Spyke
Stopthatgirl7
lemmy.world

If you look at the ruling, the judge went in HARD:

*Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have.

And:

For these women, the liberty of privacy means that they alone should choose whether they serve as human incubators for the five months leading up to viability. It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid’s Tale to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb any more so than society could -- or should -- force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another. 

Source

162
callouscomicreply
lemm.ee

This bits great too:

While the State’s interest in protecting “unborn” life is compelling, until that life can be sustained by the State -- and not solely by the woman compelled by the Act to do the State’s work -- the balance of rights favors the woman.

99
VoterFrogreply
lemmy.world

... any more so than society could – or should – force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another.

This fact is why abortion restrictions are unethical period. In no other situation do we allow the government to force a person to give up parts of their body to keep someone else alive, even their own child. But most people aren't ready to hear that.

15
humorlessrepostreply
lemmy.world

Most people are ready to hear that, which is why the right tries to distract with arguments over personhood.

2
Spiritsongreply
lemmy.world

This is very powerful. I mean the entire phrasing. The judge certainly did not muck around! (BTW, non American here, but I like the choice of words and phrases he used in his sentencing)

7
NatakuNox
lemmy.world

The forced birthers don't have a credible respond to the judges decision. The judge words are cold stone facts about this issue. Anyone who thinks they can tell women what to do and not do with their bodies either are low level religious nut jobs, middle level politicians trying to make a buck, or high level oligarchs that need a poor, unhealthy, uneducated, and subservient population. None of those people should be in charge of a toaster oven let alone deciding on what happens to someone else's body.

43
plz1reply
lemmy.world

They'll appeal anyways, all the way to SCOTUS. It's part of their overall strategy.

23
Kalystareply
lemm.ee

Watch SCOTUS suddenly decide it’s not up to the states, when a state judge just made this decision.

10
NatakuNoxreply
lemmy.world

True but for self preservation I'd be shocked if the Supreme Court takes it up. Reports are that they (the Supreme Court) are in full blown panic over their lost and sinking reputation. Looking at the leaks that for Trump's immunity case and the roe v wade overturning. It's chaos in the court and I'll bet anything one conservative justice will retire in Harris wins and two will retire if Trump wins.

7
plz1reply
lemmy.world

Both of those scenarios still leave a conservative majority. Unless a Dem Senate pulls a McConnell on new nominations.

2
PrincessLeiasCat
sh.itjust.works

McBurney’s ruling would allow abortions through at least 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Fuck. Yes. Sometimes it takes awhile to discover major problems.

31
ulkeshreply
lemmy.world

I mean literally every privacy advocate, doctor, and simple critical thinker knew what effect overturning Roe would have. It takes a while for someone with a spine to stand up to the obvious infringement of privacy rights — but we all knew what the major problems would be, years in advance of Dobbs.

20
girlfreddy
lemmy.ca

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney should get some kind of medal for what he's done.

16

You reached the end