The conservative legal movement still needs to go through the motions of establishing standing to have their day in court.
Not to get a temporary injunction, which is not how it’s supposed to work, nor would it work if it were a liberal bringing suit. Maybe it gets struck down eventually, but the court system is unique because in order to get legislation passed via the courts you just have to hit the appeal button twice and then have 5 people agree with you regardless if you technically have standing or not.
Kacsmaryk did not grant an injunction, which would have immediately prohibited Title X clinics from providing contraception to minors without parental consent.
Aww my bad. I mistook the chilling effect for an actual injunction
https://twitter.com/DrOBrienMD/status/1611040205225562112?t=Mwt4bF1Je9FrwS_gTWMPmg&s=19
Decision pushes back the deadline from 6 weeks to 20.
7 Likes
South Fucking Carolina?!?
Didn’t see that coming.
Calvinball all the way down. Or so I thought.
But conservatives wouldn’t be conservatives if they weren’t thinking about new and innovative ways to punish women, and Alabama Republicans were never going to let a little thing like the law they wrote stand in the way of putting women in jail.
In the worst wink-wink-nudge-nudge statement I’ve seen in a long time, the Alabama AG’s office told a conservative reporter that just because the abortion ban won’t let them arrest women, it doesn’t mean that the state can’t use other laws to put women behind bars: A spokesperson for Marshall told 1819 News this weekend that even though the Human Life Protection Act exempts women from being prosecuted, it “does not provide an across-the-board exemption from all criminal laws, including the chemical-endangerment law—which the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed protects unborn children.”
I kind of read this as the AG saying that the abortion law doesn’t give women a carte blache, not necessarily that they would use the chemical endangerment law against women who have abortions, but, of course, there’s no reason why they couldn’t use that law, so it means they probably will
especially this provision
The exposure, ingestion, inhalation, or contact with a controlled substance,
chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia resulted in the death of the child.
along with this
which the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed protects unborn children
which I guess it means it comes down to what’s the definition of controlled substance and/or chemical substance and could that mean birth control? I don’t see why it couldn’t.
As you know, Idaho ’s Supreme Court upheld the state’s abortion ban—but they also offered some ‘clarifications’ of the sweeping yet vague law that aren’t likely to do anything other than further confusion and suffering. For example, Idaho ’s ban requires that doctors who legally terminate pregnancies in the limited exceptions that the state allows to do so in a way that “provide[s] the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive.” (Like, what?)
The court attempted to clarify by writing that doctors performing abortions “must remove that unborn child in a manner that provides the best opportunity for survival (e.g., vaginal delivery or cesarean delivery)” as opposed to a procedure like a D&C—even if the doctor understands that the fetus will not be viable—unless doing so would pose a “greater risk of the death of the pregnant woman.”
Essentially, the court seems to be saying that the only legal way for doctors to perform abortions doesn’t just have to do with the circumstances of a person’s pregnancy (rape, incest, health, etc) but t he way in which that pregnancy is ended. So doctors aren’t actually allowed to perform abortion procedures, but instead must force a woman into a c-section or vaginal birth unless doing that would make a woman more likely to die. Which goes beyond being nonsensical—it’s monstrous.
1 Like
Dumb law of course, but I’d assume if the standard is “greater risk of death of the pregnant woman”, that has to rule out c-section as a possibility. I’m sure the risk of c-section death is super low, but I would think that the risk of not-c-section is even lower. Same for vaginal birth.
I haven’t actually done a deep dive and looked up the stats on those things and D&C, so I suppose my intuition could be wrong.
I’d say which technically D&C is going to be the safest procedure the Supreme Court’s ruling is going to, in practice, outlaw or at least chill, D&C as a procedure. Remember it’s going to be hospital council who’s going to be advising the doctors and they have to take into account some zealous prosecutor who’s going to try and put them in front of a jury and insinuate that D & C is synonymous with abortion and say why couldn’t they have done a C section or vaginal birth or some NON ABORTION method?
move along, nothing to see here
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/1615444235192262663?s=20&t=gvuCbzA472kud0dc14E9vg
1 Like
Wow, actual evidence of pure evil. That makes my brain hurt so much.
1 Like
Ugh. I know a family that two generations back the daughters raised each other’s kids to avoid them having to deal with the product of their fathers molestation on a daily basis.
I’ve read this many times and am still confused.
They preferred their girls being molested by an uncle instead of a father?
The daughters adopted each other’s kid.
Dad impregnated his daughters. Each daughter gave their child to one of her sisters to raise. I don’t know how many total daughters so I don’t know if the same woman both had a child of incest and raised a different child. Details were not forthcoming.
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/1615444235192262663?s=20&t=gvuCbzA472kud0dc14E9vg
So I went a tiny bit down the rabbit hole and it sounds he was claiming a specific woman actually felt this way.
I never seemed to find mention of the name of the book or the woman. Seems like a good chance he just made the whole thing up. On the other hand, it’s not impossible that some woman in human history may have felt this way. But my money is on fake or misquote.