657
Nebraska teen sent to 90 days in jail over abortion
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023
657 points (100.0% liked)
News
36142 readers
3250 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If I am reading this right, this sentencing is not even for the abortion. It is for hiding the body.
For her, yes. The mother is being charged with providing an illegal abortion.
Not sure what the rules are for disposing of a late term abortion or what they should be.
I think it’s an illegal abortion because she is not licensed to provide abortions. At least that’s what I recall reading on this elsewhere. I could be mistaken as it would still have been illegal by state law of 20 weeks at the time. I do believe what this mother did is reckless. She provided a medical procedure that she isn’t qualified to oversee. All that being said, I’m pro choice, but I don’t know that this case really represents what people are saying it does.
This argument is circular since abortions after 20 weeks are prohibited. All of the qualified medicinal professionals are not allowed to provide late term abortions thus no qualified person could provide the medical care she needed. The fault is not with the mother for doing something unsafe but the state that requires that only unsafe conditions exist for the procedure.
I was talking about what the mother is specifically being charged with. I did a little extra looking and that charge (abortion by someone other than a licensed physician) was dismissed as she is pleading guilty to illegally providing an abortion after 20 weeks, false reporting, and tampering with human remains. I agree that restrictions on abortion have the potential to lead to unsafe abortions. I also think it’s true that someone unqualified should not attempt it. Both can be true I think.
That’s what I’m talking about as well. A rise in back alley abortions and thus abortions done by unqualified practitioners are a direct consequence of abortion bans. No one would need to hide “human” remains if a legal abortion was available. No one would be forced to find a provider who is available rather than qualified if the abortion was legal. One should not be judged for taking irresponsible measures if that is all that is available.
Here is a source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
Idk that I can get with that last statement as a blanket for all cases, but I understand your point. Abortion should be legal and we as a society can still agree that someone unqualified shouldn’t be offering/providing them. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Laws that prevent non-medical doctors from performing medical procedures would cover this, so making it specific to abortion isn’t necessary. I read an interesting write up on Jezebel about how these kinds of cases are really probing to see what the public will accept and that makes a lot of sense.
It represents a poor person who did what she could and is now being punished. What are you even talking about?
The state law that was in place prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have had the same result for this mom and daughter. Not saying I agree with the 20 week ban, but that was the law. My point is that this case is being pushed so hard as a “look what happens after Roe v. Wade is overturned” and that just isn’t the case. There are other examples that illustrate that point more concisely.
Unless you have details other reports don’t have, I don’t think we really know why they did this at 28 weeks. I have not seen anything that said they couldn’t afford it prior to 20 weeks so they did it themselves. I’ve seen a bunch of comments here that insert details that have not been part of any reporting I’ve seen. That’s not to say there isn’t more info out there I have not seen.
You’re a moron
They wouldn’t be in the position where the mother would have to be the one providing the service were the service still legal for professionals to provide
I’m a moron? Fuck off with all that. There’s zero evidence for what you’re saying. You’re talking out of your ass based on assumptions.
There's zero evidence that if abortion had been legal she wouldn't have tried using illegal methods?
Whatever is like three steps deeper than moron, that's you. Fuckwit? Shit-for-brains?
She aborted at 28 weeks when the law at the time was 20 weeks.
She also hid the remains.