Kentucky woman sues state over abortion ban so she can terminate her pregnancy
Kentucky woman sues state over abortion ban so she can terminate her pregnancy
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Pregnancy comes with medical risk to the mother. Restricting abortion access is a clear violation of the 14th amendment.
Abortion is healthcare.
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?
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.
Is the nation more or less divided than when slavery was banned?
The nation was more divided during slavery, hence why we had a civil war over it.
We were only able to outlaw slavery because of who won that war.
An interesting argument. So law is only credible if people go to war over it and is an expression of millitary superiority. Also the Constitution is the only level of federal law that is binding and the only thing that determines what is both ethical and a human right and any attempt to change that is made right only by an expression of deadly force... Hmm.
There are a lot of non-constitutional federal laws that protect rights however. The FDA for instance enforces the rights of the public to not be subjected to food and drug adulteration, the Americans with Disabilities Act protects the rights of disabled persons guaranting them reasonable accommodation to fully participate in society. Are those laws valid as they are extra constitutional?
As for abortion specifically, the 14th amendment was invoked heavily during the original Supreme court case as the support for the original Roe v. Wade but the document that court decision was based on has not changed, nor has the medical procedure that case was based on. The original court case featured heavily that private citizen rights were nessisary to individually made health decisions based on the established principles outlined in the document. The progression of the court case attempted to follow a series of logic to determine if the constitution was being applied.
It's repeal was through Dobbs v Jackson and it's precedent over turned for reasons "Abortion not being deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered being a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868... This is a note for note description of a fallacy - the appeal to tradition. That for something to be true it must be revered as a cultural norm dating back to usually unspecified periord. It also has the component of the genetic fallacy - rejecting or accepting something based on the origin of it rather than it's content.
Following that logic you can dismiss basically all of US law that has been codified after the original constitution. Food and drug adulteration was a huge problem during the period of the signing of the Constitution so obviously the US has no tradition to protect the health of it's citizens based on those grounds. Nothing in the constitution that specifically stops companies from doing that! Disabled people aren't obviously mentioned and we had a long history of basically telling them that they had no right to participation in anything. Basically the entire naturalization process was codified after the original signing so bye bye citizenship rights slavery is legal.
Your argument is essentially that what is codified into law is what is ethical but also that modifying an expanding the protections of those laws are an expression of "tribalism"... But they shouldn't be. The original court that saw Roe v. Wade were majority Conservatives. They held themselves to completely different ethical principles than the modern Conservatives on the court. They MADE this and all constitutional laws a matter of tribalism by discarding logic and greater ethics to the side. Your freedoms and protections are all fundamentally compromised by these fallacies based on exploitation of the system. If one can simply reject the rules, letter and spirit of the law in favour of putting forward the imaginary intentions of a bunch of dead people then all of the laws you have are based only on a complete flight of fancy. They are just hoping you are too wound up in your own tribalism to notice.
Ever noticed that any change made post Confederacy isn't supported by an originalist argument? That's actually by design.
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.
Oh let's discuss the second amendment. Tell me, who is your commanding officer in your well-regulated militia? What rank do you hold? Where is your uniform? How much compensation are you given for your service? I hope you are not engaged in stolen valor.
Where does the 2nd amendment specify any of that as being necessary?
You can argue it's a poorly written amendment, but trying to argue it means things that it clearly doesn't just to support your agenda is playing right into my arguments of tribalism and hypocrisy.
Thank you for proving my points.
It’s not a poorly-written amendment unless you ignore the context of the Articles of Confederation, which is where the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ came from and in which it was explicitly defined:
every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. from section VI
That was unambiguously what ‘well-regulated militia’ meant when the Constitution was drafted, and was its intended meaning. That context has been lost and/or deliberately obscured in recent years – specifically since the 2008 Heller decision that reinterpreted the 2A to ignore that context and how grammar works in order to include the rights of individuals.
Most people today are fine with that reinterpretation (or are simply unaware it happened), but my point is a core amendment was reinterpreted recently in much the same way you’ve been arguing against.
Why was it fine for the 2A but bodily autonomy is a bridge too far?
Well regulated militia.
Those words are not there by accident. You claim that you have a right to a murder machine because of the text, the text says your murder machine is for the purpose of a well regulated militia. So please describe your militia to me.
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.
But the meaning isn't even relevant because the "right to bear arms" isn't bound by it:
Ah yes, the old "half the amendment is just there for decoration" argument. That's where I stopped reading. You're a lost cause.
Not my fault you didn't pay attention in English classes when you were in school :/
Also I clearly stated why it was there – as a good reasoning for the amendment existing and emphasising the amendment's importance to the security of the state. It's right next to the most important freedom (to the writers), the freedom of speech, it's important to explain why they find it so essential.
Listen, you can have whatever stance you want on gun rights or whatever, but you can't just make up your own reality and twist linguistics to fit your perception. I'm very pro-strict-gun-control, as already stated, I'm extremely left-leaning, if anything interpreting the 2nd Amendment factually and accepting it not only applying to militias is more of a detriment to my political goals, but I'm not going to take that and decide that it's better to twist basic grammar to my liking. You can't just treat the 2nd Amendment syntactically differently from any other sentence for no reason. Linguistics isn't a political tool, it's a science (unless you're a prescriptivist).
Whatever you want it to mean.
I want it to mean no one. Hand in your gun to the nearest police department as you are by definition no longer in the well-regulated militia
Okay.
The rule was overturned because the Pope told Roberts and the other Catholics to overturn it.
I'm not so sure about that. Can you share more information? It sounds interesting.
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?
What about in the universe where a pregnant woman has a non-viable pregnancy that will cause her lasting medical harm if she doesn't get treatment?
Should governments be allowed to engage in activities that strictly harm their citizens?
I think the mother gets precedent over the child. Even if the pregnancy is viable and there is no elevated risk of harm to the mother, she should still be allowed to have an abortion.
Some people disagree with me though for the reasons I have mentioned.
Bodily autonomy means only you have the absolute right to do with your body what you want. The "unborn child" has no right to claim your body for its own use. Removing it from the body is always done as safely as possible; before 24 weeks this means an abortion, as the fetus is non-viable still. After 24 weeks, it's called an induced birth and the baby gets to survive.
This without question ties the right to abortion to the right to bodily autonomy. The "rights of the unborn child" are respected by not killing it after 24 weeks.
That's fair, I totally agree with you. An unborn child is just a collection of cells with no sense of self. I mean, it really calls into question what is a conscious being, imo, which they clearly are not. They're far, far from developing the facilities to manifest consciousness.
That said, a lot of people cannot understand this. I think it's unfair to misrepresent their argument and therefor misunderstand them. It's not conducive to discussion. Even if they're wrong, I think it's important to acknowledge what their stance is, for what it is.
Do you get to harvest my organs without my consent, yes or no?
Mmm, is that a 1:1 analogy of abortion?
Yes or no?
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.
The difference is one side isn't trying to force anything, they're just saying "you have the choice".
The other side is trying to force their choice on everyone?
Well, not exactly. If people want to live in a state where they don't have the choice for an abortion, then making it federally mandatory takes that choice away from them.
Most 12 year old rape victims didn’t get to choose the state in which they were born. Most people living in poverty don’t have the luxury of just moving somewhere else. And what about the disabled or women with court orders preventing them from leaving the state for whatever reason? There are many, many situations where that isn’t feasible.
That view of the situation is pretty myopic and privileged.
You're deliberately misunderstanding. You are conflating choice with people wanting the law to be a specific way. You don't want an abortion? Don't have one. That has nothing to do with me. My potential abortion has nothing to do with you. Once you decide to make it illegal for me to have an abortion, that is taking away all choice. The law allowing for either/or is not making a choice on your ability to not have an abortion; that doesn't take away from you. You still get to decide to not have one.
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.
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.
Ok, thanks for admitting you're not here for any sort of good faith discussion and are just here to feed your smug sense of superiority.
Fuck off.
Alright, time to block you.
Fuck off.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.