316

Nebraska US mother sentenced to two years in prison for giving daughter abortion pills (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml to c/news@lemmy.world

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 59 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This was before they changed the law to disallow abortions after 12 weeks. This also is not exactly a case abortion advocates want to fully stand behind. She was like 28 weeks along and the mother ordered the pills saying they were for herself. She coached the daughter on how to take them and the daughter was happy to take them saying shit like she could not wait to wear jeans again. They then burned the stillborn and buried it in a friend's yard. Most of the case is about improper disposal of a body.

I'm very pro-choice but the daughter should have been the one consulting a doctor to get the pills and they should have worked with the city/county to properly dispose of it.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago

This also is not exactly a case abortion advocates want to fully stand behind.

Fuck that. Women have bodily autonomy. Period. No "but", they just do. None of your things to consider matter at all except that a law which criminalizes women's bodily autonomy at 20 weeks forced them to take medical risks they shouldn't have had to take.

[-] Kage520@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

You won't ever get a majority of the population to agree to this view. If you hold staunchly that all the way up until 40 weeks women should be allowed to abort, you will lose at least 75% of the vote. At some point the fetus is developed enough we have to consider its life, regardless of its current location.

I think we could push viability as a compromise for everyone. That's around 21-24 weeks, depending on what is considered acceptable potential life chance. Conservatives will say that's too developed, some progressives will claim your view, but I think most would at least compromise that if we could safely take the baby out, that should be the legal option at that point. That also gives the mother a lot of time to consider her options.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Many fatal fetal anomalies aren't detected until the scan done between 18-23 weeks. So that doesn't "give the mother a lot of time." Especially in states that add legal hoops for her to jump through, and where the nearest place to perform an abortion is several hundred miles away in another state. Usually in those cases she's forced to put the dying fetus through much more trauma, as well as the risk to her own health and life. You can tell yourself they'll make exceptions in those cases but the reality is they won't act until she's crashing from sepsis, because they fear (with good reason) being reported and arrested and losing their license.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz -1 points 1 year ago

"Do women have bodily autonomy" is a yes or no question. You're implicitly adopting the framing that says "no, they don't", which is why you think there's some need to compromise to be moderate.

The answer to "do you have the right to withhold your labor" isn't "not if it's only for a few months", it's "yes".

[-] randon31415@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Women can end pregnancies without abortion. Just like America can have "territorial integrity" without putting floating barbed-wire meshes in the Rio Grand.

[+] Sendbeer@lemm.ee -12 points 1 year ago

At six months were talking about more than a fetus. Baby has lungs, eyes that move around, and they listen to sounds coming from outside the woman's body. But sure, let's just rip 'em out and flush them so she can fit in jeans again. Sorry, but it's a little fucked up.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 year ago

And at six months a woman still has bodily autonomy. Period. End of story. That you think a more developed fetus means you can dictate what happens with someone else's body is what's fucked up.

[-] Astroturfed@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Abortion at 6 months is something you aren't going to get a lot of agreement about. That shit was almost to the point it could of been born extremely premature. I think 28-30 weeks is the earliest babies have a decent shot at living.

You're just arguing with someone saying something that is definitely massively unpopular is. Personally, I don't give a fuck and think it's fine. If we went back to throwing deformed or unwanted babies into the local lake/off a cliff, also fine with me. I don't generally get mad at the fact that people wouldn't approve of that.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

Technology is improving the premie survival rate all the time. If we can pull an embryo and bring it to term after a week, should abortion be restricted similarly?

Some other criteria is necessary.

[-] Kage520@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I think in the last like 15 years we have gone from 22 weeks to like, 21 weeks and 3 days as the record.

A week is silly. Most women don't even know they are pregnant until they miss their period. Give that a week to be sure they missed it at that's already technically 5 weeks along.

If technology gets as good as you suggest, then we will have to reconsider everything. Governments would have to be willing to take all of them as wards of the state. Before that, we would have to make sure it was just as safe as an abortion. After that, we would have to consider if this mother has a right to not allow this lump or cells to not grow into a full grown human who has to grow up as a ward of the state.

Very complicated ethical mess. But I don't think technology will be there for 50+ years. I'm not sure America will even be here that long these days.

[-] rbos@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Sorry, yeah, I realize I was proposing a reductio ad absurdum as a thought experiment. And yes, I do think that eventually they will get to that point, but my real point was that "time since conception" is not a great metric for a legal line to draw, it's merely a convenient one.

I think personally, as a cis white dude with no stake in the matter, if we had to draw a line for terminations without a specific reason, we should put it somewhere around 6 months with medical exceptions. Developmental problems often don't show up until fairly late, and I think that things like Down syndrome, major uncorrectable development abnormalities or genetic diseases or other quality-of-life issues are perfectly valid reasons for a pregnancy termination. But that's a huge mire to get sunk into and each additional rule would require debates.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

Governments would have to be willing to take all of them as wards of the state. Before that, we would have to make sure it was just as safe as an abortion. After that, we would have to consider if this mother has a right to not allow this lump or cells to not grow into a full grown human who has to grow up as a ward of the state.

All of these questions apply at 6 months or whatever arbitrary date you set. Birth is a more dangerous and damaging procedure than abortion. If forcing the test tube baby extraction could be disallowed for danger, why isn't forced birth?

[-] piecat@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Abortion at 6 months is something you aren't going to get a lot of agreement about.

Says who, you?

What does it matter if others don't agree, that doesn't change the argument.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

The siren call of the "reasonable moderate" always substituting status quo opinion polling in place of moral arguments.

"Listen, most people don't support gay marriage, so you shouldn't say gay marriage should be legal."

[-] KeyserSoze61@lemmy.world 47 points 1 year ago

Seems like a good trade off. 2 years in prison < 18 years in prison. Anyway, fuck Nebraska.

[-] Nunar@lemmy.world 67 points 1 year ago

Let's not forget that this is because Meta gave away Facebook messages that they thought were private. Do not use Facebook messenger! Or SMS!!

[-] bobman@unilem.org 36 points 1 year ago

Jeez, that should be the headline.

"Facebook exposes messages that land a mom in prison for giving her daughter abortion pills."

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

"Facebook exposes messages that land a mom in prison for giving her daughter health care treatment."

Pregnancy is a medical condition with possibly lethal health risks and abortion is a treatment for those that don't accept those risks.

Abortion is health care.

[-] bobman@unilem.org -1 points 1 year ago

Eh. I don't see why we need to use vague terms when we could use specific ones.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Because people need to think of abortions access as health care. The same as cancer treatment, diagnosing illness, or getting stitches. And that starts with messaging.

Abortion is health care.

[-] bobman@unilem.org -3 points 1 year ago

That's fine, but it seems disingenuous to use the general term 'health care' when you could be more specific with what that health care actually is.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I don't think it's disingenuous at all. It's treatment for a woman's health. Calling out people for disapproving of health care is half the point.

Abortion is health care.

[-] tym@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

Killing a 6 month premie isn't abortion though. That fetus' bodily autonomy was violated.

Agreed that abortion is Healthcare. There's also a tipping point where it's no longer a cluster of cells, right?

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

First off, when you say "isn't abortion" it kinda sounds like you're talking about mythical post-birth murder, which doesn't happen and would be illegal. Not sure if you're talking about that or not, but I thought I'd preface.

Aside from that, when it's "viable" it's usually just induced labor. If it's not induced, there's a reason why they have to take more extreme measures.

Aside from that, if you give an inch they take a mile. I would rather doctors and their patient be able to do what's best for the patient's health than to let the government interfere.

[-] bobman@unilem.org -3 points 1 year ago

I mean, you literally said to call it by a general term to get people to think a certain way about it.

I feel like we should tell them the specific information and let them make their own decision instead of resorting to sly tricks like this.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's not a trick. It's health care. People should think of it as health care because it is.

Abortion is health care.

[-] bobman@unilem.org 0 points 1 year ago

Alright. I don't think you're going to see my point so I'll just duck out.

Have a nice day.

[-] Crocrodile@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Does anyone have an article that describes point by point why Facebook is harmful? I'm having trouble getting my friends to switch to signal.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

This is where the real injustice comes in.

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 7 points 1 year ago

Very interesting, though I wonder how much that would've actually changed ... anything?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I don't know if it would have change anything, but it did violate a legal right for a spurious reason and that is an injustice regardless of her sentence.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

WTF USA? SMH

[-] clockwork_octopus@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This headline is a bit misleading. She didn’t just help her daughter have an abortion, she helped her have a late-term abortion, and then burnt & buried the remains.

“According to prosecutors, after the pair bought pills to end the pregnancy, Celeste Burgess gave birth to a stillborn fetus. At the time, Nebraska law banned abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Celeste Burgess’s pregnancy was well past that point, according to court records.

Police say that the Burgesses buried the fetal remains. An examination of the remains suggested they may have also been burned, according to court documents.”

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

What a horrifying hellscape Nebraska must be for a mother and daughter to feel the need to go to such lengths for healthcare.

[-] MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is what happens when states destroy access to reproductive healthcare. Desperate people do stupid things.

[-] clockwork_octopus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I totally agree with you!

[-] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I really wish people would stop using the phrase "late term abortion". It's not a medical term. It's a political one designed demonize those who almost solely terminate for medical reasons.

[-] clockwork_octopus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How would you describe this then? She had an abortion well past the pre-roe cutoff of 20 weeks, which is where it starts to become possible for a fetus to survive outside the womb with substantial medical help. No where has it been mentioned that there may have been a medical reason for the abortion.

To be clear, I’m pro-choice. However, there does come a point in a pregnancy where it becomes morally wrong to terminate if there is no danger to either the mother or the fetus, or the fetus is unviable. Neither of those situations were present here, and she was “well past 20 weeks”, though it’s not listed just how far past she was. So what would you suggest would be the proper terminology here?

Edit: according to CNN, she was around 28 weeks, or 7 months pregnant.

[-] match@pawb.social 4 points 1 year ago

She should cross the border into Colorado, Polis would shelter her

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

deleted by creator

this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023

316 points (94.9% liked)

News

23284 readers

3836 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

dezmd@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world