Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

  • SatanicNotMessianic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    No, not in New York. These were personal decisions on the part of the health care providers, and I think k this lawsuit is not only appropriate but desperately needed.

    The suit is exactly targeted. When fetal personhood is considered to outweigh the life of the mother, it’s absolutely something that needs to be fought tooth and nail. When a hypothetical future fetus is determined to be more important than the life and health of the mother, we’ve entered into a zone that can only be called psychotic.

    There is no case that makes it more clear that they’re turning women into sub-persons.

    • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      This is the thing, and why this case seems shoe-in. None of the bullshit the recent SCOTUS has been saying about fetal rights can possibly hold if there isn’t a fetus in the first place.

      And I hate that as a pro-choicer I’m the one on the side of “erode the decision”, but we need to slowly slip law back off this ledge. First a case where we know there wasn’t a fetus. Then a case that erodes the amount of pregnancy testing a patient needs before receiving lifesaving care for herself. Etc.

      I still cannot believe we live in a post-Dobbs world.