yep, they don’t mention, because now it isn’t an excuse or she die, or she going arrested, and the news don’t provide enough information anyway, just look at the news about mothers goibg sick because can’t get health care
Yeah, I’ve been wondering if that’s a possible reason she did it: one day the fetus stopped moving and she panicked. Knowing that women have died/almost died because doctors were scared to remove the dead fetus.
The increase in deaths could partly be explained by the fact that more babies are being born in Texas. One recent report found that in the final nine months of 2022, the state saw nearly 10,000 more births than expected prior to its abortion ban – an estimated 3% increase.
These people care more about an unborn baby than they do about the baby after it’s born. Actually sad.
If every one of these anti-abortion assholes want to start taking the babies of families who cannot raise them then it wouldn’t be seen as just a disgustingly hypocritical movement. That is not the case. If you want to start forcing women to have babies they can’t care for but you don’t want to take care of the consequences of that, you are the problem.
Nobodies out here delivering fully sized aborted babies for shits and giggles. Pregnancies are painful and traumatic enough.
I read the article, people who stand outside abortion clinics disuading people from getting abortions when they’re within the term time is the problem. It’s also possible to have invisible pregnancies. The article doesn’t contain enough to go into but you can’t deny that protesting and harassment outside of abortion clinics would scare people away from doing it legally. Which now it’s made harder.
No shit, I’m questioning why she didn’t go through the usual routes to get help. You know. responding with thought on what I think about the story… what you’re complaining about
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
This was before the change in the law. It is certainly possible that there were medical issues or that Nebraska made it extremely difficult to get an abortion. I wish the article offered more details. 28 weeks is extremely late for an abortion.
I think it’s an illegal abortion because she is not licensed to provide abortions. At least that’s what I recall reading on this elsewhere. I could be mistaken as it would still have been illegal by state law of 20 weeks at the time. I do believe what this mother did is reckless. She provided a medical procedure that she isn’t qualified to oversee. All that being said, I’m pro choice, but I don’t know that this case really represents what people are saying it does.
The state law that was in place prior to the overturning of Roe v. Wade would have had the same result for this mom and daughter. Not saying I agree with the 20 week ban, but that was the law. My point is that this case is being pushed so hard as a “look what happens after Roe v. Wade is overturned” and that just isn’t the case. There are other examples that illustrate that point more concisely.
Unless you have details other reports don’t have, I don’t think we really know why they did this at 28 weeks. I have not seen anything that said they couldn’t afford it prior to 20 weeks so they did it themselves. I’ve seen a bunch of comments here that insert details that have not been part of any reporting I’ve seen. That’s not to say there isn’t more info out there I have not seen.
They wouldn’t be in the position where the mother would have to be the one providing the service were the service still legal for professionals to provide
This argument is circular since abortions after 20 weeks are prohibited. All of the qualified medicinal professionals are not allowed to provide late term abortions thus no qualified person could provide the medical care she needed. The fault is not with the mother for doing something unsafe but the state that requires that only unsafe conditions exist for the procedure.
I was talking about what the mother is specifically being charged with. I did a little extra looking and that charge (abortion by someone other than a licensed physician) was dismissed as she is pleading guilty to illegally providing an abortion after 20 weeks, false reporting, and tampering with human remains. I agree that restrictions on abortion have the potential to lead to unsafe abortions. I also think it’s true that someone unqualified should not attempt it. Both can be true I think.
That’s what I’m talking about as well. A rise in back alley abortions and thus abortions done by unqualified practitioners are a direct consequence of abortion bans. No one would need to hide “human” remains if a legal abortion was available. No one would be forced to find a provider who is available rather than qualified if the abortion was legal. One should not be judged for taking irresponsible measures if that is all that is available.
Idk that I can get with that last statement as a blanket for all cases, but I understand your point. Abortion should be legal and we as a society can still agree that someone unqualified shouldn’t be offering/providing them. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. Laws that prevent non-medical doctors from performing medical procedures would cover this, so making it specific to abortion isn’t necessary. I read an interesting write up on Jezebel about how these kinds of cases are really probing to see what the public will accept and that makes a lot of sense.
We’re not in fetus territory, here. A premature baby born at 28 weeks has an 80-90% chance of surviving and is unlikely to have any health issues.
The article doesn’t say why they waited so long to reach this decision, but on the face of it this case starts to blur the line between abortion and murder.
A baby born at 28 weeks is absolutely likely to have health issues. What the fuck are you talking about? That would be extremely premature.
A healthy fetus has a good chance of surviving, sure. But what if she found out that the fetus had a severe medical issue that would not see it live long outside the womb? That is significantly different. The article does not give detail on that.
The face of it does not provide detail. I agree that this blurs the line but the line is blurry because of the lack of information.
It doesn’t matter what the age of the child is. Abortion at any age is not murder, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (until Republicans succeed at allowing this). You’re arguing that a fetus has no right to someone’s body, until it grows up and reaches a magical “goldilocks zone” where it’s not too old, not too young, but juuust right. Then you say, “can’t abort, it’s alive, it has a right to use someone’s body without their consent!” and, then, once it’s born, it loses that right! The entire situation you’ve been manipulated into agreeing to, makes a complete mockery of the very pro-life values it’s supposed to espouse.
The memo is an unverified claim from person A who said they had a phone call with person B from an energy company who said they paid the Bidens 5 million each. The only evidence of either the bribery or the phone call about the bribery is this one claim from one person.
Yep they’re trying(and succeeding at in some states) to frame women as cattle. Where the fetus no matter what the viability is, or the danger to the women’s health, and her socioeconomic status in regards to being able to raise a kid(with little to no help from the state that made her carry the fetus to term without any social safety net and if their is one it’s completely underfunded and has lack of easy access. Wtf is going on in peoples minds that think this is alright? I swear the alt right and republicans just give lip service “ small government” while they laugh all the way to the bank and damn well make sure that their daughters,wife’s, mistresses have access to those health services that is “plebs” are not privy too. /end rant
In Nebraska, The 12-week ban includes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. This might indicate it was more of a socio-economic / psychological reason, which are not sufficient grounds under the law to terminate the offspring after that point.
Good luck getting a doctor to perform an abortion under those conditions. Whose responsibility is it to verify that the condition is met? Doctors are very afraid of being sued. Most just won’t perform any abortions just in case. This is the intended effect.
It was always a crime to secretly force a stillbirth at 28 weeks and then bury the body without telling anyone. 28 weeks is almost 7 months (edit: math is hard). She had plenty of time to do it legally.
agree. fetuses can live outside the womb starting at ~24 weeks, whether you are pro life or pro choice i think (and hope) most of us can agree abortion at 28 weeks is very wrong. i dont understand how people can think otherwise. plus the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health.
Absent more information, we cannot assert it was definitely wrong. You've intentionally framed this as "the article says nothing about the fetus posing any dangers to her health" which I have to assume is an intentional lie of omission. What the article actually says is nothing at all about the health of the fetus. It does not imply there was no danger to her health. It says nothing. Likely because it is an unknown.
What we do know about a 28-week abortion is that such an abortion was not part of a normal, healthy plan. Late-term abortions like this are almost certainly from someone intending to carry to term who has some kind of crisis. We do not know the nature of severity of the crisis.
In such a crisis generally, the community and the state should've been there to help them navigate it and reach an outcome that kept her as whole as possible while doing what is possible to keep the child alive. This was possibly a viable pregnancy. But I totally understand, especially to a teenager and in the current political environment of a place like Nebraska, being rightly too frightened to reach out for help.
We can not agree on that because we have no fucking clue on the circumstances. It’s possible she learned of a medical complication for the fetus after 20 weeks. It is possible that it is really difficult to get an abortion in Nebraska and it took a couple months to be able to obtain the resources to do it.
We do not know because the information is not provided. It is possible that somehow after carrying a fetus for 28 weeks and likely knew for 22 of those weeks, she decided she no longer wanted it. We do not know but that seems unlikely to me.
To pretend that abortion after some arbitrary limit, should be illegal, is to make a mockery of pro-choice and bodily autonomy arguments. It even makes a mockery of pro-life. The whole thing is a complete joke. If you think abortion is murder, then agreeing to a term - based compromise is agreeing to let people murder children as long as they’re not too old. A compete mockery of pro-life. In reality, the arguments for bodily autonomy are so strong that everyone should have the right to abort at any term, because no one has the right to use someone else’s body without their consent (Republicans are changing this).
When you support these arbitrary term-based bannings, you’re giving in to the social manipulation of pro-lifers who have successfully manipulated you into a compromise that supports their position.
Being pro-choice requires you accept abortion at any point is morally acceptable.
It does not mean it is desirable. You can have a preference that an abortion late term not happen. It's just a preference for individuals to behave more charitably, after all. And you're free to institute policies that make it less likely to happen so long as those policies do not trample on an individual's ownership of their own body. For example, you can create financial incentives to complete the pregnancy -- cover the person's living and healthcare expenses or flat pay them to do it.
It's telling that the "pro-life" types aren't out here advocating for these kinds of policies that prevent individuals from WANTING to have abortions. If they truly were concerned about murder, they'd be out there making education and contraception available and pregnancy care available and cheap. They'd be expanding things like TANF. All sorts of policies that are normally part of the agenda of the same people that tend to be pro-choice.
I wish people wouldn't talk about pregnancy in terms of months.
40 weeks is at typical pregnancy. A nice, round, simple-to-remember number.
28 weeks is a pregnancy in the 6th month, just as a matter of fact. 28 weeks is also basically the earliest you would ever call someone in the third trimester and is the earliest a pregnancy is typically thought to have the possibility of viability.
There are quite a few medical complications that can be found after the 20 week ban. It is possible she did not discover it until after that. The article does not give information on the circumstances.
As for what she is being charged with, improper disposal of a body, that seems proper assuming there was some sort of biohazard issue.
Yep. Know why she did it? Desperation + living in a state that already made it hard to get abortions, but also doesn’t provide good prenatal care. Nebraska has one of the higher infant mortality rates in the country (though it still pales in comparison to Mississippi).
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Abortion should be completely legal at any trimester. That’s what it means to have a right to bodily autonomy. Pretending that abortion is murder, but not if it’s before some arbitrary trimester limit, makes a mockery of the pro-life position. If it’s murder or “wrong” after a certain week, then it’s murder before that time has passed too. Pro-lifers lie and say they want to “compromise”. They’ve successfully tricked the population into thinking term limits actually are humane, without you considering the arguments why we should or should not have them in the first place.
You don’t know the circumstances because the article does not give them. Don’t be a fuck head. It is quite possible that there were medical complications that were discovered past 20 weeks.
Celeste Burgess, now 19, pleaded guilty to illegally concealing human remains after she had an abortion when around 28 weeks pregnant, beyond the 20-week limit then set by Nebraska law.
Then the doctors would have advised her on what to do. I doubt "take black market pills to force a stillbirth and then hide the body" were the doctors orders.
Would they really though? If there’s legislation in place that could cost a doctor their license or even put them in jail, then they wouldn’t be able to recommend that or do the procedure themselves. This is a huge part of the reason why there’s now a huge shortage of OB/Gyn doctors in red states, because they just can’t practice medicine with one arm tied behind their backs with these ridiculous laws all over the place.
It should not be a crime. The trimester is irrelevant. If the child had been born, it would have no right to anyone’s body. In the womb, it should have no right to someone’s body either. Pro-lifers have tricked you into arguing for unethical trimester-based bans. If it’s wrong to kill that baby after a certain number of weeks, it’s wrong to kill it before then too. To compromise, to allow abortion before a certain trimester but not after, is to make a mockery of the pro-life position, which says abortion is murder (but if you do it early you get a pass). There is nothing wrong with a late-term abortion compared to an early abortion. The child does not have a right to use someone without their consent.
Seems like you wanted to actually argue something, so please expand on your comment by explaining why it’s outside both science and morality, otherwise you’re not really having a discussion.
The actual crime she was nabbed for was illegally hiding human remains. Her mother who provided the abortion pills is the one actually going to be in a lot more trouble it sounds like.
“According to court documents, Celeste Burgess was in her third trimester of pregnancy when she consumed the abortion pills, making the procedure illegal as per Nebraska law.”
I think this would be illegal in almost every western country.
What would be revolting is if this wasn’t a crime. She then hid the “human remains.” I understand you’re probably pro-choice, but is this the hill you want to die on?
People like you just read the headline and reaction as if you know the whole story?
Abortion should be legal at any trimester, for any reason. No one has the right to use your body without your consent (unless Republicans succeed). Pretty sure that’s how it is in Canada.
None of these countries would permit an abortion at 28 weeks, let alone let her keep the babies remains.
The article sheds no light on why she needed a late-term abortion. If something is permissible and publicly funded, chances are a person gets it done early, in a clinic, without hesitation. In case of wanting an abortion, delay is harmful, having to travel, smuggle something or fear something (or gather money) is harmful. Also note: those countries have a separate schedule for normal and exceptional conditions. Which is generally not possible in a political environment that has banned abortion (some cities in Nebraska - yes, in the US, cities can regulate abortion, very strange for me). Some examples that I know of:
Estonia:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 22 weeks (risk to health, severe foetal disease, raising the child is prevented by health or sanity, the pregnant is under 15 or over 45)
Finland:
under normal conditions, 12 weeks
under exceptional conditions, 20…24 weeks (foetal abnormality gives a limit of 24 weeks)
Great, so Canada got it right, and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance. What matters is what can be argued to be correct, and I’ve argued that using bodily autonomy. You’ve argued… You’re right because most western nations agree. Totally barbaric and ignorant of my argument, but that’s obvious. You completely misunderstand consent, but that’s not surprising. I was taught that consent can be withdrawn, but you imply like she has to sit there and take it if she consented originally. Bizarre view of consent you have.
No, they enacted a policy that you agree with. That doesn’t make it ‘right.’
and you’re obviously swinging the weight of “western nations” as if it has any relevance.
It does, we’re most comparable with other first world countries and specifically western countries. Pretty much in every comparable metric where we want to see how we’re doing, we compare it to first world european nations.
What matters is what can be argued to be correct
There is no ‘correct’ - just because you agree with it, doesn’t mean every single country needs to listen to you and enact policies you agree with. You have mad main character syndrome.
Believe it or, people disagree with some of your opinions, and that doesn’t make them ‘wrong’
Not anywhere in anything you said, do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal. Not anywhere do you argue why we should or should not have inviolable bodily autonomy. You wrote a whole lot that says “most western countries agree, so that’s what I’m going with”. What a lazy, uneducated, uninformed opinion. If you have nothing useful to say, why are you replying? I gave reasons why I am pro-choice, any you are completely avoiding those.
do you actually argue why abortion should be legal or illegal.
Because that’s not my argument, that’s what you want to argue.
I’m simply stating that almost every single other western country, even ones that are much more liberal than the U.S., has laws restricting abortions in the scenario that this woman had an abortion. If the U.S. is a shithole 3rd world country because of this, those nations surely are as well.
Nebraska’s abortion policy at this time was more liberal than europes, who we offten compare our policies to.
I’m also arguing that just because you think a policy would be good, doesn’t make it ‘right’ for the other 7 billion people in the world.
You’re arguing that you don’t have to argue. You’re the same guy I’m replying to from yesterday about this very topic. I’m laughing so hard that here you are spending all your energy taking about what most western countries do or do not do, but you STILL won’t argue for or against bodily autonomy, for or against abortion. You have no argument! You just want to talk about things that are completely irrelevant, like what policy has been decided. It’s irrelevant! Argue or admit you can’t justify what you believe. This is my 3rd reply to you and you never argue or justify anything, just more invitation to meaningless conversation.
I don’t care! This is exactly what I meant about conservative misdirection when YOU were CRYING yesterday about how everyone ridicules conservatives on reddit/lemmy. Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule, by definition. You refuse to engage my argument because you have no response. So you argue ANYTHING else, you ask me to consider your own arguments, knowing you’ll trap and misdirect at every turn. Abortion should be legal because we should have a right to our own bodies. Ultimately, you don’t believe in this right, which is why you avoid the topic. If you want to know why I treat you like other conservatives, it’s because you act like other conservatives.
I don’t see how I’m personally attacking them, nor do I intend to. When I said they were crying, I was referencing their comment from yesterday. I want to attack their ideas, which do not need to be respected. I respect their right to have their opinion heard and that’s why I’ve repeatedly asked this user to argue the topic, as of yesterday. They will not. They also complained that they were unfairly persecuted, while they respond to threads like this one, asserting their opinion, arguing irrelevant topics, never engaging my position. I’d call them a troll but I think they’re sincere.
Some people do it even years after birth, so there are always someone pushing it.
Point is that “tour right To swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”
At some point those cells become person wether that is after three months, nine months or nine years is up to debate. I think medical professionals are best equipment to advice us.
I don’t believe you will find many doctors willing to do abortion in 7th month.
You are arguing in favor of abortion when you say “your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” I can’t believe you don’t see that. The principle says that we are generally free, but we don’t have the right to harm or infringe upon someone else. But, that’s exactly what’s happening when a woman is forced to give from her body to support a child. You are giving the child the right to swing their fist wherever, regardless of who it harms.
The cells are a person from the very beginning. They are a person, and it is not wrong to abort them. It’s the most compassionate way to interpret our autonomy rights. The alternative is forced incubation.
See, you have to misrepresent my position, to try to defeat it. You should feel ashamed for the harm against women you’re perpetuating with your attitude, but you’re probably too ignorant to realize the impact of your own beliefs.
If it was easy to get an abortion earlier in the pregnancy when she wanted one, you would have a point. But you and I both know Republicans have made it next to impossible for women to get a legal abortion before whatever cutoff time have been mandated in law, especially in a deep-red shithole like Nebraska. When Republicans keep restricting access to legal abortions, things like this are going to happen. This is entirely a policy failure.
Right because the GOP is famously known for making it easy to get an abortion, and definitely don’t defund abortion providers so that people have to drive for hours to get an abortion. I’m sure the odds are high she lives right next door to one of Nebraska’s three whole abortion clinics, you know?
I don’t know the exact scenario, only the facts presented in the article
The woman had 20 weeks to get an abortion, instead she took an abortion pill at 28 weeks and held onto the babies remains.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
I do believe there should be more abortion clinics available, but have you ever lived in a rural state? The 3 are in the largest cities in the state, where nearly 50% of the population lives.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
Okay first of all the article doesn’t say “held onto the babies remains.” She plead guilty to removing or concealing human skeletal remains, which most likely means she buried it.
I’m sure during the 5 months, she could have found a day to drive and get an abortion if it was important to her.
See, that’s an assumption, not a fact presented in the article. You don’t know if she had access to a car, and public transportation in rural areas is known for being practically nonexistent. It’s possible she didn’t get an abortion sooner because she simply did not have the means to.
Putting an abortion clinic in a town of 1,000 people doesn’t make sense for clinics. I think your disgust comes from your lack of understanding rural america.
You realize places like Planned Parenthood don’t just perform abortions, right? They provide all kinds of other family planning and women’s healthcare services, which are useful for most women, not just those looking to get an abortion. It makes sense for them to be easily accessible to everyone. And GOP has been attacking Planned Parenthood for yearsspecifically to make it harder for women to get abortions. What this woman went through is exactly the sort of thing that was inevitable when the Republican party attacks women’s rights.
regardless, it’s the law. if you want it changed, move to Nebraska, get residency, start a grassroots campaign, get elected to State government, and draft a bill into law.
you’re free to do that, after all - self government is one of our many freedoms. many other countries don’t allow people to do anything about how the government works.
Alluding to Tuberville’s past as the football coach at Auburn University, spokesman Steven Stafford said in an email: “Coach just wants the maps to be fair and for all Alabamians to be represented well. He trusts Alabama’s state legislators to get this right.”
Does it seem weird to anyone else that the dude is an actual US Senator, and his staff still refer to him as “Coach”?
Jesus if people can't even be bothered to simply stop paying for a subscription then we will be truly fucked when something happens that actually matters
This is why the reddit boycott was destined to never work
So you are saying if people can’t do something about problems that don’t really matter to them, that implies they aren’t going to do anything about problems that matter to them?
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.