3 ms·
The current Supreme has engaged in historical revisionism to reach its anti-abortion stance (eg abortion was perfectly legal 200 years ago, so much so that Ben
by jmyeet 4y ago
The current Supreme has engaged in historical revisionism to reach its anti-abortion stance (eg abortion was perfectly legal 200 years ago, so much so that Ben franklin published at-home instructions for performing an abortion [1]). At the time of the ruling, it was pointed out that these draconian laws that half the states had passed or were passing wouldn't stop abortion, they would simply stop safe abortions. This case is evidence of that.
Some might choose to focus on why the defendant chose to get an abortion. I don't see any details of that here. Personally, I don't care. If she wants one, she should be able to get one.
Investigating this case at all is both unexpected and psychotic. Trying her as an adult is the next level of psychotic.
That all aside, as for Facebook, again this is light on detail regarding the cooperation given. Did they fight the subpoena? Did they have any grounds to? What steps were made to protect that user's privacy? We simply don't know.
As an aside, it seems like you have better privacy by using regular SMS than any form of IM. Law enforcement can get metadata but that's not so useful. Getting the actual messages from any IM service seems to be much easier. Perhaps WhatsApp would be better? I don't know how accessible WA messages currently are.
As for Facebook removing posts supplying at-home abortion medication, here I'm somewhat sympathetic just because Facebook does have to follow the law (even if that law is psychotic and unjustifiable). It's no different to supplying medical marijuana to people in places where it's illegal. Or supplying much cheaper medications from Canada or Mexico. These are all technically illegal so any company is going to have to try and enforce that.
Remember the political forces behind this under the guise of being "pro-life" go to every effort to restrict access to affordable medical care, recently voted against child tax credit (in the IRA) and fight efforts to allow people to fight a living wage.
[1]: https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-franklin-roe-wade-supreme-court-leak https://www.npr.org/2022/05/18/1099542962/abortion-ben-frank...
- nathanaldensr 4y agoWhat Ben Franklin wrote is completely orthogonal to the legality of abortion. It was a States' rights issue until Roe v. Wade, and now it's a States' rights issue again. There was no single "law" or "right" that ever said abortion was legal, even in the case of Roe v. Wade, which is now considered a flawed ruling.