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.

  • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year 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
      ·
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year 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?

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If you don’t want an abortion you are under no obligation to have one. The only right they lost was the right to kill woman for the Christian blood god

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Typical, willful misunderstanding of state’s rights.

              Even if you disagree with the rights, you can’t deny that people think they should exist.

              Do you think, for example, that Thailand is justified in executing drug users? That’s the right of their state. Should there be a world constitution that stops them from doing that? I personally think, yes. But it doesn’t exist, so drug users in Thailand must suffer execution.

              It’s an unfortunate world we live in, but bad faith arguments do not make it better.

              • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                bad faith arguments do not make it better.

                Then stop putting forward bad faith arguments

                Typical, willful misunderstanding of state’s rights.

                Nobody actually believes this is about states rights, evidenced by the fact the the states trying to ban abortions are trying to prevent them happening in other states where it is legal.

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

                Typically willful misunderstanding of the right to be left alone and the “right” of the skydaddy followers to impose their will on us.

                Thanks for muddling theocracy with democracy today

          • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.