are above tribalism or hypocrisy and should be criticized as such.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

“your camp”

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

Yes, this is what tribalism results in.

permalink
report
parent
reply
92 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
54 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
11 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points

TBF It also affects the baby

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Fetus*

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

What baby?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

Sorry Christian blood god needs blood.

permalink
report
reply
-35 points

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.

permalink
report
reply
43 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

That still won’t matter as long as conservatives constantly have a majority in congress

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

No, its on the republicans for making it legal to hunt gay people for sport.

Literally nobody but white leftists thinks like this, and I’m 99% sure even the white leftists don’t actually think like this, they just don’t want to have to stop their cosplay as allies because everyone else sees their priv butts using this kind of thinking as an excuse to let Republicans win elections.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I want to hear which several years you believe the Democrats could have done anything totally unobstructed and with zero resistance. From when to when?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-12 points
*

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Priv the only one making it easier for me to be in danger is you and your ilk letting the Republicans back into power so damn often because “i WaNt To VoTe FoR sOmEoNe!”

Bush won because y’all flocked to nader, and then Trump won because y’all did it again with Stein.

All this accusation of doing nothing and being an active hindrance rings pretty fucking hollow when people like you have to be dragged kicking screaming ans fighting the whole way just to vote for our safety.

Y’all want the aesthetic of guillotines and pride marches with none of the work of being at the polls and being on your representatives.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Roe was “something on the books”, sunshine. Until Trump stacked the Supreme Court there wasn’t a need to put anything into law.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

And democrats were warned time and time again to codify it into law and not just leave it as a court case.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Really? When? I’d love to see a source for your comment along with the majority Senate, house, and president of all Democrats who all agreed for a long enough period to actually get it passed. Please, inform me of this mass of Democrats who all believed the same thing.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points

Remember when Obama care got passed? I think we had the votes at that time

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

We did? Because that was passed with the help of Joe Donnelly, who was anti-abortion. And with some Republicans, who were also anti-abortion. And it only passed without the public option.

I don’t know that it’s the best example.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Nope. We had exactly 60 votes, and that included moderates who shot down further left provisions of Obamacare like single payer. If not for them, we’d have gotten it.

It’s also very noteworthy that Democrats were a lot more conservative back then – or rather, there were a lot more Manchin types in the party. I don’t think there were even 50 pro abortion Senate votes, frankly. It’s really understated how Democrats have shifted left since Obama, as a product of losing those Manchin seats and only keeping solid blue ones.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

That’s what the party of ‘lesser-evil’ gets you.

The ‘lesser’ evil. Lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 11K

    Monthly active users

  • 23K

    Posts

  • 562K

    Comments