OT Roe V Wade In Trouble

Roe v Wade left it open to the states as to whether they allowed late term abortions. There was a subsequent case, whose name I don’t remember, that made all abortions legal up to the actual birth.

 

That's how it was before the SCOTUS decision. The decision which was made based on religious ideals. That's why people are attacking that religion.

When a religion oppresses enough people it will be seen as evil. That's why no law should ever be made with religious pretenses.

 

That is why it's important to get a doctor you trust.

They obviously didn't trust their doctor or they wouldn't be in the current situation (not that it's bad, just a different situation than otherwise).

However, it's not likely that many raising a special needs child would say they regret passing on the option doctors offered and continuing the pregnancy. It's understandable that people in that situation might also exaggerate the situation towards making themselves look like the child's hero.

I'm not saying they are lying, but it makes sense that people who chose to be in that situation would color the story that way.

 

True, but I thought His middle name started with an 'H'...

 

Which is how things were for decades, and abortion rates dropped for decades, as did pregnancy related deaths, crime rates, etc.

That was the correct ruling. If you want women to avoid abortions, the solutions are birth control and education. Not the law.

 

Correct by what metric? By your philosophical view, sure, but why is your view more important or more correct than other views that see abortion as evil because of the loss of a potential human life?

Constitutionally? That’s the only one that is important to the SCOTUS. Ginsberg knew that the right to privacy underpinnings were a stretch and that Roe v Wade would be open to exactly the type of challenge that it fell to. She felt that equal protection was a much better option. Some are pushing now for a challenge based on freedom of religion. That seems to me to be a better option. Different religions have varying viewpoints on when life begins. Laws shouldn’t be allowed if they promote one religious view over others.

Being angry and bitter towards pro-life supporters doesn’t accomplish anything. Effective political and legal strategies are needed if you want to see your viewpoint prevail.

 

By every metric. By the number of deaths, amount of suffering caused, impact to society, everything. Including effectiveness.

Every single metric is better after Roe and before the SCOTUS ruling.

It had already been ruled on and all justices said under oath that ruling should be respected. We shouldn't have to defend it and deal with people being refused access to lifesaving procedures right now. But because of religion we do.

Because of religion, any other political strategy will likely not work. And if it doesn't, I'll be even angrier and more bitter than I am now. And Christianity will even more likely be remembered as evil, if we survive the repercussions.

And I'm not angry or bitter toward anybody except the justices who knowingly lied and turned the Supreme Court and constitution into a mockery.

 

No one plans to get cancer. People do plan to get pregnant. Sometimes it takes a long time. For pregnant women diagnosed with cancer, it's especially devastating. Cancer treatment causes severe damage to fetus but delay can be fatal, so in most cases she has little option but to terminate the pregnancy she might have really wanted.
That is now illegal in almost half the country.
New York Times ran article on what they now face. Even if Republicans allow an exception for the incubator's life, that only applies to immediate life threatening situations and that's not how cancer works. If delaying treatment means she could die in a year not sufficient reason for abortion. If she undergoes treatment and fetus is damaged or killed she could face charges under fetal harm laws. So she can either go without treatment risking her life, or travel out of state, which Republicans are also trying to outlaw.
Own it, those who cheered end of Roe. Women dying of cancer, leaving their children without a mother. That's what you wanted.

 

But doctors generally know more than the patient. It makes sense to me that as long as the doctor and the patient agree on the course of action it should be fine.

If they are going to terminate it should be done with as little delay as possible. It's a tough enough decision to make without second guessing them.

Doctors generally know the risks. They have to account for the worst case scenerio, not so much for the best case scenerio.

Far better to have somebody disappointed that you suggested termination than for them to have a child they can't deal with.

The law should not be involved in any way.

 

I don't see this as a problem worthy of any abortion restriction law.

If you want to sue a doctor over it feel free, but doubt there is much of a case there.

I'd want my doctor to give me his/her advice and if I wanted to see a specialist I'd ask for a referral.

I'm 100% on board with making information available to patients, but not with any restrictions on procedures like abortion. If the primary care physician approves it and the patient wants it there should be no delay.

 

I'll say this...

I've never had a doctor tell me anything would or wouldn't be. They give me a range of possibilities. I find it hard to believe many doctors are telling people their kid will not be able to walk or talk. It's far more likely they are telling patients a range of possibilities. Which is exactly what they should be doing, IMO.

I've never had a doctor refuse to give me a referral when I've asked.

I would require evidence before believing this is a problem.

 

I'm not saying you are suggesting a law. Just that I don't think this reported problem rises to that level of importance.

I'm 100% on board with doctors giving people information and referrals, and if we can come up with a way to make that information more readily available I would support that.

 

I don't think I'd trust a group focused on medical disorders that excluded medical professionals. Most doctors have access to data far more recent than 50 year old textbooks. But to each their own.

I hope you've found a doctor you trust or a solution that works for you and your family.

 

Not what I said. I was very clearly talking about legal delays throughout the entire conversation.

 

I didn't suggest you were talking about that. I didn't think that.

I simply said I don't think the problem rises to that level and if people want more information they should ask for it.

If a doctor is giving false information they are probably subject to a lawsuit.
Thinking of available solutions I'm not sure what else could be done.

In this situation I would personally want my doctor to give me their opinion and I would ask for more information or a referral if I thought it necessary.