Roe v Wade and TTC

[Anonymous]

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.

There is a difference between a termination and a spontaneous abortion. I know you understand that.

[Anonymous]

Looks like elected officials in Missouri have requested an AG opinion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2022-07-11/missouri-dems-seek-contraception-ectopic-pregnancy-session

[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.

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.

I never "claimed authority." I never claimed they "overrule law." Stop being an idiot.

An elected official should ask the AG for an opinion.

You’re just engaged in nonsense now. Again, you cannot pull that on educated DC area women. We know that “just ask the AG for an opinion!” is gaslighting.

I guess you are an AG Opinion denier. Well, the Kansas elected officials request for an AG Opinion was a mere 2 sentences long. The AG issued an opinion for ectopic pregnancies. Here is the opinion request if anyone in Missouri needs ideas. https://bit.ly/3yW6eHI

Ok now please explain, with citations, the legal significance of a Missouri AG opinion on the actions of local prosecutors, interpretation of the law by judges, and risk assessment for hospitals and doctors.

No. You don't want action. You just want to argue. I'm looking for action - activists. Step aside

Ok then, could you possibly make it clearer that the forced birth “activists” are uninterested in writing statutes that protect women from harm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looks like elected officials in Missouri have requested an AG opinion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2022-07-11/missouri-dems-seek-contraception-ectopic-pregnancy-session

Please tell me the impact of an “AG Opinion” on local prosecutors and courts. Are you aware of how the court system works? Do you think an “AG Opinion” is binding on the courts? Do you think an “AG Opinion” can anticipate all the different fact scenarios?

[Anonymous]

Kill the baby before it's illegal, like 15 weeks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like elected officials in Missouri have requested an AG opinion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2022-07-11/missouri-dems-seek-contraception-ectopic-pregnancy-session

Please tell me the impact of an “AG Opinion” on local prosecutors and courts. Are you aware of how the court system works? Do you think an “AG Opinion” is binding on the courts? Do you think an “AG Opinion” can anticipate all the different fact scenarios?

Look moron - Until you can get a bill to a vote in a legislative session, you seek an AG opinion, and maybe file in court for a declaratory judgment/injunction. This is the typical playbook. I'm sorry it's over your head. Fortunately, Missouri lawmakers are on top of their game. They requested the AG opinion and requested a special legislative session.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like elected officials in Missouri have requested an AG opinion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2022-07-11/missouri-dems-seek-contraception-ectopic-pregnancy-session

Please tell me the impact of an “AG Opinion” on local prosecutors and courts. Are you aware of how the court system works? Do you think an “AG Opinion” is binding on the courts? Do you think an “AG Opinion” can anticipate all the different fact scenarios?

Look moron - Until you can get a bill to a vote in a legislative session, you seek an AG opinion, and maybe file in court for a declaratory judgment/injunction. This is the typical playbook. I'm sorry it's over your head. Fortunately, Missouri lawmakers are on top of their game. They requested the AG opinion and requested a special legislative session.

But in the interim, what’s happening? Is the special legislative session going to happen? On what grounds could the statute be enjoined? Is your idea that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy is going to file for an injunction from the ER?

The point is - the laws as they stand prejudice women’s health. An “AG opinion” cannot change that. The laws need to be changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like elected officials in Missouri have requested an AG opinion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2022-07-11/missouri-dems-seek-contraception-ectopic-pregnancy-session

Please tell me the impact of an “AG Opinion” on local prosecutors and courts. Are you aware of how the court system works? Do you think an “AG Opinion” is binding on the courts? Do you think an “AG Opinion” can anticipate all the different fact scenarios?

Look moron - Until you can get a bill to a vote in a legislative session, you seek an AG opinion, and maybe file in court for a declaratory judgment/injunction. This is the typical playbook. I'm sorry it's over your head. Fortunately, Missouri lawmakers are on top of their game. They requested the AG opinion and requested a special legislative session.

But in the interim, what’s happening? Is the special legislative session going to happen? On what grounds could the statute be enjoined? Is your idea that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy is going to file for an injunction from the ER?

The point is - the laws as they stand prejudice women’s health. An “AG opinion” cannot change that. The laws need to be changed.

You must not be a lawyer. Go find one to explain things to you. Bye!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like elected officials in Missouri have requested an AG opinion.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/missouri/articles/2022-07-11/missouri-dems-seek-contraception-ectopic-pregnancy-session

Please tell me the impact of an “AG Opinion” on local prosecutors and courts. Are you aware of how the court system works? Do you think an “AG Opinion” is binding on the courts? Do you think an “AG Opinion” can anticipate all the different fact scenarios?

Look moron - Until you can get a bill to a vote in a legislative session, you seek an AG opinion, and maybe file in court for a declaratory judgment/injunction. This is the typical playbook. I'm sorry it's over your head. Fortunately, Missouri lawmakers are on top of their game. They requested the AG opinion and requested a special legislative session.

But in the interim, what’s happening? Is the special legislative session going to happen? On what grounds could the statute be enjoined? Is your idea that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy is going to file for an injunction from the ER?

The point is - the laws as they stand prejudice women’s health. An “AG opinion” cannot change that. The laws need to be changed.

You must not be a lawyer. Go find one to explain things to you. Bye!!!

Lol. Ok, I see you have no answers. You’re the one claiming an “AG opinion” solves the problem of how the statutes have been drafted. I see you have no actual explanation of how that would work.

[Anonymous]

This is such a straw man. If pro-lifers said ok sure put whatever you want in the bill to make you comfortable enough to know ectopic pregnancies are treated, it’s the anti-Life crowd that wouldn’t go along with it. Because you don’t care about ectopic, you care about making abortion available at any time and for any reason. Which is insane. So you can do this ectopic dance all you want (which is an area of agreement between the two parties despite you trying to make it a sticking point) but it doesn’t change the fact that you have the most extreme views on pregnancy and abortion out of anyone in the world. Literally. The world.

[Anonymous]

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.

There is a difference between a termination and a spontaneous abortion. I know you understand that.

Doctors understand the different scenarios where abortions are performed. I don’t trust the ignorant, irrational legislative men to understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a straw man. If pro-lifers said ok sure put whatever you want in the bill to make you comfortable enough to know ectopic pregnancies are treated, it’s the anti-Life crowd that wouldn’t go along with it. Because you don’t care about ectopic, you care about making abortion available at any time and for any reason. Which is insane. So you can do this ectopic dance all you want (which is an area of agreement between the two parties despite you trying to make it a sticking point) but it doesn’t change the fact that you have the most extreme views on pregnancy and abortion out of anyone in the world. Literally. The world.

You know it isn't just ectopic, right? There's a myriad list of conditions that could result in a threat to the mother's life. For those of you in the pro-life movement who have either never been pregnant or never had a medically challenging pregnancy, or have never dealt with infertility and the need for IVF, you have no idea what the impact of these bans may have on access to timely and appropriate patient care. Or you just don't care, since you think it will never affect you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a straw man. If pro-lifers said ok sure put whatever you want in the bill to make you comfortable enough to know ectopic pregnancies are treated, it’s the anti-Life crowd that wouldn’t go along with it. Because you don’t care about ectopic, you care about making abortion available at any time and for any reason. Which is insane. So you can do this ectopic dance all you want (which is an area of agreement between the two parties despite you trying to make it a sticking point) but it doesn’t change the fact that you have the most extreme views on pregnancy and abortion out of anyone in the world. Literally. The world.

Yeah only a completely morally bankrupt person could think calls to amend the law to protect women are a “straw man.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a straw man. If pro-lifers said ok sure put whatever you want in the bill to make you comfortable enough to know ectopic pregnancies are treated, it’s the anti-Life crowd that wouldn’t go along with it. Because you don’t care about ectopic, you care about making abortion available at any time and for any reason. Which is insane. So you can do this ectopic dance all you want (which is an area of agreement between the two parties despite you trying to make it a sticking point) but it doesn’t change the fact that you have the most extreme views on pregnancy and abortion out of anyone in the world. Literally. The world.

You know it isn't just ectopic, right? There's a myriad list of conditions that could result in a threat to the mother's life. For those of you in the pro-life movement who have either never been pregnant or never had a medically challenging pregnancy, or have never dealt with infertility and the need for IVF, you have no idea what the impact of these bans may have on access to timely and appropriate patient care. Or you just don't care, since you think it will never affect you.

This PP is of the ilk that believes saying “an ectopic termination isn’t an abortion!” somehow solves the legal problem they created.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such a straw man. If pro-lifers said ok sure put whatever you want in the bill to make you comfortable enough to know ectopic pregnancies are treated, it’s the anti-Life crowd that wouldn’t go along with it. Because you don’t care about ectopic, you care about making abortion available at any time and for any reason. Which is insane. So you can do this ectopic dance all you want (which is an area of agreement between the two parties despite you trying to make it a sticking point) but it doesn’t change the fact that you have the most extreme views on pregnancy and abortion out of anyone in the world. Literally. The world.

You know it isn't just ectopic, right? There's a myriad list of conditions that could result in a threat to the mother's life. For those of you in the pro-life movement who have either never been pregnant or never had a medically challenging pregnancy, or have never dealt with infertility and the need for IVF, you have no idea what the impact of these bans may have on access to timely and appropriate patient care. Or you just don't care, since you think it will never affect you.

This PP is of the ilk that believes saying “an ectopic termination isn’t an abortion!” somehow solves the legal problem they created.

READ the thread.