'Something needs to change.' Woman denied abortion in South Carolina challenges ban
'Something needs to change.' Woman denied abortion in South Carolina challenges ban
The state law has been interpreted as banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood argues the ban is vague and shouldn't apply until at least three weeks later in pregnancy.
Taylor Shelton said she isn't ready to be a mother. She'd been using birth control for years — an intrauterine device (IUD), which is said to be more than 99% effective.
She'd just gotten the device checked by a doctor when she missed her period in September.
"When I found out I was pregnant, I was shocked to say the least," Shelton told NPR.
Shelton and her boyfriend decided together that she would get an abortion. But South Carolina's fetal heartbeat ban had just taken effect.
"I thought, 'Luckily, I'm under six weeks. This shouldn't be hard,'" said Shelton. "And then it turned out to be unbelievably hard."
Shelton ultimately had to travel out of state to get an abortion.
"It was unnecessary, and it was traumatizing," said Shelton. She's now suing the state, alongside Planned Parenthood, arguing the ban's parameters are vague and make it nearly impossible to get an abortion.
"The government want[s] us to be responsible. Well, I'm telling you right now — I had birth control. I tracked my period. I took the pregnancy test as soon as possible," said Shelton. "And even then, I could not figure out how to get this procedure done."
You're viewing part of a thread.
Ok, when you can win in court with that strategy, go for it.
In the meanwhile, I'll accept the most likely to win a good outcome and get this law overturned. Sorry, I'll forever be realpolitik like that.
If you think she will get the law overturned, and it will stop there, you're in for a sad ride.
Ok, well you wave your magic wand and fix all the problems all at once. I, for one, am not going to hold my breath for that. Better is better.
I'd rather push for actual progress than attempt to compromise with fascists and concede half their argument. Progress is the slow boring of hard boards. Conceding ground is giving comfort to those who would oppress and subjugate everyone else.
Overturning a law that hurts women isn't progress? Because the way they're choosing to argue isn't pure enough for you?
If you shift the overton window into pure fascism in the process, no it is not progress.
If you insist on ideological purity even when it will obstruct a tangible victory, then YOU have actually let the fascists win.
How can you not see that? Your pure argument fails, their fascist law stands, the fascists win. Or you make an argument that is distasteful, get the law overturned, and give real, tangible benefits to the people who need it, therefore the fascists DID NOT WIN.
I'm not fighting a philosophical war; I'm fighting a REAL one.