this post was submitted on 21 Feb 2024
183 points (98.4% liked)

Health - Resources and discussion for everything health-related

2303 readers
292 users here now

Health: physical and mental, individual and public.

Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.

See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.

Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.

Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.

Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.

Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
WhoRoger@lemmy.world
RoyalEngineering@lemmy.world
Awa@lemmy.world
183
'Something needs to change.' Woman denied abortion in South Carolina challenges ban (www.kpbs.org)
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/health@lemmy.world
21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Taylor Shelton said she isn't ready to be a mother. She'd been using birth control for years — an intrauterine device (IUD), which is said to be more than 99% effective.

She'd just gotten the device checked by a doctor when she missed her period in September.

"When I found out I was pregnant, I was shocked to say the least," Shelton told NPR.

Shelton and her boyfriend decided together that she would get an abortion. But South Carolina's fetal heartbeat ban had just taken effect.

"I thought, 'Luckily, I'm under six weeks. This shouldn't be hard,'" said Shelton. "And then it turned out to be unbelievably hard."

Shelton ultimately had to travel out of state to get an abortion.

"It was unnecessary, and it was traumatizing," said Shelton. She's now suing the state, alongside Planned Parenthood, arguing the ban's parameters are vague and make it nearly impossible to get an abortion.

"The government want[s] us to be responsible. Well, I'm telling you right now — I had birth control. I tracked my period. I took the pregnancy test as soon as possible," said Shelton. "And even then, I could not figure out how to get this procedure done."

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 27 points 8 months ago (2 children)

"The government want[s] us to be responsible. Well, I'm telling you right now — I had birth control. I tracked my period. I took the pregnancy test as soon as possible," said Shelton. "And even then, I could not figure out how to get this procedure done."

I would bet dollars to donuts that this poor woman supported abortion restrictions before she wanted one. Based on the way she's talking about it, she's acting like most women (not her, of course) seeking abortions are irresponsible. And the end of the article, she has a quote that 6 weeks is not long enough for responsible women, as though there is any length of time that makes sense for legislators to make medical decisions for women and their doctors.

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I read her statements more as "I took reasonable steps to protect myself, which ultimately didn't work, and then my state made it impossible to get professional medical care."

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That's entirely possible. It just struck me wrong the way she was talking about how she was being responsible and 6 weeks isn't enough for people who do everything right. It kind of implies that she thinks there should be a line, but 6 weeks is too soon.

Like, why do the "reasonable" steps matter at all? What difference does it make that she was using contraception? An abortion is an abortion, and the people involved in the decision to have one or not are the mother and the doctor.

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 16 points 8 months ago

I’ll be honest, you seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions about this woman. Nowhere does she say anything about doing everything right. Yes she has to defend herself. She’s a woman who got pregnant out of wedlock. Do you not understand the stigmas women have to endure because of things like men and religion? I’d be apprehensive too if I were in her position. You’re right though, it shouldn’t matter about reasonable steps. But they do matter. And that’s a travesty too.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

She's making a legal case presenting herself as the perfect case scenario. It's just a tactic to present the best argument possible to get the law overturned for everyone, even people who can't pretend to be perfect.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, see this is why I'm irritated by the argument. By implying that there is a "perfect," you concede far too much to the fascists. The best argument possible is this is a private decision between a woman and her doctor. Anyone who disagrees is an asshole, and should be made to feel like one.

If there was a law that we stone women who commit adultery to death, you wouldn't argue against it by pointing out the child bride of a coma patient fell in love with her husband's caregiver, and they found comfort in each others' arms. No, the law is bad because it is barbaric, evil, and misogynistic.

By trying to argue that she did everything "responsible" to avoid a pregnancy, you leave the door open for the fascist to say "ah-ha, but she didn't do everything she could, because she got pregnant." There's no compromise to be had with fascism.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 9 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ok, when you can win in court with that strategy, go for it.

In the meanwhile, I'll accept the most likely to win a good outcome and get this law overturned. Sorry, I'll forever be realpolitik like that.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you think she will get the law overturned, and it will stop there, you're in for a sad ride.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Ok, well you wave your magic wand and fix all the problems all at once. I, for one, am not going to hold my breath for that. Better is better.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'd rather push for actual progress than attempt to compromise with fascists and concede half their argument. Progress is the slow boring of hard boards. Conceding ground is giving comfort to those who would oppress and subjugate everyone else.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Overturning a law that hurts women isn't progress? Because the way they're choosing to argue isn't pure enough for you?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If you shift the overton window into pure fascism in the process, no it is not progress.

[–] Chetzemoka@startrek.website 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If you insist on ideological purity even when it will obstruct a tangible victory, then YOU have actually let the fascists win.

How can you not see that? Your pure argument fails, their fascist law stands, the fascists win. Or you make an argument that is distasteful, get the law overturned, and give real, tangible benefits to the people who need it, therefore the fascists DID NOT WIN.

I'm not fighting a philosophical war; I'm fighting a REAL one.

[–] qooqie@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It’s really tough and I don’t know if this sort of thing will change for the better anytime soon. More than likely it’s only going to get worse

[–] Masterblaster@kbin.social -3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

all it takes is an armed and determined populace to fix shit.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

LOL, no. It takes votes to change things. And the voters are retarded.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Votes don't fix gerrymandering.

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Doesn't fix unequal representation (I thought that's what we divorced England over) either. What it really doesn't help is how fucking stupid primary voters are. Over and over and over. My entire life. And that first past the post issue, and the voter suppression issue, and.... We got problems here in Capital City.

[–] bostonbananarama@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's actually exactly what fixes gerrymandering. Please see Wisconsin.

[–] Drusas@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

I agree that Wisconsin's rare example is very inspiring.

[–] RedditWanderer@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Wasn't it just last week a 2 yo shot herself in the face with her dad's gun? Americans can't even store guns, nvm organizing a protest with them.

You've been scammed