You seem to think the bill was written for some reason consistent with allowing abortions. I think it was written to slam anyone who does an abortion, in the hoped-for-by-the-sponsors event that almost all abortions are criminalized. And i think the impact would be chilling, and the result of that one provision would be that a couple of women each year would die due to an untreated ectopic pregnancy, and several others would have to work harder to get their ectopic pregnancy treated.
And i don’t know why you keep bringing up mifepristone. Nothing in the bill refers to that. It refers to any medication or device. That would include methotrexate and scalpels, both of which are routinely used to terminate ectopic pregnancies.
Even the sponsors gave up on this provision. I really don’t understand why you continue to support it.
I don’t know why the bill was written. I think it was written to expand liability beyond those who actually perform illegal abortions to include those who facilitate illegal abortions. I assume it was written by those who believe that category of illegal abortion should be broader than the federal courts currently allow (but I’ve seen no evidence that it was written by anyone who thinks that it should be illegal to abort ectopic pregnancies or that there is any plausible reason to believe that this bill might do so).
I’ve brought up mifepristone once (in my immediately prior post) and I did so because it’s an example of a specifically regulated abortion-inducing drug. That is, while it would be generally legal under Missouri law to perform an abortion on an ectopic pregnancy, there are still restrictions on how those abortions are performed that must be observed – one of which is a specific restrict on mifepristone.
And, I’m not supporting the bill. My posts in this thread have generally sought to respond to inaccurate and misleading (and frankly dishonest) claims about what the bill would do. The bill ought to be able to stand or fall on its own merits. And, to that end, I’ve asked you for your rationale that this bill (which you’ve called misogynistic and “deeply, profoundly evil”) would cause harm. And as far as I can tell, your response is that a different provision of Missouri law, not affected by the bill, is a problem because some people who oppose abortion restrictions think that a differently-worded provision of Texas law could cause confusion about abortions that no one seems to want restricted.
The Texas law is currently making it hard for women to abort ectopic pregnancies, as @k9bfriender cited. It’s not “some people believe”, it’s actual women being turned away because doctors are afraid to provide that service, even to women with an ectopic pregnancy. There are currently Texans seeking care for their ectopic pregnancies out-of-state as a result of that law.
This provision of the law serves no valid purpose, except to scare medical professionals away from aborting ectopic pregnancies. You have brought up imaginary abortion mills preying on women with ectopic pregnancies. I claim they don’t exist, and therefore criminalizing them is an imaginary benefit.
Even the sponsors of the bill have backed off, presumably realizing that it harms their cause (of criminalizing abortion) by including in its sweep abortions that essentially everyone supports.
They’ve backed off the part with the enhanced penalties for people providing pills in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. They haven’t ( so far as I know) changed the definition of a “medical emergency” in Missouri law - which means that if doctors would be afraid of treating an ectopic pregnancy because of the enhanced penalty for trafficking and the lack of specifics as to what constitutes a “medical emergency” * , they would be afraid to treat an ectopic pregnancy after 8 weeks gestation.(since that is prohibited by the 2019 law) They aren’t yet, because Roe v Wade is still in effect, meaning that Missouri cannot enforce that section of the law at this time.
The reason it’s an issue in Texas is because the Texas law in question does not involve enforcement by state officials** - it allows private citizens to sue the provider. And because the Supreme Court refused to block it , that law is in effect right now and providers are already being sued.
I am actually wondering if the ectopic pregnancy provision of the Missouri bill was intended almost as a decoy. I’ve read plenty about ectopic pregnancies in Missouri but nothing until a search a few minutes ago about this Texas-style bill to ban abortions after after cardiac activity is detected ( about 6 weeks ) and allow private citizens to sue. Or this one, which would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state.
Even though the NYT column cited in the OP mentioned the out-of-state provision , the discussion didn’t really include that. I’m guessing I must not have been the only person who clicked the link to the bill and didn’t read the NYT column.
* Although I’m not sure a specific list is better - with a general definition lawyers can argue that a particular situation fits the definition. With a specific list of what qualifies , if it’s not on the list it doesn’t qualify.
** There’s an argument that licensing boards will have an enforcement role- but it’s very easy for that to be eliminated.
I agree, and I really wanted to tangent into that, but it’s outside the scope of this thread.
The cynical part of me feels that that was put in deliberately, with the vague wording, specifically so people would say, “Hey, are you saying that they cannot terminate ectopic pregnancies?” Then they reply with condescension and smugness, “Of course not, read the bill more closely, you ignorant knave!” Then the discussion turns to how stupid people are for reading the bill and wondering why the hell it includes such a stupid and dangerous provision, rather than the larger issue that they want to completely strip rights to bodily autonomy away from women.
I would be more than happy to participate in a thread about how these bills are now doing what I was assured would never happen, and that is to not only control what a person does while in the state, but also control what they are allowed to do outside of the state as well. Too bad @Bricker isn’t with us anymore, he one of the posters here that assured me that there was no way that any state would ever put such a provision together, much less enforce it.