Roe v Wade and TTC

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

That accusation of "lying" about statutes is not going to fly on DCUM, which is populated by MANY very good lawyers and women who have had high risk pregnancy.

First of all - weasel word is "remove." There are statutes that contain exceptions to "remove" an ectopic pregnancy; but it is unclear if this covers all the treatments that are actually medically indicated, such as methotrexate. Catholic medical ethicists have a long history of opposing the use of methotrexate, and it is forbidden in some Catholic hospitals, on the grounds that it is ok to "remove" by excising the whole tube, but not by giving methotrexate to preserve fertility and prevent the need for invasive surgery. This alone is a HUGE problem.

Second of all, states like Missouri *do not have* an express exclusion for ectopic pregnancy. Instead, it falls under the rubric of an "emergency" that requires an "imminent risk." This phrasing creates SIGNIFICANT lack of certainty about exactly when an ectopic pregnancy can be terminated. Do doctors have to wait until the tube bursts and the woman is bleeding internally? Because until that happens, the risk is not "imminent."

https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/02/missouri-doctors-fear-vague-emergency-exception-to-abortion-ban-puts-patients-at-risk/

The Missouri statute only allows abortion in the case of "medical emergency," defined as "a condition which, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;"

That "serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" does not show up on an x-ray or ultrasound. It is a subjective medical judgment that no doctor can determine with certainty. When a woman shows up with an ectopic pregnancy but is not bleeding internally, it is NOT AT ALL CLEAR that she has yet met the standard of "serious risk." I won't even get into the problem with defining "substantial ... impairment of a major bodily function," which is a legal term, not a medical term. That kind of language created horrible interpretation problems for TWO DECADES in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

An "abortion" is defined by Missouri statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" = uterus.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=viable%u2044abortion

An ectopic pregnancy is not in the womb. It's an extrauterine pregnancy, like in the fallopian tubes.

^^^^ And, when a word is not explicitly defined in a statute, like "womb," courts look to the "plain meaning" in a dictionary. My Webster's dictionary defines "womb" as: UTERUS.

Read part (b) idiot.

Again you are in a forum of well-educated women, many of whom have drafted laws, written legal briefs interpreting laws, and even drafting legal opinions during our clerkships. We know very well what these laws say.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

Name one state that has an explicit exception abortion in the case for ectopic pregnancy, and cite to the statutory provision providing the explicit exception. Go for it, I dare you. You wouldn’t want anyone to think you’re lying, right?

I asked which states prohibit ectopic pregnancy removal, and instead of citing ONE, you angrily posed another.
But challenge accepted. TEXAS, defines abortion in The Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 245.002. In§(1)(C) it explicitly says that "An act is not an abortion is done with the intent to: remove an ectopic pregnancy" ... an abortion explicitly not removal of a dead child or if it saves or preserves the life of the unborn child.
I now dare you to name a state that explicitly bans ectopic pregnancy. Or a pro-life organization that calls for ectopic pregnancy removal to be banned.

Cool. Now find the exception in Missouri.

Sure. The poster above cited Missouri's exception and then went on to confusedly explain how it wasn't exception -basically because it didn't explicitly mention ectopic pregnancy as an exception. But since the ENTIRE pro-life community sees it as an exception, she went on to claim that Missouri's exception wasn't really an exception because an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis is "medically subjective." um...
Ectopic pregnancies are diagnosed through a combination of HCG tests and transvaginal ultrasounds. It will show up as a mass in the ovary, tube, or cervix and HCG levels will be high enough to indicate a pregnancy. There also won't be an embryo where it is supposed to be. The tube doesn't need to have ruptured for the diagnosis to be made. Once the diagnosis is made, it is universally considered a medical emergency -yes, even in Missouri. No one will deny that the embryo is non-viable and that the woman's life and bodily health are at serious risk. Incidentally, this is why you have, and never will, see a prosecution for an ectopic pregnancy removal...even in Missouri. Or find a pro-life organization advocating to make it illegal. This is also why even the Catholic bishops have emphasized that Catholic Hospitals that don't perform abortions are permitted to perform ectopic pregnancy (and yes, it is permitted to treat with methrotrexate; practitioners, however, are not forced to do so if it violates their individual conscience).

So, practitioners are not forced to use Methotrexate to abort an ectopic pregnancy if it violates their individual conscience. Let's just hope that when a woman goes to an ER in a catholic hospital with an ectopic pregnancy, the ER doctors and the pharmacist don't refuse to prescribe a life-saving drug because of their individual conscience.

This PP is lying about Catholic hospitals. There are absolutely Catholic hospitals that prohibit the use of methotrexate. This same policy will likely be implemented in states that only permit the “removal” of an ectopic pregnancy.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21353977/

Ladies of DCUM TTC: sorry to say, but you probably should avoid forced birth states until safetly closer to the 2nd tri. And don’t go to Georgetown ER if you have abdominal pain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

Missouri - An "abortion" is defined by statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" (= uterus).
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/PageSelect.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=

Texas - "An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: . .
remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.245.htm

Louisiana - I'm not sure if a trigger ban included a repeal of this definition of an abortion in their statutes, but at least their law used to state: "[It] is not an abortion if done with the intent to: . . . remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=965002

Missouri: part 1(b) of the definition extends to ANY termination:

“ (b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child.”

TX and LA: have the problematic “removal” language which likely bans methotrexate and requires women to have major surgery & an organ removed, instead of a simple shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

Missouri - An "abortion" is defined by statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" (= uterus).
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/PageSelect.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=

Texas - "An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: . .
remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.245.htm

Louisiana - I'm not sure if a trigger ban included a repeal of this definition of an abortion in their statutes, but at least their law used to state: "[It] is not an abortion if done with the intent to: . . . remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=965002

Missouri: part 1(b) of the definition extends to ANY termination:

“ (b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child.”

TX and LA: have the problematic “removal” language which likely bans methotrexate and requires women to have major surgery & an organ removed, instead of a simple shot.

Oh I missed that in Missouri's - has 2 different definitions, weird! Well, then an elected official needs to request an AG Opinion asap as to whether ectopic pregnancy constitutes medical emergency where mothers life in jeopardy

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

Name one state that has an explicit exception abortion in the case for ectopic pregnancy, and cite to the statutory provision providing the explicit exception. Go for it, I dare you. You wouldn’t want anyone to think you’re lying, right?

I asked which states prohibit ectopic pregnancy removal, and instead of citing ONE, you angrily posed another.
But challenge accepted. TEXAS, defines abortion in The Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 245.002. In§(1)(C) it explicitly says that "An act is not an abortion is done with the intent to: remove an ectopic pregnancy" ... an abortion explicitly not removal of a dead child or if it saves or preserves the life of the unborn child.
I now dare you to name a state that explicitly bans ectopic pregnancy. Or a pro-life organization that calls for ectopic pregnancy removal to be banned.

Cool. Now find the exception in Missouri.

Sure. The poster above cited Missouri's exception and then went on to confusedly explain how it wasn't exception -basically because it didn't explicitly mention ectopic pregnancy as an exception. But since the ENTIRE pro-life community sees it as an exception, she went on to claim that Missouri's exception wasn't really an exception because an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis is "medically subjective." um...
Ectopic pregnancies are diagnosed through a combination of HCG tests and transvaginal ultrasounds. It will show up as a mass in the ovary, tube, or cervix and HCG levels will be high enough to indicate a pregnancy. There also won't be an embryo where it is supposed to be. The tube doesn't need to have ruptured for the diagnosis to be made. Once the diagnosis is made, it is universally considered a medical emergency -yes, even in Missouri. No one will deny that the embryo is non-viable and that the woman's life and bodily health are at serious risk. Incidentally, this is why you have, and never will, see a prosecution for an ectopic pregnancy removal...even in Missouri. Or find a pro-life organization advocating to make it illegal. This is also why even the Catholic bishops have emphasized that Catholic Hospitals that don't perform abortions are permitted to perform ectopic pregnancy (and yes, it is permitted to treat with methrotrexate; practitioners, however, are not forced to do so if it violates their individual conscience).

So, practitioners are not forced to use Methotrexate to abort an ectopic pregnancy if it violates their individual conscience. Let's just hope that when a woman goes to an ER in a catholic hospital with an ectopic pregnancy, the ER doctors and the pharmacist don't refuse to prescribe a life-saving drug because of their individual conscience.

This PP is lying about Catholic hospitals. There are absolutely Catholic hospitals that prohibit the use of methotrexate. This same policy will likely be implemented in states that only permit the “removal” of an ectopic pregnancy.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21353977/

Ladies of DCUM TTC: sorry to say, but you probably should avoid forced birth states until safetly closer to the 2nd tri. And don’t go to Georgetown ER if you have abdominal pain.

I didn’t lie, your reading comprehension failed. I said the Bishop have permitted use of methotrexate and left it to individual conscience. And then, without any evidence whatsoever that Georgetown is one of the those hospitals, you advise women not to go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

Missouri - An "abortion" is defined by statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" (= uterus).
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/PageSelect.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=

Texas - "An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: . .
remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.245.htm

Louisiana - I'm not sure if a trigger ban included a repeal of this definition of an abortion in their statutes, but at least their law used to state: "[It] is not an abortion if done with the intent to: . . . remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=965002

Missouri: part 1(b) of the definition extends to ANY termination:

“ (b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child.”

TX and LA: have the problematic “removal” language which likely bans methotrexate and requires women to have major surgery & an organ removed, instead of a simple shot.

Oh I missed that in Missouri's - has 2 different definitions, weird! Well, then an elected official needs to request an AG Opinion asap as to whether ectopic pregnancy constitutes medical emergency where mothers life in jeopardy

No. An “AG’s opinion” does not settle what the law is and cannot address all the different factual scenarios that could arise. The Missouri AG also does not control what local prosecutors do, or who grand juries may indict.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=56.770

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

That accusation of "lying" about statutes is not going to fly on DCUM, which is populated by MANY very good lawyers and women who have had high risk pregnancy.

First of all - weasel word is "remove." There are statutes that contain exceptions to "remove" an ectopic pregnancy; but it is unclear if this covers all the treatments that are actually medically indicated, such as methotrexate. Catholic medical ethicists have a long history of opposing the use of methotrexate, and it is forbidden in some Catholic hospitals, on the grounds that it is ok to "remove" by excising the whole tube, but not by giving methotrexate to preserve fertility and prevent the need for invasive surgery. This alone is a HUGE problem.

Second of all, states like Missouri *do not have* an express exclusion for ectopic pregnancy. Instead, it falls under the rubric of an "emergency" that requires an "imminent risk." This phrasing creates SIGNIFICANT lack of certainty about exactly when an ectopic pregnancy can be terminated. Do doctors have to wait until the tube bursts and the woman is bleeding internally? Because until that happens, the risk is not "imminent."

https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/02/missouri-doctors-fear-vague-emergency-exception-to-abortion-ban-puts-patients-at-risk/

The Missouri statute only allows abortion in the case of "medical emergency," defined as "a condition which, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;"

That "serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" does not show up on an x-ray or ultrasound. It is a subjective medical judgment that no doctor can determine with certainty. When a woman shows up with an ectopic pregnancy but is not bleeding internally, it is NOT AT ALL CLEAR that she has yet met the standard of "serious risk." I won't even get into the problem with defining "substantial ... impairment of a major bodily function," which is a legal term, not a medical term. That kind of language created horrible interpretation problems for TWO DECADES in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

An "abortion" is defined by Missouri statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" = uterus.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=viable%u2044abortion

An ectopic pregnancy is not in the womb. It's an extrauterine pregnancy, like in the fallopian tubes.

^^^^ And, when a word is not explicitly defined in a statute, like "womb," courts look to the "plain meaning" in a dictionary. My Webster's dictionary defines "womb" as: UTERUS.

Read part (b) idiot.

Again you are in a forum of well-educated women, many of whom have drafted laws, written legal briefs interpreting laws, and even drafting legal opinions during our clerkships. We know very well what these laws say.

I’m not the pp, but you do know that many well-educated women who have done clerkships, written legal briefs interpreting the laws, etc etc…. Are prolife….

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

Name one state that has an explicit exception abortion in the case for ectopic pregnancy, and cite to the statutory provision providing the explicit exception. Go for it, I dare you. You wouldn’t want anyone to think you’re lying, right?

I asked which states prohibit ectopic pregnancy removal, and instead of citing ONE, you angrily posed another.
But challenge accepted. TEXAS, defines abortion in The Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 245.002. In§(1)(C) it explicitly says that "An act is not an abortion is done with the intent to: remove an ectopic pregnancy" ... an abortion explicitly not removal of a dead child or if it saves or preserves the life of the unborn child.
I now dare you to name a state that explicitly bans ectopic pregnancy. Or a pro-life organization that calls for ectopic pregnancy removal to be banned.

Cool. Now find the exception in Missouri.

Sure. The poster above cited Missouri's exception and then went on to confusedly explain how it wasn't exception -basically because it didn't explicitly mention ectopic pregnancy as an exception. But since the ENTIRE pro-life community sees it as an exception, she went on to claim that Missouri's exception wasn't really an exception because an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis is "medically subjective." um...
Ectopic pregnancies are diagnosed through a combination of HCG tests and transvaginal ultrasounds. It will show up as a mass in the ovary, tube, or cervix and HCG levels will be high enough to indicate a pregnancy. There also won't be an embryo where it is supposed to be. The tube doesn't need to have ruptured for the diagnosis to be made. Once the diagnosis is made, it is universally considered a medical emergency -yes, even in Missouri. No one will deny that the embryo is non-viable and that the woman's life and bodily health are at serious risk. Incidentally, this is why you have, and never will, see a prosecution for an ectopic pregnancy removal...even in Missouri. Or find a pro-life organization advocating to make it illegal. This is also why even the Catholic bishops have emphasized that Catholic Hospitals that don't perform abortions are permitted to perform ectopic pregnancy (and yes, it is permitted to treat with methrotrexate; practitioners, however, are not forced to do so if it violates their individual conscience).

So, practitioners are not forced to use Methotrexate to abort an ectopic pregnancy if it violates their individual conscience. Let's just hope that when a woman goes to an ER in a catholic hospital with an ectopic pregnancy, the ER doctors and the pharmacist don't refuse to prescribe a life-saving drug because of their individual conscience.

This PP is lying about Catholic hospitals. There are absolutely Catholic hospitals that prohibit the use of methotrexate. This same policy will likely be implemented in states that only permit the “removal” of an ectopic pregnancy.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21353977/

Ladies of DCUM TTC: sorry to say, but you probably should avoid forced birth states until safetly closer to the 2nd tri. And don’t go to Georgetown ER if you have abdominal pain.

I didn’t lie, your reading comprehension failed. I said the Bishop have permitted use of methotrexate and left it to individual conscience. And then, without any evidence whatsoever that Georgetown is one of the those hospitals, you advise women not to go there.

You lied. You claimed that no Catholic hospitals have policies forbidding methotrexate. They do.

As for Georgetown- I think the burden is on you to show that Georgetown allows its doctors to use methotrexate.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

That accusation of "lying" about statutes is not going to fly on DCUM, which is populated by MANY very good lawyers and women who have had high risk pregnancy.

First of all - weasel word is "remove." There are statutes that contain exceptions to "remove" an ectopic pregnancy; but it is unclear if this covers all the treatments that are actually medically indicated, such as methotrexate. Catholic medical ethicists have a long history of opposing the use of methotrexate, and it is forbidden in some Catholic hospitals, on the grounds that it is ok to "remove" by excising the whole tube, but not by giving methotrexate to preserve fertility and prevent the need for invasive surgery. This alone is a HUGE problem.

Second of all, states like Missouri *do not have* an express exclusion for ectopic pregnancy. Instead, it falls under the rubric of an "emergency" that requires an "imminent risk." This phrasing creates SIGNIFICANT lack of certainty about exactly when an ectopic pregnancy can be terminated. Do doctors have to wait until the tube bursts and the woman is bleeding internally? Because until that happens, the risk is not "imminent."

https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/02/missouri-doctors-fear-vague-emergency-exception-to-abortion-ban-puts-patients-at-risk/

The Missouri statute only allows abortion in the case of "medical emergency," defined as "a condition which, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;"

That "serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" does not show up on an x-ray or ultrasound. It is a subjective medical judgment that no doctor can determine with certainty. When a woman shows up with an ectopic pregnancy but is not bleeding internally, it is NOT AT ALL CLEAR that she has yet met the standard of "serious risk." I won't even get into the problem with defining "substantial ... impairment of a major bodily function," which is a legal term, not a medical term. That kind of language created horrible interpretation problems for TWO DECADES in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

An "abortion" is defined by Missouri statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" = uterus.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=viable%u2044abortion

An ectopic pregnancy is not in the womb. It's an extrauterine pregnancy, like in the fallopian tubes.

^^^^ And, when a word is not explicitly defined in a statute, like "womb," courts look to the "plain meaning" in a dictionary. My Webster's dictionary defines "womb" as: UTERUS.

Read part (b) idiot.

Again you are in a forum of well-educated women, many of whom have drafted laws, written legal briefs interpreting laws, and even drafting legal opinions during our clerkships. We know very well what these laws say.

I’m not the pp, but you do know that many well-educated women who have done clerkships, written legal briefs interpreting the laws, etc etc…. Are prolife….

Fine - let’s go then and see their detailed statutory analysis. I’m game.

These statute could be drafted to remove the risk to women. But when you press pro-lifers on it, they don’t want to make the changes. Because they are fine with some women suffering or dying to ensure that doctors will never perform abortions.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

Name one state that has an explicit exception abortion in the case for ectopic pregnancy, and cite to the statutory provision providing the explicit exception. Go for it, I dare you. You wouldn’t want anyone to think you’re lying, right?

I asked which states prohibit ectopic pregnancy removal, and instead of citing ONE, you angrily posed another.
But challenge accepted. TEXAS, defines abortion in The Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 245.002. In§(1)(C) it explicitly says that "An act is not an abortion is done with the intent to: remove an ectopic pregnancy" ... an abortion explicitly not removal of a dead child or if it saves or preserves the life of the unborn child.
I now dare you to name a state that explicitly bans ectopic pregnancy. Or a pro-life organization that calls for ectopic pregnancy removal to be banned.

Cool. Now find the exception in Missouri.

Sure. The poster above cited Missouri's exception and then went on to confusedly explain how it wasn't exception -basically because it didn't explicitly mention ectopic pregnancy as an exception. But since the ENTIRE pro-life community sees it as an exception, she went on to claim that Missouri's exception wasn't really an exception because an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis is "medically subjective." um...
Ectopic pregnancies are diagnosed through a combination of HCG tests and transvaginal ultrasounds. It will show up as a mass in the ovary, tube, or cervix and HCG levels will be high enough to indicate a pregnancy. There also won't be an embryo where it is supposed to be. The tube doesn't need to have ruptured for the diagnosis to be made. Once the diagnosis is made, it is universally considered a medical emergency -yes, even in Missouri. No one will deny that the embryo is non-viable and that the woman's life and bodily health are at serious risk. Incidentally, this is why you have, and never will, see a prosecution for an ectopic pregnancy removal...even in Missouri. Or find a pro-life organization advocating to make it illegal. This is also why even the Catholic bishops have emphasized that Catholic Hospitals that don't perform abortions are permitted to perform ectopic pregnancy (and yes, it is permitted to treat with methrotrexate; practitioners, however, are not forced to do so if it violates their individual conscience).

So, practitioners are not forced to use Methotrexate to abort an ectopic pregnancy if it violates their individual conscience. Let's just hope that when a woman goes to an ER in a catholic hospital with an ectopic pregnancy, the ER doctors and the pharmacist don't refuse to prescribe a life-saving drug because of their individual conscience.

This PP is lying about Catholic hospitals. There are absolutely Catholic hospitals that prohibit the use of methotrexate. This same policy will likely be implemented in states that only permit the “removal” of an ectopic pregnancy.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21353977/

Ladies of DCUM TTC: sorry to say, but you probably should avoid forced birth states until safetly closer to the 2nd tri. And don’t go to Georgetown ER if you have abdominal pain.

I didn’t lie, your reading comprehension failed. I said the Bishop have permitted use of methotrexate and left it to individual conscience. And then, without any evidence whatsoever that Georgetown is one of the those hospitals, you advise women not to go there.

You lied. You claimed that no Catholic hospitals have policies forbidding methotrexate. They do.

As for Georgetown- I think the burden is on you to show that Georgetown allows its doctors to use methotrexate.

I mean you can keep saying I "lied" to make yourself feel like you have a persuasive argument, but what I wrote was: "This is also why even the Catholic bishops have emphasized that Catholic Hospitals that don't perform abortions are permitted to perform ectopic pregnancy (and yes, it is permitted to treat with methrotrexate; practitioners, however, are not forced to do so if it violates their individual conscience)." That doesn't say NO catholic hospitals have policies forbidding it.

And no, the burden is NOT on me to clear Georgetown... if you are wrong, it's defaming the hospital.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

That accusation of "lying" about statutes is not going to fly on DCUM, which is populated by MANY very good lawyers and women who have had high risk pregnancy.

First of all - weasel word is "remove." There are statutes that contain exceptions to "remove" an ectopic pregnancy; but it is unclear if this covers all the treatments that are actually medically indicated, such as methotrexate. Catholic medical ethicists have a long history of opposing the use of methotrexate, and it is forbidden in some Catholic hospitals, on the grounds that it is ok to "remove" by excising the whole tube, but not by giving methotrexate to preserve fertility and prevent the need for invasive surgery. This alone is a HUGE problem.

Second of all, states like Missouri *do not have* an express exclusion for ectopic pregnancy. Instead, it falls under the rubric of an "emergency" that requires an "imminent risk." This phrasing creates SIGNIFICANT lack of certainty about exactly when an ectopic pregnancy can be terminated. Do doctors have to wait until the tube bursts and the woman is bleeding internally? Because until that happens, the risk is not "imminent."

https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/02/missouri-doctors-fear-vague-emergency-exception-to-abortion-ban-puts-patients-at-risk/

The Missouri statute only allows abortion in the case of "medical emergency," defined as "a condition which, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;"

That "serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" does not show up on an x-ray or ultrasound. It is a subjective medical judgment that no doctor can determine with certainty. When a woman shows up with an ectopic pregnancy but is not bleeding internally, it is NOT AT ALL CLEAR that she has yet met the standard of "serious risk." I won't even get into the problem with defining "substantial ... impairment of a major bodily function," which is a legal term, not a medical term. That kind of language created horrible interpretation problems for TWO DECADES in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

An "abortion" is defined by Missouri statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" = uterus.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=viable%u2044abortion

An ectopic pregnancy is not in the womb. It's an extrauterine pregnancy, like in the fallopian tubes.

^^^^ And, when a word is not explicitly defined in a statute, like "womb," courts look to the "plain meaning" in a dictionary. My Webster's dictionary defines "womb" as: UTERUS.

Read part (b) idiot.

Again you are in a forum of well-educated women, many of whom have drafted laws, written legal briefs interpreting laws, and even drafting legal opinions during our clerkships. We know very well what these laws say.

I’m not the pp, but you do know that many well-educated women who have done clerkships, written legal briefs interpreting the laws, etc etc…. Are prolife….

Fine - let’s go then and see their detailed statutory analysis. I’m game.

These statute could be drafted to remove the risk to women. But when you press pro-lifers on it, they don’t want to make the changes. Because they are fine with some women suffering or dying to ensure that doctors will never perform abortions.

Are you game? you just keep shooting off invectives to your opponents' responses.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

Name one state that has an explicit exception abortion in the case for ectopic pregnancy, and cite to the statutory provision providing the explicit exception. Go for it, I dare you. You wouldn’t want anyone to think you’re lying, right?

I asked which states prohibit ectopic pregnancy removal, and instead of citing ONE, you angrily posed another.
But challenge accepted. TEXAS, defines abortion in The Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 245.002. In§(1)(C) it explicitly says that "An act is not an abortion is done with the intent to: remove an ectopic pregnancy" ... an abortion explicitly not removal of a dead child or if it saves or preserves the life of the unborn child.
I now dare you to name a state that explicitly bans ectopic pregnancy. Or a pro-life organization that calls for ectopic pregnancy removal to be banned.

Cool. Now find the exception in Missouri.

Sure. The poster above cited Missouri's exception and then went on to confusedly explain how it wasn't exception -basically because it didn't explicitly mention ectopic pregnancy as an exception. But since the ENTIRE pro-life community sees it as an exception, she went on to claim that Missouri's exception wasn't really an exception because an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis is "medically subjective." um...
Ectopic pregnancies are diagnosed through a combination of HCG tests and transvaginal ultrasounds. It will show up as a mass in the ovary, tube, or cervix and HCG levels will be high enough to indicate a pregnancy. There also won't be an embryo where it is supposed to be. The tube doesn't need to have ruptured for the diagnosis to be made. Once the diagnosis is made, it is universally considered a medical emergency -yes, even in Missouri. No one will deny that the embryo is non-viable and that the woman's life and bodily health are at serious risk. Incidentally, this is why you have, and never will, see a prosecution for an ectopic pregnancy removal...even in Missouri. Or find a pro-life organization advocating to make it illegal. This is also why even the Catholic bishops have emphasized that Catholic Hospitals that don't perform abortions are permitted to perform ectopic pregnancy (and yes, it is permitted to treat with methrotrexate; practitioners, however, are not forced to do so if it violates their individual conscience).

So, practitioners are not forced to use Methotrexate to abort an ectopic pregnancy if it violates their individual conscience. Let's just hope that when a woman goes to an ER in a catholic hospital with an ectopic pregnancy, the ER doctors and the pharmacist don't refuse to prescribe a life-saving drug because of their individual conscience.

This PP is lying about Catholic hospitals. There are absolutely Catholic hospitals that prohibit the use of methotrexate. This same policy will likely be implemented in states that only permit the “removal” of an ectopic pregnancy.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21353977/

Ladies of DCUM TTC: sorry to say, but you probably should avoid forced birth states until safetly closer to the 2nd tri. And don’t go to Georgetown ER if you have abdominal pain.

I didn’t lie, your reading comprehension failed. I said the Bishop have permitted use of methotrexate and left it to individual conscience. And then, without any evidence whatsoever that Georgetown is one of the those hospitals, you advise women not to go there.

You lied. You claimed that no Catholic hospitals have policies forbidding methotrexate. They do.

As for Georgetown- I think the burden is on you to show that Georgetown allows its doctors to use methotrexate.

I mean you can keep saying I "lied" to make yourself feel like you have a persuasive argument, but what I wrote was: "This is also why even the Catholic bishops have emphasized that Catholic Hospitals that don't perform abortions are permitted to perform ectopic pregnancy (and yes, it is permitted to treat with methrotrexate; practitioners, however, are not forced to do so if it violates their individual conscience)." That doesn't say NO catholic hospitals have policies forbidding it.

And no, the burden is NOT on me to clear Georgetown... if you are wrong, it's defaming the hospital.

So you agree that some Catholic hospitals have policies against methotrexate? Ok good, your wording was ambiguous.

As for Georgetown- if they want to sue me for defamation and demonstrate in court that they require doctors to treat pregnant patients with their best medical judgment using any available methods, great! I volunteer as tribute.

Meanwhile, I still think it’s prudent for any woman TTC in DC to find a doctor associated with a hospital other than Georgetown, and for any woman of reproductive age to avoid a Catholic hospital if you’re experiencing abdominal pain.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

+1

Cite for each of these states banning abortion. The idiots making these laws aren’t doctors. Most aren’t women. They have no idea how it works. One of these a-holes thought you could move the ectopic pregnancy over to the uterus.

Medical decisions should be left to medical professionals. Not ignorant religious zealots.

The poster who made that stupid claim about terminating of ectopic pregnancies not being abortions is never going to answer. She will studiously ignore this thread until enough pages have passed since anyone mention ectopic pregnancies that she can pretend not to have seen the question.

I’m not that poster, but I will say that *morally,* no one with even a basic understanding of these matters thinks an ectopic pregnancy removal is equivalent to an abortion. You can call it what you like, but they are two different procedures which is why even very prolife institutions condone removal of ectopic pregnancies. I think it was mentioned before, but the principle of double effect justifies ectopic pregnancy removal (or abortion if you like).

Do you not understand that the problem is that anti abortion laws do not make these distinctions and women will die because of this? But please continue to pretend you are "pro life"

That’s dramatic. If the law doesn’t have an exception for an ectopic pregnancy it is incomplete and/or misguided. Pretty simple. But the prolife world has long recognized the legitimacy of ending ectopic pregnancies.

But the movement doesn’t care enough about allowing women to safely terminate ectopic pregnancies to write those exceptions into anti-abortion legislation. Maybe they’re just too ignorant about the issue to understand what they’re doing (in which case they shouldn’t be drafting legislation in the first place), or maybe it was intentional, because they are more worried about inadvertently opening the door further by making an exception for ectopic pregnancies than they are about the deaths and permanent injuries that will occur if women cannot safely terminate ectopic pregnancies.

Which *states* specifically, don’t allow for ectopic pregnancy removal? Because there’s been a lot of lying going on….

That accusation of "lying" about statutes is not going to fly on DCUM, which is populated by MANY very good lawyers and women who have had high risk pregnancy.

First of all - weasel word is "remove." There are statutes that contain exceptions to "remove" an ectopic pregnancy; but it is unclear if this covers all the treatments that are actually medically indicated, such as methotrexate. Catholic medical ethicists have a long history of opposing the use of methotrexate, and it is forbidden in some Catholic hospitals, on the grounds that it is ok to "remove" by excising the whole tube, but not by giving methotrexate to preserve fertility and prevent the need for invasive surgery. This alone is a HUGE problem.

Second of all, states like Missouri *do not have* an express exclusion for ectopic pregnancy. Instead, it falls under the rubric of an "emergency" that requires an "imminent risk." This phrasing creates SIGNIFICANT lack of certainty about exactly when an ectopic pregnancy can be terminated. Do doctors have to wait until the tube bursts and the woman is bleeding internally? Because until that happens, the risk is not "imminent."

https://missouriindependent.com/2022/07/02/missouri-doctors-fear-vague-emergency-exception-to-abortion-ban-puts-patients-at-risk/

The Missouri statute only allows abortion in the case of "medical emergency," defined as "a condition which, based on reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert the death of the pregnant woman or for which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman;"

That "serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function" does not show up on an x-ray or ultrasound. It is a subjective medical judgment that no doctor can determine with certainty. When a woman shows up with an ectopic pregnancy but is not bleeding internally, it is NOT AT ALL CLEAR that she has yet met the standard of "serious risk." I won't even get into the problem with defining "substantial ... impairment of a major bodily function," which is a legal term, not a medical term. That kind of language created horrible interpretation problems for TWO DECADES in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

An "abortion" is defined by Missouri statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" = uterus.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=viable%u2044abortion

An ectopic pregnancy is not in the womb. It's an extrauterine pregnancy, like in the fallopian tubes.

^^^^ And, when a word is not explicitly defined in a statute, like "womb," courts look to the "plain meaning" in a dictionary. My Webster's dictionary defines "womb" as: UTERUS.

Read part (b) idiot.

Again you are in a forum of well-educated women, many of whom have drafted laws, written legal briefs interpreting laws, and even drafting legal opinions during our clerkships. We know very well what these laws say.

I’m not the pp, but you do know that many well-educated women who have done clerkships, written legal briefs interpreting the laws, etc etc…. Are prolife….

Fine - let’s go then and see their detailed statutory analysis. I’m game.

These statute could be drafted to remove the risk to women. But when you press pro-lifers on it, they don’t want to make the changes. Because they are fine with some women suffering or dying to ensure that doctors will never perform abortions.

Are you game? you just keep shooting off invectives to your opponents' responses.

No, I already corrected one huge error in statutory interpretation, and another error in understanding the role of state AGs. I can do this all day. The fact is, the forced-birthers have generally no understanding of how the legal system works. Those who do are fine with the statutes forcing doctors to let women suffer or even die.

[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:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

Missouri - An "abortion" is defined by statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" (= uterus).
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/PageSelect.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=

Texas - "An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: . .
remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.245.htm

Louisiana - I'm not sure if a trigger ban included a repeal of this definition of an abortion in their statutes, but at least their law used to state: "[It] is not an abortion if done with the intent to: . . . remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=965002

Missouri: part 1(b) of the definition extends to ANY termination:

“ (b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child.”

TX and LA: have the problematic “removal” language which likely bans methotrexate and requires women to have major surgery & an organ removed, instead of a simple shot.

Oh I missed that in Missouri's - has 2 different definitions, weird! Well, then an elected official needs to request an AG Opinion asap as to whether ectopic pregnancy constitutes medical emergency where mothers life in jeopardy

No. An “AG’s opinion” does not settle what the law is and cannot address all the different factual scenarios that could arise. The Missouri AG also does not control what local prosecutors do, or who grand juries may indict.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=56.770

Stop playing dumb. Anyone who genuinely cares would request an AG Opinion. Kansas AG did. https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/582583194/ag-derek-schmidt-medical-treatment-for-ectopic-pregnancy-fetal-demise-not-abortion-so-not-affected-by-value-them-both-amendment

Or, outraged folks can do nothing and stomp their feet on DCUM like you are. That's not helpful.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:You should also worry about an incomplete miscarriage or an eptopic pregnancy.

Agreed. At the end of the day - zero question about it - doctors will be chilled from helping women in all kinds of dire situations. I would not count on VA doctors to be prepared to help you.

I have been in prolife circles my whole life. No one thinks an ectopic pregnancy or incomplete miscarriage is an abortion. The principle of double effect.

I don't see how it's an abortion either. It can't grow into a full term baby.

My insurance classes both as abortions.

DP. Yes, it does. "Abortion" is a medical term. It is going to be applied as a medical term when interpreting the law.

I don't understand why there are people out there who feel justified in redefining a medical term and then acting indignant when the law isn't enforced according to their private definitions. That isn't the way the law works.

And they don't get that the numbers of all those abortions each year cited to rile them up are the stats gathered by the medical definition. They aren't just "the ones decent people like me wouldn't agree with." It's so bizarre.

Have you ever read a - ANY?? - law?? you sound like a high schooler. Each state has a defined statement for what constitutes abortion (or any subject matter in which they are legislating). Ectopic pregnancies are not considered an abortion for legal purposes in any state. Just because a hospital calls something one thing doesn’t mean it translates in the legal sense. Good god read a book.

Please cite to the state laws that have explicit definitions of abortion that specifically exclude termination of an ectopic pregnancy.

Missouri - An "abortion" is defined by statute as involving an embryo or fetus "IN THE WOMB" (= uterus).
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/PageSelect.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547&hl=

Texas - "An act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: . .
remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/HS/htm/HS.245.htm

Louisiana - I'm not sure if a trigger ban included a repeal of this definition of an abortion in their statutes, but at least their law used to state: "[It] is not an abortion if done with the intent to: . . . remove an ectopic pregnancy." https://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=965002

Missouri: part 1(b) of the definition extends to ANY termination:

“ (b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child.”

TX and LA: have the problematic “removal” language which likely bans methotrexate and requires women to have major surgery & an organ removed, instead of a simple shot.

Oh I missed that in Missouri's - has 2 different definitions, weird! Well, then an elected official needs to request an AG Opinion asap as to whether ectopic pregnancy constitutes medical emergency where mothers life in jeopardy

No. An “AG’s opinion” does not settle what the law is and cannot address all the different factual scenarios that could arise. The Missouri AG also does not control what local prosecutors do, or who grand juries may indict.

https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=56.770

Stop playing dumb. Anyone who genuinely cares would request an AG Opinion. Kansas AG did. https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/582583194/ag-derek-schmidt-medical-treatment-for-ectopic-pregnancy-fetal-demise-not-abortion-so-not-affected-by-value-them-both-amendment

Or, outraged folks can do nothing and stomp their feet on DCUM like you are. That's not helpful.

Or, the state legislature can change the law.

Yes, the AG should issue opinions. No, an AG opinion cannot overrule the plain language of a law. And of course an AG that cared could issue an opinion sua sponte, but they are not.

The AG thing is 1 part ignorance, 2 parts gaslighting. AGs do not have the authority you are claiming.