# Wingnuts up in arms about Dems supposedly legalizing infanticide. What's this about, now? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2019, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741 "2019-01-31T18:27:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2019, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/41 "2019-02-01T17:57:08Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Roe v Wade will never be struck down. Promises to fight against it win way too many Republican seats at all levels. Overturning Roe V Wade would mean strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs. What is the mechanism for this? Does a case make it to the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas, for example, decides in favor of Roe in order to keep it as a political issue? There really are court cases making it through the system that challenge Roe – does John Roberts not decide on the issues, but rather whether it will get out the vote for Republicans? Heller resolved a LOT of gun issues, making the 2nd Amendment much stronger, and yet the five more conservative Justices voted for it. Seems relevant. The NY gun law wending its way up is similar. ---
**Author:** ![Batano](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Batano](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batano)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/42 "2019-02-01T18:01:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not at all uncomfortable. I trust individual women and medical professionals far more than the government when it comes to the health decisions of any particular individual woman. Anything that reduces government interference in the health decisions women and their doctors make about their own bodies and health is good with me. So you are OK with women not getting vaccinated as long as the can find a wing nut anti-vax doctor. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2019, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/43 "2019-02-01T18:07:00Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > What is the mechanism for this? Does a case make it to the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas, for example, decides in favor of Roe in order to keep it as a political issue? There really are court cases making it through the system that challenge Roe – does John Roberts not decide on the issues, but rather whether it will get out the vote for Republicans? > > Heller resolved a LOT of gun issues, making the 2nd Amendment much stronger, and yet the five more conservative Justices voted for it. Seems relevant. The NY gun law wending its way up is similar. People are very good at convincing themselves that whatever is in their own best self-interest aligns with their belief system, SCJs included. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/44 "2019-02-01T18:13:15Z")
> [@Batano](#): > > So you are OK with women not getting vaccinated as long as the can find a wing nut anti-vax doctor. No, but what I’m okay with doesn’t matter. We’re talking about what the government should outlaw by threat of prosecution. IANAL, but I don’t believe it’s illegal for an adult woman to refuse vaccination. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/45 "2019-02-02T04:03:59Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Roe v Wade will never be struck down. Promises to fight against it win way too many Republican seats at all levels. Overturning Roe V Wade would mean strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs. That’s just wishful thinking. They haven’t been pushing this hard, making it actually a viable thing that could happen, just to fumble it at the end. And there’s no reason they can’t run on “elect us, or abortion will become legal again!” The fear of the Dems getting a supermajority and passing anti-abortion laws would be used instead. It’s not like the abortion issue goes away if Roe v. Wade is repealed. There’s also little reason for most of the judges to play along with what the Republican party wants. They aren’t planning on running for election. They’ll go by their personal convictions or by the law, or both. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/46 "2019-02-02T04:19:11Z")
> [@EscAlaMike](#): > > Yes, I get that. But some parents are willing to harm their offspring, either with or without the assistance/cooperation of medical professionals, even to the point of the death of the offspring. If government serves a purpose at all, surely it should be to protect those who can’t protect themselves. > > But we’re not talking about the father’s body, or the mother’s for that matter. There is a third party involved, the offspring of the mother and the father. You don’t believe that the father should have any input regarding the offspring’s fate? actually in a few states until the fetus is born the biological father doesn’t haven’t any and sometimes not even after it is unless the mother gives them to him ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/47 "2019-02-02T06:51:21Z")
> [@](#): > > But we’re not talking about the father’s body, or the mother’s for that matter. There is a third party involved, the offspring of the mother and the father. You don’t believe that the father should have any input regarding the offspring’s fate? I’m all in favor of the man having input. The issue is what happens when the man and the pregnant woman disagree. If the man wants the pregnancy terminated and the woman does not, should she be forced to have an abortion? Or do you believe the father should only have input if he wants the woman to continue the pregnancy? (In which case, the issue isn’t really about the man’s input but about blocking the woman’s input if she opts for an abortion.) Should a man who’s brutally raped a woman have input? And there’s no way to compromise on pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/48 "2019-02-02T10:08:57Z")
OK, I’ve come up with a strained analogy that may shed some light on the point that I’m trying to make above. A few years ago, Montana removed their speed limits. However, they didn’t get rid of the other laws that relate or may relate to driving such as reckless and careless driving and, for example, manslaughter. So, while it was now legal to drive 170 mph, if you did that in the rain, fog, or snow, you could still get pulled over for reckless or careless driving. If you drove 170 mph at night with a toddler in the car and smashed into an elk, you would still be in trouble for endangering a minor. If you drove 170 mph around a blind curve and smashed into a school bus full of children, killing several, you would still be in trouble for manslaughter at least, since a reasonable person would know that you shouldn’t drive that fast around a blind curve. This analogy fails for a few reasons: 1. The decision to drive 170 mph is a trivial one compared to an 8th or 9th month abortion 2. People drive that fast for fun, as opposed to very late term abortions 3. There are practically no reasons that you would have to drive that fast, where there are actual medical reasons to have extremely late term abortions (here’s an article that discusses one: [What It’s Like To Get An Abortion At 32 Weeks | SELF](https://www.self.com/story/what-its-like-to-get-an-abortion-at-32-weeks)) However, the basic concepts are similar, in my view – removing restrictions is not exactly the same as making something legal. Removing restrictions on 32 week abortions doesn’t mean that women and their doctors can decide to do that on a whim – there are still other laws, ethics, practices, oaths that come into play. The position of the “wingnuts” mentioned in the OP seems to be analogous to: “Montana just removed the speed limits in their state. That means they’ve made it legal to drive 170 mph around a blind curve and plow in to school buses!” Then, they ask the state politician, “is it true that nothing in this bill would prevent you from driving 170 mph” Yes! “See! She wants people plowing into school buses!” (Since then, Montana has restored their speed limits and NY may decide to put restrictions back on, but Canada has been operating just fine with no abortion law at all) ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/49 "2019-02-02T11:29:38Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > Actually, I think under the old laws, abortions in NY may have been illegal or at least severely restricted, because they were pre-Roe laws that haven’t been updated. Pre-Roe New York was on of the states that, when they could afford it, women who wanted abortions traveled to because they could often get safe, legal, medical abortions. New York was one of the more liberal places in those days. I personally know a couple of women who did exactly that. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/50 "2019-02-02T20:49:21Z")
For those who haven’t actually read the newly enacted [NY abortion law](https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S240)(as I have) and who don’t care to slog through it, here’s the excerpt excerpt that pertains directly to this thread: > [@](#): > > § 2599-BB. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTI- > FIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITH- > IN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, > ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER’S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL > JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT’S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN > TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN > ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE > PATIENT’S LIFE OR HEALTH. Always helpful to read the text and not an interpretation of the text, I think. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/51 "2019-02-02T22:23:55Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If I understand right, the Virginia governor is referring to babies who would need some kind of life support, and he’s suggesting denying them life support (if the parents don’t want it,) which would make it something like passive euthanasia vs. active euthanasia. In the case of Virginia, **Code of Virginia § 18.2-74.** … (c) _Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability._ This clause would not be touched by the legislation. What is not addressed is Thursday, when the newborn has been on life support for 6 days and is not progressing. At what point are the parents permitted to pull the plug? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/52 "2019-02-02T22:38:26Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The “wingnuts” are only misrepresenting the issue to the degree that such “up to the moment of birth” abortions would happen. Such abortions are likely to be extremely rare. > > What they \*\*\*aren’t \*\*\*misrepresenting is that such a bill allows for the \*potential \*for such abortions, “up to the moment of birth,” in the abortion-supporter’s own words. It’s right there. If a woman is getting ready to give birth, and suddenly, there is a medical emergency that means that the baby will die during or immediately after birth, and the woman will die giving birth, do you think that the doctor should go to jail for performing a medical procedure to save the woman’s life? > [@Babale](#): > > Roe v Wade will never be struck down. Promises to fight against it win way too many Republican seats at all levels. Overturning Roe V Wade would mean strangling the goose that lays the golden eggs. Roe Vs Wade cannot be overturned. I don’t know if Roe is even still alive, but we are not shoving her baby back in her either way. Now, the precedent set by Roe, that is different. That’s just precedent, and precedent can be chipped at. First, it’s okay to limit who can do it, then limit where it can be done, then require that those locations be up to absurd architectural standards, and so on. It creeps on and on, making it harder and harder to obtain this medical procedure, even in the cases taht are explicitly protected by Roe. No one is going to bring Roe vs Wade back to SCOTUS for a new ruling, what they will do is pass laws that incrementally infringe on the precedents set by that ruling, then on and on, until some state passes something that blatantly violates that precedent, like just out and out banning abortion. That is the case that will make its way up to SCOTUS, and it will be interesting to see how it is decided. But, even with the protections of Roe removed, and states left allowed to restrict abortion in any way they like, the republicans can still use abortion to get people to vote for them. As long as abortion is legal in California, or New York, or even Hawaii, there will be politicians getting support from those who wish to see a national ban on abortion. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/53 "2019-02-02T22:55:28Z")
That’s an all-too-common misconception, **RitterSport** , which is why that Montana law was changed back. Montana did _not_ remove speed limits. They removed _numerical_ speed limits. It was still possible to get a speeding ticket (not a child endangerment ticket or whatever) if you were going faster than a reasonable and prudent speed. It’s just that having a number that was higher than a number on a sign was no longer, in and of itself, considered proof of a speed being unreasonable or imprudent. And it didn’t work, which is why Montana has numerical speed limits again, just like anywhere else. What exactly that corresponds to in the abortion analogy, I’m not sure. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/54 "2019-02-02T22:58:23Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That’s an all-too-common misconception, **RitterSport** , which is why that Montana law was changed back. Montana did _not_ remove speed limits. They removed _numerical_ speed limits. It was still possible to get a speeding ticket (not a child endangerment ticket or whatever) if you were going faster than a reasonable and prudent speed. It’s just that having a number that was higher than a number on a sign was no longer, in and of itself, considered proof of a speed being unreasonable or imprudent. > > And it didn’t work, which is why Montana has numerical speed limits again, just like anywhere else. > > What exactly that corresponds to in the abortion analogy, I’m not sure. Lets hope that doctors are better judges of medically necessary procedures than drivers are judges of appropriate speed. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/55 "2019-02-02T23:08:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > That’s an all-too-common misconception, **RitterSport** , which is why that Montana law was changed back. Montana did _not_ remove speed limits. They removed _numerical_ speed limits. It was still possible to get a speeding ticket (not a child endangerment ticket or whatever) if you were going faster than a reasonable and prudent speed. It’s just that having a number that was higher than a number on a sign was no longer, in and of itself, considered proof of a speed being unreasonable or imprudent. > > And it didn’t work, which is why Montana has numerical speed limits again, just like anywhere else. > > What exactly that corresponds to in the abortion analogy, I’m not sure. Because they didn’t remove all restrictions having to do with abortions, they removed the specific time periods. I understand how the analogy is not perfect, but the similarity seems pretty clear to me. I guess not. But, you’re right that the analogy fails, since Canada still has no abortion law (no speed limits) and all seems to be well up there. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2019, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/56 "2019-02-02T23:44:48Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Lets hope that doctors are better judges of medically necessary procedures than drivers are judges of appropriate speed. Who else is there? The only other parties that seek to meddle in medical care, to come between a doctor and his patient and dictate what the doctor must or must not do in all cases, are grandstanding politicians catering to wingnuts and religious nutters, and the mercenary bureaucrats of private insurance companies catering to their bean-counters and stockholders. And nothing these meddlesome third parties ever do is _ **ever** _ concerned with the best interests of the patient. Not to belabor the point, but doctors’ judgments of what is medically necessary is the foundation of the entire medical system in single-payer and most UHC systems throughout the world – on access to _ **all** _ medical procedures, not just abortions. This takes into account all of a patient’s specific circumstances, potentially including their emotional as well as physical needs. And that, as noted before, is just as it should be, and it works. It works in Canada to provide needed but ethical and responsible access to abortion despite the complete absence of any abortion laws, and it works throughout the world to provide guaranteed access to needed medical care without the meddling of insurance company bureaucrats. The meddling of immutable laws prohibiting medical procedures like abortions is just as harmful and counterproductive as the meddling of insurance bureaucrats in private-insurance systems; doctors and their patient should be the only parties to clinical decision-making, because they are the only ones who are truly concerned with the patient’s best interests and well-being. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/57 "2019-02-03T00:02:06Z")
I’m not going to debate this, but it does bring to mind some questions. 1. Was there some kind of impetus for this legislation? Was the current law causing actual issues? Or was this just a “in principle” / “just in case” sort of thing, or even a blue wave side effect? 2. Can what most people consider an abortion even be actually performed late in pregnancy, or is it basically just a C section or induced birth? 3. What realistically, are the sorts of conditions where this is being done, or desired? 4. Are there more than a negligible number of cases where late term abortions are desired for non medical reasons? If so, what typically is the rationale for waiting so long, and why at that point is it still considered less of a hassle than adoption? > [@wolfpup](#): > > Not to belabor the point, but doctors’ judgments of what is medically necessary is the foundation of the entire medical system in single-payer and most UHC systems throughout the world – on access to _ **all** _ medical procedures, not just abortions. This takes into account all of a patient’s specific circumstances, potentially including their emotional as well as physical needs. And that, as noted before, is just as it should be, and it works. It works in Canada to provide needed but ethical and responsible access to abortion despite the complete absence of any abortion laws, and it works throughout the world to provide guaranteed access to needed medical care without the meddling of insurance company bureaucrats. . Is that true? While it is nice to think of doctors as universally noble, it is hard to imagine them, even in a socialized setting, having no cost oversight. Even without insurance issues, we have had doctors giving out meds like candy. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/58 "2019-02-03T00:07:12Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Who else is there? The only other parties that seek to meddle in medical care, to come between a doctor and his patient and dictate what the doctor must or must not do in all cases, are grandstanding politicians catering to wingnuts and religious nutters, and the mercenary bureaucrats of private insurance companies catering to their bean-counters and stockholders. And nothing these meddlesome third parties ever do is _ **ever** _ concerned with the best interests of the patient. > > Not to belabor the point, but doctors’ judgments of what is medically necessary is the foundation of the entire medical system in single-payer and most UHC systems throughout the world – on access to _ **all** _ medical procedures, not just abortions. This takes into account all of a patient’s specific circumstances, potentially including their emotional as well as physical needs. And that, as noted before, is just as it should be, and it works. It works in Canada to provide needed but ethical and responsible access to abortion despite the complete absence of any abortion laws, and it works throughout the world to provide guaranteed access to needed medical care without the meddling of insurance company bureaucrats. > > The meddling of immutable laws prohibiting medical procedures like abortions is just as harmful and counterproductive as the meddling of insurance bureaucrats in private-insurance systems; doctors and their patient should be the only parties to clinical decision-making, because they are the only ones who are truly concerned with the patient’s best interests and well-being. Sorry, that was slightly facetious. Rephrase: I have great confidence that doctors are better judges of medically necessary procedures than drivers are judges of appropriate speed. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/59 "2019-02-03T01:20:19Z")
> [@jackdavinci](#): > > Is that true? While it is nice to think of doctors as universally noble, it is hard to imagine them, even in a socialized setting, having no cost oversight. Even without insurance issues, we have had doctors giving out meds like candy. One need not posit that doctors are some sort of superhuman exemplars of excellence to believe that they are professionally in the best position to promote and protect their patients’ best interests, certainly far more than insurance bureaucrats motivated entirely by mercenary considerations or politicians motivated largely by political winds and ideology. So yes, it’s true, and it does reflect exactly how health care works in Canada: everyone is guaranteed access to medically necessary procedures at no cost to them, by law (the Canada Health Act), and the single-payer system explicitly defers to doctors as the trusted gatekeepers thereof. Thus, browsing through the fee schedule of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, for instance, one occasionally finds conditions or limitations, and these almost invariably contain language to the effect of “unless a physician deems otherwise”. This degree of trust is virtually unknown with private insurance, where the insurance bureaucrat is king and absolute ruler, yet it’s absolutely foundational to single payer, where it’s simply regarded as essential clinical autonomy. I’m not quite sure I follow your “cost oversight” and “giving out meds like candy” argument. Are you perhaps suggesting that, in the absence of abortion laws, doctors would perform unnecessary abortions merely for the remuneration? If so, I suppose the best refutation is that it just doesn’t happen in Canada – despite no abortion law and abortions being completely free, the abortion rate in Canada is much lower than in the US (according to [this cite](https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/03/24/what-happens-when-there-is-no-abortion-law/), 14.1 per thousand in Canada versus 20 per thousand in the US). The cite is a blog, but it’s a blog by a respected and well-published gynecologist and the figures are similar to those I’ve seen on other sites for other years. Needless to say, other factors limiting rampant abortions include the fact that the doctor and the patient obviously must agree that this is the most appropriate path forward – a path that is never a happy one and simply the lesser evil in some cases, and the fact that doctors are governed by a strong code of ethics that can place their hard-won careers in dire jeopardy for ethical violations, which tends to severely curtail the incidence of late-term abortions. The system is so structured that the most ethical course of action _ **in each individual case** _ is determined by the best interests of the woman. What is the purpose of hard-and-fast inflexible laws in such circumstances, laws that cannot possibly foresee each and every set of individual circumstances? This would be a prime example of the old adage, “the law is an ass”. Anti-abortion laws, especially those prohibiting earlier-term abortions, are not just scientifically and ethically unsound and downright absurd, but they try to provide a solution to a non-existent problem. Much like anti-gay laws, they just cater to the whims and bigotries of wingnuts, mostly self-declared hypocritical religious ones – the ones who are all for the rights of fetuses, but never for the rights of actual children. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2019, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741/60 "2019-02-03T01:31:58Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The author of the bill doesn’t think so. Emphasis added. > > So again, no bait, no switch, no wingnuts. Ms. Tran was asked about abortions up to the point of birth, and she said yes, her bill would allow abortions up to the point of birth. > > Regards, > Shodan …but not necessarily upon demand. Big difference. If the “baby” is going to be born without a brain, who gives a toss if it’s aborted a few days before its scheduled delivery? Who’s keeping the “baby” alive in the first place – God?! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wingnuts-up-in-arms-about-dems-supposedly-legalizing-infanticide-whats-this-about-now/828741.md?page=4)