States with no exemptions for life of mother
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Those things aren’t discussed in polite conversation. How else can we pretend it doesn’t exist? Let me educate you about how babies are born. When a woman gets married, sometimes she finds herself “in a family way.” She spends several months glowing and becoming happier and rounder, although sometimes she might act a little crazy (that’s just hysteria, it happens a lot to women, just ignore it and it’ll usually stop). Then after she gets so big she does sort of pop, and her water breaks, which is a fancy way of saying she owes herself. Then she has a painful few hours in the hospital where the baby is magically expelled from her body, and then the happiness of motherhood takes away all the pain she (hysterically) claims she endured. After a few days of vacation in the hospital, she gets to take the baby home and start fulfilling her life’s purpose as a mother and wife, and everyone is happy and feels wonderful, both physically and emotionally. Sometimes people claim to have problems, but usually it’s because they didn’t pray enough or they might’ve been whorish or slutty before they got right with god and married their wonderful husband who gave them the chance to have Christian babies. Sometimes other women have babies, or at least get pregnant, but they’re all sinners and whores who want to kill babies, so it’s necessary to pamper laws that don’t let them punish innocent babies for the sins of the mothers. Who cares if they have problems with their lady parts? Maybe they should get married and pray more. |
Anonymous
We need a national strike. Voting will come too late for too many. We have the power to close every hospital and school in this country, and shut down the entire economy. Money is the only thing these ghouls care about. |
Anonymous
So dramatic. |
Anonymous
NP. You don’t find it disturbing that hundreds of Idaho Republicans chose not to place an abortion exemption for the life of the mother in their party platform? My second pregnancy was an ectopic. Thank God that didn’t mean I had to leave my then-toddler motherless. If I was pregnant post-Roe, I’d certainly think twice about traveling to any of these states. Emergencies can happen at any time in a pregnancy, and I wouldn’t want doctors hesitating or flat out refusing to provide appropriate care for fear of being sued or thrown in jail. There are plenty of politicians out there now who don’t believe the mother’s life has any value. Doug Mastriono for one. I certainly don’t want any of them to have the opportunity to codify that belief into law…do you? |
Anonymous
Sundance film festival becomes none dance. No one wants to hold events in Gilead. |
Anonymous
I know, miscarriages aren't real! Liberal drama queens worry too much about stuff that doesn't really happen. |
Anonymous
Abortion numbers come down to this: Men: 1/3 pro life; 1/3 pro choice; 1/3 really don't care -- probably want it to be legal and rare as the Clinton definition said back in the day -- but no interest in fighting for it and if the proposal is too left will not go for it. Women: 1/3 pro life; 1/3 pro choice; 1/3 really don't care -- probably want it to be legal and rare as the Clinton definition said back in the day -- but no interest in fighting for it and if the proposal is too left will not go for it. What that leaves us with is 2/3 of the country voicing support for abortion rights but also a different coalition of 2/3 country not really that interested in doing anything about it. They will not vote on this issue solely. The ones that will are firmly in the prof choice camp. Could there be support for a law that codified Roe -- I think so but if anything else added to it you lose those folks. |
Anonymous
I’m pro-choice and don’t see the need to expand Roe. Given the moving line on fetal viability, I’m fine with a 20 week ban. I would compromise at 15-18 week if the below were included. But I think in the wake of Casey and What we are seeing with denial of care in Roe being overturned, we need to codify that: — abortions are a medical procedure. There should be no greater restrictions on abortions that are performed within the framework of Roe than their are for any other medical procedures of similar risk. Unnecessary waiting periods, ultrasounds, warnings and counseling that are not supported by medical data according the appropriate medical governing body, hospital standard corridors, admitting privileges, must take the pill at the clinic, etc. should not be allowed. If you can safely have a D&C at an OBs office or have a pregnancy confirmed and then be prescribed medication abortions at home, then that should be the standard of care. Limits imposed primarily to make abortions difficult to access, such as get an ultrasound, be told your mental health is at risk, that you are more likely to get cancer and your your future fertility will be harmed; then have a 72 hour waiting period; then take a pill back at the clinic needs to stop. — it needs to be clear that women should not be discriminated against in providing medication or medical care that could have the effect of abortion (like actress to methotrexate and drugs than can also be used to abort ectopic pregnancies). Doctors and pharmacists cannot refuse to provide the recommended standard of care to a woman because she is of childbearing age. Of course, doctors should be allowed to use their best judgement, in consultation with the mother, in prescribing medication during a pregnancy the woman intends to carry to term and should be allowed to decline to prescribe medications have been shown to be harmful to fetuses. — I’m okay with parental notification for minors under 16, with access to a GAL and judicial bypass for minors who fear abuse. At 16-17, I believe minors should be required to EITHER notify their parents or complete a followup appointments with a counselor to ensure their mental well-being and a Gyn to discuss whether birth control is appropriate. — we need to preserve the doctor-patient relationship and protect doctors from fear of malicious prosecution. There should be a rebuttable presumption that doctors acting outside the framework of Roe are acting to preserve the life or health of the mother. In order to charge them with a crime, you need to be able to show an actual intention to violate the law. Doctors should be free to treat women whose lives are in danger or whose babies have serious abnormalities without worrying about being charged with a crime— unless the doctor and patient are clearly using life and heath as a pretext for a late term abortion. We must allow doctors to make the best decisions they can in emergencies and in grey areas without involving the hospital lawyer. — “crisis pregnancy centers” should not be allowed to provide inaccurate medical information or to mislead women into believing they provide abortion services, when they do not. You give me 15-20weeks and these protections codified, I’d call it a win. |
Anonymous
So a “life of the mother” exemption is not enough. How “almost dead” would I have to be? What if it’s a 30% chance of death if they treat me now and a 50% chance of death if they treat me in 12 hours, an 80% chance of death if they treat me in 24 hours or a 99% chance of death if they wait a week? I’d rather my doctor and I get to make the decision on when I get treatment and not the hospital lawyers and a bunch of politicians who are using my life and my womb to score votes with people who prioritize a 6-week old fetuses over a healthy woman who might already have real, live children she’d like to stick around and be a mother to. |
Anonymous
Several years ago, my company relocated a giant annual corporate conference for ~1000 people in North America from Miami to Chicago due to Zika, with something like 6 weeks notice. There were only a handful of cases in Miami at the time, and given the demographics of who was attending the conference, probably only a handful of pregnant women if that (though risk is higher once you consider all men and women who might be trying to conceive). But I guess they decided: why make anyone take that chance, or risk liability in the (unlikely) case that something terrible happens to an employee, when there are equally good alternatives so readily available? Do I think the majority of conference planners will do this? Probably not. But there's also way more knock-on effects than just conferences and retreats. I am hopeful that multiple small sources of pressure will add up and have at least a moderating impact. |
Anonymous
You must be a man. There's no way that I'd have given my life up to save a pregnancy, not when I have two other children to look after. And that decision should not be left to politicians. |
Anonymous
 I know it's not a laughing matter, but how many times have I been told to calm down, that'll never happen since 2016?
|
Anonymous
+1 a man who loves his wife wouldn't want his pregnant wife in those states, either as a resident or visitor. |
Anonymous
| Why don’t you just do virtual conferences? |
Anonymous
There is a certain relief in being proven right. |