• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    We’re not all idiots.

    A month ago, Ohio voters added reproductive rights to our constitution. Now, abortion is guaranteed to the point of fetal viability. Beyond that point, you just need the medical opinion of a single doctor that the abortion would improve the health of the mother (including her mental health) to secure an abortion.

    If this woman gets on a plane to Cleveland this morning, she can be back in Texas tonight, minus a doomed fetus.

    • no banana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh I would never say that everyone is an idiot. Just that your system of governance is badly constructed.

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, it is S.B 8. It is a completely messed up bill that allows anyone to sue someone for $10,000, plus court and attorney fees, for performing an abortion or aiding or abetting in an abortion. In other words, if someone gets an abortion, anyone can sue them, their doctor, the nurses, the Uber driver who took them to the clinic, their husband who agreed with their decision, or anyone else who could be said to have helped them get an abortion.

        One bit of good news is that, in one case, a judge decided that you need to have standing to sue. That means that in order to sue someone under the law, you need to be personally affected by the abortion.

        San Antonio judge Aaron Hass dismissed Gomez’ case Thursday, and that dismissal pointed to a central problem with S.B. 8: it has the potential to allow the wrong people to wage abortion lawsuits. Hass announced the dismissal of Gomez’s case from the bench and explained that plaintiffs like Gomez, who have no connection to the prohibited abortion and have not been harmed by it, do not have standing suit under the statute.

        More good news is that the law has been challenge before the Texas supreme court. They have heard the case in in coming weeks or months they will make a decision.

    • seang96A
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Aren’t Ohio reps fighting the new constitutional amendment and it’s not officially in the Constitution even though it should be?

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, they are fighting it; no, they have not been able to block it from being added to the constitution. It became effective as of Thursday, December 7th.

        • seang96A
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nice! Glad they couldn’t block it from being added after 30 days. Hopefully people keep up the fight and get rid of these anti-democracy assholes.

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      What about a financially poor 14 year old who was raped? She couldn’t do that on her own. This woman is challenging the system for others.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        In Ohio, she could. No need to even notify her parents let alone gain their consent. That’s my point: we aren’t all monsters on this side of the Atlantic, even in bright red states like Ohio.

        Kansas protected reproductive rights through constitutional referendum. It doesn’t get much redder than Kansas.

        I don’t even think this is Texas or Texans. I think this is Ken Paxton.