Texas man sues three women for helping his ex-wife obtain abortion pills
-
CrystalRaindrops — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 05:15 AM)
I haven't looked into it much, so I don't know if some of those questions are answered in other articles.
It doesn't say this in the article, but a news anchor talking about this story the other day also said the man is suing the manufacturers of the pills.
In a related story, some republicans want the death penalty for women who get abortions (sidenote: this article keeps saying "person" instead of "woman" for some reason):
Republican lawmakers in South Carolina are considering a change to the state’s criminal code that would make a person who gets an abortion eligible for the death penalty.
The bill being considered in South Carolina, dubbed the South Carolina Prenatal Equal Protection Act of 2023, would redefine “person” under state law to include a fertilized egg, giving it at the point of conception equal protection under the state’s homicide laws, including the death penalty.
The bill provides an exception for a pregnant person who underwent an abortion “because she was compelled to do so by the threat of imminent death or great bodily injury.” It also provides an exception if the procedure is needed to avert the death of a mother “when all reasonable alternatives to save the life of the unborn child were attempted or none were available.”
The bill does not provide an exception for rape or incest, a point that Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) took aim at on the House floor last week. Mace has blasted her party for its restrictive abortion policies.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3898383-south-carolina-gop-lawmakers-propose-death-penalty-for-women-who-have-abortions/ -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 06:56 AM)
That death penalty clause thing is absurd. It would never wash. Just fundie republicans looking to stir the pot for relevance, over something that is irrelevant for them.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
EURAZN — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 10:11 PM)
this is part of a well funded and coordinated effort by gop and activists to ban abortion everywhere. there is no federal right to abortion law and since scotus struck down roe vs wade last june, women living in red states can't use that case as precedent for abortion.
yesterday in some tiny texas town's federal courthouse, a extreme conservative judge-hand selected to hear this case by the plaintiffs- heard arguments about banning the abortion pill. plaintiffs claim the pill is unsafe to women or something like it never got full FDA testing and approval.
if there is a federal law empowering the FDA to make this abortion drug available, then the states by force of the supremecy clause in constitution can't preempt federal law. plus the raw constitution itself creates the post office and the states can't restrict access to a constitutionally created and granted right.
I suspect "person" is used because allegedly a man can get his body pregnant if he has sex change and therefore the GOP closes off any gender-sex identity loophole
what do
YOU
think about the articles you linked to?
where do you stand
on these important questions of individual rights and the threats posed to not only them but constitutionally given rights? -
/. — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 05:47 AM)
represented by … Jonathan Mitchell, who is credited as an architect of the six-week ban in Texas that took effect in September 2021
Coincidence?
Almost like, dunno, they're trying to set precedent.
My password is password -
Yermom_Is_God — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 06:36 AM)
I mean, not sure of the laws there but I understand his grief, his own baby was slaughtered. And that's the part nobody takes into consideration also. Sure "muh choice to slaughter muh baby," I get that, especially because the woman is the one who has to carry it to term, but seriously, that's a man's child also. Nobody ever considers the thoughts of the man when the baby is just slaughtered and killed. That's his child too.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 09:59 AM)
It is technically only a potential child. The rest is just male ego. I do believe the mother has the final say, regardless of the dynamic, because like you say she is the one that has to carry it to term. She may not have wanted a part of this man inside her. He sounds like a douchebag prick.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
Lilith — 3 years ago(March 16, 2023 10:20 PM)
It is technically only a potential child. The rest is just male ego. I do believe the mother has the final say, regardless of the dynamic, because like you say she is the one that has to carry it to term. She may not have wanted a part of this man inside her.
"Your emotional state is not my responsibility." – Warren Smith