• FaelNum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I am reading this right, this sentencing is not even for the abortion. It is for hiding the body.

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      For her, yes. The mother is being charged with providing an illegal abortion.

      Not sure what the rules are for disposing of a late term abortion or what they should be.

      • ZooGuru@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s an illegal abortion because she is not licensed to provide abortions. At least that’s what I recall reading on this elsewhere. I could be mistaken as it would still have been illegal by state law of 20 weeks at the time. I do believe what this mother did is reckless. She provided a medical procedure that she isn’t qualified to oversee. All that being said, I’m pro choice, but I don’t know that this case really represents what people are saying it does.

        • anage_oldprob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This argument is circular since abortions after 20 weeks are prohibited. All of the qualified medicinal professionals are not allowed to provide late term abortions thus no qualified person could provide the medical care she needed. The fault is not with the mother for doing something unsafe but the state that requires that only unsafe conditions exist for the procedure.

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

            I was talking about what the mother is specifically being charged with. I did a little extra looking and that charge (abortion by someone other than a licensed physician) was dismissed as she is pleading guilty to illegally providing an abortion after 20 weeks, false reporting, and tampering with human remains. I agree that restrictions on abortion have the potential to lead to unsafe abortions. I also think it’s true that someone unqualified should not attempt it. Both can be true I think.

            • anage_oldprob@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s what I’m talking about as well. A rise in back alley abortions and thus abortions done by unqualified practitioners are a direct consequence of abortion bans. No one would need to hide “human” remains if a legal abortion was available. No one would be forced to find a provider who is available rather than qualified if the abortion was legal. One should not be judged for taking irresponsible measures if that is all that is available.

              Here is a source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/

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

                Idk that I can get with that last statement as a blanket for all cases, but I understand your point. Abortion should be legal and we as a society can still agree that someone unqualified shouldn’t be offering/providing them. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Laws that prevent non-medical doctors from performing medical procedures would cover this, so making it specific to abortion isn’t necessary. I read an interesting write up on Jezebel about how these kinds of cases are really probing to see what the public will accept and that makes a lot of sense.

          • 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
              2
              ·
              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
                ·
                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
                  ·
                  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?

    • WarmSoda@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      She aborted at 28 weeks when the law at the time was 20 weeks.
      She also hid the remains.