Anonymous wrote:The Indiana doctor has sent the AG a cease and desist and is considering suing him for defamation.

Anonymous wrote:The Indiana doctor has sent the AG a cease and desist and is considering suing him for defamation.

Anonymous wrote:Has Americans United for Life issued any kind of clarification on their spokesperson's statement that a 10 year old's abortion would not be an abortion?

This is their Twitter site, right?
[twitter]
https://twitter.com/AUL?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor[/twitter]

Anonymous wrote:Cons are missing the point. If the right to have an abortion is not protected by law, there will always be cases like this, whether or not the hospital, or lawyers, or doctor’s misread the law in their states (which didn’t happen here anyway, Ohio politicians just want to deflect, but the problem remains that abortion is not accessible in that state). Abortion needs to be a protected healthcare decision that remains between doctor and patient. Period.

Anonymous wrote:Cons are missing the point. If the right to have an abortion is not protected by law, there will always be cases like this, whether or not the hospital, or lawyers, or doctor’s misread the law in their states (which didn’t happen here anyway, Ohio politicians just want to deflect, but the problem remains that abortion is not accessible in that state). Abortion needs to be a protected healthcare decision that remains between doctor and patient. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is outrageous that scotus did not protect our daughters in every State from draconian laws like this Ohio law.

I think this is all the beginning of the destruction of the obstetrics infrastructure in some of these states. They are no longer attractive places to try to practice maternal health care.

There is so much focus on legal issues interfering with providing good care. It is a stressful environment for docs already in a stressful specialty.

I’m one of the lawyers on here and that’s exactly the point. NO ONE should wants their doctors—of any specialty— having to consult with a lawyer before they decide whether to provide life saving care. Saint, murderer, 10 year old, dirty dirty whole— doctors are supposed to provide the same standard of care to them all. We expect doctors to provide the same standard of care to everyone, not reserve life saving care for virtuous people or sympathetic cases.

The lawyers and your church (if you practice) deal with you are a good person.

As Warnock so eloquently said: there isn’t room in a hospital room for a woman, her partner (if there is one), her doctor and the government. To which aid add— and the hospitals lawyer. That treatment room is getting awfully crowded.

The only people you doctor should be consulting are other doctors, with your permission, in complex cases. And hospital ethics boards in very usual, extreme cases. The hospitals lawyer does not belong in the ER, deciding who lives and who dies. Ever.

The problem with a slippery slope is that once you normalize lawyers signing off on patient care in one area, it’s not going to stop there. It normalizes doctors consulting lawyers to cover their asses in other areas. And as has been pointed out, no one in that discussion is advocating for the patient.

And realize, the goal here is to so harass doctors (like the one in IN) that they stop performing even legal abortions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the logic behind claiming an abortion performed on a raped 10-year-old is not an abortion?

Cognitive Dissonance. Forced Birthers view abortion as a black or white issue. All abortion is evil. All people who have abortions are murdering children. Full stop. They literally can’t deal with a situation so horrific that it raises doubts as to whether each and every abortion is evil. They are so enmeshed in their world view that they can’t accept that there are grey areas. So rather than changing their world view to in some cases abortions are necessary,” they just deny that “good” or necessary abortions at all.

Because it's only abortion if it's done to a dirty dirty whore. If it isn't, then it's "you don't understand, it's different".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the logic behind claiming an abortion performed on a raped 10-year-old is not an abortion?

Cognitive Dissonance. Forced Birthers view abortion as a black or white issue. All abortion is evil. All people who have abortions are murdering children. Full stop. They literally can’t deal with a situation so horrific that it raises doubts as to whether each and every abortion is evil. They are so enmeshed in their world view that they can’t accept that there are grey areas. So rather than changing their world view to in some cases abortions are necessary,” they just deny that “good” or necessary abortions at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

the testimony was from a pro-life advocate who was a) wrong or lying about the law and b) is in no position to dictate how the law will be enforced in Ohio. It would be one thing if Yost wrote guidance stating that pregnant girls under 15 are a per se exemption. quite another for this lady to spout off in a hearing.

She wasn't just a "pro-life advocate" though. She is Catherine Glenn Foster, an attorney with a degree from Georgetown Law Center and the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, an anti abortion LAW FIRM that writes model legislation for lawmakers to copy and introduce as bills in their own states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/31/surprised-by-all-these-abortion-bans-meet-americans-united-life-most-significant-pro-life-group-youve-never-heard/

She seems to count as an expert in her field, and she is the one advising lawmakers in states across the country with this false information. They need better legal advice.

Anonymous wrote:What is the logic behind claiming an abortion performed on a raped 10-year-old is not an abortion?

Anonymous wrote:

the testimony was from a pro-life advocate who was a) wrong or lying about the law and b) is in no position to dictate how the law will be enforced in Ohio. It would be one thing if Yost wrote guidance stating that pregnant girls under 15 are a per se exemption. quite another for this lady to spout off in a hearing.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, I didn’t think that the forced birthers supported child rape prior to this. How wrong I was. My God.

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.

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.

WTF are you talking about? “Cheerleading for child rape”?? Do you even hear yourself?

What is inaccurate about that assessment and the current Republicans? They are in favor of child rape.

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

No, it sounds accurate. This is what the Republicans support now. It’s upsetting you because it’s true.

JFC. Seek help. There’s no point trying to converse with disturbed people like you.

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.

+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.

Isn’t the witness saying that the law would not prevent the 10 year old from seeking an abortion because she could be harmed?

Yes, that’s what she claimed. She also claimed that the 10 year old’s abortion wouldn’t be an abortion because she’s 10 and that’s different. But that’s not the way the law was written or interpreted by the hospital lawyers, hence her having to go out of state.

It’s like the forced birthers are so close to admitting the damage that forced birth does to all women and the children resulting from it, but they just want to punish women so damn badly they’ll twist themselves into these pretzels.

She’s trying to explain why the law would not apply to the child, i.e. it would not meet the terms of abortion defined by their law due to her age and due to rape. The hospital was in error here, and I would dare say negligent. Another in-state hospital could have made a different decision.

She wasn't trying to "explain" anything. She just made an assertion that was untrue because the truth is unpleasant.

You heard what you wanted to hear. She was very specific in saying the law would not apply to this child

But that is a lie. There is NO age limit in the law.

If you look at the law itself in detail (I did), she was certainly eligible for an abortion under Ohio law

No she wasn’t. Here’s a breakdown of the two exceptions. Will prevent maternal death or impairment of a major body system. Mental health cannot be considered. The link to the law is in this clear synopsis. FFS— if you care, read the law.

Sorry! Link here
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/politics/ohio-politics/ohio-ag-files-motion-to-dissolve-injunction-on-six-week-abortion-ban-bill

If mental health cannot be considered, then.. What happens when pregnant woman commits suicide? I don't think she'd care about the legal consequences, the end result is the death of the fetus inside of her anyway. These morons cannot do basic logic, how do they pass the LSAT?

This moron got a 172 on the LSAT, and is telling you to take it up with he Ohio legislature. The statute specifically says mental health cannot be a consideration in providing the abortion. It’s in the affirmative defenses section of the full, 27 page text of the bill.

You really don’t seem to understand what lawyers do. We give advice based on what the law is, not what we wish it were. If it says no consideration of mental health, then giving a woman an abortion to prevent a suicide is a felony. Is it cruel? Absolutely. That seems to the the point for the GOP.

I thought the testimony given was that abortion would have been ok because the child would have met the physical damage clause of the statute?

the testimony was from a pro-life advocate who was a) wrong or lying about the law and b) is in no position to dictate how the law will be enforced in Ohio. It would be one thing if Yost wrote guidance stating that pregnant girls under 15 are a per se exemption. quite another for this lady to spout off in a hearing.