Absolutely valid take, but that’s not at all what happened here.
Some very important context in this case:
This was before Row v Wade was overturned, in a state where (red or not) abortion was not banned. At the time she could have had an abortion performed entirely legally up through 20 weeks of pregnancy.
There were hurdles such as required counseling explicitly and openly against abortion, having to wait 24 hours after declaring intent to abort to be able to perform it, and a likelyhood that insurance would not have covered it. That’s some bullshit, but still not a ban.
There’s no evidence that she made any attempt to do this the legal way, or was in any extenuating circumstances that would have made doing this the legal way impossible or more difficult.
Fetuses are viable outside the womb 24 weeks in. If she had taken meds to induce labor instead of to kill it, she could have put it up for adoption. Either way she still went through labor to pass the stillbirth.
She also openly stated that her reasoning for doing this was to be able to wear jeans again.
Also worth noting that there are incredibly few places in the world that allow abortions this late into pregnancy, so it’s not just simply some republican/red/right or American thing going on. There’s bigger reasonings behind the cutoff time. Not making any judgements on the validity, just that this is not some “murrica bad!” or “right wing, more like wrong wing” situation.
Look, abortion law is an absolute shit show, and a major problem in the US. Privacy is a big deal issue too. But this instance is not the great example of wrong that people and the headlines are making it out to be, and should not be used as such or as some sort of rallying point for pushes to improve the situation.
Don’t incorporate shoddy shit like this case into the foundation for your arguments. Just makes it easy to get torn down. This is an anti-abortionist’s dream case for people to point to, because it’s so easy to make actually valid counter points to. I’m certain there’s better cases to use as examples out there.
Also worth noting the daughter was 4 months pregnant.
That seems pretty far along to be helping someone have an abortion without a doctor.
That’s what happens in red states that ban abortion. It becomes illegal to go to a doctor for it.
Banning abortion only makes women seek back alley abortions that are risks to their own lives.
Absolutely valid take, but that’s not at all what happened here.
Some very important context in this case:
This was before Row v Wade was overturned, in a state where (red or not) abortion was not banned. At the time she could have had an abortion performed entirely legally up through 20 weeks of pregnancy.
There were hurdles such as required counseling explicitly and openly against abortion, having to wait 24 hours after declaring intent to abort to be able to perform it, and a likelyhood that insurance would not have covered it. That’s some bullshit, but still not a ban.
There’s no evidence that she made any attempt to do this the legal way, or was in any extenuating circumstances that would have made doing this the legal way impossible or more difficult.
Fetuses are viable outside the womb 24 weeks in. If she had taken meds to induce labor instead of to kill it, she could have put it up for adoption. Either way she still went through labor to pass the stillbirth.
She also openly stated that her reasoning for doing this was to be able to wear jeans again.
Also worth noting that there are incredibly few places in the world that allow abortions this late into pregnancy, so it’s not just simply some republican/red/right or American thing going on. There’s bigger reasonings behind the cutoff time. Not making any judgements on the validity, just that this is not some “murrica bad!” or “right wing, more like wrong wing” situation.
Look, abortion law is an absolute shit show, and a major problem in the US. Privacy is a big deal issue too. But this instance is not the great example of wrong that people and the headlines are making it out to be, and should not be used as such or as some sort of rallying point for pushes to improve the situation.
Don’t incorporate shoddy shit like this case into the foundation for your arguments. Just makes it easy to get torn down. This is an anti-abortionist’s dream case for people to point to, because it’s so easy to make actually valid counter points to. I’m certain there’s better cases to use as examples out there.
While that certainly is a valid point, saying she please guilty for having an abortion is a very misleading headline.