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.

  • Omega@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    132
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

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

    Abortion is healthcare.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • FrostyTrichs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            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

            • FrostyTrichs@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

    • chitak166@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      123
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          63
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            43
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              31
              ·
              11 months 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.

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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?

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    12
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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?

                • chitak166@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  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.

          • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            11 months ago

            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?

            • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              11 months ago

              “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.

              • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                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.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              14
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

          • Darkard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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.

          • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            11 months ago

            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”.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              18
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              “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.”

              • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              11 months ago

              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.

              • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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?

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

              • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • force@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regulate#:~:text=To control or direct according,for accurate and proper functioning.

                  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.

                  • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’m not so sure about that. Can you share more information? It sounds interesting.

      • sulgoth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        57
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          43
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • lingh0e
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            29
            ·
            11 months ago

            Seriously! Remember how when they wrote the 2nd ammendmen, they absolutely had modern firearms in mind, right? How is bodily autonomy a “weak stance”?

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              24
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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.

                • chitak166@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  13
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  In the universe where people believe an unborn child has rights.

                  Should expectant mothers be allowed to engage in activities that harm their children?

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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?

                  • 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.

              • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

                • chitak166@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  12
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Yes. Both sides are happy to cry ‘slippery slope’ and then engage in it when it is favorable to them.

                  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    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?

              • Exatron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                11 months ago

                And what’s wrong with that? It’s something, especially compared to your plan of doing essentially nothing until an amendment is ratified.

              • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                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.

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              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.”

      • Wahots@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          20
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • Tilted@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            11 months ago

            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.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.