(07-27-2022 04:11 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-27-2022 03:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The question that I was referring to was born out of weighting the odds of viability and risk to the mother. Once we start talking about pregnancy complications that are increasing the risk to the health of the mother, I think the state should back out of the equation and let the doctor and mother make the decision.

The Texas statute specifically does just that... if the doctor is exercising their professional medical judgement that the health of the mother is at risk, an abortion is allowed. These 'delays' do not change that right. Nothing in Roe claimed that your right (like any other right) could not come with provisos... like a 'medical exemption' to the law needs corroboration or an IMMEDIATE risk that makes that unreasonable.

Quote:There's confusion now as to whether some states afford that option or don't - see the Texas story where the hospital clearly felt they did not have that option. And we're also seeing some law makers try and take that away completely.

What are you talking about. 93's story?? Ibid to the above for most of that if so. She was not denied an abortion... she was just denied one 'right then'.

But Ham, your comment doesn’t address the fact that the Texas law, and others, are subjective. The laws are not clear and absolute and clearly, based on many reports, doctors and hospitals are reacting to that by being cautious and delaying treatment. A delay in treatment is a delay in one’s ability to get medical care - and now that the punishments are more severe, delays are happening. I feel like you’re arguing that nothing has changed since Roe despite the clear and obvious evidence that real world actions have substantially changed since Roe fell.

The story I am talking about is the one I posted and you responded to with the vacation comment. In that story, the hospital clearly felt that they did not have the ability to terminate the pregnancy, as the patient wanted, when the risk to the mother was present but not significant enough. Again, you’re arguing that a delay in care is NBD, and I am saying it is a big deal.

I just came across this article that again provides more examples of the real concerns by doctors regarding the potential to be sued even if they and their hospitals believe they are following medical judgement.

Quote: Missouri does not define pregnancy, but describes medical emergency as a condition requiring “immediate abortion” to prevent death “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.” Arkansas and Oklahoma define medical emergency as when the pregnant person’s “life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury,” while Texas has a medical emergency exception but does not define the term.

In Missouri, every abortion must be reported to the state, and prosecutors will examine them to confirm a medical emergency was present. “I can’t tell my physicians I’m not worried about an overzealous prosecutor,” said Larson-Bunnell, who did not specify which hospital she works for so as to protect her client’s identity.

Although Rhee’s patient was able to get surgery in time, physicians are worried that delays could imperil other patients. The lack of specificity over what counts as a threat to the mother’s life means some doctors feel pressure to sit and watch patients’ health deteriorate until they’re able to intervene.

https://www.statnews.com/2022/07/05/a-sc...-patients/