Responding to a lot of posts... sorry... I'm editing out the previous comments, and hope I don't lose the intent.

(07-27-2022 10:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  When you choose management options for a patient is one of the options has a 5-10% (just throwing out a number) chance of serious complications (sepsis, ICU stay, death) then it's significant. It's not like this is some made-up scenario that would never happen.

Of course not... Nor is it a situation that never happened before... and I don't recall a national uproar like there is now about how doctor's are delaying care (now with the added burden of, is the baby viable) to complications after the various cut-offs that exist prior to 2022. I get that you're against the law and that's fair... but this isn't a winning argument,... that it is creating 'new' and 'confusing' situations.

(07-27-2022 01:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Excuse the left-leaning article, but a discussion of the idea that an abortion when a woman's life is at risk is the the crosshairs of some at the extreme side of the aisle:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...on/670582/

I'll try and read this... but my gut reaction is that because the above is claiming what people on the right think, and naming only a few such people (whom I've never heard of, so not national names)

but it DOES raise an interesting comment...

Apparently there are OBs who would NEVER agree to abort a baby, no matter what (not sure I buy that, but fine)... are we STILL okay with the decision being left to a woman and her doctor?? As opposed to the broader medical community??

You DO note however that it is the extreme of the party and that is appreciated. I'm sure that Gosnell and others like him are similarly on the 'in utero is ok' side of the aisle, which is where California has gone... and while certainly a leading edge, it is hardly comparable in size to Idaho or a guy running in Michigan for AG.

(07-27-2022 01:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To the bolded, why are you arguing that a mother's rights are being taken away if laws like the heartbeat bill are overturned? I'm really confused by the bolded, as it sounds, to me, like you think hospitals and providers would go rogue if they could and start aborting children without consent of the mother.

The number of situations where someone has wanted a medical procedure and the doctor, insurer or hospital has denied it because of the cost/benefit is far from a low number... and you want us to spend millions to MAYBE save your baby??

I see that as a real possibility if 'the decision is between a woman and her doctor.... of course not to mention something that came up in a congressional conversation about 'woman'... what if the 'father' is a trans woman? What if the mother is a trans man? I digress, but it seemed a topical aside. Obviously we mean 'mother' when we say 'woman'...

Quote:The situation I am concerned with is when a mother, who wants a child, gets into a situation where they come to terms with the fact that an abortion is the right decision for them, but the state steps is and says "No, you can't" despite that causing significant negative outcomes as we saw here. This woman suffered unnecessarily because she wasn't sick enough.

NO law is perfect... but I'm not willing to allow the unnecessary abortion of thousands if not millions of kids (over time) for that reason.... for these relatively few cases... especially in that her suffering is far from over, having nothing to do with the few day delay. I mean, she was also upset and suffered because one of her care coordinators was calling to confirm her appointment for her now 'dead' child. I'm quite certain that was horrible, but should we ban such confirmations as a result??

Roe says that the state can regulate abortions after point x... and complications and suffering can STILL happen beyond point x, regardless of where you set that... even after birth.. and it would be horrible and tragic for ANYONE to lose a child.

(07-27-2022 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Jumping in here, but to the bolded, I think the answer to that question is best left to a doctor and the mother - not to elected officials or the Supreme Court.

I'd much prefer a broad cut out for medical concerns as opposed to potentially narrowly interpreted laws that suggest X medical condition isn't life threatening enough.

ANd while I disagree with some of that, that's fine... but it has nothing to do with the topic of whether or not this law makes things more difficult or confusing for providers than before. You bring up a completely different subject... which is 'when is point x'... and it seems in your view, that would be something close to 'birth'.

(07-27-2022 03:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  My argument is that when the OB tells her the fetus has essentially zero chance of survival then absolutely yes.

I'd be willing to accept that as an augmentation to most of these existing laws... however the argument remains the same... as that only increases (over the previous situation) rather than decreases the 'complexity' of these issues. Let's say the doctor says 'proceed' and the baby dies... and you find other doctors who say that the odds of survival were 10-20%.... Talk about a sympathetic plaintiff.

Quote:

Quote:So what would that law look like? If the odds are 1:1mm? 1:50,000? 51/49? Who decides what those odds are?? And odds of what? Are there 'competing' odds??

Not sure what you're asking. Odds of what?

You're talking about the odds of the baby surviving. Where would you draw the line?? NEar zero we've generally agreed.
Apparently in this situation, some wanted to at least look at the records and not just take someone's word for things first. What about 10/90?? What about 49/51?? How about 90/10 (likely survival) if you're a REALLY risk averse person and/or think you are genetically superior and that such odds reflect a 'weak' child?? Of course I'm gong overboard, but that person would agree with you... and that person exists somewhere. Where would you draw the line and how would we determine precisely what percentage each situation is?? Because OFTEN it would depend on numerous factors.

Quote:We don't know exactly how "fine" the doctor was with the decision to send her home.

Well, we DO know that she gave her the option of being admitted or going home... and there was no mention of the fact that she was concerned about infection to the point of arguing that she couldn't wait.

I think it pretty clear that she wasn't that worried. You can argue if you want, but I honestly can't imagine that we're on one hand arguing that these people should make the final decisions and at the same time arguing that they wouldn't INSIST that their patients stay in the hospital if they thought their life was at risk, especially in that 'life at risk' is precisely the criteria for the abortion. She wouldn't be arguing that we had to do this NOW for safety, and then when denied, give her the option to go home?? That makes no sense.

(07-27-2022 03:26 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-27-2022 02:23 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Jumping in here, but to the bolded, I think the answer to that question is best left to a doctor and the mother - not to elected officials or the Supreme Court.

Do you recognize any situation in which the judgment of the doctor and mother should be held wrong, and the parties punished?

As an analogy, consider the case of a shooting in self-defense, which takes the life of another person. Procedurally that decision is left to the self-defender, but substantively it still must be objectively reasonable, else the shooter is punished. To say otherwise would be to say that any claim of self-defense must always be accepted as exculpatory -- which would essentially make nearly all shootings legal. While that is a resoundingly "pro-choice" outcome ("keep your laws off my trigger finger!"), it is not an outcome anyone thinks is a good idea.

Gosnell is the poster boy for California's laws that essentially allow just that.