• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

In A Post-Roe America, Googling "Abortion" Could Put You At Risk. Here’s How To Protect Yourself.

Did you read the story? She was charged for allowing her baby, born alive, to drown in a toilet.
They used her search history to determine she tried to perform at at home abortion. In another similar case the Supreme Court ruled you can't charge women for trying to induce miscarriages. Though I doubt today's Supreme Court would rule that way.
 
They used her search history to determine she tried to perform at at home abortion. In another similar case the Supreme Court ruled you can't charge women for trying to induce miscarriages. Though I doubt today's Supreme Court would rule that way.

Doesn't change the fact that contrary to your assertion, she was not charged with murder because of her googling. She was charged with murder for for allowing her baby, born alive, to drown in a toilet.
 
Doesn't change the fact that contrary to your assertion, she was not charged with murder because of her googling. She was charged with murder for for allowing her baby, born alive, to drown in a toilet.
He search history directly led to her being charged. A woman tried to induce a miscarriage and was charged because of her search history.

And as far as I can tell, the only evidence they had that the baby was born alive was this:
A state medical examiner determined that the baby had been born alive through what’s called a “lung flotation” test, a controversial and unreliable method likely developed in the 1600s in which a baby’s lung is placed in water.
Which seems like flimsy evidence. Clearly they thought so too because it wasn't until they got her search history that they got her.
 
How can you say that when what the article claims could happen is, in fact, something that has already happened?

There is very little speculation going on here.
The woman was not charged for looking up abortions she was charged because a determination was made her child drown in the toilet.
 
He search history directly led to her being charged. A woman tried to induce a miscarriage and was charged because of her search history.

And as far as I can tell, the only evidence they had that the baby was born alive was this:

Which seems like flimsy evidence. Clearly they thought so too because it wasn't until they got her search history that they got her.
Sorry, a dead baby is what directly led to being charged.
 
Back
Top Bottom