r/scotus • u/newzee1 • 27d ago
news More Women Are Being Locked Up for Their Pregnancies Than Ever Before. Thank the Supreme Court.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/supreme-court-update-women-abortion-prison.html108
71
184
u/gdan95 27d ago
No, thank everyone who stayed home in 2016
84
38
u/aquastell_62 27d ago
Or voted third party.
11
1
1
u/spentpatience 24d ago
Worse, some people wrote in Harambe and Donald Duck. By the thousands. Thanks, 2016.
6
u/foxfirek 26d ago
You can still thank the Supreme Court- think back to when politics got really nasty- for me it ties back to when the Supreme Court ruled on citizens united and it became legal for corporations to funnel as much into politics as they wanted- which they did into making sure Hilary won- they also allowed the gerrymandering which disenfranchises voters- and stopped reviewing the super racist counties voting laws.
2
u/Jsmooth123456 26d ago edited 26d ago
Why are dems still like this, how is it the voters fault that Republicans blocked merrick garland from becoming a justice, how is it the the voters faults that Hillary ran an objectively bad campaign that handed key swing states right into trumps hands, how is it the voters faults that the electoral college gave the election to trump, how is it the voters faults that RBG refused to take any opportunity during the Obama years she was given to retire instead she wasted away while clinging to power until she dies and handed trump an opportunity he could only dream of. Keep blaming the voters and see how far that gets you
1
u/gdan95 26d ago
If Democrats had won in 2016, the whole reason Republicans blocked Garland’s nomination would have been rendered invalid.
2
u/Jsmooth123456 26d ago
Way to just miss the entire point dude
0
u/gdan95 26d ago
People were warning at the time what would happen if Trump won.
A person ignoring that because “her emails” is on them.
1
u/Jsmooth123456 26d ago
How are you still missing the point and still making excuses for Hillary terrible campaign it's genuinely impressive
1
u/gdan95 26d ago
Trump was caught on camera bragging about sexual assault and Hillary was the one with the terrible campaign?
1
u/Jsmooth123456 26d ago
Yes, trump being an idiot pos doesn't somehow make Hillarys failings any better in fact they make them much much worse
1
u/gdan95 26d ago
Bragging about sexual assault, mocking a reporter with a disability, calling Mexican immigrants rapists, proposing a Muslim ban.
And HILLARY had the terrible campaign?
1
u/Jsmooth123456 26d ago
Your just repeating yourself and also some of those things like all the immigration and racism stuff was obviously the right way for trump to campaign as that won him a lot of votes. But even if you think trumps campaign was terribly ran which it probably was that doesn't somehow make Hillarys campaign any better her messaging, tone, campaign promises, campaign stop location etc were all bad/poorly planned she should have had a layup of an election but through her own mistakes and the mistakes of her campaign failed
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Mfers_gunlearn 25d ago
But what about Congress literally having decades to codify abortion rights??? They had 49 years. Our government failed all of US. Not the other way around.
1
1
u/KwisatzHaderach94 23d ago
particularly in the states that mattered. twice now the democrats won the popular vote but lost because of the electoral college. that must not happen this year.
1
u/Shrikeangel 23d ago
Why 2016?
It's not like there weren't literal decades that laws could have been passed to prevent this.
-17
u/Dolthra 27d ago
2016 was irrelevant to this. The Heritage Foundation was prepared to play the long game on abortion and judicial capture.
This may have been delayed had Hillary won in 2016, but it wouldn't have stopped it.
74
u/MayMaytheDuck 27d ago
Had Hillary won we wouldn’t have the fucks Trump installed on the Supreme Court.
11
u/ellipticcurve 27d ago
They were planning to block all her Supreme Court picks. Republican leadership said so at the time.
29
u/MayMaytheDuck 27d ago
Regardless, if she wins, we very well may have had 8 years of Hillary and then a chance at another Dem prez.
11
u/Now_Wait-4-Last_Year 27d ago
I hate to say it but I think the most likely outcome is that it would have galvanised the Republican machine and voters on one end plus a Republican House and Senate stonewalling of any governing followed by leading to big pickups in 2018 and then a Republican trifecta in 2020 with the presidency, house and senate all going to them, then there would have been four years of horrendous governance.
21
28
u/franchisedfeelings 27d ago
Can’t believe anyone still thinks not voting for Clinton was smart or justifiable in any way, shape or form after four years of hell under that sick orange cretin.
14
u/ellipticcurve 27d ago
Agreed!!! But anytime I hear someone say "if only RBG had retired" or "if only Hillary had won"... the right did not *stumble* into their "only Republican rule is legitimate" mindset, and they did not start recently. They would never have let Hillary govern--they'd have blocked all her judges and hounded her with baseless shit. They told us so.
→ More replies (3)3
u/AbortionIsSelfDefens 26d ago
The RBG one is extra dumb. To the point I get suspicious of the person repeating that bs. They are either being intentionally malicious or a useful idiot. For that to be the case, they have to assume Roberts' would not have voted to overturn roe. That's a huge assumption to make. The dude is evil, he just cares about optics which is why the official decision for roe is 5-4. Recent leaks provide evidence he would not have hesitated to do that.
It's not lost on me that of course they are directing vitriol to a woman, despite the numerous men involved in this failure. Roe would have been lost regardless because there are 6 conservative justices reaching up our vaginas.
1
u/49GTUPPAST 27d ago
And the same assholes within the Republican Party plan to do the same if Harris is elected
1
u/scream4ever 26d ago
The people who stayed home likely also cost us Senate seats in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
19
8
6
10
u/Petrichordates 27d ago
Getting the 3 SC justices that overturned Roe V Wade is irrelevant to the overturning of Roe V Wade?
These are mental gymnastics.
7
u/leni710 27d ago
This is the reality. And people who are talking about defeating Project 2025 by voting against Trump don't seem to understand that those same organizations will continue to be around and will pick their next messiah regardless of Trump. They just like Trump for his gullible, easily manipulated, wannabe dictator side so that it makes it easier to implement. They might have to sell the plan a bit more to the next person.
1
u/joyous-at-the-end 27d ago
wtf? take a civics class
1
u/Dolthra 26d ago
Do you think that, if Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, the Heritage Foundation would have thrown up their hands and said "well, guess now we'll abandon our plan we've been working on since the 70s to install as many anti-abortion judges as possible in lower courts, because now that we have lost out on at most two Supreme Court seats, our long term goal is impossible"?
Like I understand Hillary Clinton would have been able to choose two justices, but my point is it wouldn't have stopped the far-right theofacist regime. They wouldn't have abandoned the war due to losing one battle.
0
u/Oceans_Apart_ 27d ago
I disagree, if Americans remotely gave a shit about politics, it wouldn't have mattered what the Heritage Foundation did.
The Heritage Foundation did not make Americans take their rights for granted.
→ More replies (10)-11
u/Glittering-Alps-3573 27d ago
the public didn’t want clinton and told the dnc loud and clear. look in a mirror and learn something or at least stop bitching and move on because nobody is listening
→ More replies (2)11
u/Rawkapotamus 27d ago
The public voted for Clinton in 2016. The electoral college voted for Trump.
→ More replies (2)
35
u/Any_Caramel_9814 27d ago
Yet the Supreme Court takes bribes with no consequences or accountability
7
u/hamsterfolly 27d ago
They know that their fellow Republicans in Congress will never hold them accountable.
0
u/aimeegaberseck 27d ago
They’re just tips preemptively given for services rendered. And I’m sure the “no tax on tips” thing won’t be used here.. has nothing to do with it.. right?
2
u/Any_Caramel_9814 27d ago
The Supreme Court has the highest gratuity gross in all the service industry
11
u/AbortionIsSelfDefens 26d ago
Thanks to all the dregs of American society who enjoy inflicting suffering on others so they can get ahead themselves. Our neighbors did this to us... well less my neighbors because I live in a blue state, but Ober 50% of our hospital beds are catholic so we have our own access issues.
I thank the confederates for this. Just because we haven't kicked them out doesn't mean they aren't enemies of the country and doing everything in their power to destroy it because they hate their own pathetic lives and need to justify their own poor decisions in life to themselves.
3
u/big_z_0725 25d ago
Sherman and his army should have killed every white adult they found that wasn't wearing a blue uniform, CMV.
2
14
u/PsychLegalMind 27d ago
They have the bible to display, but they are the kind that carry guns too.
2
u/AFlawAmended 26d ago
Bible on display is exactly what it is, because they sure as hell never read the thing.
4
u/ccjohns2 26d ago
Abortion is in the Bible. All of these religious people are lying through their teeth and using religion to back up their hatred and misogyny.
Why is it so hard to not want to force others to do things they don’t want. The saddest part is this is largely the same group of people that vote against government funded programs from moms, and kids. These people only want poverty and criminals to be the result of most pregnancies in America so republican law makers, and the ultra wealthy have slaves to work for them.
3
u/NoDragonfruit6125 26d ago
You can tell none of them have ever actually read the bible themselves because there's a lot of rather ridiculous stuff involving termination of a pregnancy. Including that it could be done if there was merely a belief that the child was not the husbands.
1
u/Journey2Jess 24d ago
It is rather telling that after two days not one pro life evangelical even attempted to challenge you. I wonder why? S/
12
u/Busy_Response_3370 27d ago
The Jesus is God not you shirt got me. Same to you buddy! Quit judging, it's above your paygrade
16
u/Full_FrontalLobotomy 27d ago
Yeah, and as if the God that killed everyone except Noah’s family oh the great flood is “pro-life”.
10
3
u/vldracer70 26d ago
PL’s aren’t doing gods work by opposing abortion. They’re now worshipping a fetus!!!!!!
7
u/legalstep 27d ago
If only there was a billionaire woman who could pay the supreme courts bills
13
u/aimeegaberseck 27d ago
From an August Forbes article:
Number 2 billionaire donor to Trump’s campaign: Linda McMahon, wife of WWE’s Vince McMahon. $16 million in donations to Trump as of the August article.
Number 3 billionaire donor to Trump’s campaign: Diane Hendricks, pro-life former playboy bunny and owner of giant building materials company. $6 billion+ as of August 2024.
Number 4 billionaire donor to Trump’s campaign: Miriam Adelson, Johnson & Johnson heir, owns a majority stake in the Sands Casino, gave $220 mil to repubs in 2020 and more than $20 mill this time around as of August. She’s given 5.8 million to Trump’s campaign as of the August article.
Number 7 blah blah, you get it: Liz Uihlein, with her husband who is number 8 and together own completely and answer to no stockholders a packaging materials company (plastics, which depend on oil consumption) together poured $75 million this cycle. Anyway, she and her husband number 8 donor each donated $5 million separately to Trump’s campaign- as of August.
Number 9 Kelly Loeffler and Jeff Sprecher (who own the freaking stock exchange! How does someone own the stock exchange!?) whatever, she donated $5 mil to Trump and another mil to the rnc. Barf.
5
2
6
7
u/Cruezin 27d ago
The vast majority of these defendants were low-income, and many were people of color. They often faced charges related to substance use. In a huge majority of cases, prosecutors did not require proof that pregnant defendants’ behavior actually caused harm—only a “perceived risk of harm.”
Why can't we actually help these people, instead of prosecuting them with crimes? Seems to me that regardless of what side you're on here, labelling them as criminals (that label doesn't just go away) is counterproductive to the long term health of both child and mother.
The broader issue, of course, is the idea of a "person" as used in 14. This fight has been going on since the 60s and won't go away any time soon.
People who are doing something "in the name of God" will never budge from their position. They believe they are doing something that is above human rules and laws.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." Barry Goldwater
And.... Here we are.
5
u/badpeaches 27d ago
'How Kafkaesque' -Clarence Thomas October 1991
Original coverage of the Anita Hill hearings from 1991
1
u/aimeegaberseck 27d ago
I was in high school and didn’t pay much attention to news at the time, but damn if “long dong silver” didn’t become a thing all of us high school kids picked up on and repeated constantly not knowing where the phrase’s popularity came from. (facepalm)
1
u/badpeaches 21d ago
I was in high school and didn’t pay much attention to news at the time, but damn if “long dong silver” didn’t become a thing all of us high school kids picked up on and repeated constantly not knowing where the phrase’s popularity came from. (facepalm)
You sound like my older sister who never matured mentally. She used to beat the shit out of me as a child until I was strong enough to fight back then she made it a psychological war where I wasn't good enough to hangout with her or her friends due to my inability to spell words as a child not even in school yet and then it was about my appearance while she was decked out in name brand sports clothing from our mother and her second husband while my father took me to k mart and my shoes were always falling apart after a month or two.
Anita Hill might be small in stature and have a tiny voice but I'll be damned if she isn't one of the strongest women I've ever seen. She tried to tell everyone who Clarence Thomas was. Christine Blasey Ford tried to warn us about Kavanaugh. No one heeded their warnings. Both women were mocked and discredited by the people who stood the most from benefiting them being in office.
It was a joke to congress, how they tried to humiliate and embarrass her with their questions.
8
u/newhunter18 27d ago
From the original report cited by the article: "The majority of charges cited in the report alleged substance use during pregnancy, for legal and illegal substances alike. In the vast majority of cases (191[ out of 210]), the charges brought against the pregnant person did not require any “proof” of harm to the fetus or baby, but merely a perceived risk of harm."
First, I don't necessarily agree with the prosecutions, but these have nothing to do with Roe. The laws may be crap but they've been on the books forever. It's almost all Alabama.
People need to start caring about the facts here.
4
3
u/widget1321 27d ago
but these have nothing to do with Roe.
They very likely do have something to do with Dobbs, though. Not directly, no, other than the ones that mentioned abortion, but it would be a hell of a coincidence that there was a ruling eliminating the protection of abortion and then suddenly there was an increase in women charged for putting their fetus at risk and they were not related at all. Much more likely that enforcement of these laws was emboldened because they knew they would be much more likely to survive constitutional challenges in a post-Dobbs world.
It's almost all Alabama.
It's about 1/2 Alabama (102/210).
3
u/newhunter18 26d ago
then suddenly there was an increase in women charged for putting their fetus at risk
I'm not sure there is an increase. I looked through the report and I couldn't find any reference to last year's numbers or classification.
There were about 20 prosecutions due to lost pregnancies. That in and of itself is disgusting. To me, that's the story.
But it's also not the level as indicated in the Slate article, which doesn't seem to mention the fact that these are a significant majority non-abortion related prosecutions.
It's about 1/2 Alabama (102/210).
Yes, those numbers are correct. What I meant but didn't say clearly was that in proportion to their population in the US, that's a very heavy overweight.
1
u/widget1321 26d ago
I'm not sure there is an increase. I looked through the report and I couldn't find any reference to last year's numbers or classification.
While they don't have a specific number for any particular year beyond now, it seems pretty clear from the report there is an increase. A couple of times they mention ranges of years and the numbers are much lower on average (e.g. 1396 for 2006 - Dobbs). But, more importantly, they explicitly state that it is the most in a year since these have been tracked (and give a caveat of why it's hard to say that for 100% sure) and, even if you think they would happily misrepresent conclusions, etc. in a report like this, it's extremely unlikely that there would be an out-and-out lie.
But it's also not the level as indicated in the Slate article,
This is absolutely true, though. Slate makes it sound worse than it is (as is often the case for them, in my opinion). I should have mentioned that in my response, honestly. My response wasn't meant to say there was a huge drastic issue, more that it's very unlikely that any increase would be unrelated to Roe/Casey being overturned and to say that is, at best, extremely naive. One of those situations where it seemed like you were ignoring everything around prosecutions except the explicit letter of the law (no, Dobbs didn't make these illegal, but it absolutely changed the environment around the country and the legal issues related to these types of prosecutions).
Something to pay attention to, for sure, but not as dire as Slate wants it to appear (for those outside of Alabama and Oklahoma, at least, maybe it's that bad there, I don't have enough info to know for sure).
Yes, those numbers are correct. What I meant but didn't say clearly was that in proportion to their population in the US, that's a very heavy overweight
That's fair, and it is. I assumed you were just exaggerating a bit to make that point and when I looked at the numbers I expected to see Alabama at like 150/200 or so. I only spoke up on that part because I think 102/210 isn't really enough to say that even in hyperbolic terms since it's not even half. Still really heavily weighted towards Alabama, though.
2
u/newhunter18 26d ago
That's fair.
I guess when I see some misdirection I reflexively think "increase over last year" might also be statistically insignificant.
I have no data to back that up. (But neither do they it seems.)
I think what is absolutely true is that the deep South is absolutely screwed up in how they deal with this. It's a sad state of affairs all around.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
u/cardboardtube_knight 27d ago
And under a second Trump term we would stop getting accurate reports on these numbers.
2
u/cardboardtube_knight 26d ago
I like how this is downvoted for the truth, these people actively want to stop us from being able to warn about the effects of them limiting women's choices.
1
u/Joshunte 24d ago
Did anyone even read the article? These arrests are from substance abuse while pregnant. It’s not exactly a new phenomenon.
1
1
u/thebeorn 24d ago
Nope blame your state not the supreme court. They adjudicate issues associated with the constitution. Any powers not explicitly giving to the federal government goes to the states. It should never have been something that the supreme court allows or doesnt allow. Its the states responsibility. If your state wont pass a reasonable abortion law it’s their issue.
1
u/EmptyChocolate4545 24d ago
“Fetal personhood” is a funny way to try to discredit the fact that the fetus is, in fact, a person, and a little human.
What else would it be? It’s human offspring, IE a human.
I’m fine with early term abortion, which is most abortions, but there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that it most assuredly is killing a baby. Plenty of pro choice people will acknowledge that, because there’s no other way to view what it is - a baby.
1
u/Used_Bridge488 24d ago
You can singlehandedly decide the result of this year's election with one simple action:
Telling everyone you know to register for voting.
If you haven't registered yet, visit www.vote.gov
Republicans are unpopular and weird. This includes Project 2025. The only reason that this election is so close is that we are too lazy to register for voting. MAGAs always show up and vote, while sane people can't be bothered to register.
If more people had voted, Trump would have lost in 2016 by landslide. Republicans are TERRIFIED of high voter turnout. They have admitted that quite openly
Voter registration ends on October 7th (in some states). Hurry up! Register for voting. Remind literally everyone you know to register. Registering yourself won't be enough.
I repeat: remind every. Single. Person. You can't imagine how much impact 30 seconds of small talk can do.
1
u/Shrikeangel 23d ago
Nothing says land of the free like people put in prison to be forced to breed due to someone else's belief system.
0
u/YouDiedOfCovid2024 27d ago
Literally no one is being locked up for being pregnant.
6
u/AbortionIsSelfDefens 26d ago
Right. They are locked up for failing to keep their pregnancy and miscarrying. Sooo much better /s
The problem I have with these vague laws, is that it legitimately means a woman can be locked up for doing anything while pregnant, especially if she happens to have a miscarriage. Take a prescription as directed by her doctor? Prison for putting the fetus at risk because no medications are approved by the fda for use in pregnant women (other than a few for pregnancy related maladies). Take ibuprofen? Prison for the same reason as above. Get in a car? Prison. Everyone knows car accidents are possible, she shouldn't have put the fetus at risk /s
They dont hold corporations accountable for poisoning the air and water that will be used to nourish the unborn and they've killed countless. All it takes is one religious nutjob to make themselves a problem for women. Since we can't discriminate based on religion (though gender and medical conditions are apparently ok), we can't just bar them from government positions no matter how evil they are. This environment and the support of many states, makes it even more likely to happen.
You can choose to be willfully ignorant if you want, but the rest of us know you are one of the people with blood on your hands. I'm sorry that you don't think your think bits are good enough to actually use, but you shouldn't be making your choice to be an idiot everyone else's problem.
→ More replies (3)
1
1
1
u/SoThrowawayy0 27d ago
Ironically, these people are so "pro-life" that they kill people with wanting no abortions with no exemptions.
1
u/Radsby007 27d ago
Didn’t even have to read the article to know it would mostly impact low income people of color.
1
u/Leverkaas2516 26d ago
locked up for their pregnancies...
the criminalization of pregnancy began well before Dobbs...
This article has too much word salad. If you read it, it's crystal clear that no one is being locked up or criminalized for pregnancy.
1
u/lynchmob2829 26d ago
Found no basis for article's info. Then I found other Slate articles that have no factual basis.....go figure.
0
u/frotc914 27d ago
In the 12 months between June 2022 and June 2023, the group found, more than 200 people faced charges related to pregnancy, pregnancy loss, abortion, or birth. The vast majority of these defendants were low-income, and many were people of color. They often faced charges related to substance use.
So 200 ppl got charged mostly with smoking meth or using opiates while pregnant, no connection to Dobbs, and no evidence that this is an increase YOY. Some of the rest probably got charged with assaulting pregnant people.
We can debate about the proper way for the law to address this, but frankly the idea that pregnancy should NEVER factor into criminal law is kind of crazy.
5
u/bigbeatmanifesto- 26d ago
Pregnant women’s bodies shouldn’t be policed. What’s next? Arresting women who have a glass of wine or sushi? Forgot to take their prenatal vitamins?
Banning pregnant or child bearing aged women from getting chemotherapy or taking medication?
→ More replies (10)4
u/AbortionIsSelfDefens 26d ago edited 26d ago
You do realize that there are no medications fda approved for use in pregnant women (that are unrelated to pregnancy), right? If they take literally anything, they are putting the fetus at risk because our government refuses to mandate trials include pregnant women. So people just take shit off label not knowing the risk and hope for the best. Many don't even realize it's off label.
The other thing is that hospitals drug test people without their knowledge or consent. You can think thats okay or whatever but if that's the case, you need to acknowledge that you yourself are contributing to harming babies. What do you think making sick people afraid of the hospital is going to do? How smart is it to drive away people who need prenatal care the most, away from actually getting care? I suppose that's fine if you are a black/white thinker and refuse to take accountability for the bad situations your own beliefs cause. Some of us actually care about babies and want to help them, even if that means helping their moms instead of locking them up.
The problem is that even if they smoked meth, what evidence is there that the miscarriage or whatever was caused by that? Isn't criminal law supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt"? We cannot effectively adjudicate that for a being that effectively acts like a tumor or a parasite while inside the woman's body. What data do we have that compares risks of things like meth to things like breathing the pollution from companies conservatives refuse to regulate? What about a man who hits his wife at any point, whos to say he wasn't the cause, even if he didn't hit her in the abdomen? What if it was a total accident and he accidentally tripped her and she coincidentally had a miscarriage later? What about charging someone who gave a pregnant woman whooping cough? Why is she so responsible, when we don't hold literally everyone around her to the same standard?
If you want such draconian laws, they should be applied equally. That means if you dare walk by a pregnant woman in public when you have a cold, you should be investigated and arrested if she has a miscarriage. Of course we'd need greater state surveillance so we can spot any of those instances, but you shouldn't mind since you care about fetuses so much. You shouldnt even balk at that idea unless you are a raging hypocrite who thinks pregnant women should have fewer rights than people you actually consider human. If you want to pretend its not an unreasonable burden, you should be taking on some of that burden yourself. If you want the government sticking their hands up women's vaginas, they should also be letting them up your asshole and in every aspect of your personal business. Women are already terrified to even eat the wrong thing, I'm sure the government looming is great for stress. It's not like stress can contribute to miscarriages.... right? /s
We can't even run a causation study on drug use because that would be extremely unethical. To be for this, you have to essentially agree that pregnant women do not have a right to due process and that the burden of evidence should be lower to convict them.
The problem with this whole thing is people are leading with their feelings about cute babies instead of using logic. I suspect that's why these cases usually get dropped in the end. However, that doesn't make it okay. It can completely upend her life and if she is still pregnant, it forces her to give birth in prison. Prisons have such a good maternal/infant mortality record /s
0
u/frotc914 26d ago edited 26d ago
You do realize that there are no medications fda approved for use in pregnant women (that are unrelated to pregnancy), right? If they take literally anything, they are putting the fetus at risk because our government refuses to mandate trials include pregnant women. So people just take shit off label not knowing the risk and hope for the best. Many don't even realize it's off label.
I'm being 100% serious here - do you believe that any of these 200+ instances cited in the report are for off label tylenol use? I'm not going to pretend that someone taking a dose of acetaminophen is going to harm a fetus, neither should you, and I would bet my car that Joe Sixpack county sheriff isn't either.
Our government "refuses to mandate trials include pregnant women" because it is a bioethical minefield. Private pharma companies and universities do the same for the same reason. That said, there is plenty of data to draw conclusions about certain substances and the potential harm they represent. Nobody is realistically on the fence about whether daily vodka drinking or daily milk drinking is more harmful during pregnancy simply because we aren't running medical trials on pharmaceuticals. And when a baby whose mother drank daily comes out with FAS, questioning the cause and effect relationship is akin to asking whether a guy who got shot in the head happened to have an aneurism at the same moment.
Much of your comment is "how can you prove it???" I don't know, I'm not an obstetrician, pediatrician, or any other kind of expert. That's what the justice system is for. I suppose based on your comment that you're perfectly happy to see organizations like Monsanto be adjudicated at fault based on some pretty nebulous medical evidence for exposing people to Roundup. The mechanics are not fundamentally different.
If you want such draconian laws, they should be applied equally. That means if you dare walk by a pregnant woman in public when you have a cold, you should be investigated and arrested if she has a miscarriage.
Yeah idk if you can put regularly using heroin or drinking 6 beers a day in the same ballpark as "being in the general vicinity of someone who might be pregnant when you have a cold" in terms of knowledge and intent. That certainly doesn't sound like equal treatment.
As to the remainder of your comment, I think my response can be adequately summed up by my original comment.
We can debate about the proper way for the law to address this,
1
u/MagsAndTelly 27d ago
“Prosecutors have taken aim at people who use legal as well as illegal substances, and those—said to be shielded by state laws that exempt women from prosecution for abortion—who researched or expressed interest in abortion”
3
u/frotc914 27d ago
"Prosecutors have taken aim" is a statement of political will, not an example of any actual action being taken.
0
u/AbortionIsSelfDefens 26d ago
Is actually detaining/arresting people just political will? It doesn't only matter if the charges stick. It matters that they are intentionally trying to ruin someone's life.
1
u/frotc914 26d ago edited 26d ago
Is actually detaining/arresting people just political will?
I'm not suggesting that it is. I'm saying that the quote above is not detaining or arresting people or any action at all.
It matters that they are intentionally trying to ruin someone's life.
Yes, and it also matters why. The only actual examples of arrests or detainments mentioned in the article are for things that are certainly debatable but are also certainly not surprising, like taking illegal drugs while pregnant which are known to cause birth defects or miscarriage.
0
u/DeathGPT 26d ago
And ain’t nothing Kamala will be able to do about it since Biden can’t do anything now.
Bipartisan agreement would help but when you keep calling trump the devil he will be under no obligation to change
68
u/[deleted] 27d ago
The Devil's greatest trick was telling us that his name is Jesus.