278

Utah Supreme Court reviews abortion ban; judge notes historical omission of women's voices (www.axios.com)

submitted 1 year ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Not all Utahns were included at the 1895 convention, Judge Paige Petersen noted.

• "Women were in the audience, but they weren't any of the delegates," Petersen said.

• "How do we know … what they thought the meaning of their rights were?" Peterson asked. "It seems important in this context because women are the ones that experience pregnancy and experience childbirth."

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago

"There is an unbroken history and tradition … before 1973, of prohibiting abortion. And that unbroken history has to be part of this Court's analysis, rather than present-day policy arguments about the benefits or the or lack thereof of abortion," attorney Taylor Meehan argued.

So their entire argument is based on the belief that we must hold on to the beliefs of people from 1895 from now until the end of time?

"Yeah, we were wrong before, but it is a tradition in our state to be wrong, and that tradition must be preserved above all else!"

This is a real argument, being made in a real courtroom, in front of a real judge, in the year 2023.

I hate this fucking timeline.

[-] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I get your sentiment of your despair, but shitty lawyers are gonna be shitty lawyers. What would actually be worse is the judge accepting this argument in 2023.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Clarence Thomas enters the chat

[-] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

The dude that cited 12th century English common law?

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

No, that's the other morally bankrupt fossil.

[-] negativenull@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

Utah is one of the states that refused to ratify the Equal Rights Amendments. Utah has a long history of attempting to silence women's voices. The Mormon church was instrumental in making sure it failed in the state. The fact that women weren't involve in the discussion a hundred years ago is par for the course there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Equal_Rights_Amendment_and_Utah

[-] TheCopiedCovenant@lemmy.cafe 20 points 1 year ago

What??? The racist, sexist, violent, polygamist church run by rich white men didn't want to ratify the civil rights amendments???

Fyi, black people were restricted from having the priesthood (essentially the power allowing you to perform every saving ordinance) until 1978. It is Mormon doctrine that they are essentially cursed.

[-] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Wtf. I love Utah now. 😅

[-] TheCopiedCovenant@lemmy.cafe 16 points 1 year ago

It's honestly so ridiculously rare to see good political news here. Our legislature is owned by Mormons, farmers, and Mormon farmers. The Mormon Church has their hands in EVERYTHING.

"We don't get involved in politics" my ass. Remember when they used tithing money to campaign against Prop 8? Remember when they sent an email to every member in their records to vote against Prop 2? (Medical Marijuana) Remember when their closed door meetings with legislature gutted the Medical MJ program that WE FUCKING VOTED ON. Many, many, many more examples.

Oh, cherry on top, Salt Lake County is gerrymandered as fuck lol.

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

Why is this the first time a judge is mentioning this...

[-] flipht@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago

It's not. Another judge mentioned it as a reason that abortion wasn't a thing in during the colonial period.

He ignored that women were discussing it in home keeping books and guides. They just didn't call it "medically necessary abortion" - they called it bleeding or stopping the blood.

[-] cogman@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Joseph Smith, Mormon founder, had a doctor friend, John c Bennett, who is theorized to have been the abortionist of choice for Joe and his many rapes.

Abortion wasn't a Christian right thing until the 1980s. Until then, it was mostly a Catholic thing. The only places where it's "tradition" is Catholic majority states.

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

Why would conservatives care what a woman has to say about women's health? Misogyny is a core principle of conservatism.

Conservatism should be illegal. It is a net harm to humanity. Nothing good in history has ever come from conservatism. Nothing at all.

this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023

278 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4557 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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.
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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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.
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