this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2023
299 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2568 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Kate Cox, the pregnant mother who sought permission to obtain an emergency abortion, on Monday.

“These laws reflect the policy choice that the Legislature has made, and the courts must respect that choice,” the court’s seven-page ruling read. The court found that Cox’s doctor, Dr. Damla Karsan, had “asked a court to pre-authorize the abortion yet she could not, or at least did not, attest to the court that Ms. Cox’s condition poses the risks the exception requires.”

Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant and a mother of two, had filed a lawsuit against Texas over its restrictive abortion bans. Her fetus was found to have a fatal condition known as Trisomy 18. The baby has no chance of survival, but under state law, there are only two options available to Cox: a vaginal delivery, or a C-section. Either option would risk her life or her ability to have children in the future.

Earlier on Monday, Cox’s lawyers said she was forced to flee the state to get medical care.

all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 142 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yet more proof that republicans don’t care about babies or children, it’s all about controlling and punishing women.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It’s entirely about votes. Nothing more. They need guaranteed votes and this type of shit locks them in. It’s like pre-ordering games. Census polls show who’s voting for who based on religion- and religion demands the sacrifice of innocent people’s rights. So when they pull this shit- they’re just doing to to pad their numbers.

It’s easy to manipulate dumb people. This is also why KKKonservatives want to gut the American education system.

[–] [email protected] 45 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The hate machine crushes everyone in front of it. Its reasons for existence are pretenses. Its justification is non-existent. It exists to hurt and punish and control everyone. It is a tool of hateful, evil people.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

Step 1: ignore reality

[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What will be the ramifications of her fleeing the state? Can they be avoided if she never comes back? This is disgusting. They want her to suffer and risk so much for a dead baby.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Since federal laws aren't being broken, she can avoid criminal consequences if she doesn't return. However anyone who assists her can be legally on the hook civilly

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Can you be fined for underage drinking in another country when you return to the US? Is this kind of law valid that things you do in another jurisdiction where they are legal can be prosecuted at home? I'm really curious.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

Typically, you can't be prosecuted at a state level for crimes you committed out of state. Otherwise, any state with anti-gambling laws could arrest people returning from Vegas vacations.

The red states are trying to get around this with their "it's a civil offense to help someone leave the state to get an abortion" and "it's a crime to use public roads to have an abortion out of state," but these laws have tenuous footing at best.

Still, I fully expect some red states to pass laws banning anyone who lives in their state from going to another state for an abortion. Republicans don't care about what's legal or constitutional - only about what furthers their power over people.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is so obviously untrue it’s insane. How did this pass anyone’s sniff test?

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

  • Article IV of the U.S. Constitution
[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

True, however states cannot criminally charge people for actions performed in other states.

So Texas cannot make it a crime to go get an abortion in California, for example. They cannot make it a crime to travel to California for that purpose either.

That's why they're trying to make these things civil offenses, which aren't covered under the constitution clause you quoted.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago

This shit is getting beyond parody. I would really like to see interviews from people in Texas. Have them reply to this situation and see if they agree with AG and Supreme Court of Texas in this case. It would be illuminating I think.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Texas Supreme Court ruled against Kate Cox, the pregnant mother who sought permission to obtain an emergency abortion, on Monday.

“This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents Cox.

Last week, Cox petitioned for, and was granted, a temporary restraining order that would have allowed her to obtain an abortion under the ban’s narrow exceptions.

Cox, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble, wrote in her opinion, “has already been to three emergency rooms with severe cramping, diarrhea, and leaking unidentifiable fluid.

After Judge Gamble issued her ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent letters to three Houston-area hospitals where the doctor, who was to perform her abortion, practices.

“Due to the ongoing deterioration of Ms. Cox’s health condition, and in light of the administrative stay entered by the Court on December 8 and the Attorney General’s ongoing threats to enforce Texas’s abortion bans against the Plaintiffs in this case, Ms. Cox is now forced to seek medical care outside of Texas,” her attorney Molly Duane wrote.


The original article contains 443 words, the summary contains 180 words. Saved 59%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Show of hands- who’s surprised?