Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "10 year old girl has to travel out of state to get abortio "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God. [/quote] Correct. Go look at the GOP corruption thread for more. I lost track over the hundred plus pages of how many rapists and child rapists and other assorted life destroying sex crimes various Republican elected officials are guilty of. It’s disgusting and it’s clearly a serious problem in the party.[/quote] Yeah, I’m a political moderate who has voted for Republicans in the past, and I used to think that the Democrats were being pretty hypocritical about the sex assaults by Republicans because there are plenty of sex assaulter amongst the Democrats too. But the aftermath of the Roe decision has shown to me that this issue of Republican child rapists is deeply part of the party. They really, as a group, support child rape. It’s horrifying to watch. I’m probably not going to vote Republican again in my lifetime, barring serious restructuring of the party. I can’t stomach it. Between the enthusiastic cheerleading for child rape (my God!!), the insurrection, and the blind allegiance to the gun lobby, I can’t see how I could ever vote for them. [/quote] WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?[/quote] What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape. [/quote] The more you repeat this garbage, the farther people will run from you. Please stop. No one - NO ONE - is in favor of child rape, or rape of any kind. You just sound like an utter psychopath. DP[/quote] No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true. [/quote] JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.[/quote] I would think the people in favor of children being raped and forced to bear the child of their rapists are the ones who need to seek help. But if you don’t see anything wrong with that, I can’t help you. [/quote] +1 ٌYou venal pieces of crap. You seem to grasp on some level that forcing a child to continue a pregnancy is bad, to the extent that one of your mouthpieces speaking before congress literally said that an abortion for a ten year old isn’t abortion (as you have tried to say with ectopic and other life threatening pregnancies, even though the law is written such that doctors can’t give lifesaving abortions in these states). Come off it. Your whole policy position is stupid and cruel. You know that everyone who isn’t a kool aid swilling forced birther sees that now and you are effing terrified. It’s just a matter of time before some poor 9 or 13 year old dies from pregnancy complications or some photogenic Instagram woman with three kids and 500,000 followers is murdered by your idiotic laws. You know it’s game over. [/quote] Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed? [/quote] The guy who wrote the law says the 10-year-old needs to stay pregnant and give birth.[/quote] Can I see that in a documented statement from the lawmaker who wrote the law please?[/quote] Would you like it notarized and in triplicate? [/quote] "Jim Bopp, an Indiana lawyer who authored the model legislation in advance of the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, told POLITICO on Thursday that his law only provides exceptions when the pregnant person’s life is in danger. “She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday." https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/anti-abotion-10-year-old-ohio-00045843[/quote] In fact, if you go further down in this story, [b]the law also says this[/b]: "While Bopp’s model legislation, which was released in advance of the Supreme Court’s ruling late last month, encourages states to ban all abortions unless necessary to save the life of the pregnant person, it notes “it may be necessary in certain states to have additional exceptions, such as for a women pregnant as a result of rape or incest.”"[/quote] That seems like very informal language for a law, doesn't it?[/quote] Yes, because it's a freaking ARTICLE that summarizes the law, not the law itself. :roll: [/quote] Shame PP isn't bright enough to quote the actual text of the law. [/quote] It's pretty long - there are a lot of exceptions. You are capable of looking it up and reading it as I did. [/quote] I don't know what you were reading but here is the current law: https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_133/bills/sb23/EN/05?format=pdf But, as an earlier poster stated, the only exceptions are: “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman” or “to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman” "Two" is not "a lot". [/quote] The conversation between the girl’s doctor and the hospital’s lawyers probably went something like this: Lawyer: Do you think she is likely to die during pregnancy or a C-section delivery? Doctor: Most likely, no. Lawyer: Do you think she is likely to suffer a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function during pregnancy or a C-section delivery? Doctor: Most likely, no. In that case, I could see how lawyers would assume that the girl was not entitled to an abortion under Ohio law. [/quote] I’m a lawyer. And if that conversation happened, an abortion would be illegal. That’s are short analysis. We don’t assume. We read the d*mn statute and this one is pretty clear. In the case of the ten year old, unless she was hemorrhaging or was type one diabetic or something we don’t know about, she doesn’t meet it. Legal analysis doesn’t give bonus points for horrific situations bad legislative drafting. Where it gets fuzzy and is a headache for the MDs is when the woman has a health problem and pregnancy prevents treatment or makes it worse, but isn’t an all out emergency now and the prognosis without treatment is fuzzy. For example. The woman has a less aggressive (but not indolent) form of cancer that hasn’t metasitized— yet, but almost certainly will— and is 12 weeks pregnant. Is she likely to die? Suffer a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major body system if she doesn’t have chemo? Will it metastasis before delivery is safe for the fetus? In many cases, it’s anyones guess. No lawyer can opine on that. And a lawyer won’t assume that an exception is or is not met. They’ll flat out say: we don’t know if it’s legal because the law is so vague. What is a “substantial impairment”? I have no idea. A twisted ankle isn’t. Severe heart, kidney or liver failure that can’t be stabilized is. But in between is so much grey. There needs to be further regulatory guidance. But here’s what a lawyer will also say: the doctor has to send all the medical documentation and justification to the AG for every abortion performed after 6 weeks. And the AG, himself a lawyer, is a political hack looking for an for any excuse to say— yeah, but there’s a good chance she could have held on 4 months and been okay, right? They need to make an example of an MD so there is a chilling effect and a high profile prosecution of an “abortion doctor” burnishes the conservative credentials. And the statutory standard is irreversible. So, if there are Mets by the time the baby is born, but chemo has a good chance of forcing remission, but she will need more chemo or radiation or surgery, a case can be made she doesn’t meet the statute. The doctor *could* be charged. She may or may not be found guilty, but by the time the crazies are done with the MD and the legal bills are paid, her life and career will be destroyed. A good lawyer,— whose client is the MD not the woman, BTW— will advise not performing the abortion, even if the woman wants one. Not until they really law out how badly this could end. Remember in all of this— lawyers are making the decisions. And they represent the doctors and the hospitals. Not the patient. This is why having lawyers deciding abortion policy is nutso. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
