Reply to Roe v Wade and TTC

Forum Index » Trying to Conceive (TTC)

Reply to "Roe v Wade and TTC"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

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

[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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

My insurance classes both as abortions. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.  
[/quote]
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.[/quote]

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).[/quote]

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"[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.

[b]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. [/b]

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.  [/quote]

The bolded above is a huge issue concerning appropriate treatment for ectopic pregnancies.  Waiting until there is a threat of tubal rupture or, worse, until that has already happened is absurd when there is a non-surgical method of treatment for many ectopics that are caught early. 
My ectopic pregnancy was medically managed with methotrexate.  I'm so thankful that it was an option for me.[/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