Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
apnews.com
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban. The court’s liberal majority ruled 4-3 on Wednesday that the ban is no longer valid because newer abortion restrictions superseded it.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.

  • LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    63·
    3 months ago

    Abortion legal until viability should be the standard everywhere. That being said, the line is still a little blurry, as your local resources may be able to manage an earlier term pregnancy than one in another area.

    Curious how the wording defines that date.

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      49·
      3 months ago

      “Viability” can even be quite fuzzy, because it all depends on the capabilities of medical science, and even then there’s a gray area. And who gets to decide whether a fetus that tests for a given birth defect is “viable”? Does “viable” mean that the fetus can be forced to have a heartbeat outside of the womb, even if they have to be cared for in a vegetative state forever?

    • DancingBear
      5·
      3 months ago

      I disagree with you, but only because in republican states this would mean abortion is legal until adulthood, considering their stance on Medicaid and Medicare and food stamps and early childhood education.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      62·
      3 months ago

      So women lose their bodily autonomy as soon as their fetus becomes viable? How’s that work?

      • LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        71·
        3 months ago

        At a certain point you’re responsible for a person, and not hosting a mass of cells. If the fetus is viable, then abortion is essentially the same as delivery, and you’re looking at adoption instead of abortion.

        I’m sure there’s edge cases that I’m not thinking of, and I’m perfectly willing to admit I’m wrong, but it seems to me that if the fetus is viable, then there’s not much difference between a human that’s inside the body or outside.

      • DancingBear
        5·
        3 months ago

        Even roe v wade had this as a max,

        You might have this as a real belief, but if you are arguing viable fetuses should be allowed to be aborted, you’re not going to do well for your cause and you probably need to find a compromise that can literally rally supermajorities of republicans and democrats onto your side of the issue

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          11·
          3 months ago

          Why the fuck would I care about Roe v Wade? Am I supposed to base my idealogy on supreme court decisions and nothing else? Who fucking cares what Roe v. Wade said?

          • DancingBear
            2·
            3 months ago

            I guess you are opposed to discussion as well, you do you

            • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              11·
              3 months ago

              I didn’t realize we were having a discussion about Supreme Court cases.

              See, I don’t base my ideology on what Samuel Alito and his ilk say. That’s not how I decide what is moral or ethical.

    • billwashere@lemmy.worldEnglish
      23·
      3 months ago

      Until the fetus can survive on its own it is a parasite.

      Wait… no I’m pretty sure that might still be the case when they graduate college and can’t get a job as well.

    • JodeEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      I think they already unanimously shot down the redistricting reform :<