By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A pregnant woman in Kentucky, identified as Mary Poe, has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the state’s near-total abortion ban, arguing it violates her constitutional rights to privacy and self-determination. The lawsuit, filed in Jefferson County Circuit Court, aims to strike down both the trigger law, which bans abortions except to save the patient’s life, and a separate six-week ban. Poe, who is seven weeks pregnant, claims she is unable to access abortion care in Kentucky and has been forced to arrange for out-of-state services, highlighting the substantial burden placed on women seeking abortion care. This legal challenge, brought by the ACLU, seeks class-action status to represent others facing similar circumstances, adding to the ongoing fight for abortion rights in Kentucky.
Read the original article here
A pregnant woman in Kentucky, identified as “Mary Poe” to protect her privacy, has filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s near-total ban on abortion. The lawsuit argues that the ban violates her right to religious freedom. Poe, who is seven weeks pregnant, desires to terminate her pregnancy, but Kentucky law prohibits her from doing so.
The lawsuit, “Poe v Coleman,” is a direct challenge to the post-Roe v Wade landscape where states have implemented strict abortion restrictions. The case draws parallels to Roe v Wade but takes a different approach, focusing on the intersection of religious freedom and abortion rights. The argument centers on the Jewish belief that life begins at the first breath, suggesting that a fetus does not hold the same religious status as a person. This line of reasoning, while potent, faces an uphill battle in a Supreme Court dominated by conservative justices.
The lawsuit faces skepticism from some who believe it has little chance of success. The current Supreme Court, composed of a majority of conservative justices, is perceived as unlikely to overturn its prior decisions on abortion, especially considering their recent rulings on religious freedom cases. Additionally, critics point to the political climate, arguing that the court is susceptible to partisan pressures.
Others, however, view the lawsuit as a bold and necessary step in the fight for reproductive rights. They argue that the lawsuit’s focus on religious freedom presents a compelling argument against the state’s abortion restrictions, potentially challenging the state’s justification for its ban.
The case also raises the fundamental question of bodily autonomy. The lawsuit emphasizes the right of a woman to control her own body and make decisions about her own reproductive health. This argument underscores the idea that a woman’s body, including her uterus, is her own and not subject to the control of the state. The right to bodily autonomy, the lawsuit argues, is deeply rooted in the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “due process of law.” This argument draws on established legal precedents that protect individual rights against governmental intrusion.
The lawsuit has garnered attention for its unique approach and its potential to set a precedent. It remains to be seen whether the lawsuit will succeed in challenging Kentucky’s near-total ban on abortion. However, it serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing struggle for reproductive rights in a post-Roe America.