And yet, as much as I would love to plaster this all over my conservative relatives’ social media feeds as yet another example of how the “pro-life” movement is anything but, they would insist that what we’ve seen in this search has been “fearfully and wonderfully knit by The Lord.”
…to which an appropriate rejoinder would be: “This is America. We don’t HAVE lords.”
Technically the court’s implication is that she’s mature enough to be a surrogate for a “worthy” couple, not that she’s mature enough to be a parent. Which is an even closer step to Gilead.
Appalling.
Or body stalk anomaly.
Blame for what the pregnant woman is facing as described in the OP falls largely on the hospital that’s not allowing the abortion in its facility, due to a confused misinterpretation of state law which should permit it in this instance (there’s no other hospital in the area at which the procedure could be performed?).
I don’t doubt that physicians and hospitals will be increasingly gun-shy about providing necessary medical services in the light of the reversal of Roe v. Wade, Overreaction in this case will undoubtedly be followed by similar horror stories where women were denied abortions, or even medication for autoimmune diseases, since drugs such as methotrexate also can be used as abortifacients.
*regarding the hyperbole in the linked news story or thread title, the fetus apparently is not “headless”, but from the description lacks the top part of its skull. Still a fatal anomaly, and an instance where there should be no hesitation in providing an abortion, for the woman’s physical and mental well-being.
Apparently, the key medical condition afflicting the fetus, acrania, is not on the Louisiana Department of Health list of ‘conditions that would render a pregnancy “medically futile”.’
Seems an obvious candidate to me but, I’m no state legislator so what do I know?
But wait—the twenty-sixth and final item on the list, right after trisomy 18 and trisomy 22, is:
A profound and irremediable congenital or chromosomal anomaly existing in the unborn child that is incompatible with sustaining life after birth in reasonable medical judgment as certified by two physicians that are licensed to practice in the State of Louisiana
So, as @Jackmannii suggests, by state law the woman should be able to abort the fetus, pending agreement from two Louisiana physicians [does anyone suppose she can’t find two sympathetic doctors? No? Ok.]
Meanwhile, Baton Rouge WAFB-TV reports that even the lawmaker who wrote the state’s strict abortion law believes the woman in this case should be able to abort the fetus, although she used different words. She said the law is being misunderstood.
“This woman is not seeking an abortion,” said state Sen. Katrina Jackson, D-Monroe. “This woman is seeking a medical procedure for a pregnancy that is not viable outside of the womb.”
Jackson said that while Davis’ baby’s condition was not listed by name on the Department of Health’s list of 26 exclusive exceptions the last exception should have covered her.
“Number 26 is a catch-all list of what two physicians consider to be a medically futile pregnancy,” Sen. Jackson added.
So it seems the writer at Jezebel got out in front of themself, and/or went a-searching for clicks. I bet we sent a fair few their way. I certainly clicked on it; ahhhh… the sweet anticipation of recreational-outrage goodness.
(too late to add on Edit)
But, I still have plenty of outrage to direct at the state senator who wrote the bill, the state legislature and the governor. Really, the whole state! Because while this instance may have an obvious “loophole” which will (IMO) allow an abortion in this one case, the hospital was still too terrified to perform the procedure because of the law. And what about all the other women who want an abortion?
Which was the whole and entire point.
The “loophole” is purely window dressing to convince some more moderate anti-abortion people that the legislature was being “reasonable” while still unequivocally setting its face against abortion for the mother’s convenience.
The actual purpose, at least in the minds of the extremists who are pushing all such bills, is to cause abortion in all forms for all reasons to be practically unavailable to all women. Because of the perfectly reasonable fear of the medical community of medically unjustified but politically popular prosecution under the law.
IOW, the law is working exactly as its important proponents intended.
What happens if the doctor or hospital get it wrong with the loophole? That is, they think the abortion is OK under Louisiana law, but someone (prosecutor? Judge?) disagrees. What are the consequences of performing an illegal abortion there?
Sometimes you have to have the balls to stand up for your patients.
Hospital administrators are not generally known for such qualities.
My question on that is how do you take into account situations that are less clear cut.
If the mother “only” has a 10% chance of death, is that a reasonable cause for terminating the pregnancy? If the mother faces disability from carrying to term, does that qualify?
These are issues that may end up getting worked out by hospital lawyers, but until then, they will leave women and their doctors unsure as to how to proceed.
[quote=I_Love_Me_Vol.I, post:27, topic:969783"]"
This woman is not seeking an abortion,” said state Sen. Katrina Jackson, D-Monroe. “This woman is seeking a medical procedure for a pregnancy that is not viable outside of the womb.”
An abortion is exactly what this woman is seeking. This is a politicians should not be regulating medical procedures. They don’t understand medical science or even medical terminology. And this is coming from Democratic politician no less.
The logic is perfectly sound, you’re just not seeing it. There’s no thought whatsoever as to whether she’s mature enough to be a suitable parent. The guiding principle is that everyone who gets pregnant should be forced to give birth.
To them, nobody is mature enough to have an abortion. They must grudgingly respect that adults still have a tiny sliver of choice, but it’s absolutely open season on pregnant children. That’s what this legal opinion is really saying.
Livestock doesn’t get a say in whether or not they stay pregnant. That’s the long and short of it.
And, they are going against what the voters want.
While sure, most voters do want some abortion controls (no late term, etc) only a mere 20% want all abortions banned. This was born out in Kansas.
But a question? why is she forced to go to Florida, instead of a reproductive rights friendly state?
Please- don’t tar with such a wide brush. By no means are all Christians opposed to all abortions. Even the Catholic church has recognized exceptions to save the Mothers life, and many large protestant denominations are not opposed to early abortion. In fact, only 20% of Americans are opposed to ALL abortions.
Of course not all Christians are opposed to abortion.
However, all of these laws are being proposed and enacted by Evangelicals who call themselves “Christian” despite lacking any understanding of the messages of Jesus of Nazareth (they tend to prefer the Old Testament God of vengeance and judgement)
NONE of the anti-abortion laws are the result of secular Republicans, this is a religious movement that can pretty much be traced to Paul Weyrich (who is an extreme Catholic and a political operative who also openly advocates voter suppression).
There are sane and reasonable Christians in the world and in the United States (or at least there were just ten years ago). But one hundred percent of the political anti-abortion effort is among those who self describe as “Christian” and they are for the most part quite extreme!
Rather than pull back my assertion-- I will take it further. Not only is the Republican Party anti-abortion because of the influence of so called “Christians”, a smaller group of even nuttier extreme Evangelicals are dragging the Party to even greater extremes. I highly suggest you read the two links I provided in a different thread I posted in this morning and link below.
Ten years ago my entire world was comprised of very right leaning but decent and sincere Christians. But very nearly all of them have drank deep and hard from the FOX News Koolaid and have developed stands not only antithetical to Orthodox Christian principles (in the sense of traditional-as opposed to Heterodox; not in the sense of run by a Bishop and dating back to the disciples), but down right opposite to established Christian principles.
Examples would include a US Congress woman claiming if Jesus had an AR-15, He would have never had to be crucified (despite that being the central tenet of the faith on which all other theologies are built). Another is the revisionist history that makes America (The United States) a Christian Nation - not a secular one. And a thousand others, some discussed in the links above.
Sure, and if you use Evangelicals, you’d be right. Using Christians is like saying Americans.
I am not sure what you are getting at by equating “Christians” with “Americans”, but there is evidence that the number of self identifying believers is going down (see link below). I would personally say that this new, more extreme version of “faith” is a major reason for the decline. Now that Evangelicals are so - - - - extreme and political and so well, militant is what is making people walk away. (In my case, it was simply seeing that one had to lie to one’s self to remain in the tribe-- had NO interest in that. Any religion that insists that you deny facts and logic CANNOT be a true religion.)
“Abortion” is the medical word for ANY pregnancy that ends prior to viability, regardless of how, which right now is about 22 weeks; the chance of survival before then is zero because the lungs do not function.