The risk of stating plainly what Idaho argued at the US supreme court on Wednesday morning is that it is so sadistic and extreme that people might not believe you. Idaho has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. Prohibiting all abortions at any stage of gestation, with no exceptions for rape or incest, the Idaho law allows doctors to perform abortions in cases where the life – but not “merely” the health – of the pregnant woman is at risk.
We can only kill this one person if by not doing so we kill this other person.
A singular version of the trolley problem.
And?
“Idaho has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country. Prohibiting all abortions at any stage of gestation, with no exceptions for rape or incest” The Guardian
Idaho Statute Title 18 Chapter six
DEFENSE OF LIFE ACT. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, every person who performs or attempts to perform an abortion as defined in this chapter commits the crime of criminal abortion.
…
(2) The following shall not be considered criminal abortions for purposes of subsection (1) of this section:
…
The abortion was performed or attempted by a physician as defined in this chapter during the first trimester of pregnancy and:
(i) If the woman is not a minor or subject to a guardianship, then, prior to the performance of the abortion, the woman has reported to a law enforcement agency that she is the victim of an act of rape or incest…
(ii) If the woman is a minor or subject to a guardianship, then, prior to the performance of the abortion, the woman or her parent or guardian has reported to a law enforcement agency or child protective services that she is the victim of an act of rape or incest…
Took me 5 minutes to find this.
They know full well the audience they are communicating to won’t do what Andrew C did and check for themselves.
Perhaps Guardian readers search more thoroughly and find 18-8807 also.
Tsk, Julia. What Andrew C did was quite unforgivable. I’m sure it’s a symptom of an -ist or a phobia. The correct procedure when you read or hear of something is to check the source but not the ORIGINAL source because that might lead you down the dangerous path of using you own brain and forming your own opinions, which is obviously a dangerous and antisocial thing to do.
If you read it in the Guardian or saw it on the BBC then you know with absolute certainty that it is YOUR truth and that’s all you need to know.
This is why GB News has to be shut down. They tend to report facts and have guests who present both sides of an argument, which again, is a dangerous and antisocial attitude as it encourages viewers to form their own opinions.
Talking of GB News, I saw a disgusting example of this on the Michelle Dewberry show a few months ago.
A highly intelligent expert academic was discussing with someone from the far right aspects of identity politics. Ms Dewberry asked a particularly nasty, disruptive question; was it alright for a woman to identify as a man? Of course! scoffed the expert, sneering at her. Then came the nasty disruptive part. Could I identify as a black man? she asked. The experts eyes crossed then glazed over, That’s complicated he said.
The poor man was obviously reduced to an NPC and needed advice from a more expert expert…
THIS SORT OF THING MUST STOP!!!!
Idaho 18-8807
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t18ch88/sect18-8807/
“Imagine that there is a runaway trolley, hurtling down the track towards a product of conception, a blob of cells, if you like. You have it in your power to throw a switch, diverting the trolley towards the sexual freedoms and career choices of an American feminist….”
The absence of comments is often a sign that the guardian knows it’s on shaky ground or, as the rest of us would put it, deliberately lying through its arse to rile up the echo chamber.
I fail to see how the weight of a trolley – even fully laden with groceries – presents much danger. Just grab the handle as it goes by.
So… less extreme than Malta then.
I dont understand why there is so much hand wringing about our American cousins going through a reset when our EU brethren are close at hand and their well established laws are totally ignored.
“Abortion in Malta is illegal except in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. Until 2023, it was illegal without exception.” Wikipedia
Israel has a committee that approves / denies abortion. In cases of rape there doesn’t seem to be any time limit. So Hamas may want to keep the hostages who are now pregnant as long as possible.
Ladies, find a man who loves you as much as Moira Donegan hates American babies:
The US supreme court heard one of the most sadistic, extreme anti-abortion cases yet
Moira Donegan
Republicans want to use an 1873 law to ban abortion. Congress must repeal it
Moira Donegan
Florida just crushed abortion rights. But it also created a tool to fight back
Moira Donegan
Alabama is using the notion that embryos are people to surveil and harass women
Moira Donegan
Abortion rights are Biden’s most powerful re-election issue. He should act like it
Moira Donegan
Moira Donegan is 34 years old, unmarried and childless. Good luck, Moira!
Legislators don’t “want” to use an 1873 law. That’s just what law happens to exist. Congress can’t “repeal” a state law. You live in a Federation, you moron. Only the state can repeal state laws. (But yeah, I know, you loath diversity, you want One Law, One Folk, One Vartlant!)
Hold on….. Idaho became a state in 1890. So it’s a territorial law subsumed into state law. Before it was enacted there will have been zero legislation at all, the “law” will have been whatever operated under the Spanish/Mexican legal system. So, repeal the 1873 law and the stoning to death of any person procuring an abortion becomes just fine.
Jgh – So, repeal the 1873 law and the stoning to death of any person procuring an abortion becomes just fine.
I hope they include people who say Jehovah.
That’d stop those annoying visits right quick, a bit of mild stoning. The only cool JW was Prince.
Jgh – So, repeal the 1873 law and the stoning to death of any person procuring an abortion becomes just fine.
I envy you your brilliant reasoning, jgh. I’ll try hard to copy you.
PS. You’ve all been warned!!!
What a remarkable law. It intends to prevent abortion, yet as worded it provides abortion essentially on demand. All a woman has to do is to make a report of rape or incest and her abortion is legal. There is no mention that the rape or incest needs to have any connection to the pregnancy.
It is also likely to increase demand for abortions by restricting access to contraception (hidden in 18-603).