Wingnuts up in arms about Dems supposedly legalizing infanticide. What's this about, now?

[Shodan]

@RitterSport

I think you’re engaging in a bait and switch here. The question for the governor or state senator or whatever was about infanticide, which implies very, very late abortions (30+ weeks, in my mind). Now, you’re switching to third trimester abortions and saying they are not unheard of – I agree, but very, very late abortions are unheard of, or nearly so.

The “wingnuts” mentioned by the OP are talking about the law allowing abortions up to the last minute – that’s what the question to the governor was about. The fact is that this law doesn’t specifically disallow that, but other laws on the books, plus medical ethics and practices, do disallow infanticide as predicted by the “wingnuts”. Medical laws don’t disallow lots of things – open heart surgery when you’re knee is bleeding, for example. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. (Or, if it does, that doctor is going to jail)

So, unless you want to retract something there, I’m not really interested in engaging with that kind of bait and switch.

I am talking about this quote -

Tran does appear to suggest that the bill would permit abortions up until the point of birth. “My bill would allow that, yes,” she said in response to House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert, a Republican.

According to Tran, her bill would allow abortion up to the point of dilation. If you don’t want to call that infanticide, fine.

If you are objecting to the wingnuts saying that the bill would allow abortions up to the point of dilation, then that is not a bait and switch at all - Tran said specifically that it would, and it’s her bill.

Regards,
Shodan

[RitterSport]

@Shodan

I am talking about this quote -According to Tran, her bill would allow abortion up to the point of dilation. If you don’t want to call that infanticide, fine.

If you are objecting to the wingnuts saying that the bill would allow abortions up to the point of dilation, then that is not a bait and switch at all - Tran said specifically that it would, and it’s her bill.

Regards,
Shodan

The bait and switch was you talking about late term abortions, rather than final term abortions.

I think it’s more correct to say that the bill doesn’t disallow that. In cases where a doctor was willing to put his license and personal freedom on the line to, say, perform an abortion while the woman is in labor, then the situation must be pretty dire. For example, if my wife were dying in labor and the only way to save her would be to kill the fetus, if the decision were mine, I’d say kill the fetus. This situation is going to be extremely rare, and I don’t want the doctor worrying about going to jail when he makes a medically correct decision. So, this bill doesn’t specifically disallow that situation, but medical ethics, other medical laws, licensing requirements, grand juries, and so on, all do disallow that.

As Bryan Ekers often mentions, Canada has no abortion law at all and all seems to be fine up there. There aren’t during-labor abortion factories, there aren’t 35+ weeks abortion clinics. Why do we need an abortion law at all? Shouldn’t this medical decision be left up to medical doctors and patients? Where’s the specific open heart surgery law? Aren’t you worried that doctors will perform that for scraped knees?

[iiandyiiii]

@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.

I believe that the harm of government involvement in millions of reproductive health decisions by women would be far, far greater than the hypothetical extremely rare malevolent choices by pregnant women. Orders of magnitude greater.

Further, I believe that bodily autonomy is absolutely inviolable, such that any and every adult human should have the right to remove anything or anyone from inside their body, at any time, and for any reason. If there’s a tiny person inside me, I should have the right to evict them at any time. Even if I invited them in two hours, or two weeks, or two months ago.

So there’s two reasons why I’m very, very strongly pro-choice.

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?

Sure. And the ultimate decision lies (or should lie) with the one whose body is housing the offspring, and her medical professionals.

[Shodan]

@RitterSport

The bait and switch was you talking about late term abortions, rather than final term abortions.

I think it’s more correct to say that the bill doesn’t disallow that.

The author of the bill doesn’t think so.

Tran does appear to suggest that the bill would permit abortions up until the point of birth. “My bill would allow that, yes,” she said in response to House Majority Leader Todd Gilbert, a Republican.

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

[EscAlaMike]

@iiandyiiii

So there’s two reasons why I’m very, very strongly pro-choice.

Thanks for your responses.

[RitterSport]

@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

YOU did the bait and switch – the “wingnuts” are talking about very, very late stage abortions and you started talking about third trimester abortions in general.

And, I agree that “doesn’t disallow” and “allow” mean the same thing in general, but it’s more accurate to say that this bill doesn’t disallow that to happen, since it doesn’t specifically allow it by over-riding other types of restrictions on medical procedures. For example, a doctor who, willy-nilly, performed an abortion on a woman in labor simply because the doctor wanted to and the patient agreed would still likely be charged with infanticide, lose his/her license, go to jail, and so on. This bill doesn’t override that! It doesn’t say that abortions at term are now allowed – rather, it doesn’t specifically disallow any particular abortions. Other rules, standards, laws, ethics, oaths, and so on still apply.

Are we agreed?

[doorhinge]

According to Kathy Tran, in her own words, the bill would allow abortions for women who are experiencing contractions. That would be life terminations up until the moment of birth.

Kathy Tran Presents Virginia Third Trimester Abortion Bill in Committee

[Bryan_Ekers]

[quote=“doorhinge, post:27, topic:828741”]

According to Kathy Tran, in her own words, the bill would allow abortions for women who are experiencing contractions. That would be life terminations up until the moment of birth.

[/QUOTE]

Okay… so?

[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.

[doorhinge]

@Bryan_Ekers

Okay… so?

It answers the OP’s question.

[wolfpup]

@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.

I agree, but I would clarify that it’s not exactly a matter of “trust” (I generally trust the government) and not exactly government vs. medical professionals. I think somewhat more accurately, the operative principle here should be that specific judgments made by medical professionals about a specific case, which takes into account the medical particulars as well as the patient’s wants and needs, is always going to be a better decision and lead to more desirable outcomes than some blanket rule enshrined in immutable law.

Moreover, something that is permitted by law can always be prohibited or discouraged by medical ethics except in extraordinary circumstances, whereas something that is prohibited by law leaves no option for either physician or patient. Basically, this should be a matter between doctor and patient and the law shouldn’t try to meddle in it, and if this sounds vaguely familiar, it’s analogous to the value of single-payer health coverage which supports the same principle, rather than insurance bureaucrats meddling in the relationship between doctor and patient.

I would note in that regard that abortion has been legal in Canada for a long time, and there is no n-week rule in law; there is simply no abortion law, period, a state of affairs that moreover was backed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Yet I have no need for a fainting couch on which to collapse in horrified dismay. As a matter of fact, although abortions at all states of gestation are not prohibited by law, per the Canadian Medical Association abortions after 20 weeks are not ethical in normal circumstances and very rarely performed, but the option exists if there is a medical need. And that, in my view, is as it should be, and is a correct prioritization of the needs and rights of the woman, the judgment of medical professionals, and the ethics of maternal-fetal medicine. The law has no business in any of it until the baby is born and becomes a legal human, subject to all the rights and protections thereof, which incidentally and ironically is the point at which Republican wingnuts typically stop caring, voting in droves against children’s health care and public education.

@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.

But see my comments above. That’s a pretty damn serious misrepresentation, because the wingnuts are all up in arms about something that will almost never happen, and if and when it does happen, it would be because it has a strong overriding medical justification. The law has no business meddling in what is purely a medical issue.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@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.

So saying “Democrats want” about this bill is, in your opinion, a fully accurate and in no way mis-leading statement that misrepresents the situation?

[RTFirefly]

@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.

No, they’re claiming that these laws would legalize killing babies that have already been born under the guise of ‘abortion.’

Not ‘up to’ the moment of birth. After the moment of birth.

[RTFirefly]

@Velocity

So far, the defenses against the “it’s infanticide” attack seem to be:

1. “It’s going to be really rare”
2. “It’s up to professional judgement, not you or me”
3. “The baby would live in seriously poor health”
4. “The mother needs it”
5. “It’s not infanticide”

?

Let me take on #3:

Their daughter had moderate to severe Dandy-Walker malformation. But that wasn’t the only diagnosis; Laurel also had a brain condition in which fluid builds up in the ventricles, eventually developing into hydrocephalus and possibly crushing her brain. She had a congenital disorder too, in which there was complete or partial absence of the broad band of nerve fibers joining the two hemispheres of the brain.

What this meant was Laurel was expected to never walk, talk, or swallow. That was if she survived birth.

Kate asked her doctor: “What can a baby like mine do? Sleep all the time?”

“Babies like yours are not generally comfortable enough to sleep,” the neurologist said.

You would have that baby live?

[Bryan_Ekers]

I get that we’re supposed to be shocked - SHOCKED! - at this, but I don’t seem to grasp how, exactly.

[Shodan]

@RitterSport

For example, a doctor who, willy-nilly, performed an abortion on a woman in labor simply because the doctor wanted to and the patient agreed would still likely be charged with infanticide, lose his/her license, go to jail, and so on. This bill doesn’t override that! It doesn’t say that abortions at term are now allowed – rather, it doesn’t specifically disallow any particular abortions. Other rules, standards, laws, ethics, oaths, and so on still apply.

Are we agreed?

We are not agreed yet. What are the other New York laws that are not overridden by this law that say that a doctor who performs an abortion on a woman in labor will lose his license or go to jail?

What’s the point of a bill that says something is allowed that won’t be allowed?

Regards,
Shodan

[RitterSport]

@Shodan

We are not agreed yet. What are the other New York laws that are not overridden by this law that say that a doctor who performs an abortion on a woman in labor will lose his license or go to jail?

What’s the point of a bill that says something is allowed that won’t be allowed?

Regards,
Shodan

Disclosure: I haven’t read the text of the NY or Virginia bill.

My impression has been that what these bill do is remove many restrictions on abortions (who can perform them, when they can be performed). If that’s wrong, I welcome correction. Assuming I have it right:

Under the old rules, abortions were not allowed after X weeks (let’s say). The new law doesn’t have that restriction. Therefore, the law would allow abortions after X weeks, but doesn’t override other medical laws, licensing requirements, etc.

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. The new law, as I understand it, removes many (most?) restrictions.

So, the law is not saying, “all abortions at 40 weeks are now legal”, rather it’s saying “there are no restriction on abortions based on when they occur.” Doctors, though, are still required to abide by their other rules, laws, licensing requirements.

This is similar to Canada where there is no specific abortion law at all. However, that does not mean that doctors can kill viable fetuses at 39 weeks for no reason.

So, if a woman is in labor and is starting to die and she and her doctor have to choose between her life and the fetus’s, they can choose her life without fear of jail time, license suspension, etc. No doubt that case would be brought before a hospital board to make sure that all other avenues are pursued, but it won’t be specifically illegal to perform that abortion if there’s a medical necessity.

I’m not sure how to make this clearer, so if this isn’t sufficient, we’re probably done.

This new law kerfuffle has made me think, why we have abortion laws at all? It’s a medical procedure and we don’t have specific laws for each medical procedure. There’s no open heart surgery law, no appendectomy law, etc. Canada seems to get by with no abortion law just fine.

[RitterSport]

Sorry for the double post but I just came across this op-ed (note, it’s an op-ed, not an article, so take it with a grain of salt) from the NY Times. Here’s the money quote:

Under current law in Virginia, third-trimester abortions are permitted when a woman’s physician and two other doctors certify that continuing a pregnancy would result in a mother’s death, or “substantially and irremediably impair the mental or physical health of the woman.” This week Kathy Tran, a Democrat in Virginia’s House of Delegates, testified in favor of a bill that would end the requirement for two extra doctors to sign off on such abortions, and strike the words “substantially and irremediably” from the existing law.

From here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opinion/abortion-virginia-kathy-tran.html

(Note, I know it’s a provocative title and she’s a left-wing writer, but I’m only concerned with what the law does, not her opinion.)

Anyway, according to that quote, what the Virginia bill does is strike those restrictions, just as I suspected. It doesn’t specifically allow 39-week abortions for example, rather it doesn’t disallow them. Any other restrictions on such medical procedures would still be in effect.

So, are we agreed now?

[kayaker]

States passing abortion laws are doing so primarily out of concern that Roe v Wade may be struck down. Right?

[Babale]

@kayaker

States passing abortion laws are doing so primarily out of concern that Roe v Wade may be struck down. Right?

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.