(06-28-2022 12:58 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 12:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-28-2022 11:57 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Lad and 93, adding to my comment above...

This is where 'place of service' and all sorts of other issues we've discussed come into play.

the odds that you'd walk into an OB office for a check-up or a relatively minor procedure that would result in a 'life of the mother' situation is technically zero. In that RARE instance where it could happen, you'd better have called 911 and documented the hell out of 'why you couldn't wait' for emergency services to be available. This is what would happen pre-Roe if a doctor wanted to perform an 'illegal' abortion... but today, documentation runs everything. If you're at a hospital for a procedure... either because of an accident or because of an 'issue', there will likely be numerous people documenting on that patient so it would be hard to hide what you're really doing, but also hard to argue with a 'life threatening' decision because as one of you noted, risk management would be involved. Doctors have some discretion, but they have to medically justify those decisions.... and they do that using diagnosis codes and documentation.... and of course, there are 'logical steps' that are the 'standard of care' for all of these issues. An abortion isn't the standard of care for many medical conditions... but for those it is like an ectopic pregnancy, the doctor is covered. In the event of the abortion being a side-effect, the rule would still involve, was 'whatever they did that caused the abortion' the standard of care for the diagnosis. If it wasn't, you have a problem... so you'd better have documents why 'that choice' was the best available to you

I still don't get this whole location specification thing - it seems completely unrelated to the point...

To the meat of the discussion, I personally haven't pushed back on the idea that doctors make logical progressions and use sound judgement to come to those decisions. Nor that they also document said decisions. Personally, I think we can stop hashing all of that out (but that's speaking for me).

The issue I have, that still really hasn't been addressed, is that, as far as I can tell, all of the documentation and rationale in the world doesn't provide a guarantee of protection for someone acting in good faith. Especially in a state like Texas, which has opened the door to individuals suing each other and where Republican politicians are apt to be very conservative - it sure seems like doctors will be at a constant risk of being sued if they perform an abortion, regardless of whether it is medically justified and legal. Perhaps this fear is overblown, and hospitals/other providers, as well as the State, will take a clear position that doesn't require a doctor to be wary of doing their job for fear of a litigious citizen of DA. And perhaps those citizens and DAs won't be as aggressive as I worry they could be. Do you think this concern - overly aggressive DAs and citizens - is overblown? Note that I'm not arguing this will happen, just that I'm concerned it might.

Another issue, which we haven't talked about either, is how these laws affect pregnant women, and whether they understand the exceptions well enough to know that they can seek out medical help without fear of punishment or being sued.

Long and the short, I disagree with a lot of these laws coming onto the books, but I understand why some politicians and people support them. I hope that, when they are implemented, they provide clear and precise language to manage what I view as very real negative externalities that need to be managed.

edit: good timing as I saw this linked. This is the type of thing I'm concerned with and think needs to be managed if states are going to start restricting abortions in ways they previously haven't.

Quote:Hackney said he was familiar with the law, but not at the level of detail that someone who specializes in treating high-risk pregnant patients would need to be in order to practice within its bounds.

"What are the spelled-out exceptions for [saving the mother's] life?" he said. "Do you need a two-physician sign-off?"

"What if literally tonight, I have a patient coming in and she's hemorrhaging at 20 weeks," he continued. "I'm suddenly operating under a new set of laws, which I have not had time to prepare for. You don't want to have to be seeking legal counsel in the middle of something bad. You always want to care for the patient."

Underlying all of this is that in Ohio, now, "the stakes are jail." Abortion providers face felony charges and up to a year in prison.

Normally, there would be a period of time where lawyers know a law will go into effect and can determine what practices would be compliant with that law. Doctors and lawyers would work together to interpret the law, which is a complicated process under normal deadlines, Hackney said. Add to that the vagueries of this particular bill.

"The law isn't written to the level of specification that we would normally have in medicine," he said. "The demarcations are very artificial ones that we wouldn't use in medicine. They're things that sound good to legislators but don't translate well in the real world."

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-rep...ives/99459

The problem with the Ohio abortion law currently is the somewhat unique verbiage.

It is a spaghetti- code of 'medical emergency' (as defined somewhere else in the law), 'medical necessity' (defined in the act), 'probable gestational age', and interspersed in numerous sub-sections on different courses if 'fetal heartbeat'.

It is a kluged together law that was the genesis of trying to avoid a regime of law already omnipresent. One would guess that the current spaghetti code of law will be made more streamlined in light of Dobbs.

If Ohio does not -- shame on them. But, you have to understand the *why* of the Ohio law before castigating it. The *why* being utterly absent in the article or, for that matter, in any article dealing with doctor confusion.

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/sola...format=pdf

The idea of a simple 'of a threat to the life of the mother' coupled with the phrase 'performs an abortion with the intent to perform an abortion' seems pretty clean on its surface.

Doctors use a fairly broad professional standard of care, and should be afforded that. That is, of course, maybe not such a great ideal since the term 'professional standard of care' seemed like garlic to the left when presented in the 'Born Alive Care Act'.

Tanq... I'm not one to determine what language in a bill would be considered vague to a fault. Just relaying what I found as concerns when I looked it up.

You originally implied that Democrats were simply against outlawing the murder of babies who were born alive after attempted abortions. It was an inflammatory suggestion and, after a few minutes of internetting, it seems that you greatly overstated your case.