• ZooGuru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The state law that was in place prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have had the same result for this mom and daughter. Not saying I agree with the 20 week ban, but that was the law. My point is that this case is being pushed so hard as a “look what happens after Roe v. Wade is overturned” and that just isn’t the case. There are other examples that illustrate that point more concisely.

    Unless you have details other reports don’t have, I don’t think we really know why they did this at 28 weeks. I have not seen anything that said they couldn’t afford it prior to 20 weeks so they did it themselves. I’ve seen a bunch of comments here that insert details that have not been part of any reporting I’ve seen. That’s not to say there isn’t more info out there I have not seen.

    • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re a moron

      They wouldn’t be in the position where the mother would have to be the one providing the service were the service still legal for professionals to provide

      • ZooGuru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m a moron? Fuck off with all that. There’s zero evidence for what you’re saying. You’re talking out of your ass based on assumptions.

        • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s zero evidence that if abortion had been legal she wouldn’t have tried using illegal methods?

          Whatever is like three steps deeper than moron, that’s you. Fuckwit? Shit-for-brains?