this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2023
215 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18852 readers
4489 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
215
Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions next week in Wisconsin, citing court ruling (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
2 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Planned Parenthood announced Thursday that it will resume offering abortions in Wisconsin next week after a judge ruled that an 1849 law that seemingly banned the procedure actually didn't apply to abortions.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

This is great news though I don't know that the judges ruling is great.

Every person who shall administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child, any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or other means, with intent thereby to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose, shall, in case the death of such child or of such mother be hereby produced, be deemed guilty of manslaughter in the second degree.

Medice, drug, or substance...

or employ any instrument whatsoever.

However, the newer law should take precedent, as our AG has said.

Wisconsin Stat. § 940.15, enacted in 1985, made abortion a crime only after viability, and allowed abortion after viability “if the abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman, as determined by reasonable medical judgment of the woman’s attending physician.”

Anyway, I'm glad the ruling is encouraging Planned Parenthood to offer abortion access again and I hope that our now liberal SC will uphold the ruling or clarify that a nearly two century old law shouldn't take precedent over a much newer law.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The resumption of abortions Monday at clinics in Milwaukee and Madison comes as the lawsuit challenging the state law continues in county court.

It is expected to eventually reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which flipped to liberal control on Aug. 1.

State Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, whose win in April gave liberals the majority for the first time in 15 years, ran as a supporter of abortion rights.

“This is critically important news for Wisconsin women and patients across our state who, for a year now, have been unable to access the healthcare they need when and where they need it,” he said in a statement.

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit in Dane County days after Roe v. Wade was overturned, seeking to repeal the ban.

Her ruling, a victory for those fighting the ban, said that the legal language in the 1849 law doesn’t use the term “abortion” so it only prohibits attacking a woman in an attempt to kill her unborn child.

The original article contains 372 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 55%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!