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:

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-...