news

23464 readers

2 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

FidelCastro@hexbear.net

Alaskaball@hexbear.net

SeventyTwoTrillion@hexbear.net

ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net

carpoftruth@hexbear.net

GinAndJuche@hexbear.net

Breath_Of_The_Snake@hexbear.net

InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net

Texas woman who sought court permission for abortion leaves state for the procedure, attorneys say (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by pooh@hexbear.net to c/news@hexbear.net

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In Texas, Paxton mounted an aggressive defense to try to prevent Cox from having an abortion. He sent three Houston hospitals letters warning of legal consequences — both criminal and civil — if they allowed Cox’s physician to provide the procedure. He also argued that Cox had not demonstrated that her life was at imminent risk, including noting that she was sent home after her multiple visits to emergency rooms.

Cox had cesarean surgeries during her first two pregnancies. Her lawsuit argued that inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior C-sections, and that another one at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child. But Paxton contended those arguments still fell short.

Absolute fucking ghouls

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] riseuppikmin@hexbear.net 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

I'm hoping someone here with more American-history-and-current-federal/state-relationship-knowledge brainworms can answer this, but how close are we getting to a Fugitive Slave Act scenario where two states have conflicting laws and one refuses extradition to the other causing the necessity of a federal response to the situation?

My limited understanding of this situation looks like:

Texas is saying this is murder and has passed laws that give them the ability to prosecute this person even if they get the procedure done outside of the state
California has laws saying they won't cooperate with states seeking to do the above
This scenario is happening across state lines which seems to put it in the federal government's purview

Am I off base here or is this a similar scenario where the federal government is going to have to act/explicitly not act in a way that accelerates conflict between it and aligned/non-aligned states?

Obligatory fuck all of these ghouls putting the woman in this scenario

[–] YearOfTheCommieDesktop@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago

Not an expert but I would say the federal government is plenty capable of ignoring these sorts of conflicts for now. it's not a huge, economically rooted issue with people killing eachother over it like slavery was. abbot can play to his base just fine even if some high profile cases are able to slip out of the state unpunished. The feds maybe could do something but I don't see the incentive that would convince/force them to do so yet

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 6 points 2 years ago

how close are we getting to a Fugitive Slave Act scenario where two states have conflicting laws and one refuses extradition to the other causing the necessity of a federal response to the situation?

We'd need a Fugitive Slave Act at the national level to reach this kind of crisis. As it stands, I think the more realistic scenario is a woman traveling across state lines to seek an abortion and then being arrested in the criminalizing state on her return on the grounds that she illegally accessed public infrastructure or committed some kind of perjury or failed to comply with some statute before her departure. Alternatively, someone undergoing a pharmaceutical abortion being indicted, then fleeing to a free state and being called back via extradition.

Per the WaPo, Pharmacies share medical data with police without a warrant, inquiry finds. So I can see - say - Ken Paxton combing through state medical records in order to find high profile cases to prosecute.

[–] ElGosso@hexbear.net 5 points 2 years ago

This would be solved in the courts first. That's why California passed a bill like that - to try to force it into a lawsuit. There's no downside for California, it's not like the court can make abortion bans more legal, but Texas might fuck up the case so bad that they become less legal

[–] regul@hexbear.net 11 points 2 years ago

You have to giver her credit for at least trying since I'm assuming this was always an option for her.

They very much do not write these laws intending for the consequences to ever hit middle-class white people, so the fact that she underwent great personal hardship and expense in order to wave the unintended (maybe?) consequences in front of their faces deserves some thanks.

[–] zifnab25@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago

A good thing she fled, all things considered. The Texas SC ruled that she didn't qualify under "life saving" provisions, despite the fact that the fetus was DOA and her physician ruled the procedure medically necessary. A this point, there is no clear case established by the courts that does permit a "life-saving" abortion. Unless you're already dead, the courts can just rule the procedure isn't necessary.