this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
437 points (99.1% liked)

politics

18211 readers
5465 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The court ruled that the lower court made a mistake in ruling that the woman, Kate Cox, who is more than 20 weeks pregnant, was entitled to a medical exception.

...

Ms. Cox asked the lower court for approval after she learned that her fetus had a fatal condition, and after several trips to the emergency room.

In short, the life or health exemptions to abortion bans in Republican-controlled states are meaningless.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] someguy3 153 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

I predict the same shenanigans for exceptions for rape. "You were raped? Ok let's wait for the conviction. It took too long and now you can't get an abortion? Teehee."

[–] asteriskeverything 42 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Fuck, it can even be a struggle for a woman to even be believed that she was raped. Especially in right leaning counties/cities/states. And also fight for an exception? I do wonder have any women been given a medical exception?

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I have yet to hear about any medical exemptions, this was the first which was then discarded.

This rejection will have a chilling affect on the willingness of others to try for an exemption as well.

[–] AA5B 3 points 7 months ago

Even worse, it sounds like it wasn’t entirely settled, just delayed until after it makes no difference

[–] AA5B 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It’s ver y easy to get an exception - I understand you were raised. Let’s schedule a court date 12 weeks from now to see if you’re under the six week limit

[–] asteriskeverything 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

*raped Sorry it took me an embarrassing amount of time to figure that autocorrect out so just wanna share for others.

But damn that hits home. Pro-life Americans don't wanna even listen or consider that the system of "exceptions" don't function at all even at the most basic of empathetic levels. Like a 5 year old would talk about terminating an unsustainable or unwanted pregnancy with more grace and empathy than a republican congress person. And emphasis on person- it can be appalling what the women are willing to say and support.

[–] AA5B 2 points 7 months ago

Yep, I didn’t notice that autocorrect, thanks

[–] Chainweasel 29 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I imagine it'll be more like:
"You were raped? Do you have a photo of yourself in the outfit you were wearing when you were raped? We need see if you were asking for it or not before we make that decision"

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

"Did you orgasm? It's a sin if you were raped and enjoyed it." Wait, that's for church.

[–] Chainweasel 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If there was a line between the church and the state we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

[–] AA5B 2 points 7 months ago

It’s too bad our country’s founders didn’t consider whether there should be a separation of church and state

[–] FlyingSquid 27 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The idea that a woman has to prove to legal satisfaction that she was raped in order to get an abortion is so fucking sickening. There shouldn't be the same standard for a raped woman to get an abortion than there is to convict her rapist.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName -3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

While I think its sickening, they need some way to at least prove it happened to legal satisfaction. Not the same standard I agree.

If all you had to do was claim rape and invent an imaginary situation the police would never figure out (e.g masked rapist in a no camera area of town when no one was around) then every woman could just claim rape to get an abortion.

Filing a false police report probably has consequences but worse than having an unwanted child?

Although I'm not saying a conviction is needed here, but some sort of medical agreement that rape was likely, however they determine that now with rape kits.

This whole thing is maddening though. They should be able to get an abortion if they want one end of story.

Edit: for anyone who wants to or has downvoted me here, please do tell me how we can ban abortions and have an exception for rape, but not have a way of verifying a rape without allowing 100% of woman to claim rape for 100% of abortions. This shitty situation is reality, and you can't just disagree and say they should be allowed an abortion because they want one. That's not a valid answer to our current situation as shitty as it is.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Edit: for anyone who wants to or has downvoted me here, please do tell me how we can ban abortions and have an exception for rape

The answer here is simple: I reject the premise of the question. Banning abortion but having an exception for rape is morally disingenuous. You can't say "abortion is murder some of the time."

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

If that's your stance that's fair, I made an assumption that the downvotes were from people upset that I was explaining why they can't just allow a rape claim without some confirmation a rape actually happened.

Edit: I was just explaining the situation, though.

Edit: also thanks, I appreciate the answer.

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If all you had to do was claim rape and invent an imaginary situation the police would never figure out (e.g masked rapist in a no camera area of town when no one was around) then every woman could just claim rape to get an abortion.

What's wrong with that?

They should be able to get an abortion if they want one

Which is exactly why there's nothing wrong with women lying about being raped. You shouldn't have to have been raped to get an abortion in the first place and I'd be lying my ass off about it if I needed an abortion.

"Yes officer I didn't see any defining features he wore a mask and didn't speak he also put a bag over my head and put a blindfold on me"

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Sadly that just won't fly. It sucks, but you're being delusional if you think a state with an abortion ban would accept such a glaring loophole in their laws.

Edit: 100% unrelated but I seem to be getting delayed notifications that I even have a reply to a message? Am I the only one experiencing that?

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Oh I know it won't I'm just saying that's exactly what I would say before nopeing the fuck outta state permanently.

As for the notification thing idk what app your using but it's normal on jerboa. You can just check your notifications manually and it'll be there before the actual notification

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 2 points 7 months ago

I like to think I would have noped out of the state permanently well before I got pregnant.

I'm using sync, the inbox will show no new messages even when I refresh it, and then 5 min later show one that's 20 minutes old. I haven't dug into it further though like comparing to the web.