Donate SIGN UP

Winconsin Supreme Court

Avatar Image
DDIL | 08:02 Thu 14th Nov 2024 | News
20 Answers

Under Justice Jill Karosky is currently hearing Josh Kaul V Joel Umanski.

It is proposed that abortion be outlawed unless the mothers life is at risk.  Justice Karosky asked if an abortion would be allowed in the case of incest, rape or fetal abnormalities and each time the answer was NO.

Justice Karosky then asked for clarification on the scenario of rape and stated that the rapist would receive a 10 year term if caught for rape, correct? YES.  The victim if seeking an abortion would receive a 15 year term, correct? YES.

This along with the 'Your body, my choice, Men win' movement and the lovely 'dead women can't talk' group.

Let's not forget JD Vance's proposal that women travelling state to state must prove that they are not with child before being allowed to travel.

I am utterly gobsmacked!

Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by DDIL. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

The Taliban would have no problem with these proposed laws operating in their courts.

Question Author

We are not talking about the Taliban.

these are the people who have just been handed the presidency. 

Not the Taliban, work in progress though?

Some may see The Handmaid's Tale as a documentary.

What is the case of  Josh Kaul V Joel Umanski about?

Who was Justice Karosky asking these questions of?

Excellent, babies will live.  

// Excellent, babies will live. //

depends what you mean by "live", Hazi. the 1849 law as written forces all fetuses to be carried to term, even those with no hope of survival beyond birth (assuming they don't die in the womb) - those with Anencephaly, for instance. Is that "living", Hazi?

Thanks for that.

Seems like the US (in its entirety) needs to clarify the law on abortion one way or another across all 50 states and not leave such an important issue to "parish councils". The US has similar problems, though probably on a grander scale, to the UK, which also insists on providing "parish councils", such as the three devolved assemblies, with autonomy.

The situation being dealt with by Justice Karosky is a complete shambles. I think the bigger problem than the issue itself is that cases such as this get to a state's "Supreme Court" for clarification when a national policy should prevail. The country needs to sort itself out.

The Trump Republican Party made no secret of their draconian measures that would curtail American women’s reproductive rights (under the guise of pro-life) – I suspect many are going to regret voting for the complete idiot (Trump); but those who did vote for him can hardly complain.

the republicans favour leaving this issue with the states because it is easier to ban it in most of the country. gerrymandered districts and voter suppression are all endemic at state level. then you have places like wisconsin where they simply need to get a law from 1849 enforced. 

a disaster for women's rights. when they are finished with that they will come for gay marriage. 

Half of America will soon find be finding out exactly what it was they voted for.

they already know. they like it. 

When I worked in the states it was always the men who were against abortion. I took one man who was arguing against abortion into a room and asked him to foster the baby. He was a rubella baby, deaf, blind,heart problems, unable to feed and probably would have learning difficulties. He refused

that's because there is another agenda behind the anti-abortion movement calmck. 

This is a step back into the dark ages.

I dont see the problem.  THe USA consists of 50 Countries many totally different to each other in thier views and outloook on life, they are not like the councils we have at all, they pass laws at State level that add to the federal law.

Whilst I really dont agree with either extremes in this argument surtely having it at local level is the ideal?  This way the more liberal minded can have their wish and the Bible thumpers can have theirs. 

Surely that is democracy in action?

If the population of a State dont like whats being passed either move (as many have done from California to Texas etc) or vote out the people in charge.

Democracy.

Question Author

Women have choice over their bodies is not liberal!

Women are already dying in states with these measures in place. A miscarriage or other pregnancy related complications can result in death because medical personnel have their hands tied. Sometimes it's due to the law being unclear...doing nothing is preferable to a lawsuit or getting the police involved. 

1 to 20 of 20rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Winconsin Supreme Court

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.