7 ms·

I almost lost my wife due to the Catholic Hospital's policy against D&C procedures. Had the OBGYN not put his career on the line, and over-riding the prohibitio

I almost lost my wife due to the Catholic Hospital's policy against D&C procedures. Had the OBGYN not put his career on the line, and over-riding the prohibition on the procedure, she would have died. Now that same hurdle can become risking prison. A few years later, we were blessed with a child who is doing well. I would have neither if not for Roe v. Wade. This isn't about abortion, it's about denying healthcare!

seydor 4y ago
i m very happy for you but this is about abortion, a right that every civilized person should enjoy. i m not even american but this is bad
- danity 4y ago
  The U.S. should pass a law rather than relying on a court decision. Roe v Wade was a poor decision from a legal standpoint. For example, why were abortions in the first trimester considered due process under the 14th amendment but in the last 2 trimesters they were not? The court should not be creating the law, the legislature should be doing that. Pass a law in the U.S. legislature and that will take precedence over state law (see the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution).
  - nickff 4y ago
    It would be difficult to pass a pro-choice (or pro-abortion) federal law which complied with the constitution, as the 'right' doesn't fall under any of the enumerated powers, and seems to be clearly within the power of the states. It seems like the only way to have a federal right to abortion is to have a constitutional right (like Roe v. Wade).
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      > It seems like the only way to have a federal right to abortion is to have a constitutional right (like Roe v. Wade). A constitutional amendment would be ideal, but seems very unlikely. I don't see why the Congress couldn't write laws guaranteeing access to abortion, though. We have laws in that vein, like the ADA.
  - heretogetout 4y ago
    The way I see it the courts are there to ensure our civil rights are not violated by laws. A law that "allows" abortion doesn't really make sense in that light. Unless the law is a prohibition on passing laws restricting this right, I guess, although that would be silly.
    - _justinfunk 4y ago
      The way you see it, unfortunately, does not make it so. The constitution limits how the government can infringe on the rights of the people. If the courts say that a right to abortion is not in the constitution, then amend the constitution to add it. Until that point, it is up to the representatives of the people (i.e. the legislature at the state or federal level) to make laws.
      - heretogetout 4y ago
        I think we're in agreement on the core concepts here. We may disagree on what specific rights the constitution protects, but I'm not certain.
      - vlovich123 4y ago
        SCOTUS has now said both things actually at different points in time without any constitutional changes. Shouldn’t decisions generally be considered durable unless there’s some kind of obvious injustice being perpetrated? There’s a reason overturning this particular law is so bad. It’s a cultural flashpoint and SCOTUS has just lit the match and blown up any semblance of them being an apolitical body. Not just with this one decision but the gun control case too. Another commenter pointed it out. This particular bench is picking and choosing fairly inconsistently and extremely ideologically about how they want to rule and then trying to find some justification for it. Consider this. All the evidence to date suggests that abortions (generally) are extremely rare, extremely safe, and generally difficult choices. This is the government getting involved in YOUR healthcare which is very much a privacy issue so dismissing it as “it’s not constitutional” is tone deaf because the argument had been made that it is and been the law of the land for half a decade. Another example was when they didn’t sustain the lawsuit against Texas’ abortion law. Wanna bet they’ll ban any similar legislation aimed at gun seller and manufacturers? Why does the 14th amendment warrant less protection than the 2nd? Not to mention that the 2nd at no point was about personal gun ownership. Well-regulated militia is about states being able to regulate their own armed forces outside of federal control, not implicitly deputizing every citizen of a state as part of a militia the state can’t regulate (one of the rare cases where textualism and living document should be in agreement and they’re not).
  - acchow 4y ago
    The courts back then couldn't find in the constitution a way to make a solid case. They were hoping that the legislative branch would be able to get this done in a few decades. They did not.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kokanator 4y ago
It is important to note the position was that of the Hospital and not a legal position. All laws in place or being contemplated allow for abortive procedures in medical emergencies such as when the mothers life is in danger. For instance, the Mississippi law which was the impetus of the recent SCOTUS ruling has the following language: “[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion" There are issues with the ICD10 codes related to D&C procedures as they reference or include the word 'abortion'. This should be resolved by the AMA.
- 31835843 4y ago
  This presumes that every hospital in the US knows the laws. Far from the case.
  - altacc 4y ago
    Their lawyers know the laws and they write hospital policies that stop them getting prosecuted and losing their license to operate, so will err on the side of the law, not patients.
- lelandfe 4y ago
  > All laws in place or being contemplated allow for abortive procedures in medical emergencies SB 612[0] in Oklahoma made abortions a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. I'm not sure how many doctors will feel comfortable making that call. ...Especially considering HB 4327 then empowers citizens to stage witch hunts against those providers. Imagine developing a reputation for performing abortions in that situation. [0] Which defined a "medical emergency" as "a condition which cannot be remedied by delivery of the child in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered" – a high bar to clear. https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB612/id/2564710 https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB612/id/2564710
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/abortion-bans-patient-doctor-medical-advice https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/abortion-bans-... Article discussing this chilling effect.

seydor 4y ago

i m very happy for you but this is about abortion, a right that every civilized person should enjoy. i m not even american but this is bad

danity 4y ago
The U.S. should pass a law rather than relying on a court decision. Roe v Wade was a poor decision from a legal standpoint. For example, why were abortions in the first trimester considered due process under the 14th amendment but in the last 2 trimesters they were not? The court should not be creating the law, the legislature should be doing that. Pass a law in the U.S. legislature and that will take precedence over state law (see the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution).
- nickff 4y ago
  It would be difficult to pass a pro-choice (or pro-abortion) federal law which complied with the constitution, as the 'right' doesn't fall under any of the enumerated powers, and seems to be clearly within the power of the states. It seems like the only way to have a federal right to abortion is to have a constitutional right (like Roe v. Wade).
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > It seems like the only way to have a federal right to abortion is to have a constitutional right (like Roe v. Wade). A constitutional amendment would be ideal, but seems very unlikely. I don't see why the Congress couldn't write laws guaranteeing access to abortion, though. We have laws in that vein, like the ADA.
- heretogetout 4y ago
  The way I see it the courts are there to ensure our civil rights are not violated by laws. A law that "allows" abortion doesn't really make sense in that light. Unless the law is a prohibition on passing laws restricting this right, I guess, although that would be silly.
  - _justinfunk 4y ago
    The way you see it, unfortunately, does not make it so. The constitution limits how the government can infringe on the rights of the people. If the courts say that a right to abortion is not in the constitution, then amend the constitution to add it. Until that point, it is up to the representatives of the people (i.e. the legislature at the state or federal level) to make laws.
    - heretogetout 4y ago
      I think we're in agreement on the core concepts here. We may disagree on what specific rights the constitution protects, but I'm not certain.
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      SCOTUS has now said both things actually at different points in time without any constitutional changes. Shouldn’t decisions generally be considered durable unless there’s some kind of obvious injustice being perpetrated? There’s a reason overturning this particular law is so bad. It’s a cultural flashpoint and SCOTUS has just lit the match and blown up any semblance of them being an apolitical body. Not just with this one decision but the gun control case too. Another commenter pointed it out. This particular bench is picking and choosing fairly inconsistently and extremely ideologically about how they want to rule and then trying to find some justification for it. Consider this. All the evidence to date suggests that abortions (generally) are extremely rare, extremely safe, and generally difficult choices. This is the government getting involved in YOUR healthcare which is very much a privacy issue so dismissing it as “it’s not constitutional” is tone deaf because the argument had been made that it is and been the law of the land for half a decade. Another example was when they didn’t sustain the lawsuit against Texas’ abortion law. Wanna bet they’ll ban any similar legislation aimed at gun seller and manufacturers? Why does the 14th amendment warrant less protection than the 2nd? Not to mention that the 2nd at no point was about personal gun ownership. Well-regulated militia is about states being able to regulate their own armed forces outside of federal control, not implicitly deputizing every citizen of a state as part of a militia the state can’t regulate (one of the rare cases where textualism and living document should be in agreement and they’re not).
- acchow 4y ago
  The courts back then couldn't find in the constitution a way to make a solid case. They were hoping that the legislative branch would be able to get this done in a few decades. They did not.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kokanator 4y ago

It is important to note the position was that of the Hospital and not a legal position. All laws in place or being contemplated allow for abortive procedures in medical emergencies such as when the mothers life is in danger. For instance, the Mississippi law which was the impetus of the recent SCOTUS ruling has the following language: “[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion" There are issues with the ICD10 codes related to D&C procedures as they reference or include the word 'abortion'. This should be resolved by the AMA.

31835843 4y ago
This presumes that every hospital in the US knows the laws. Far from the case.
- altacc 4y ago
  Their lawyers know the laws and they write hospital policies that stop them getting prosecuted and losing their license to operate, so will err on the side of the law, not patients.
lelandfe 4y ago
> All laws in place or being contemplated allow for abortive procedures in medical emergencies SB 612[0] in Oklahoma made abortions a felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. I'm not sure how many doctors will feel comfortable making that call. ...Especially considering HB 4327 then empowers citizens to stage witch hunts against those providers. Imagine developing a reputation for performing abortions in that situation. [0] Which defined a "medical emergency" as "a condition which cannot be remedied by delivery of the child in which an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered" – a high bar to clear. https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB612/id/2564710 https://legiscan.com/OK/text/SB612/id/2564710
- lelandfe 4y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/abortion-bans-patient-doctor-medical-advice https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/abortion-bans-... Article discussing this chilling effect.