7 ms·

Texts, web searches about abortion have been used to prosecute women

54 points by saguntum 4y ago

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Horrific. Especially where states are throwing out the benefit of doubt. Leaving it up to appeals courts to clean up the mess. We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women's rights.
- dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
  - robonerd 4y ago
    True, that would be illegal in most of Europe.
    - Mikeb85 4y ago
      All of Europe. The latest any EU country allows abortion is 24 weeks and the majority bans it after 18 weeks.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        Russia permits later abortions on a case-by-case basis.
        Mikeb85 4y ago
        Russia isn't EU and I'd hesitate calling them "Europe" at this point. Anyhow looked it up, Russia only allows elective abortions up to 12 weeks. So way more conservative than the US or even much of the EU.
        robonerd 4y ago
        I said Europe, not EU, and wikipedia lists Russia on their page for Europe so that's good enough for me.
        Mikeb85 4y ago
        Again though, they only allow elective abortion until 12 weeks...
    - Malician 4y ago
      In many parts of Europe she would have had the services and access available & this wouldn't have happened. The US is creating these cases.
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    Babies are born prematurely at 35 weeks and earlier. My mother survived being born at 33 weeks. There is no doubt we're talking about a human individual at this point. I sincerely hope that American abortion activists and supporters will reconsider the ethics of late-term abortion. It's barbaric. I think most people just haven't done the research / internalized the cruelty.
    - nerdponx 4y ago
      Is anyone seriously arguing in defense of abortions this late, except in seriously dire extenuating circumstances?
      - robonerd 4y ago
        'Serious' is a subjective qualifier that is doing a lot of work in your comment. But yes, I have met quite a few people who believe abortion should be flat legal, no qualifications or conditions. A lot of rhetoric about fetuses being parasites. From a few I've even heard "In my religion, it's not a person until it breaths."
      - warning26 4y ago
        It's 100% a strawman -- even Roe didn't allow abortions past 23 weeks.
        whateveracct 4y ago
        yep - people getting riled up about abortion this far along (as if it's just an elective oopsie) are emotionally falling for propaganda.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      According to the CDC[0]: "In 2015, almost two thirds (65.4%) of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (91.1%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. Few abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks’ gestation (7.6%) or at ≥21 weeks’ gestation (1.3%). During 2006–2015 the percentage of all abortions performed at >13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%). Among abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, a shift occurred toward earlier gestational ages, with the percentage performed at ≤6 weeks’ gestation increasing 11%." That's ~91% of abortions at less than/equal to 13 weeks. What's more: "[T]he abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births." There were 638,169 total abortions, with only 9% (~57,500) occurring after 13 weeks. Consider that this includes fetuses with deadly/debilitating defects (including, but not limited to, Down's Syndrome, cystic fibrosis and spina bifida) as well as other issues that threaten the life of the mother, doom the fetus to a painful death after birth and/or condemn such a child to a lifetime of misery. Many/most of those cannot be determined without an amniocentesis[1], which isn't performed until 14-20 weeks. It's not clear how many >13 week abortions are performed in those cases, but it's likely that a significant portion are fetuses that will likely die before/soon after birth, have debilitating defects and/or threaten the life of the mother. As such, the truth is that the vast majority of abortions are performed long before a fetus is much more than the length of your middle finger. So no. "Late-term" abortions are extremely rare, with only ~1.3% (~9,000 out of ~4.6 million pregnancies) performed after 21 weeks. And likely many (most?) are fetuses that have been found to have serious defects/abnormalities and/or a full term pregnancy threatens the life/health of the mother. I'm not sure what you think "abortion activists" are advocating. I'd say they're advocating giving women the opportunity to save their own lives and/or prevent enormous suffering among babies with debilitating/life-threatening conditions. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm [1] https://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/amniocentesis/ https://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/amniocentesis... Edit: Fixed typo, de-gerundized "prevent".
  - klyrs 4y ago
    The baby had the umbilical cord wrapped around its neck[?]. Stillbirth is not a crime. Sure, there is evidence she was considering an abortion, but I see no evidence mentioned that she followed through on the purchase. Given that the facts are consistent with a naturally failed birth, which occur quite frequently, claims of infanticide are unwarranted. This is a major fear of "pro life" legislation: women are reduced to birthing vessels and failure to reproduce warrants intense legal scrutiny. I have friends that could, in today's legal environment, be facing life in prison because they've had three or more miscarriages. [?] I may have misread something, and cannot find a source on this on second reading. Leaving it in place for the sake of transparency.
    - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
      > Stillbirth That's not in the article. > but I see no evidence mentioned that she followed through on the purchase This article is about abortion rights. I think it's fair game to call a 35 week abortion what it is. > women are reduced to birthing vessels There isn't some conspiracy to turn women into birthing vessels. The only thing under debate is at what age a baby becomes a legal person afforded rights to life and at what age a women loses her right to end that life.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        I read several articles about the case. Google the accused's name. > I think it's fair game to call a 35 week abortion what it is. I think it's fair to presume innocence until guilt is proven. Edit: I think I misread one of the articles, apologies
        dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
        Yea that's probably fair. I dont really think we should be looking to criminalise pregnancy losses. At the same time I think it was a bit of a suspect situation. It's pretty rare to end up with a full term baby dead in the toilet.
        robonerd 4y ago
  - johnday 4y ago
    > There are only 36 weeks in a pregnancy. What an extremely weird thing to get wrong. Pregnancies are 40 weeks long.
    - lozenge 4y ago
      They are counting from implantation rather than the last period.
- robonerd 4y ago
  At the very least a federal law from congress is in order. And would be easier to pass than an amendment.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Can Congress override Supreme Court rulings?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lostgame 4y ago
  >> We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women's rights. Sounds great - but would that matter? Roe vs. Wade showed that laws made and ‘democratic’ decisions settled upon in the USA can be reversed with no warning, no voting, nothing but funding from evil people. I fail to believe these Christian extremists wouldn’t repeat the process with the constitution. After all, these are people who take ‘wives be submissive to your husbands’ as literal Gospel.[0] Absolutely disgusting and appalling. That verse and many, many more - shows to me that Women’s rights or gay rights can never even be important to these people, sadly. In fact, as long as we have rights; they’ll fight against it. They think they have to, or they’ll go to hell! God told them to take away our rights. I mean, Christianity is a patriarchy, by design. (‘God the Father’ and all of that…) Outside of Catholicism, there isn’t any sort of Divine Feminine figure, and the Bible doesn’t speak much upon Women’s rights. (having been raised by a Baptist Minister I do actually know quite a hit about the Bible) It will be a constant uphill battle against these people, sadly. [0] Check out this crockpot doozy of bullshit from Ephesians 5:21: “ Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.”
  - swearwolf 4y ago
    While Ephesians 5:21 does say that, verse 25 says: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” And verse 28 says: “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” The ultimate idea of these verses is better expressed in Ephesians 5:31, which says: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
    - krapp 4y ago
      Yes but you'll notice, only one side has to submit. Both sides have to love, but the power dynamic, and thus autonomy, is clearly not equal. For that matter, Paul also told slavemasters to treat their slaves well, and told slaves to obey their masters, which is exactly the dynamic he describes between men and women. And then there's First Timothy... "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint." I mean, you can insist these verses have been misinterpreted or misconstrued, and that because early Christianity had women in prominent positions obviously such views weren't universal, but it doesn't change the fact that women have been oppressed, and literally tortured and beaten to death over millennia because of them.
lostgame 4y ago
EDIT: I’m a victim of rape, and my opinions expressed are largely from that of a woman who has been sexually assaulted. Before you downvote me because you might disagree, or you might live in the USA and not like that I’m speaking negatively about it, please stop to put yourself in the shoes of the women in the USA, especially those who are victims of sexual assault. Please be part of the solution, not the problem. POST: Looking from the outside in - America is, at best - a sad joke - and, at worst - absolutely appalling, horrific, and terrifying. The response (rather the offensive as hell, disgusting, unbelievable lack of response) to the recent school shooting - followed by the abolition of basic human rights, less than a couple weeks later is a situation that has actually left me at a loss for words or understanding. America has, finally - officially lost is right to call itself the ‘Land of the Free’. The point where you’re arresting raped women for getting an abortion, yeah…pretty sure that’s just plain evil. No words. It’s a terrifying situation, and I don’t see it getting any better anytime soon. As a queer, transgender woman; I could not feel safer or more grateful to have made the choice to leave the USA and live here in Canada; where ‘freedom’ isn’t just a word shouted by homophobic, transphobic, gun-toting public as a reason to be hateful…but an honest-to-God way of life. We all know that these awful people will be coming after gay marriage next. I never thought I’d have to use the term ‘Christian extremists’, but what they’re doing to basic human rights is disturbing. As a woman who considers herself a Christian - I’m pretty damn sure if God had a phone, he’d be placing a call to Biden to ask if they could take ‘In God we trust’ off the dollar bills. It’s really sad how the USA can call Muslims terrorists, but ignore the terrorists within their borders. :(
- nerdponx 4y ago
  > We all know they’re coming after gay marriage next. Fortunately I think that will be harder to overturn, because it's on a less-shaky legal basis (as far as I know) compared to Roe v Wade. Also I think that ship has more or less sailed and society has basically come to accept it. Abortion has always been a lot more contentious. > I never thought I’d have to use the term ‘Christian extremists’, but what they’re doing to basic human rights is disturbing. This has been decades in the making, the endgame of an intergenerational propaganda campaign. They were extremists in the 80s, in the 00s, and today. What's interesting now is that the "Christian" angle is de-emphasized, and what used to be considered Christian fundamentalism has worked its way into mainstream secular conservativism (not by accident). It is arguably a longstanding American political tradition to govern according to hypocritical authoritarian religious extremist principles, dating back to literally before the founding of the USA.
4oh9do 4y ago
> Activists also use virtual private networks, which can minimize data collected about browsing, and encourage Polish women to contact them on encrypted channels like Signal. They delete all online conversations after the person has had the abortion and caution the person not to post on social media about their experiences, after some faced online harassment. One organization that provides funds for Polish people to get the procedure in Germany pays abortion clinics directly, rather than providing funds to patients, to ensure there are no digital records. I don't understand why this paragraph is buried in the middle of the article. It should be a prominently featured tooltip.
dehrmann 4y ago
Umm, yes? Prosecutors have been using search history and text messages as evidence for a long time. If you're in a jurisdiction where abortions are illegal, there's no reason to think they wouldn't also be used as evidence.
- lostgame 4y ago
  That’s missing the forest for the trees. The outrage here is that they violated our basic rights as Women by suddenly overturning a law with no warning or input from citizens. The further outrage is that they’re actually being revolting enough to chase after us for it. What a disgusting, disturbing, revolting country. :( ‘freedom’, lol…
  - hatefulmoron 4y ago
    >they violated our basic rights as Women by suddenly overturning a law with no warning or input from citizens. This statement is kind of funny when the right you're referring to was invented (right or wrong) by a group of unelected judges, and is now open to be legislated on by the citizens you want input from.
    - nobody9999 4y ago
      >This statement is kind of funny when the right you're referring to was invented (right or wrong) by a group of unelected judges, and is now open to be legislated on by the citizens you want input from. No. Humans (and that includes women) have agency. That includes bodily autonomy and any "law" that restricts that is unethical, misogynistic and flat wrong. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. As far as anyone else is concerned it's none of your concern.
      - snapplebobapple 4y ago
        While I am a huge fan of abortion (it has killed so many future criminals that you can see its implementation in the crime stats), this idea of agency as justification for allowing abortion is completely wrong because we already curtail agency for various things like self harm and harming others and at some point long past inception but before birth it gets pretty hard to argue you aren't harming someone else.
yrgulation 4y ago
In 1966 Ceausescu, Romania’s dictator, wanted to increase the country’s population by banning abortions and birth control. This is the result of that policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-when-a-country-bans-abortion-romania-alabama/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-w...
- saghm 4y ago
  The intent behind banning abortion in the US has nothing to do with influencing population growth; it's purely about punishing women for daring to try to assert control of their own bodies.
  - yrgulation 4y ago
    Regardless of the intent the result is the same: “punishing women for daring to try to assert control of their own bodies”. I dont live in america unfortunately and have no clue what the cultural background causing this is, but i do know its wrong.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      When I was raised anti-choice it was more about life is sacred, divine. Even if it's not viable and the would be parents haven't reached adolescence. Though it's possible the religious and conservatives at the top had more insidious motives.
      - saghm 4y ago
        That's what I was taught in Catholic school as well, and yet, none of the people telling my classmates and I that abortion was literally murder seemed to be in favor of equal criminal penalties for premeditated murder and performing an abortion, because it's quite obviously not equal to killing a living human. Likewise, the fact that there are plenty of people who are only in favor of abortion in cases like when the mother's life is at stake are tacitly admitting that a fetus is not equivalent to a living human; essentially no one would be in favor of harvesting organs from a living child to keep a parent alive. If the argument is that a fetus is not equal to a human but still life and therefore sacred, then why isn't the anti-abortion crowd clamoring to make putting terminally ill pets to sleep a crime? If euthanizing an actual living dog or cat that can feel pain is morally okay, I don't really understand why an unviable fetus would require more protection under the law. I've also not met anyone who also wants to outlaw hunting because "life is sacred"; instead, I'll often hear arguments about how hunting is ethical despite the fact that it's ending life. If the arguments that abortion should be illegal because of the "sanctity of life" were being applied consistently to other issues, I'd find it easier to believe. When the only heavy political mobilization from the "life is sacred" interest group is to protect "life" when it's sequestered inside a woman's body, it's pretty hard not to assume that the only substantive difference is in fact the motivation.

54 points by saguntum 4y ago

Horrific. Especially where states are throwing out the benefit of doubt. Leaving it up to appeals courts to clean up the mess. We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women's rights.

dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
- robonerd 4y ago
  True, that would be illegal in most of Europe.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    All of Europe. The latest any EU country allows abortion is 24 weeks and the majority bans it after 18 weeks.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      Russia permits later abortions on a case-by-case basis.
      - Mikeb85 4y ago
        Russia isn't EU and I'd hesitate calling them "Europe" at this point. Anyhow looked it up, Russia only allows elective abortions up to 12 weeks. So way more conservative than the US or even much of the EU.
        robonerd 4y ago
        I said Europe, not EU, and wikipedia lists Russia on their page for Europe so that's good enough for me.
        Mikeb85 4y ago
        Again though, they only allow elective abortion until 12 weeks...
  - Malician 4y ago
    In many parts of Europe she would have had the services and access available & this wouldn't have happened. The US is creating these cases.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  Babies are born prematurely at 35 weeks and earlier. My mother survived being born at 33 weeks. There is no doubt we're talking about a human individual at this point. I sincerely hope that American abortion activists and supporters will reconsider the ethics of late-term abortion. It's barbaric. I think most people just haven't done the research / internalized the cruelty.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    Is anyone seriously arguing in defense of abortions this late, except in seriously dire extenuating circumstances?
    - robonerd 4y ago
      'Serious' is a subjective qualifier that is doing a lot of work in your comment. But yes, I have met quite a few people who believe abortion should be flat legal, no qualifications or conditions. A lot of rhetoric about fetuses being parasites. From a few I've even heard "In my religion, it's not a person until it breaths."
    - warning26 4y ago
      It's 100% a strawman -- even Roe didn't allow abortions past 23 weeks.
      - whateveracct 4y ago
        yep - people getting riled up about abortion this far along (as if it's just an elective oopsie) are emotionally falling for propaganda.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    According to the CDC[0]: "In 2015, almost two thirds (65.4%) of abortions were performed at ≤8 weeks’ gestation, and nearly all (91.1%) were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation. Few abortions were performed between 14 and 20 weeks’ gestation (7.6%) or at ≥21 weeks’ gestation (1.3%). During 2006–2015 the percentage of all abortions performed at >13 weeks’ gestation remained consistently low (≤9.0%). Among abortions performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation, a shift occurred toward earlier gestational ages, with the percentage performed at ≤6 weeks’ gestation increasing 11%." That's ~91% of abortions at less than/equal to 13 weeks. What's more: "[T]he abortion rate for 2015 was 11.8 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 188 abortions per 1,000 live births." There were 638,169 total abortions, with only 9% (~57,500) occurring after 13 weeks. Consider that this includes fetuses with deadly/debilitating defects (including, but not limited to, Down's Syndrome, cystic fibrosis and spina bifida) as well as other issues that threaten the life of the mother, doom the fetus to a painful death after birth and/or condemn such a child to a lifetime of misery. Many/most of those cannot be determined without an amniocentesis[1], which isn't performed until 14-20 weeks. It's not clear how many >13 week abortions are performed in those cases, but it's likely that a significant portion are fetuses that will likely die before/soon after birth, have debilitating defects and/or threaten the life of the mother. As such, the truth is that the vast majority of abortions are performed long before a fetus is much more than the length of your middle finger. So no. "Late-term" abortions are extremely rare, with only ~1.3% (~9,000 out of ~4.6 million pregnancies) performed after 21 weeks. And likely many (most?) are fetuses that have been found to have serious defects/abnormalities and/or a full term pregnancy threatens the life/health of the mother. I'm not sure what you think "abortion activists" are advocating. I'd say they're advocating giving women the opportunity to save their own lives and/or prevent enormous suffering among babies with debilitating/life-threatening conditions. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/67/ss/ss6713a1.htm [1] https://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/amniocentesis/ https://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/amniocentesis... Edit: Fixed typo, de-gerundized "prevent".
- klyrs 4y ago
  The baby had the umbilical cord wrapped around its neck[?]. Stillbirth is not a crime. Sure, there is evidence she was considering an abortion, but I see no evidence mentioned that she followed through on the purchase. Given that the facts are consistent with a naturally failed birth, which occur quite frequently, claims of infanticide are unwarranted. This is a major fear of "pro life" legislation: women are reduced to birthing vessels and failure to reproduce warrants intense legal scrutiny. I have friends that could, in today's legal environment, be facing life in prison because they've had three or more miscarriages. [?] I may have misread something, and cannot find a source on this on second reading. Leaving it in place for the sake of transparency.
  - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
    > Stillbirth That's not in the article. > but I see no evidence mentioned that she followed through on the purchase This article is about abortion rights. I think it's fair game to call a 35 week abortion what it is. > women are reduced to birthing vessels There isn't some conspiracy to turn women into birthing vessels. The only thing under debate is at what age a baby becomes a legal person afforded rights to life and at what age a women loses her right to end that life.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      I read several articles about the case. Google the accused's name. > I think it's fair game to call a 35 week abortion what it is. I think it's fair to presume innocence until guilt is proven. Edit: I think I misread one of the articles, apologies
      - dhzhzjsbevs 4y ago
        Yea that's probably fair. I dont really think we should be looking to criminalise pregnancy losses. At the same time I think it was a bit of a suspect situation. It's pretty rare to end up with a full term baby dead in the toilet.
      - robonerd 4y ago
- johnday 4y ago
  > There are only 36 weeks in a pregnancy. What an extremely weird thing to get wrong. Pregnancies are 40 weeks long.
  - lozenge 4y ago
    They are counting from implantation rather than the last period.
robonerd 4y ago
At the very least a federal law from congress is in order. And would be easier to pass than an amendment.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Can Congress override Supreme Court rulings?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lostgame 4y ago
>> We need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing women's rights. Sounds great - but would that matter? Roe vs. Wade showed that laws made and ‘democratic’ decisions settled upon in the USA can be reversed with no warning, no voting, nothing but funding from evil people. I fail to believe these Christian extremists wouldn’t repeat the process with the constitution. After all, these are people who take ‘wives be submissive to your husbands’ as literal Gospel.[0] Absolutely disgusting and appalling. That verse and many, many more - shows to me that Women’s rights or gay rights can never even be important to these people, sadly. In fact, as long as we have rights; they’ll fight against it. They think they have to, or they’ll go to hell! God told them to take away our rights. I mean, Christianity is a patriarchy, by design. (‘God the Father’ and all of that…) Outside of Catholicism, there isn’t any sort of Divine Feminine figure, and the Bible doesn’t speak much upon Women’s rights. (having been raised by a Baptist Minister I do actually know quite a hit about the Bible) It will be a constant uphill battle against these people, sadly. [0] Check out this crockpot doozy of bullshit from Ephesians 5:21: “ Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour.”
- swearwolf 4y ago
  While Ephesians 5:21 does say that, verse 25 says: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” And verse 28 says: “In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.” The ultimate idea of these verses is better expressed in Ephesians 5:31, which says: “However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”
  - krapp 4y ago
    Yes but you'll notice, only one side has to submit. Both sides have to love, but the power dynamic, and thus autonomy, is clearly not equal. For that matter, Paul also told slavemasters to treat their slaves well, and told slaves to obey their masters, which is exactly the dynamic he describes between men and women. And then there's First Timothy... "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint." I mean, you can insist these verses have been misinterpreted or misconstrued, and that because early Christianity had women in prominent positions obviously such views weren't universal, but it doesn't change the fact that women have been oppressed, and literally tortured and beaten to death over millennia because of them.

lostgame 4y ago

EDIT: I’m a victim of rape, and my opinions expressed are largely from that of a woman who has been sexually assaulted. Before you downvote me because you might disagree, or you might live in the USA and not like that I’m speaking negatively about it, please stop to put yourself in the shoes of the women in the USA, especially those who are victims of sexual assault. Please be part of the solution, not the problem. POST: Looking from the outside in - America is, at best - a sad joke - and, at worst - absolutely appalling, horrific, and terrifying. The response (rather the offensive as hell, disgusting, unbelievable lack of response) to the recent school shooting - followed by the abolition of basic human rights, less than a couple weeks later is a situation that has actually left me at a loss for words or understanding. America has, finally - officially lost is right to call itself the ‘Land of the Free’. The point where you’re arresting raped women for getting an abortion, yeah…pretty sure that’s just plain evil. No words. It’s a terrifying situation, and I don’t see it getting any better anytime soon. As a queer, transgender woman; I could not feel safer or more grateful to have made the choice to leave the USA and live here in Canada; where ‘freedom’ isn’t just a word shouted by homophobic, transphobic, gun-toting public as a reason to be hateful…but an honest-to-God way of life. We all know that these awful people will be coming after gay marriage next. I never thought I’d have to use the term ‘Christian extremists’, but what they’re doing to basic human rights is disturbing. As a woman who considers herself a Christian - I’m pretty damn sure if God had a phone, he’d be placing a call to Biden to ask if they could take ‘In God we trust’ off the dollar bills. It’s really sad how the USA can call Muslims terrorists, but ignore the terrorists within their borders. :(

nerdponx 4y ago
> We all know they’re coming after gay marriage next. Fortunately I think that will be harder to overturn, because it's on a less-shaky legal basis (as far as I know) compared to Roe v Wade. Also I think that ship has more or less sailed and society has basically come to accept it. Abortion has always been a lot more contentious. > I never thought I’d have to use the term ‘Christian extremists’, but what they’re doing to basic human rights is disturbing. This has been decades in the making, the endgame of an intergenerational propaganda campaign. They were extremists in the 80s, in the 00s, and today. What's interesting now is that the "Christian" angle is de-emphasized, and what used to be considered Christian fundamentalism has worked its way into mainstream secular conservativism (not by accident). It is arguably a longstanding American political tradition to govern according to hypocritical authoritarian religious extremist principles, dating back to literally before the founding of the USA.

4oh9do 4y ago

> Activists also use virtual private networks, which can minimize data collected about browsing, and encourage Polish women to contact them on encrypted channels like Signal. They delete all online conversations after the person has had the abortion and caution the person not to post on social media about their experiences, after some faced online harassment. One organization that provides funds for Polish people to get the procedure in Germany pays abortion clinics directly, rather than providing funds to patients, to ensure there are no digital records. I don't understand why this paragraph is buried in the middle of the article. It should be a prominently featured tooltip.

dehrmann 4y ago

Umm, yes? Prosecutors have been using search history and text messages as evidence for a long time. If you're in a jurisdiction where abortions are illegal, there's no reason to think they wouldn't also be used as evidence.

lostgame 4y ago
That’s missing the forest for the trees. The outrage here is that they violated our basic rights as Women by suddenly overturning a law with no warning or input from citizens. The further outrage is that they’re actually being revolting enough to chase after us for it. What a disgusting, disturbing, revolting country. :( ‘freedom’, lol…
- hatefulmoron 4y ago
  >they violated our basic rights as Women by suddenly overturning a law with no warning or input from citizens. This statement is kind of funny when the right you're referring to was invented (right or wrong) by a group of unelected judges, and is now open to be legislated on by the citizens you want input from.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >This statement is kind of funny when the right you're referring to was invented (right or wrong) by a group of unelected judges, and is now open to be legislated on by the citizens you want input from. No. Humans (and that includes women) have agency. That includes bodily autonomy and any "law" that restricts that is unethical, misogynistic and flat wrong. Don't like abortion? Don't have one. As far as anyone else is concerned it's none of your concern.
    - snapplebobapple 4y ago
      While I am a huge fan of abortion (it has killed so many future criminals that you can see its implementation in the crime stats), this idea of agency as justification for allowing abortion is completely wrong because we already curtail agency for various things like self harm and harming others and at some point long past inception but before birth it gets pretty hard to argue you aren't harming someone else.

yrgulation 4y ago

In 1966 Ceausescu, Romania’s dictator, wanted to increase the country’s population by banning abortions and birth control. This is the result of that policy: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-when-a-country-bans-abortion-romania-alabama/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-w...

saghm 4y ago
The intent behind banning abortion in the US has nothing to do with influencing population growth; it's purely about punishing women for daring to try to assert control of their own bodies.
- yrgulation 4y ago
  Regardless of the intent the result is the same: “punishing women for daring to try to assert control of their own bodies”. I dont live in america unfortunately and have no clue what the cultural background causing this is, but i do know its wrong.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    When I was raised anti-choice it was more about life is sacred, divine. Even if it's not viable and the would be parents haven't reached adolescence. Though it's possible the religious and conservatives at the top had more insidious motives.
    - saghm 4y ago
      That's what I was taught in Catholic school as well, and yet, none of the people telling my classmates and I that abortion was literally murder seemed to be in favor of equal criminal penalties for premeditated murder and performing an abortion, because it's quite obviously not equal to killing a living human. Likewise, the fact that there are plenty of people who are only in favor of abortion in cases like when the mother's life is at stake are tacitly admitting that a fetus is not equivalent to a living human; essentially no one would be in favor of harvesting organs from a living child to keep a parent alive. If the argument is that a fetus is not equal to a human but still life and therefore sacred, then why isn't the anti-abortion crowd clamoring to make putting terminally ill pets to sleep a crime? If euthanizing an actual living dog or cat that can feel pain is morally okay, I don't really understand why an unviable fetus would require more protection under the law. I've also not met anyone who also wants to outlaw hunting because "life is sacred"; instead, I'll often hear arguments about how hunting is ethical despite the fact that it's ending life. If the arguments that abortion should be illegal because of the "sanctity of life" were being applied consistently to other issues, I'd find it easier to believe. When the only heavy political mobilization from the "life is sacred" interest group is to protect "life" when it's sequestered inside a woman's body, it's pretty hard not to assume that the only substantive difference is in fact the motivation.