States with no exemptions for life of mother

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please note correctly this NOT the law in Idaho at this moment. If you are going to use scare tactics please bring genuine.

Well, since the tweet is about voting on amendments to a bill, it’s sort of implied that it’s a law they’re trying to pass, so it doesn’t seem like anyone is lying, as you’re implying. Now, are you going to acknowledge that they’re not including an exemption for the life of the mother, so women will die when this bill is passed, or will you continue with excuses and deflections?

Oops I said bill but it’s their platform, and they’ll be trying to make it the law when they’re able to. It’s still their stated goal. They’re not even trying to pretend they care about women’s safety.

NP here but a bill is not a law and you’re being obtuse and disingenuous. As of today it is not law. Just like when posters keep stating that in Ohio it was law that ectopic pregnancies had to be re-implanted. It’s not the law in Ohio, it was a bill presented by some dumb dumb legislator who needed to re-take biology class but a bill must be passed to be law and it wasn’t passed.

It’s not obtuse to believe conservatives when they say they would rather let women die than perform a medical procedure to save them. It’s not hysterical to worry when the people who say that are lawmakers who can carry out those plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please note correctly this NOT the law in Idaho at this moment. If you are going to use scare tactics please bring genuine.

Well, since the tweet is about voting on amendments to a bill, it’s sort of implied that it’s a law they’re trying to pass, so it doesn’t seem like anyone is lying, as you’re implying. Now, are you going to acknowledge that they’re not including an exemption for the life of the mother, so women will die when this bill is passed, or will you continue with excuses and deflections?

Oops I said bill but it’s their platform, and they’ll be trying to make it the law when they’re able to. It’s still their stated goal. They’re not even trying to pretend they care about women’s safety.

NP here but a bill is not a law and you’re being obtuse and disingenuous. As of today it is not law. Just like when posters keep stating that in Ohio it was law that ectopic pregnancies had to be re-implanted. It’s not the law in Ohio, it was a bill presented by some dumb dumb legislator who needed to re-take biology class but a bill must be passed to be law and it wasn’t passed.

ThEyLl NeVeR oVeRtUrN rOe Ur HyStErIcAl

If only we could create organizations to focus on protecting a women's right to choose and womens healthcare.

If only we could end misogyny and millions of men and women might start seeing women as full human beings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there are whackos in the GOP pushing for these things without the party condemning them is sickening.

It is sickening. I will not be going to conferences in those states prohibiting abortion or traveling in those states, because I don't want to risk interacting with their health care system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there are whackos in the GOP pushing for these things without the party condemning them is sickening.

It is sickening. I will not be going to conferences in those states prohibiting abortion or traveling in those states, because I don't want to risk interacting with their health care system.

+1. Moral objections aside, being a woman of childbearing age in these states is literally life threatening.

[Anonymous]

Are there any states that currently have no exemption for the life of the mother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any states that currently have no exemption for the life of the mother?

I don't know the legal term for forcing a 10 year old to carry a pregnancy to term but that certainly fits most people's definition of "no exceptions for the life of the mother". That is a brutal assault in the body and life of a ten year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any states that currently have no exemption for the life of the mother?

Define life. And what constitutes a threat to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any states that currently have no exemption for the life of the mother?

The problem is that when they only allow abortion in cases where the mother’s life is at risk, it’s open to interpretation what constitutes her life being at risk. So miscarriage can start, but not complete, and the fetus technically has a heartbeat but no chance at life. It’s in the process of dying. Because it doesn’t happen quickly, it puts the mother at risk of infection, which can escalate to sepsis, which can be fatal. Sometimes it will resolve on its own and the mother remains healthy, but sometimes the mother will die without intervention. If you wait until the mother’s life is at risk, it may be too late to save her, but if you prevent her from becoming at risk, you’re breaking the law by performing an abortion where there’s no imminent risk of death to the mother.

So even though they don’t say there’s no exception, effectively sometimes there’s no exception. This is what happens when people who don’t understand medicine, biology, women’s anatomy, or science in general are writing laws that affect all those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there are whackos in the GOP pushing for these things without the party condemning them is sickening.

OP here. 412 delegates voted to decline granting exemptions for the life of the mother. This isn’t a few “whackos.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there are whackos in the GOP pushing for these things without the party condemning them is sickening.

OP here. 412 delegates voted to decline granting exemptions for the life of the mother. This isn’t a few “whackos.”

What piss poor representation for our daughters and sons. Vote these poor quality representatives out. We deserve much better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there are whackos in the GOP pushing for these things without the party condemning them is sickening.

It is sickening. I will not be going to conferences in those states prohibiting abortion or traveling in those states, because I don't want to risk interacting with their health care system.

+1. Moral objections aside, being a woman of childbearing age in these states is literally life threatening.

First thing that I thought of, as a woman of childbearing age, is now all those states are essentially off limits for me because I would be afraid to be denied health care, whether pregnant or not, just on the basis I *might* be pregnant. Women know you have to answer that question non stop when you get medical treatment of any kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are there any states that currently have no exemption for the life of the mother?

I don't know the legal term for forcing a 10 year old to carry a pregnancy to term but that certainly fits most people's definition of "no exceptions for the life of the mother". That is a brutal assault in the body and life of a ten year old.

This is a good example. She’s not at risk until she’s at risk. Preventing her becoming at risk of dying means aborting before there’s a problem. Waiting until there’s a problem means waiting until the pregnancy has progressed to the point that the fetus might be viable. It’s a shame, because child rape victims often can’t report the crimes against them or even understand what’s happening to their bodies until after the cutoff period for legal abortions in their state has passed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there are whackos in the GOP pushing for these things without the party condemning them is sickening.

It is sickening. I will not be going to conferences in those states prohibiting abortion or traveling in those states, because I don't want to risk interacting with their health care system.

+1. Moral objections aside, being a woman of childbearing age in these states is literally life threatening.

First thing that I thought of, as a woman of childbearing age, is now all those states are essentially off limits for me because I would be afraid to be denied health care, whether pregnant or not, just on the basis I *might* be pregnant. Women know you have to answer that question non stop when you get medical treatment of any kind.

This will absolutely be detrimental to the quality of care available in these states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that there are whackos in the GOP pushing for these things without the party condemning them is sickening.

It is sickening. I will not be going to conferences in those states prohibiting abortion or traveling in those states, because I don't want to risk interacting with their health care system.

+1. Moral objections aside, being a woman of childbearing age in these states is literally life threatening.

First thing that I thought of, as a woman of childbearing age, is now all those states are essentially off limits for me because I would be afraid to be denied health care, whether pregnant or not, just on the basis I *might* be pregnant. Women know you have to answer that question non stop when you get medical treatment of any kind.

This will absolutely be detrimental to the quality of care available in these states.

Who knew that the forced birthers looked at the appalling medical care available in rural India and various rural African nations and thought that fistulas and sepsis sound wonderful for their wimmenfolk.

[Anonymous]

The fact that anyone thinks a fetus takes priority over the mother's life shows how brainwashed these forced birthers are. And it proves that these people do not care about "life."
Abortion is about control, keeping women in their place. Sick, but that's how far our country has devolved.