Facebook gives data to Nebraska police prosecuting teenager for abortion(thebrag.com)
thebrag.com
Facebook gives data to Nebraska police prosecuting teenager for abortion
https://thebrag.com/facebook-gives-data-to-nebraska-police-prosecuting-teenager-for-abortion/
87 comments
Medium-large discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32401381
"Facebook Gave Police Teenager's DMs in Abortion Prosecution" (360+ comments)
Also "The Data Facebook Gave Police to Prosecute a Teenager for Abortion" (90+ comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32404046
Also "The Data Facebook Gave Police to Prosecute a Teenager for Abortion" (90+ comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32404046
While I think Facebook probably had to comply with the law here, I do think this is data they should not have had access to in the first place.
You cannot be forced to give data you do not posess, which is why end-to-end encryption is a thing
You cannot be forced to give data you do not posess, which is why end-to-end encryption is a thing
E2E is only a thing if you trust the app at both ends - which in a lot of E2E solutions means a closed-source blob that could be collecting and sending back the exact same data but mined from the client. It's not a panacea unfortunately.
It's not a panacea but it's already world apart.
The default business model for Meta is to sell targetted publicity depending on what they inferred on you through your publication.
Can't really openly sell it the same way if you are supposed to be E2E ..
And it's not like open-source is a panacea either, for most people who will not build it themselves you usually can't really know what is deployed/distributed.
Was going to use Element as an example but on F-droid the app is built and signed by the platform and an archive with sources is distributed.
But last I check the same can't be said for the play store and you have no idea what's running on app.element.io and there is an open issue for reproducible build for the electron app.
But at each step you are gaining something it's not "only a thing ...".
Can't really openly sell it the same way if you are supposed to be E2E ..
And it's not like open-source is a panacea either, for most people who will not build it themselves you usually can't really know what is deployed/distributed.
Was going to use Element as an example but on F-droid the app is built and signed by the platform and an archive with sources is distributed.
But last I check the same can't be said for the play store and you have no idea what's running on app.element.io and there is an open issue for reproducible build for the electron app.
But at each step you are gaining something it's not "only a thing ...".
Using an app won't be necessary since their web developement is mobile first, right? /s
The point they're making is that if facebook didn't insist on mining everyone's chat histories, they wouldn't be in hot water for having to comply with bullshit search warrants. This is a solved problem in the tech space, they just choose profits over the safety of their users and now they get to reap the PR rewards.
I fucking hate apple but the model they're taking is to take reasonable steps to frustrate state level actors (minus the CP photo upload thing) and as such have set a standard that needs to be followed.
I fucking hate apple but the model they're taking is to take reasonable steps to frustrate state level actors (minus the CP photo upload thing) and as such have set a standard that needs to be followed.
All it would take is for the user to use iCloud backups, which are enabled by default, for Apple to be able to hand over the users complete iMessage archive.
Apple has done a wonderful job marketing something that doesn’t Turkey exist.
Apple has done a wonderful job marketing something that doesn’t Turkey exist.
My point was if they wanted E2E data, they'd just send it back to the server from the recipient. You have to trust the recipient app not to.
the implication of the headline is 'Facebook voluntarily doxxing a young woman who wanted an abortion', when the reality is Facebook complied with a legal request by the police to information in the prosecution of a crime.
What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law?
What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law?
> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law?
Implement end-to-end encryption, so they cannot read or hand over private communication in the first place.
Implement end-to-end encryption, so they cannot read or hand over private communication in the first place.
yes agree with this - but as it currently stands, they have to comply.
Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant.
Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow.
Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant.
Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow.
> Furthermore, looking at legislation coming out of the EU, which places interoperability between services as a key element of anti-monopolisation, it may well soon be impossible for any social network to implement end-to-end encryption and stay compliant.
Public key cryptography has existed for decades now. With regards to your claim, the opposite is true: it's absolutely impossible to implement true and serious end-to-end cryptography and not be compliant with interoperability standards.
That being said, in this situation, e2e would probably change nothing, because governments would likely mandate a backdoor for search warrants, and this particular case was not a fishing expedition since there was a probable cause.
> Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow.
Big tech doesn't need defending. The truth is that big-tech and big-govt is a much more likely alliance than big-tech and the consumer.
Public key cryptography has existed for decades now. With regards to your claim, the opposite is true: it's absolutely impossible to implement true and serious end-to-end cryptography and not be compliant with interoperability standards.
That being said, in this situation, e2e would probably change nothing, because governments would likely mandate a backdoor for search warrants, and this particular case was not a fishing expedition since there was a probable cause.
> Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech, against big govt having fallen for the 'big tech bad' narrative and now we may well reap what we sow.
Big tech doesn't need defending. The truth is that big-tech and big-govt is a much more likely alliance than big-tech and the consumer.
Why would interoperability make end-to-end encryption impossible?
I think the thought is that the encryption would be in the transport layer, and would have to be unwrapped to cross between platforms. Whereas I think this could be effectively implemented in an agreed encryption of the message itself. However, this risks oversimplifying because the next concern would be the metadata.
Who is the sender / recipient? How much data is provided about these actors, phone number, email etc? Is this encrypted?
Who is the sender / recipient? How much data is provided about these actors, phone number, email etc? Is this encrypted?
Interoperability doesn't mean cleartext.
> Our problem is that we have failed to defend big tech
I don't see big tech as a victim here. Companies like Google and Facebook refused to implement e2ee when they had the opportunity. Their network effects and infinite money pots helped to keep more privacy-respecting options small. We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach.
I don't see big tech as a victim here. Companies like Google and Facebook refused to implement e2ee when they had the opportunity. Their network effects and infinite money pots helped to keep more privacy-respecting options small. We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach.
> We failed to defend privacy against big tech and govt overreach.
this optimal scenario was never in our grasp, and even if it were, we missed the opportunity when it mattered. Our task from 2014 onward was to balance big tech vs big govt against each other and make sure neither had too much power over the other. Instead, what we have now is big govt, turning big tech, into another lever of state control
this optimal scenario was never in our grasp, and even if it were, we missed the opportunity when it mattered. Our task from 2014 onward was to balance big tech vs big govt against each other and make sure neither had too much power over the other. Instead, what we have now is big govt, turning big tech, into another lever of state control
In practice, large messaging providers like Facebook or Apple do not actually have their ostensible 1A rights to publish E2EE communication software.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
They willingly self-censor and preserve these unsafe systems so that they don’t get retaliated against by the state regulatory apparatus.
Apple and Facebook aren’t dumb, they know all about E2EE. So does the FBI.
They are simply not allowed to close these security holes. No amount of money or commercial success lets you disobey the wishes of the FBI in America.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-fbi-icloud-exclusiv...
They willingly self-censor and preserve these unsafe systems so that they don’t get retaliated against by the state regulatory apparatus.
Apple and Facebook aren’t dumb, they know all about E2EE. So does the FBI.
They are simply not allowed to close these security holes. No amount of money or commercial success lets you disobey the wishes of the FBI in America.
this is it - some realpolitik right here.
False dichotomy. You want them to obey the law and say "here is all the unencrypted data we have: None at all". That is also discussed in the article.
Actually yes. Facebook systematically breaks so many laws all the time. (Think data protection laws; anti-competitive laws) It's their business model.
So for one I'd like them to continue that practise but for ethical reasons. It doesn't seem like the biggest ask.
So for one I'd like them to continue that practise but for ethical reasons. It doesn't seem like the biggest ask.
There is a huge gradient between not obeying the law and what Facebook did and much of that gradient is entirely legal. That Facebook can't be assed to get creative in favor of its users is unsurprising but doesn't make them neutral or excuse their compliance.
Meta also seems to have taken zero lessons (e.g. minimizing their access to the data they were asked to provide) from this incident. They not only don't want to avoid something like this happening in the future, they also don't want to avoid being put in a position where they would have to participate in something like this again.
That said, being German, I find it deeply painful to hear people posit that not following orders is unreasonable and impossible, especially when even in their own country the majority of people disagrees with the laws in question. If big corporations with expensive legal departments can't be expected to find creative ways to comply with the bare minimum of a law that harms the users who entrust them with their data, maybe it's the corporations who are the problem.
Meta also seems to have taken zero lessons (e.g. minimizing their access to the data they were asked to provide) from this incident. They not only don't want to avoid something like this happening in the future, they also don't want to avoid being put in a position where they would have to participate in something like this again.
That said, being German, I find it deeply painful to hear people posit that not following orders is unreasonable and impossible, especially when even in their own country the majority of people disagrees with the laws in question. If big corporations with expensive legal departments can't be expected to find creative ways to comply with the bare minimum of a law that harms the users who entrust them with their data, maybe it's the corporations who are the problem.
Especially when the Nuremberg trials executed people for following orders. In the case of "crimes against humanity" the defense of "following orders" has been discredited. You would think citizens of the countries running the Nuremberg trials would understand this concept. Apparently not.
Internet headlines are a real big problem. They are typically designed to produce the most attention and clicks.
Boulevard media newspapers had the same issue, but you could read like 1 or 2 headlines a day while now it's 50 just on the HN frontpage.
Most context is then found in the article itself, often directly contradicting the headline or revealing how it was carefully designed to produce a click without making a false claim.
Most people will just read the headline without clicking anyway and be emotionally riled up due to its implication. It's really dangerous in an information society.
Boulevard media newspapers had the same issue, but you could read like 1 or 2 headlines a day while now it's 50 just on the HN frontpage.
Most context is then found in the article itself, often directly contradicting the headline or revealing how it was carefully designed to produce a click without making a false claim.
Most people will just read the headline without clicking anyway and be emotionally riled up due to its implication. It's really dangerous in an information society.
100%.
Often not even written by the author of the post either but by sub-editors who somehow have the responsibility. Being click driven is one motivation, being a political advocate might be another. Serious problem indeed
Often not even written by the author of the post either but by sub-editors who somehow have the responsibility. Being click driven is one motivation, being a political advocate might be another. Serious problem indeed
> What do we want Facebook to do - not obey the law?
Stop obsessively collecting every tiny bit of data, so they have nothing to give to the police in a case like this. They just harmed a teenager for profit.
Stop obsessively collecting every tiny bit of data, so they have nothing to give to the police in a case like this. They just harmed a teenager for profit.
I don't expect anything from a corporation built on getting people addicted to checking their profile, but "not obeying the law" is something many people are admired for. Of course post factum which is easy when it's recognized as the right thing to do. Doing it in the present is hard and takes character, beliefs and a backbone. Which again is the reason I don't expect anything from Facebook.
Imagine if it's Iran and it's their police enforcing a backward law that some religious leader made, should Facebook just follow that law too?
I expect Facebook to follow their ethical compass, which should be calibrated with a diverse set of opinions, regardless of the current political configuration of the environment they are in, just as I do.
Let's turn up the knob a bit, what if Facebook existed in Germany during the Holocaust and doxxed Jews and other political targets, would you maintain this same argument? Probably not.
Let's turn up the knob a bit, what if Facebook existed in Germany during the Holocaust and doxxed Jews and other political targets, would you maintain this same argument? Probably not.
> The teenager ... will be tried as an adult
Why does the US criminal system do this? Who at the court gets to decide that 17 is the same as 21 in this case?
Why does the US criminal system do this? Who at the court gets to decide that 17 is the same as 21 in this case?
I'm not from the US, but a quick read of [1] seems to indicate that certain criminal changes automatically result in the case being transferred fro ma juvenile court to a criminal court, and this is what "tried as an adult means". It's hard to tell whether the (non-juvenile) criminal court makes any allowance for the defendant's age. I suspect it may not.
<Editorial>This being the US, there seems to be a tendency to increasingly try more cases in full criminal court because it is perceived as harsher or stricter. I suspect this may be a perverse outcome of the politicisation and moralisation of criminal justice in the US.</Editorial>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_as_an_adult#United_State...
<Editorial>This being the US, there seems to be a tendency to increasingly try more cases in full criminal court because it is perceived as harsher or stricter. I suspect this may be a perverse outcome of the politicisation and moralisation of criminal justice in the US.</Editorial>
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_as_an_adult#United_State...
It's just a way of increasing the penalties for really severe crimes committed by people near the threshold but it's become a tried and true legal maneuver for prosecutors who want to appear tough on crime. Whenever you see "tried as an adult" in any press release it's usually just there to give their constituents a justice boner while destroying some (low SES/high melanin) kid.
Plenty of systems do this - Canada is another.
It's not like the age of "adulthood" is some fixed number and if you're 17 years, 364 days old you're not an adult.
It's not like the age of "adulthood" is some fixed number and if you're 17 years, 364 days old you're not an adult.
But the same concept of “basically an adult” does not apply to other things, generally.
For example, places without Romeo and Juliet laws punish couples where one is barely adult for sleeping with someone who is nearly an adult. Young couples are also regularly charged with manufacturing/possession/distribution of child pornography in those cases too. And people also aren’t getting to buy alcohol when they are 20-years-and-364-days-old either, etc.
There is a lot where the system treats adulthood and rights as a black and white thing, yet grey when someone wants to make an example out of a child.
For example, places without Romeo and Juliet laws punish couples where one is barely adult for sleeping with someone who is nearly an adult. Young couples are also regularly charged with manufacturing/possession/distribution of child pornography in those cases too. And people also aren’t getting to buy alcohol when they are 20-years-and-364-days-old either, etc.
There is a lot where the system treats adulthood and rights as a black and white thing, yet grey when someone wants to make an example out of a child.
Judge have leeway sometimes. Some laws are written as "no exception" (i.e. mandatory sentencing) others judging can use their own discretion on not only punishment but application of the law.
Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults and it makes more sense to focus on rehabilitation for young offenders.
But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice then they can be treated as an adult.
Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults and it makes more sense to focus on rehabilitation for young offenders.
But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice then they can be treated as an adult.
> Being charged as a minor is usually because one assumes minor lack the judgement of adults
how does that sentence mesh with:
> But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice
How would you be able to determine if a certain case is a result of the incomplete development of the child's brain/mind, versus a 'clear premeditated malice' ?
If a minor acted with 'clear premeditated malice', couldn't you always argue that that in itself is a result of the fact that a minor's brain/mind isn't fully developed yet? And was unable to oversee the results of their actions?
I understand that sometimes teenagers can look very adult-like, but even if their brains would be fully developed they still lack experience, might still be very hormonal, and are interacting with other undeveloped teenagers on a daily basis.
You probably yourself know that however adult you felt like when you were 17, you probably were not.
As far as I know we've all agreed upon an age where an child turns into an adult, so I can't wrap my head around why judges would seemingly willy-nilly allow kids to be tried as adults.
IDK if you're knowledgeable about this; do they perform assessments off the child's development at all? maybe by a developmental psychologist or something? Or is it really up to the judge?
how does that sentence mesh with:
> But if a young offender clearly acted with premeditated malice
How would you be able to determine if a certain case is a result of the incomplete development of the child's brain/mind, versus a 'clear premeditated malice' ?
If a minor acted with 'clear premeditated malice', couldn't you always argue that that in itself is a result of the fact that a minor's brain/mind isn't fully developed yet? And was unable to oversee the results of their actions?
I understand that sometimes teenagers can look very adult-like, but even if their brains would be fully developed they still lack experience, might still be very hormonal, and are interacting with other undeveloped teenagers on a daily basis.
You probably yourself know that however adult you felt like when you were 17, you probably were not.
As far as I know we've all agreed upon an age where an child turns into an adult, so I can't wrap my head around why judges would seemingly willy-nilly allow kids to be tried as adults.
IDK if you're knowledgeable about this; do they perform assessments off the child's development at all? maybe by a developmental psychologist or something? Or is it really up to the judge?
> Facebook has given information to Nebraska police to prosecute a teenager for abortion despite claims to encrypt user data.
I am not aware of Facebook claims to encrypt user data. Quite the opposite I would assume any information I transfer using Facebook/Google/Apple is semi public.
I am not aware of Facebook claims to encrypt user data. Quite the opposite I would assume any information I transfer using Facebook/Google/Apple is semi public.
It looks like most of the reporting on this story including this one have been wrong: https://about.fb.com/news/2022/08/meta-response-nebraska-abo...
Yeh but given’s Facebook’s record at not telling the truth in multiple legal / regulatory filings why should we believe their press release?
What is worse, I wonder: Facebook that blindly follows the law or Facebook that tries to work out its own ethics...
This is a false dichotomy. Facebook can't be ethically neutral. "Following the law" blindly has ethical implications. Facebook has demonstrated its ethics time and again. Contrary to what the far right fringe likes to pretend, those ethics just aren't exactly progressive.
This is a lot like liberals complaining about "political ideologies" from a position steeped in a specific political ideology (i.e. neoliberalism) that is so commonplace as to have become as invisible to them as the air they breathe. Just because you don't write a manifesto about it or fit an exact archetype to the tee that doesn't mean your actions are politically or ethically neutral. Unless Facebook's decisions are literally decided by an unbiased random number generator, they follow one leaning or another, as conflicted, incomprehensible and incoherent as it may be.
This is a lot like liberals complaining about "political ideologies" from a position steeped in a specific political ideology (i.e. neoliberalism) that is so commonplace as to have become as invisible to them as the air they breathe. Just because you don't write a manifesto about it or fit an exact archetype to the tee that doesn't mean your actions are politically or ethically neutral. Unless Facebook's decisions are literally decided by an unbiased random number generator, they follow one leaning or another, as conflicted, incomprehensible and incoherent as it may be.
I not sure - can a U.S. state persecute you for something happened in another state entirely? Is this even legal? Maybe a time for yet another of your amendments.
In theory no, but the devil is in the detail: Can they prosecute you for leaving the state to do something that would be illegal in the home state? Can they prosecute you for helping someone leave the state for the to do something illegal in the home state?
Texas's law lets people sue each other for those acts and usually you can sue someone in one state under that state's laws and expect the judgement to be enforced in other states
Plenty of states have now passed such laws to try to ban abortion.
Whether they are enforceable will end up with SCOTUS. But SCOTUS is the same institution that reversed Roe vs Wade. So I would not expect them to take a practical or precedent based approach to the question "can I go to a blue state to get an abortion if I am pregnant in a red state"...
Texas's law lets people sue each other for those acts and usually you can sue someone in one state under that state's laws and expect the judgement to be enforced in other states
Plenty of states have now passed such laws to try to ban abortion.
Whether they are enforceable will end up with SCOTUS. But SCOTUS is the same institution that reversed Roe vs Wade. So I would not expect them to take a practical or precedent based approach to the question "can I go to a blue state to get an abortion if I am pregnant in a red state"...
"Can they prosecute you for leaving the state to do something that would be illegal in the home state"
The answer is overwhelmingly "no". It is not legal to gamble in most jurisdictions, but noone is persecuted for going to casino in an area where those are allowed.
The answer is overwhelmingly "no". It is not legal to gamble in most jurisdictions, but noone is persecuted for going to casino in an area where those are allowed.
When companies comply with laws HN doesn't agree with in China or Russia people are up in arms, however when it happens in the US with a company that is close to many users here we see "They have to comply with the law".
Google continuously skirts GDPR and other data privacy laws, but when it comes to sharing private messaging information there is nothing they could have done?
While I agree that they probably had to comply, coldly explaining away an act many see as immoral as "it's the law" isn't helping the conversation. Sure it's the law, but the US a history of immoral laws that have been repealed only after someone took a stand and broke them.
edit: it's -> isn't
Google continuously skirts GDPR and other data privacy laws, but when it comes to sharing private messaging information there is nothing they could have done?
While I agree that they probably had to comply, coldly explaining away an act many see as immoral as "it's the law" isn't helping the conversation. Sure it's the law, but the US a history of immoral laws that have been repealed only after someone took a stand and broke them.
edit: it's -> isn't
She forcefully aborted a baby at 23 WEEKS, and reportedly and allegedly burned the body in conspiracy with family members. This has nothing to do with new abortion laws in the USA. In any country in Europe it would too be considered absolutely illegal and inhuman.
Based on that description it sounds like many people would agree that justice needed to happen in this instance, but are we starting to judge facebook/Meta based on laws we agree with and laws we don't? That's a slippery slope no? And their business is built and funded by the data they have on people so it's not like they can easily solve the issue by not capturing data.
Sure, but we shouldn't expect service providers to get in trouble with the law to protect their criminal users.
That's why using a service which doesn't give the service provider access to the messages is crucial for privacy.
Facebook could very well analyse only public data and not private conversations, using the private conversation as a feature to keep users on the platform.
As it is, none of its offering offer secure messaging - which is understandable: 99% of their users don't care until they're in jail.
That's why using a service which doesn't give the service provider access to the messages is crucial for privacy.
Facebook could very well analyse only public data and not private conversations, using the private conversation as a feature to keep users on the platform.
As it is, none of its offering offer secure messaging - which is understandable: 99% of their users don't care until they're in jail.
The limit for abortions in the UK is 24 weeks.
Worth noting that abortions in Great Britain are technically only legal for a series of specific medical reasons. It’s really only by (perhaps somewhat precarious) convention that doctors approve abortions outside those reasons. In this specific case it sounds like the girl would almost certainly be prosecuted.
Strange, according to medical practice, fetus between 22 and 37 week is considered to be "premature babies" and are treated and saved. So even disregarding all moral/ethical questions such fetus is a human being, as it is able to stay alive outside the womb, so it is no longer "part of female body" (which is also not correct even for 1 day fetus, as fetus has its unique DNA and is not part of someone's body).
But you can't burn the body...
Doesn't make it right in the opinion of a lot of people though.
Those peoples opinions are irrelevant.
And what makes the opposite opinion relevant? Until it can be scientifically proven when and what makes a human being, all opinions on the matter are, well, subjective opinions.
What makes 24 weeks the magic number for abortions? What's the difference between 24 and 25 weeks, in terms of fetus development? Why draw the line there, and not at 24.5 weeks? Or 23 weeks?
The relevant and superior opinion you're holding is just an arbitrary number.
What makes 24 weeks the magic number for abortions? What's the difference between 24 and 25 weeks, in terms of fetus development? Why draw the line there, and not at 24.5 weeks? Or 23 weeks?
The relevant and superior opinion you're holding is just an arbitrary number.
Exactly.
Your subjective opinion (or mine for that matter) is not relevant to someone else’s situation.
Your subjective opinion (or mine for that matter) is not relevant to someone else’s situation.
[deleted]
Both the Netherlands and UK allow abortions for any reason at 23 weeks.
It's at will in Norway up to 12 weeks and via specialist approved application to 18 weeks. In a number of European countries it is even more conservative.
It doesn't matter - EU citizens can go anywhere within the EU, so they'd just move to a place where this is okay and have it done anyway.
did you just suggest that moving countries is an easy way of getting an abortion? First of all getting a doctor in a country you are not a citizen of to perform it in the first place is difficult. I am also unsure if a country like Denmark would prosecute a woman for aborting at 24 weeks outside its borders.
So you mean same as in the USA.
Aren't certain states actively trying to make it illegal to go out of state for an abortion or support others in doing so[0]? If this is true, that doesn't sound the same at all; I know of no such attempts actively under way in the EU.
[0] - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/abortion...
[0] - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/abortion...
European states are unlikely to prosecute you for all but gravest breaches of domestic law while abroad. That doesn't mean it is legal however. You wouldn't want to have it on your medical record probably, and treating any complications can be problematic.
Besides, the practicality of going elsewhere for abortion is a huge Q. For most people arguing for it, it's only a mental exercise. But we once tried to replace prescription glasses my wife left at home while on a trip in the UK. It's effectively impossible, don't tell me you can just walk to a clinic being a foreign national with no residence in the UK and ask NHS for abortion.
Besides, the practicality of going elsewhere for abortion is a huge Q. For most people arguing for it, it's only a mental exercise. But we once tried to replace prescription glasses my wife left at home while on a trip in the UK. It's effectively impossible, don't tell me you can just walk to a clinic being a foreign national with no residence in the UK and ask NHS for abortion.
Abortion specifically is significantly easier to achieve this for, because it's a reproductive rights issue.
In countries with proper abortion laws she could have done this legally and more humane.
"It would be illegal in the EU!" aside from being wrong as pointed out by others...is a frequent anti-abortion talking point by catholic organizations and is completely irrelevant, as they don't live in the EU.
At an estimated 23 weeks, her abortion would have been legal in all the light-pink states in this chart: https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-ro...
Friendly reminder that she is accused, not convicted. She's also a minor, and likely living in poverty. Also, they allegedly discussed burning the fetus, but did not do so. Maybe temper your moral outage in light of those facts?
You know what's inhuman? Making birth control and abortion as difficult as possible for poor folks to keep them in poverty so they make for easily-exploited worker-bees. The mother claims assets of $400. The child has no assets. Their county has an average individual income of $23,000/year.
Here's a thought: if abortion outrages you, then heavily support contraceptive access and sex education. But...guess what the anti-abortion crowd are also vehemently against?
What's clear is that the police had little evidence of a crime from an autopsy that showed the fetus had never breathed air, but still dug anyway - "we found it in a plastic bag so we had to make REALLY sure it wasn't suffocated" strains credulity. They went out of their way to try and fuck over a teenager living in poverty.
Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zevd/this-is-the-data-face...
As for "inhuman", that's your opinion, friend. I really don't find myself getting morally outraged over it.
At an estimated 23 weeks, her abortion would have been legal in all the light-pink states in this chart: https://www.axios.com/2022/05/14/abortion-state-laws-bans-ro...
Friendly reminder that she is accused, not convicted. She's also a minor, and likely living in poverty. Also, they allegedly discussed burning the fetus, but did not do so. Maybe temper your moral outage in light of those facts?
You know what's inhuman? Making birth control and abortion as difficult as possible for poor folks to keep them in poverty so they make for easily-exploited worker-bees. The mother claims assets of $400. The child has no assets. Their county has an average individual income of $23,000/year.
Here's a thought: if abortion outrages you, then heavily support contraceptive access and sex education. But...guess what the anti-abortion crowd are also vehemently against?
What's clear is that the police had little evidence of a crime from an autopsy that showed the fetus had never breathed air, but still dug anyway - "we found it in a plastic bag so we had to make REALLY sure it wasn't suffocated" strains credulity. They went out of their way to try and fuck over a teenager living in poverty.
Source: https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7zevd/this-is-the-data-face...
As for "inhuman", that's your opinion, friend. I really don't find myself getting morally outraged over it.
> "It would be illegal in the EU!" aside from being wrong as pointed out by others
what on Earth are you talking about? The most commmon "at will" limit in Europe is 12 weeks. The ONLY countries with more than 17 weeks gestrational limit is the Netherlands, Sweden. The UK, Chezhia, and Finland do not even legally have "at will" abortions, which might differ in practise. So while we can say that MAYBE UK is 20+ weeks that is still the ONLY country in Europe.
what on Earth are you talking about? The most commmon "at will" limit in Europe is 12 weeks. The ONLY countries with more than 17 weeks gestrational limit is the Netherlands, Sweden. The UK, Chezhia, and Finland do not even legally have "at will" abortions, which might differ in practise. So while we can say that MAYBE UK is 20+ weeks that is still the ONLY country in Europe.
A-OK in Australia:
>> Abortion is legal on request up to 24 weeks, and is legal beyond 24 weeks with the approval of two doctors.
>> It is illegal to protest within 150 metres of an abortion clinic.
>> Abortion is legal on request up to 24 weeks, and is legal beyond 24 weeks with the approval of two doctors.
>> It is illegal to protest within 150 metres of an abortion clinic.
The limit for medically aided abortion in Germany is 22 weeks, just to bring it up for context.
No [1], the limit is 12 weeks. Any abortion above 12 weeks is a crime (except for special cases) and the doctor can be held accountable. What you're probably referring to is the fact that the pregnant woman will not be persecuted up until 22 weeks.
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__218a.html
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__218a.html
Yes, the limit for regular abortions is 12 weeks. However, it's 22 weeks for special circumstances according to § 218a:
https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/themen/familie/schwangerschaft-...
https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/themen/familie/schwangerschaft-...
[deleted]
What value does a law have if you are not enforcing it?
[deleted]
It gives conservative parties in a coalition something to hold on to while tentatively accepting the status quo. And it gives them hope that turning back the clock on women's reproductive rights might be possible if legislature or the judiciary ever shifts to a majority willing to undo them.
It also allows commenters on websites to go “Ackchyually, …”, purposely ignoring the de facto legal situation, focusing on the de jure fiction instead.
It also allows commenters on websites to go “Ackchyually, …”, purposely ignoring the de facto legal situation, focusing on the de jure fiction instead.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
hayver(2)