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.

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    57
    ·
    11 months ago

    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.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months ago

      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

      • chitak166@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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.

            • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              ·
              11 months ago

              Perhaps all the appallingly egregious gerrymandering that ensures democrats can’t win in many areas should be addressed?

              Democrats could run Jesus himself and lose in many places.

                • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Definitely not. But we have to recognise which issues supersede others, and which must be fixed before it’s even physically possible to address the other things.

                  It’s like fretting over the train being on schedule before the tracks have been laid. Yes, many things need fixing and several are dire, but without the tracks, shouting at the conductor to make the train go faster is futile.

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              11 months ago

              There’s two conflicting viewpoints here. You need as many pro choice Democrats elected as possible to codify abortion rights.

              But that doesn’t happen in just one election cycle. If you punish Democrats for not fixing it immediately, you’ll never build up the necessary numbers. And that’s exactly what happened. Democrats got a huge boost in 2008 that was enough to advance things somewhat. Voters stayed home in 2010 because they didn’t like the limited improvements, and in doing so, handed Republicans the majority and prevented anything more than the limited improvements.

              Even Roe wasn’t repealed overnight. It was a multi decade campaign. The left needs to play just as much of a long game to get what we want. There’ll be absolutely no progress if we keep getting to get one large push to the left in 2 years, versus several smaller pushes to the left over 10 years to get to the same point.

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          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.

            • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              All this energy spent on why you shouldn’t be judged for being the white leftist who will find any way possible to blame the dems for Republicans hunting gay people for sport.

              It’s ok, you can just tell us you care more about feeling vindicated about student loans and some nebulous dream of M4A than us getting to live, we aren’t gonna let you march alongside us anymore but you clearly wanna just say it, so go ahead, say it priv.

        • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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?

            • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              I figured you were going to say 2009-2011, guessing that you were too young to be aware of what actually went on back then, where they only had a supermajority for about 2 months which they used to pass the ACA, but I’m really surprised you even included 2021-2023 — You saw that with your own eyes! Were you paying any attention?

      • starman2112
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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?

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.

          • starman2112
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            the only one making it easier for me to be in danger is you and your ilk letting the Republicans back into power

            How am I letting republicans back into power by voting blue all the way down the ballot every fucking year

            I’m not reading the rest of your reply until you answer that

            How is it a bad thing to be upset that Democrats aren’t doing what I voted for them to do?

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • Exatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

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

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        11 months ago

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

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

          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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

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

          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.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.