General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Insidious Legal Movement to Make Pregnant Women Second-Class Citizens Is Growing
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/05/abortion-pregnancy-law-emtala-scotus-medical-care.htmlShould the very state of being pregnant place women in a subclass of citizen, vulnerable to criminal prosecution or civil penalties for behavior that would be perfectly legal from a nonpregnant person? Judging by their proposed legislation and various legal antics, the anti-abortion movement says: Yes. Pregnant women simply should not have the same rights as any other U.S. citizen.
Take, for example, efforts to criminalize the crossing of state lines for abortion. There is a very, very long tradition in the U.S. of allowing people to travel out of state to access medical care, and its so deeply ingrained we barely think about it. Consider, for example, the businesswoman who lives in New Jersey but works in New York City and so goes to the dentist in midtown Manhattan, or the dad who lives on the Kansas side of Kansas City but takes his sick kid to a specialist at a hospital on the Missouri side. A great many Americans dont think twice about crossing state lines for health care.
Abortion opponents are trying to change that for one group of people: pregnant women.
Conservative legal groups are already drafting model legislation to prevent pregnant women from traveling for abortions by legally penalizing anyone who helps them, a strategy used by the state of Texas in one of its abortion bans, which allows anyone in the U.S. to sue those who assist women with abortionsand be rewarded with a bounty paid by the state.
The architect of that Texas abortion bounty law was Jonathan Mitchell, an anti-abortion activist (and Donald Trump lawyer) who is currently representing a Texas man in his quest to probe into his ex-girlfriends abortion, which she allegedly sought outside of their home state. Mitchell filed a petition to learn the details of this womans abortion for, he says, a potential future lawsuit. But to be clear, the woman in question did absolutely nothing illegal: Traveling out of state for health care, including abortion, is not against the law in Texas or anywhere else. Its just that Mitchell and other abortion opponents would like to change thatand are apparently happy to represent controlling (and, in another case Mitchell took on, allegedly abusive) men to do it.
*snip*
sinkingfeeling
(51,553 posts)birthrate of the worshipped white race decline significantly in states that pass this crap.
TSExile
(2,685 posts)I think the South Korean women have the right idea.
Old Crank
(3,748 posts)Every airport. GOP will need to set up roadblocks and testing stations everywhere. Have to hire thousands to watch women pee on a stick. Pparty of small government and full employment for pervs.
TSExile
(2,685 posts)Never married, never been pregnant and proud of it. I will never be subservient to any man!! ♀️♀️♀️♀️♀️
Bonx
(2,091 posts)I'm surprised Slate would miss this.
Johnny2X2X
(19,420 posts)The GOP is way way more extreme than they usually let out. You'll see glimpses occasionally, and it is horrific. Imagine the most extreme position and that probably falls short of what they're goal is if they get the power. I'm talking a 100% ban on all abortions, no exceptions for rape, incest, or the health and life of the woman. And that's just the start. Travel bans for pregnant women aren't enough for Trump and his band of extremists, they'll want way more control than that. In home monitoring, and eventually imprisonment for women the GOP determines are at a higher risk to end their pregnancy. Criminal trials for women who miscarry. This is all on the ballot in November.
Timeflyer
(2,115 posts)It's a ridiculous scare tactic, but a lot of poorly informed voters hear that and stop thinking.
The never ending War on Women's Bodily Autonomy may never be won, but we must never stop fighting.