(06-28-2022 09:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The NY voting thing is overblown. See my previous post.

Fair.

It just got me thinking.

(06-28-2022 09:43 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Not that familiar with CA law. Could a woman in the 35th month of a healthy gestation have the fetus aborted without any issue for her or the doctor performing the abortion? Not that any doctor would probably do that...

If you read the verbiage of the bills... yes. Nobody who has an abortion or facilitates it should be prosecuted. The coroner doesn't have to conduct an inquest, even if he believes it to be a 'criminal' abortion, and if he does conduct an inquest, his findings can't be used to prosecute anyone. In the Fagundes cases which were mentioned as the 'targets' of the new laws, the mother took drugs that caused her child to die... after the legal time for an abortion in California... so a viable child... and the DA (Fagundes) prosecuted the mother. The point of the bill was to ensure that the mom or anyone who helped her couldn't be prosecuted. The bill says 'in utero', so yes..... minutes before birth, she's covered.

Quote:Don't you think the criminalization of abortion will give doctors some pause? And potentially cause delays? "Uh oh... it looks like this lady is unstable and potentially is about to go south. Hmmm... would prosecutors really say her life is "at risk" though? Am I going to go to jail if I do this? Can we convene a committee? Somebody call risk management!"

Abortions are already 'criminal', after a certain period or in specific cases... i.e. you can't abort a child without the mother's permission, which you sometimes can't get. Texas just moves the bar in terms of timing.... and docs, especially ER docs make life/death decisions all day every day. Code it properly and you're fine. Code it improperly and you might be asked to recode it. And you'll have that recoding reviewed to make sure that the code is consistent with the notes... i.e. if you state in the notes that the mom came in for an abortion and you want to recode it to be an ectopic pregnancy, and you didn't mention that in the notes, you have a problem. Welcome to being a doctor.

(06-28-2022 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is overall good and why people are concerned that the trigger laws or newly formed abortion laws may create an issue in treating these.

If there is not a specific cut out or there is confusion surrounding treatment, problems may arise.

As I noted, there IS a 'cut out' and no confusion at all, unless someone just wants to feign confusion. DOn't get me wrong... someone not looking carefully or reading a synopsis by someone with an agenda can easily be confused... but nobody who takes five minutes to read the language would be confused.

Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. It is treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. Hence the ICD code. I believe the Texas statute even says 'the intent must be to cause an abortion' which would also cover side-effects or unintended/unavoidable consequences of perhaps some major organ surgery after a car wreck or something.... or in this case, treatment of an ectopic pregnancy. The intent of treating ectopic pregnancy is to make sure it doesn't kill the mom. It is not to abort the child as the child is already 'not viable'.