278

Utah Supreme Court reviews abortion ban; judge notes historical omission of women's voices (www.axios.com)

submitted 11 months ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Not all Utahns were included at the 1895 convention, Judge Paige Petersen noted.

• "Women were in the audience, but they weren't any of the delegates," Petersen said.

• "How do we know … what they thought the meaning of their rights were?" Peterson asked. "It seems important in this context because women are the ones that experience pregnancy and experience childbirth."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

Wtf. I love Utah now. 😅

[-] TheCopiedCovenant@lemmy.cafe 16 points 11 months ago

It's honestly so ridiculously rare to see good political news here. Our legislature is owned by Mormons, farmers, and Mormon farmers. The Mormon Church has their hands in EVERYTHING.

"We don't get involved in politics" my ass. Remember when they used tithing money to campaign against Prop 8? Remember when they sent an email to every member in their records to vote against Prop 2? (Medical Marijuana) Remember when their closed door meetings with legislature gutted the Medical MJ program that WE FUCKING VOTED ON. Many, many, many more examples.

Oh, cherry on top, Salt Lake County is gerrymandered as fuck lol.

this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023

278 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18073 readers

3503 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News