10 year old girl has to travel out of state to get abortio

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the posters blaming the FBI have a way for the federal government to ensure that local law enforcement believes rape reports and takes action— including even collecting the rape kits— i’m all ears.

But testing and taking action on rape kits— heck even 6 days after they’re collected— does nothing at all to protect girls from the consequences of the crime which has already taken place. A rape kit does not detect pregnancy.

So we’re back at the beginning. Why do you think these girls should have to give birth to their rapists babies?

Even the NYT writes articles using words like “almost” in their headlines because they know that rape is an exception.

What are you talking about? There is no rape exception in the Ohio law despite the governor asking for one.

And sadly rape is not an “exception”. There will be at least ten reported pregnancies in girls under 13 in Ohio this year. That doesn’t include the girls whose parents find a way to get them care. It is horrifically common.

In Ohio, she fell under this since the left agrees that 10 years old is too young and will cause bodily harm.

“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."”

Yet she had to leave the state to get an abortion. So your forced birth law is as crappy as everyone is trying to tell you it is while you keep arguing it’s decent. Such a moronic take on the world. Oh, well the law says this, kind of. I guess screw those girls and their lives and future fertility.

Any woke hospital can simply turn people away and blame the law to get media attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the posters blaming the FBI have a way for the federal government to ensure that local law enforcement believes rape reports and takes action— including even collecting the rape kits— i’m all ears.

But testing and taking action on rape kits— heck even 6 days after they’re collected— does nothing at all to protect girls from the consequences of the crime which has already taken place. A rape kit does not detect pregnancy.

So we’re back at the beginning. Why do you think these girls should have to give birth to their rapists babies?

Even the NYT writes articles using words like “almost” in their headlines because they know that rape is an exception.

What are you talking about? There is no rape exception in the Ohio law despite the governor asking for one.

And sadly rape is not an “exception”. There will be at least ten reported pregnancies in girls under 13 in Ohio this year. That doesn’t include the girls whose parents find a way to get them care. It is horrifically common.

In Ohio, she fell under this since the left agrees that 10 years old is too young and will cause bodily harm.

“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."”

DP. This is too vague. At what point is a pregnancy considered life threatening? For example, in situations where there's premature rupture of membranes prior to the point of viability, yet still a heartbeat, where does the doctor draw the line? How close to septic does a woman need to be before this type of futile pregnancy is finally considered "life threatening"?
How about cases where fetal abnormalities affect the health or future fertility of the mother? Where's that "life threatening" threshold supposed to be set?
The laws were written specifically to be vague on this. It was absolutely intentional.

Legislators are not doctors. The doctors determine the bolded. That’s why it’s vague

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

So you got no answer from your professor, just a reply

DP and you give no answer to the question "which office or person in the legislature is responsible for answering questions from doctors and hospitals about laws that affect their work," just a reply.

Because that’s not my job. Your question should be directed to the hospital administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the posters blaming the FBI have a way for the federal government to ensure that local law enforcement believes rape reports and takes action— including even collecting the rape kits— i’m all ears.

But testing and taking action on rape kits— heck even 6 days after they’re collected— does nothing at all to protect girls from the consequences of the crime which has already taken place. A rape kit does not detect pregnancy.

So we’re back at the beginning. Why do you think these girls should have to give birth to their rapists babies?

Even the NYT writes articles using words like “almost” in their headlines because they know that rape is an exception.

What are you talking about? There is no rape exception in the Ohio law despite the governor asking for one.

And sadly rape is not an “exception”. There will be at least ten reported pregnancies in girls under 13 in Ohio this year. That doesn’t include the girls whose parents find a way to get them care. It is horrifically common.

In Ohio, she fell under this since the left agrees that 10 years old is too young and will cause bodily harm.

“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."”

DP. This is too vague. At what point is a pregnancy considered life threatening? For example, in situations where there's premature rupture of membranes prior to the point of viability, yet still a heartbeat, where does the doctor draw the line? How close to septic does a woman need to be before this type of futile pregnancy is finally considered "life threatening"?
How about cases where fetal abnormalities affect the health or future fertility of the mother? Where's that "life threatening" threshold supposed to be set?
The laws were written specifically to be vague on this. It was absolutely intentional.

Also, it has to be an "emergency." A 10 year old can carry for a long time before it's an emergency. It's possible it would never become an emergency.

Do you know the difference between or and and?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

So you got no answer from your professor, just a reply

DP and you give no answer to the question "which office or person in the legislature is responsible for answering questions from doctors and hospitals about laws that affect their work," just a reply.

Because that’s not my job. Your question should be directed to the hospital administration.

it would be the hospital lawyer, i think - but that person would probably operate with the greatest of caution. so in any case where it seems possible that the hospital would run afoul of the law, the lawyer would say not to do the abortion. hence, a 10 year old in this terrible situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

So you got no answer from your professor, just a reply

DP and you give no answer to the question "which office or person in the legislature is responsible for answering questions from doctors and hospitals about laws that affect their work," just a reply.

Because that’s not my job. Your question should be directed to the hospital administration.

Aww. Did someone finally get it to sink in that the law is poorly written and patients, doctors and hospitals have no recourse. “Ask administration” is a dumb attempt to deflect that these laws are as stupid and barbaric as the people who wrote them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad all the outrage here is directed at the Supreme Court, rather than the rapist who raped a 10 year old.

Bravo!

We can multitask. The point is the government is traumatizing this child all over again. This is on you too.

Maybe start taking rape crimes seriously for a change.

Pretend you’re right and no one cares about rape. Now why does this child have to have her rapists baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the posters blaming the FBI have a way for the federal government to ensure that local law enforcement believes rape reports and takes action— including even collecting the rape kits— i’m all ears.

But testing and taking action on rape kits— heck even 6 days after they’re collected— does nothing at all to protect girls from the consequences of the crime which has already taken place. A rape kit does not detect pregnancy.

So we’re back at the beginning. Why do you think these girls should have to give birth to their rapists babies?

Even the NYT writes articles using words like “almost” in their headlines because they know that rape is an exception.

What are you talking about? There is no rape exception in the Ohio law despite the governor asking for one.

And sadly rape is not an “exception”. There will be at least ten reported pregnancies in girls under 13 in Ohio this year. That doesn’t include the girls whose parents find a way to get them care. It is horrifically common.

In Ohio, she fell under this since the left agrees that 10 years old is too young and will cause bodily harm.

“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."”

Yet she had to leave the state to get an abortion. So your forced birth law is as crappy as everyone is trying to tell you it is while you keep arguing it’s decent. Such a moronic take on the world. Oh, well the law says this, kind of. I guess screw those girls and their lives and future fertility.

Any woke hospital can simply turn people away and blame the law to get media attention.

If that was the case, and they weren’t following the law, wouldn’t the Ohio state medical board be removing their medical licenses? Wouldn’t Ohio lawmakers be on every television saying they got the law all wrong and rushing to pass clarification?

And yet….

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Hospital administrators do, yes

Which legislator do they call? How do they choose?

That’s for them to learn, if they haven’t already. If I’m a hospital administrator, this is something I have posted in my office

Legislatures pass laws, they don't clarify them. It would be up to the executive branch to decide whether or not to prosecute and the judicial branch to decide if such a prosecution was constitutional.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Hospital administrators do, yes

Which legislator do they call? How do they choose?

That’s for them to learn, if they haven’t already. If I’m a hospital administrator, this is something I have posted in my office

Legislatures pass laws, they don't clarify them. It would be up to the executive branch to decide whether or not to prosecute and the judicial branch to decide if such a prosecution was constitutional.

precisely

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

I think abortion can be very barbaric.
This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Ha - I remember actually asking that question in law school. This was in our pre-1L intro session, when we were at the SUPER basic level. The professor was explaining how courts have to interpret laws to determine the legislature's intent = and I asked, why can't you just get in touch the legislature and ask them, in addition to doing all this other stuff? I was told that's just not how it's done. But it does seem reasonable to think there might be some mechanism for determining legislative intent like that, even though there isn't.

So you got no answer from your professor, just a reply

DP and you give no answer to the question "which office or person in the legislature is responsible for answering questions from doctors and hospitals about laws that affect their work," just a reply.

Because that’s not my job. Your question should be directed to the hospital administration.

Aww. Did someone finally get it to sink in that the law is poorly written and patients, doctors and hospitals have no recourse. “Ask administration” is a dumb attempt to deflect that these laws are as stupid and barbaric as the people who wrote them.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Hospital administrators do, yes

Which legislator do they call? How do they choose?

That’s for them to learn, if they haven’t already. If I’m a hospital administrator, this is something I have posted in my office

Legislatures pass laws, they don't clarify them. It would be up to the executive branch to decide whether or not to prosecute and the judicial branch to decide if such a prosecution was constitutional.

If the laws aren’t clear, do the abortion and let it litigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the posters blaming the FBI have a way for the federal government to ensure that local law enforcement believes rape reports and takes action— including even collecting the rape kits— i’m all ears.

But testing and taking action on rape kits— heck even 6 days after they’re collected— does nothing at all to protect girls from the consequences of the crime which has already taken place. A rape kit does not detect pregnancy.

So we’re back at the beginning. Why do you think these girls should have to give birth to their rapists babies?

Even the NYT writes articles using words like “almost” in their headlines because they know that rape is an exception.

What are you talking about? There is no rape exception in the Ohio law despite the governor asking for one.

And sadly rape is not an “exception”. There will be at least ten reported pregnancies in girls under 13 in Ohio this year. That doesn’t include the girls whose parents find a way to get them care. It is horrifically common.

In Ohio, she fell under this since the left agrees that 10 years old is too young and will cause bodily harm.

“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."”

Yet she had to leave the state to get an abortion. So your forced birth law is as crappy as everyone is trying to tell you it is while you keep arguing it’s decent. Such a moronic take on the world. Oh, well the law says this, kind of. I guess screw those girls and their lives and future fertility.

Any woke hospital can simply turn people away and blame the law to get media attention.

If that was the case, and they weren’t following the law, wouldn’t the Ohio state medical board be removing their medical licenses? Wouldn’t Ohio lawmakers be on every television saying they got the law all wrong and rushing to pass clarification?

And yet….

What? Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the posters blaming the FBI have a way for the federal government to ensure that local law enforcement believes rape reports and takes action— including even collecting the rape kits— i’m all ears.

But testing and taking action on rape kits— heck even 6 days after they’re collected— does nothing at all to protect girls from the consequences of the crime which has already taken place. A rape kit does not detect pregnancy.

So we’re back at the beginning. Why do you think these girls should have to give birth to their rapists babies?

Even the NYT writes articles using words like “almost” in their headlines because they know that rape is an exception.

What are you talking about? There is no rape exception in the Ohio law despite the governor asking for one.

And sadly rape is not an “exception”. There will be at least ten reported pregnancies in girls under 13 in Ohio this year. That doesn’t include the girls whose parents find a way to get them care. It is horrifically common.

In Ohio, she fell under this since the left agrees that 10 years old is too young and will cause bodily harm.

“Abortions beyond this threshold are legal if the provider determines it's a medical emergency and necessary to prevent the pregnant person's death or "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."”

Yet she had to leave the state to get an abortion. So your forced birth law is as crappy as everyone is trying to tell you it is while you keep arguing it’s decent. Such a moronic take on the world. Oh, well the law says this, kind of. I guess screw those girls and their lives and future fertility.

Any woke hospital can simply turn people away and blame the law to get media attention.

If that was the case, and they weren’t following the law, wouldn’t the Ohio state medical board be removing their medical licenses? Wouldn’t Ohio lawmakers be on every television saying they got the law all wrong and rushing to pass clarification?

And yet….

What? Makes no sense.

Oh gosh let me help you.

The way you know this is how the law was intended to work is that, when the news broke that a ten year old had been denied care, no one said “oh hospital, you misunderstood our law”

Governor deWine didn’t get on TV to explain that OF COURSE a ten year old doesn’t have to give birth to her rapists baby.

The legislators who drafted, proposed, and voted for this legislation didn’t come out and say “no no you’ve got it all wrong”.

They said it was a hoax.

The law in Ohio is that children are expected to have their rapists’ babies. And any other point is just trying to obfuscate that fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the hospital cared about 10 year old rape victims, they would have done the abortion and when charged (if, actually), put it to the media. The charges (if any) would be dropped

Do you have any idea what HIPAA is or how it works or how forced birther ghouls enforce the law? Any idea whatsoever?

I think you just like the idea of little girls in peril. I honestly think many of you delight in this mentally. Take it from there because I’m not writing out all the words but I think this excites a lot of you.

Instead of insulting me, why don’t you think about it. It’s my belief that hospitals are doing this to patients deliberately for the ‘cause’

What ‘cause’? Showing the legislature what the laws they passed prohibited? As interpreted by teams of lawyers employed by said hospitals?

From what I see of that law, there was no reason she would have been prevented from having an abortion in Ohio, given her age and risk to her life. The hospital refused, rather than clarify with legislature. The cause meaning turning away legitimate abortion cases to push the idea the state stopped it.

This is not a thing, and there is no mechanism by which to do so, but nice try.

What an abject idiot that PP is. Do they really think doctors call the legislature? Is there some hotline? This is so cringy.

Hospital administrators do, yes

Which legislator do they call? How do they choose?

That’s for them to learn, if they haven’t already. If I’m a hospital administrator, this is something I have posted in my office

Legislatures pass laws, they don't clarify them. It would be up to the executive branch to decide whether or not to prosecute and the judicial branch to decide if such a prosecution was constitutional.

If the laws aren’t clear, do the abortion and let it litigate.

Easy for you to say, since you're not the one who is going to be prosecuted.

You are clearly not a lawyer, btw.