Supreme Court lets Kentucky law stand in win for unborn babies and pro-life advocates

[TalkRadio_]

On Dec. 9, the Supreme Court allowed Kentucky’s informed consent law to stand. What sounds like a legal debate over a narrow medical issue had turned into a political firestorm.

The Kentucky law requires abortion providers to perform an ultrasound, showing the patient an image of her unborn baby as the doctor also describes the image. In this case, the justices refused to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upholding Kentucky’s controversial law. Pro-life advocates consider this a win for unborn babies, albeit a minor one.

For context, the Supreme Court has previously upheld informed consent laws, yet they will hear the first abortion case in some time in March, regarding a Louisiana law that requires doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

March for Life President Jeanne Mancini applauded the Supreme Court’s decision on mandatory ultrasounds in a statement, saying, “Women facing an unexpected pregnancy deserve to have as much medically and technically accurate information as possible when they are making what could be the most important decision of their life.”

Source

 

[schism666]

miles, there's no such thing as an unborn baby. it's not a baby until it's born.

 

[phrodeau]

Kentuckians who want technically accurate information. That is a first.

 

[DMBFFF]

Note to het/bi- ladies whose appetite for sex approximates the average healthy American male:

You might want to consider leaving Kentucky or not going there, because if you have an unwanted pregnancy, there is yet another speed bump in terminating such a pregnancy. The guy who got you pregnant will not suffer physically or hormonally—maybe financially, but you'll be holding the bag.



animal rights and fetal rights
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1487086

One argument—likely the biggest argument—for banning abortion is that fetuses (feti?) have rights, particularly a right to life.

In my view, many pre-born humans are no more sentient than many animals, and many might be less so.

I doubt a 9 month-old human fetus is more sentient than an ape.

I doubt an early human fetus is more sentient than, say, a toad or frog.

I doubt an early human embryo is more sentient than, say, a grasshopper.

It (too) has little limbs, an identifiable body, a heart (or hearts), a primitive brain (or brain-of-sorts), and primitive circulatory, nervous, and digestive systems. It too responds to light and (likely) recoils from pinpricks. Moreover it can eat its own food, fend for itself, and sexually reproduce.

I doubt an early human zygote is more sentient than, say, a hydra or jellyfish.

I doubt a fertilized human egg is more sentient than, say, an amoeba.

But while in, say, the US, pro-lifers/anti-abortionists/anti-choicers go on about 10s of millions of abortions of human pre-born since Roe versus Wade, and how they are used for things like stem cell research, likely billions of semi-sentient animals are slaughtered—often after being raised in terrible conditions, eviscerated, butchered, cooked, and eaten by an omnivourous species that can survive—perhaps survive well—entirely on a plant-based diet.

I find it odd—likely hypocritical—that states most interested in banning abortion are likely the least interested in animal welfare.

By the way, how is it in Alabama?