5 ms·

> Now it is and I fully expect them to use their newfound power to oppress women seeking lifesaving medical care. I fail to see how an abortion is lifesaving m

by _gabe_ 4y ago

> Now it is and I fully expect them to use their newfound power to oppress women seeking lifesaving medical care. I fail to see how an abortion is lifesaving medical care, can you explain what you mean by that? If you're referring to ectopic pregnancies, it looks like the majority of abortions are not due to an ectopic pregnancy. The only source I could find that actually reported the number of abortions due to ectopic pregnancies only covered 1981-1991[0]. It looks like the number of ectopic pregnancies was consistently around 80-100k whereas there were around 800k-1million abortions per year. In addition to this, I don't know of any laws that have been passed in any state banning abortions that save the life of the mother. I would love to read up on some laws that prohibit this, not an article from NYT, or Washington Post, or some other political news agency. If you know of any, please let me know because I would like to be well informed and change my mind if that's the case. > I can think of no group more dangerous than religious fanatics bent on protecting "innocents" in the name of God. And I can think of nothing more dangerous than a political group oppressing and killing people unable to defend themselves in the name of "reproductive rights". I would seriously like to see actual laws that are passed or trying to be passed to ban abortions that save the life of the mother. If you can show me evidence of that I would be willing to reconsider the consequences of overturning roe v wade. But right now, it looks like the only thing happening is states have the power again instead of the federal government. Edit: I reread your comment and it looks like you're referring to rape. Rape and incest laws also haven't been discussed yet. I don't see any Republicans targeting victims of rape and incest, and I'm sure if you talk to most of then they are OK with exceptions in these cases. Unfortunately, once again, the vast majority of abortions are not due to rape and incest. There were around 140k abortions due to rape in 2019.[1] If every single rape resulted in a pregnancy, and every single victim aborted that pregnancy, that would only account for 22% of abortions (around 640k abortions in 2019[2]). It's highly unlikely that this is the case, which means the vast majority of abortions are not due to rape and incest. It doesn't matter anyways, because even if Republicans pass laws allowing victims of rape and incest, and ectopic pregnancies to abort, I have a feeling you still won't be happy. [0]: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/149/11/1025/187423/149-11-1025.pdf https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-pdf/149/11/1025/187423/... [1]: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/rape#:~:text=Overview,higher%20than%20the%202015%20estimate https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-.... [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm

filoeleven 4y ago
> I don't see any Republicans targeting victims of rape and incest, and I'm sure if you talk to most of then they are OK with exceptions in these cases. Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Louisiana all have laws with no exceptions for this. That’s a majority of the states who have bans in place. So no, republican-controlled legislatures are mostly not okay with those exceptions. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/99466 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9946...
- _gabe_ 4y ago
  I think it's interesting how medpagetoday reports these laws compared to how the laws are written. As just one example, medpagetoday says this about Missouri: > As of June 24, Missouri's trigger ban is in effect. It prohibits all abortions, except "in cases of medical emergency" for the pregnant person, meaning death or a irreversible impairment to a major bodily function. There are no exceptions for rape and incest. If you read the linked trigger ban it reads: > No abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency. Any person who knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license by his or her professional licensing board. A woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subsection shall not be prosecuted for a conspiracy to violate the provisions of the subsection.[1] (emphasis mine) A couple things to note, the law does not explicitly forbid abortions in the case of rape and incest. It doesn't mention them at all. As laws usually get developed, there will likely be some court case that rises because of an event where rape or incest has occurred and the medical provider gave an abortion. After the case, some precedent will be set. As of right now, there is no precedent or explicit laws about this specific scenario. Second, the law specifically notes that the medical provider is liable, not the woman. The reason I'm pointing this out is because the way medpagetoday makes it sound, it looks like the woman will be liable and they make it look as if states are actively writing laws to force women to carry a child born of rape or incest which is blatantly false. The law does not mention this at all. The same thing is true of the Oklahoma law quoted in that article: > Every person who administers to any woman, or who prescribes for any woman, or advises or procures any woman to take any medicine, drug or substance, or uses or employs any instrument, or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for not less than two (2) years nor more than five (5) years.[2] And from medpagetoday: > There are no exceptions for rape or incest. This is true, there are no exceptions for rape and incest, and there's also no law explicitly saying that a woman is forced to carry through this. This is why I'm hesitant to believe any sources like the one you quoted. They take the laws, find a way to twist the law in a way to make it sound worse than it is, then present that as the truth. When the reality is, like all laws, there is gray area that will be explored as more court cases rise. > So no, republican-controlled legislatures are mostly not okay with those exceptions. Or, if you actually read the laws, it seems like rape and incest just aren't mentioned and haven't been dealt with yet. Seems like a bit of misinformation on your end or something, but at least they linked to some of the laws so we can find out what they actually say ;) [1]: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/22-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=39ffd2d_2 https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/22-202... [2]: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2021/title-21/section-21-861/ https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2021/title-21/section-...

by _gabe_ 4y ago

filoeleven 4y ago

> I don't see any Republicans targeting victims of rape and incest, and I'm sure if you talk to most of then they are OK with exceptions in these cases. Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Louisiana all have laws with no exceptions for this. That’s a majority of the states who have bans in place. So no, republican-controlled legislatures are mostly not okay with those exceptions. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/99466 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9946...

_gabe_ 4y ago
I think it's interesting how medpagetoday reports these laws compared to how the laws are written. As just one example, medpagetoday says this about Missouri: > As of June 24, Missouri's trigger ban is in effect. It prohibits all abortions, except "in cases of medical emergency" for the pregnant person, meaning death or a irreversible impairment to a major bodily function. There are no exceptions for rape and incest. If you read the linked trigger ban it reads: > No abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency. Any person who knowingly performs or induces an abortion of an unborn child in violation of this subsection shall be guilty of a class B felony, as well as subject to suspension or revocation of his or her professional license by his or her professional licensing board. A woman upon whom an abortion is performed or induced in violation of this subsection shall not be prosecuted for a conspiracy to violate the provisions of the subsection.[1] (emphasis mine) A couple things to note, the law does not explicitly forbid abortions in the case of rape and incest. It doesn't mention them at all. As laws usually get developed, there will likely be some court case that rises because of an event where rape or incest has occurred and the medical provider gave an abortion. After the case, some precedent will be set. As of right now, there is no precedent or explicit laws about this specific scenario. Second, the law specifically notes that the medical provider is liable, not the woman. The reason I'm pointing this out is because the way medpagetoday makes it sound, it looks like the woman will be liable and they make it look as if states are actively writing laws to force women to carry a child born of rape or incest which is blatantly false. The law does not mention this at all. The same thing is true of the Oklahoma law quoted in that article: > Every person who administers to any woman, or who prescribes for any woman, or advises or procures any woman to take any medicine, drug or substance, or uses or employs any instrument, or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless the same is necessary to preserve her life, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for not less than two (2) years nor more than five (5) years.[2] And from medpagetoday: > There are no exceptions for rape or incest. This is true, there are no exceptions for rape and incest, and there's also no law explicitly saying that a woman is forced to carry through this. This is why I'm hesitant to believe any sources like the one you quoted. They take the laws, find a way to twist the law in a way to make it sound worse than it is, then present that as the truth. When the reality is, like all laws, there is gray area that will be explored as more court cases rise. > So no, republican-controlled legislatures are mostly not okay with those exceptions. Or, if you actually read the laws, it seems like rape and incest just aren't mentioned and haven't been dealt with yet. Seems like a bit of misinformation on your end or something, but at least they linked to some of the laws so we can find out what they actually say ;) [1]: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/22-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=39ffd2d_2 https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/22-202... [2]: https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2021/title-21/section-21-861/ https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/2021/title-21/section-...