The Latest: Judge temporarily blocks 15-week abortion ban

[DonViejo]

Source: Associated Press



24 minutes ago

11:43 a.m.

A federal judge is temporarily blocking a new Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks, the most restrictive abortion law in the United States.

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves on Tuesday granted a temporary restraining order requested by the state’s only abortion clinic. Republican Gov. Phil Bryant signed House Bill 1510 on Monday, and it became law immediately.

Dr. Sacheen Carr-Ellis of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization said in court papers filed Monday that a woman 15 weeks or more pregnant was scheduled for a Tuesday afternoon abortion.

The law and responding challenge set up a confrontation sought by abortion opponents, who are hoping federal courts will ultimately prohibit abortions before a fetus is viable. Current federal law does not.

Read more: https://apnews.com/6c55a98736194980a29ddeba3ec71e00?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

[dembotoz]

1. kick

[Judi Lynn]

2. Interesting timing, considering they are taking up their war upon women's rights now,

as attention is focused firmly upon the ongoing investigation of Trump's path to his squatting in the country's White House, which he claims is actually beneath him in grandness.

Two Republican states launched their all-out attack on women already this week. They don't understand that with time, they will be forced to take their bigotry and put it back where the sun doesn't shine.

Hoping this well-balanced judge will prevail now, and their fight is going to get short-circuited. They will still lose, ultimately, because everyone knows this is clearly none of their business. They have NO right to interfere in private matters of private citizens at this level.

[lark]

4. It's all part of the russian repugs plans to radically change America.

Take away the right to abortions then take away the right to birth control. The birth rate skyrockets. Cancel public schools and lots of these children will end up uneducated and very poor. Remove all labor & environmental laws and remove healthcare from the masses by stopping/drastically limiting Medicaid and you have an ignorant poor workforce willing to work for next to nothing. They will die young with no healthcare and no social security or Medicare and can be replaced with more serfs. 1% wins, we lose. This is what the rw is truly trying to implement their real goal. They are even trying to put caps on Medicaid so it wont pay for much nursing home care, so unless you have family that will take care of you, you die. Oh yes. of course to implement this they also want to remove voting rights for all Dems by disallowing young, brown and women from the voting.

[CrispyQ]

3. Posting again, cuz evidently we're gonna be protesting this shit my entire life.

2010
Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth
Amendment and Abortion
Andrew Koppelman


https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers

snip...

I. The basic argument
The Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a
punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their
jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.

My claim is that the amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When
women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary
servitude" in violation of the amendment. Abortion prohibitions violate the
Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by
compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal
service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the
essence of involuntary servitude."6

Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of
equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group
which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and
not themselves.

This argument makes available two responses to the standard defense of such
prohibitions, the claim that the fetus is a person. The first is that even if this is so, its
right to the continued aid of the woman does not follow. As Judith Jarvis Thomson
observes, "having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the
use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person's body -- even if one needs
it for life itself."7

Giving fetuses a legal right to the continued use of their mothers'
bodies would be precisely what the Thirteenth Amendment forbids. The second response
is that since abortion prohibitions infringe on the fundamental right to be free of
involuntary servitude, the burden is on the state to show that the violation of this right is
justified. Since the thesis that the fetus is, or should at least be considered, a person
seems impossible to prove (or to refute), this is a burden that the state cannot carry. If we
are not certain that the fetus is a person, then the mere possibility that it might be is not
enough to justify violating women's Thirteenth Amendment rights by forcing them to be
mothers.

I don't know why the pro-choice movement doesn't adopt this argument.

[Luciferous]

5. Good! We only have one abortion clinic in MS, they already make it very

difficult for women to get an abortion here.