Risk to the mother or not, the fetus is nonviable and under no circumstances should any woman be forced to carry it to term. This is honestly insane that she has to seek an abortion in another state.

32 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

SHE HAS BEEN REFUSED AN ABORTION IN LA.

She is looking to leave the state.

Right, hence why I said, "So if continuing with the pregnancy is a risk to her health, and yet her doctors told her that by law they can't perform an abortion to prevent injury or death to her, then her doctors are clearly in the wrong and either 1) haven't read the law, or 2) are playing politics so that headlines like this can be written."

edit: Ok now I need to backup a second.  In your post, you said: "So what if it kills the mother? RIGHT TO LIFE!!"    Nowhere in that story does it say her life is at risk.  In which case, yes, this is the result of a stupid law.  And the doctors are correct in saying they can't do anything about it. 

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Right, hence why I said, "So if continuing with the pregnancy is a risk to her health, and yet her doctors told her that by law they can't perform an abortion to prevent injury or death to her, then her doctors are clearly in the wrong and either 1) haven't read the law, or 2) are playing politics so that headlines like this can be written."

Or iii) they are morons

26 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Risk to the mother or not, the fetus is nonviable and under no circumstances should any woman be forced to carry it to term. This is honestly insane that she has to seek an abortion in another state.

Oh I absolutely agree.  Toastrel said that carrying the baby to term could kill the mother, in which case she'd be able to have the abortion in state since her health is at risk. 

But yes, 10000% absolutely agree it's a dumb law in that it would force a woman to carry a nonviable fetus to term so long as the mother's life isn't at risk.  Just plain stupid.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Or iii) they are morons

see my edited post.  It appears the "risk to the mother" part was an adlib by Toastrel.  The story doesn't say that carrying the pregnancy could risk death to her.   In which case, then yes the doctors would be correct in saying that they can't giver her an abortion, as the Louisiana law does not make exemption for a non viable fetus.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

see my edited post.  It appears the "risk to the mother" part was an adlib by Toastrel.  The story doesn't say that carrying the pregnancy could risk death to her.   In which case, then yes the doctors would be correct in saying that they can't giver her an abortion, as the Louisiana law does not make exemption for a non viable fetus.

If you really think carrying a child for 6 more months knowing it will die at birth has no negative effect on the mother, you have lost your mind.

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Oh I absolutely agree.  Toastrel said that carrying the baby to term could kill the mother, in which case she'd be able to have the abortion in state since her health is at risk. 

But yes, 10000% absolutely agree it's a dumb law in that it would force a woman to carry a nonviable fetus to term so long as the mother's life isn't at risk.  Just plain stupid.

True, I just read the article and the lawyer didn't elaborate on the physical risk to the mother, so I'm not sure where Toaster got the possibility of death for the mother, but presumably simply being forced to deliver a non-viable fetus could be what the lawyer was referring to as a risk to the mother's health. Aside from the entire pregnancy itself, natural delivery carries its own set of risks (vaginal tearing, infection, etc) and likewise so does a C-section (granted the fact that the fetus lack a skull in this case probably makes for less of a risk for this overall.) But simply exposing women to these undue risks as a result of an improperly framed law is just mind-boggling. The upside is absolute zero and the downside, albeit arguably small, is still not worth forcing upon anyone just to appease some politicians who want to take a hardline stance on an incredibly complex issue.

6 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

see my edited post.  It appears the "risk to the mother" part was an adlib by Toastrel.  The story doesn't say that carrying the pregnancy could risk death to her.   In which case, then yes the doctors would be correct in saying that they can't giver her an abortion, as the Louisiana law does not make exemption for a non viable fetus.

He's referring to this part of the lawyer's statement: 

"Thanks to the actions of the Louisiana legislator, Ms. Davis was left without medical care to do what doctors said needed to be done, end the pregnancy. By imposing themselves between Ms. Davis and her doctors, Louisiana lawmakers inflicted unspeakable pain, emotional damage, and physical risk upon this beautiful mother," he said. "They replaced care with confusion. Privacy with politics. Options with ideology.”

3 hours ago, Toastrel said:

If you really think carrying a child for 6 more months knowing it will die at birth has no negative effect on the mother, you have lost your mind.

Who said it would have "no negative effect” on the mother? 
You said it could kill her.  To which I responded that if carrying the baby could result in injury or death to the mother, then she wouldn’t have to leave the state since those exemptions are already carved out in the law.

The pregnancy won’t result in increased risk of injury or death to the mother, which is why she has to go out of state to get the abortion, since in the Louisiana law there is no exemption for the case when the fetus is not viable.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Who said it would have "no negative effect” on the mother? 
You said it could kill her.  To which I responded that if carrying the baby could result in injury or death to the mother, then she wouldn’t have to leave the state since those exemptions are already carved out in the law.

The pregnancy won’t result in injury or death to the mother, which is why she has to go out of state to get the abortion, since in the Louisiana law there is no exemption for the case when the fetus is not viable.

It can. Any pregnancy can kill the mother. There are numerous ways. 700 a year in the US

It is insane to force a woman to carry to term (pregnancy is no joke) a fetus that is going to die regardless of anything that could be done.

17 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

It can. Any pregnancy can kill the mother. There are numerous ways. 700 a year in the US

It is insane to force a woman to carry to term (pregnancy is no joke) a fetus that is going to die regardless of anything that could be done.

I agree it’s insane to force a woman to carry to term a fetus that is not viable.  That’s a very stupid law.

But there are times when carrying a pregnancy results in a significant increase risk of death to the mother (like an etopic pregnancy).  Exemptions for those cases are already made in the law.  

By your logic then, Louisiana didn’t ban abortions since any pregnancy technically poses a health risk to the mother.  

 

53 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I agree it’s insane to force a woman to carry to term a fetus that is not viable.  That’s a very stupid law.

But there are times when carrying a pregnancy results in a significant increase risk of death to the mother (like an etopic pregnancy).  Exemptions for those cases are already made in the law.  

By your logic then, Louisiana didn’t ban abortions since any pregnancy technically poses a health risk to the mother.  

 

My logic and Louisiana law have nothing in common. It is a fact. that pregnancy poses a health risk to mother.

3 hours ago, Toastrel said:

My logic and Louisiana law have nothing in common. It is a fact. that pregnancy poses a health risk to mother.

Ok so then Louisiana didn’t ban any abortions then since the law carved out exceptions for cases when the mothers life is at risk….

7 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ok so then Louisiana didn’t ban any abortions then since the law carved out exceptions for cases when the mothers life is at risk….

You keep getting it wrong.

 

It isn't when the mother's life is at risk, or even when her doctor thinks so, according to Louisiana, the best person to make this decision is a politician. So it is when some lawyers think the mother's life is at risk.

Bringing us back to "what a stupid law" regardless of me.

 

3 hours ago, Toastrel said:

You keep getting it wrong.

 

It isn't when the mother's life is at risk, or even when her doctor thinks so, according to Louisiana, the best person to make this decision is a politician. So it is when some lawyers think the mother's life is at risk.

Bringing us back to "what a stupid law" regardless of me.

 

Actually no, according to the law, its left up to the physician’s reasonable medical judgement.  that’s straight from the text of the law.

I agree, it is a stupid law.  I get that there are people who feel abortions in the case of unplanned pregnancy shouldn’t be allowed, no matter how early in the pregnancy they are done.   BUT even the most staunch supporters of banning abortions for that reason should be agreeable to exceptions in the cases of 1) rape or incest, 2) risk of injury or death to the mother, and 3) non viable fetus.

This law is stupid because it only makes exception for #2 and not numbers 1 and 3 above.

What doesn’t help is when a story like this comes out, in which we have the case of a non viable fetus, forcing the mother to have to leave the state to have an abortion, and then someone comes along and adds to it that she could die unless she gets an abortion.  
The law is stupid enough on its own merits.  No need to add lies to a story to make an already bad law try to appear worse.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Actually no, according to the law, its left up to the physician’s reasonable medical judgement.  that’s straight from the text of the law.

And yet, despite the doctor's judgement, it was denied by the hospital, because of the state law.

The problem for doctors and hospital officials is the liability they expose themselves to as a result of stupid laws like this. They can lose their license to practice medicine and/or actually imprisoned for a decade or more if they get challenged and lose, so for them the risk of performing the abortion for anything that's not a 99.9% clear cut case isn't even worth doing the right and reasonable thing. I honestly can't say that I blame them when states like this force them into a bind and make it such a lopsided proposition. 

12 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ok so then Louisiana didn’t ban any abortions then since the law carved out exceptions for cases when the mothers life is at risk….

No, because the law says that abortions are only allowed if the mother's life is at 'substantial' risk.  Since there is always some level of risk to the mother's life, there has to be some kind of complication in the pregnancy is increases the risk above the 'standard' level of risk associated with pregnancy to a 'substantial' level of risk.  Carrying a non-viable fetus is not grounds for termination of the pregnancy is if does not also result in an increased level of risk to the mother.  So the fact is, with this law in place they are putting the mother at risk by forcing her to carry a non-viable pregnancy to full term.  I understand and acknowledge that terminating the pregnancy could also put the mother's life at risk as well (side effects from medication, infection from any sort of surgical procedure, etc.) but the balance and judgement between those risk profiles, as well as the risk to mental well-being for the mother should be made jointly between the mother, family/support group, and the medical professionals (i.e. her doctors).  This law takes that balance and decision out of their hands and puts it squarely in the hands of the politicians and lawyers/courts.

22 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So if continuing with the pregnancy is a risk to her health, and yet her doctors told her that by law they can't perform an abortion to prevent injury or death to her, then her doctors are clearly in the wrong and either 1) haven't read the law, or 2) are playing politics so that headlines like this can be written.

 

Or they're simply afraid that the law will be interpreted by hyper-politicized courts in such a way that leads to their prosecution and incarceration anyway.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

And yet, despite the doctor's judgement, it was denied by the hospital, because of the state law.

Yes because once again, this wasn’t a case where her life was at risk due to being pregnant.  This wasn’t an etopic pregnancy, etc…  This was a case where the mother is carrying a non viable fetus.  And so unfortunately, there is nothing the doctor can do because the law does not make an exception for the case where the fetus isn’t viable.

which again, is why it’s a stupid law.

you do yourself no favors by adding made up details to the case.  Again, the law is stupid enough on its own merits. 

7 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

No, because the law says that abortions are only allowed if the mother's life is at 'substantial' risk.  Since there is always some level of risk to the mother's life, there has to be some kind of complication in the pregnancy is increases the risk above the 'standard' level of risk associated with pregnancy to a 'substantial' level of risk.

Exactly.   
 

"but the balance and judgement between those risk profiles, as well as the risk to mental well-being for the mother should be made jointly between the mother, family/support group, and the medical professionals (i.e. her doctors).  This law takes that balance and decision out of their hands and puts it squarely in the hands of the politicians and lawyers/courts.”

Yup agreed.  As I said earlier, even the most strictest anti abortion laws should have exceptions for 1) risk of injury or death to mother 2) rape or incest and 3) non viable fetus. 
I think any law that doesn’t have those 3 is incredibly stupid.   Whether or not abortion in the case of unplanned pregnancy should be banned vs whether there should be a cutoff can be up for debate (personally I think it should be allowed but there should be a cutoff, probably around the 12th week). 

But I don’t think there should be ANY debate over the 3 scenarios mentioned above.  

17 minutes ago, Imp81318 said:

No, because the law says that abortions are only allowed if the mother's life is at 'substantial' risk.  Since there is always some level of risk to the mother's life, there has to be some kind of complication in the pregnancy is increases the risk above the 'standard' level of risk associated with pregnancy to a 'substantial' level of risk.  Carrying a non-viable fetus is not grounds for termination of the pregnancy is if does not also result in an increased level of risk to the mother.  So the fact is, with this law in place they are putting the mother at risk by forcing her to carry a non-viable pregnancy to full term.  I understand and acknowledge that terminating the pregnancy could also put the mother's life at risk as well (side effects from medication, infection from any sort of surgical procedure, etc.) but the balance and judgement between those risk profiles, as well as the risk to mental well-being for the mother should be made jointly between the mother, family/support group, and the medical professionals (i.e. her doctors).  This law takes that balance and decision out of their hands and puts it squarely in the hands of the politicians and lawyers/courts.

Bingo, that's precisely the problem with laws that use vague and ambiguous language. As a doctor, who the F wants to put themselves in a position where they could be forced to defend why their medical opinion meets the definition of "substantial" risk in front of a judge and jury, where your career and literal freedom hang in the balance? It's absolute bananas, and the outcome of laws like this mean the vast majority of doctors will be extremely apprehensive on making a call that can even be perceived as anything other than an absolute sure thing, regardless of the medical facts of a case.

46 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yes because once again, this wasn’t a case where her life was at risk due to being pregnant.  

False.  EVERY pregnancy brings risk to the mother's life and well-being.  This pregnancy may not bring more risk than 'average' or 'expected' for a pregnancy, but being pregnant absolutely created more risk to her life than not being pregnant.

1 hour ago, Imp81318 said:

False.  EVERY pregnancy brings risk to the mother's life and well-being.  This pregnancy may not bring more risk than 'average' or 'expected' for a pregnancy, but being pregnant absolutely created more risk to her life than not being pregnant.

Ughhhh.  Yes, of course that’s true.  Just about ANYTHING you do in life is a risk.  I just ate lunch.  Technically there was a risk to my life by doing so because there is a chance that I could choke and die.  That doesn’t mean that I can go to the ER and demand medical attention to observe me eat to make sure I don’t die while doing so.

Having an abortion is a risk as well.  You stated it correctly in your last post, the risk to the pregnant mother is in regards to complications that would elevate the risk above what is normally expected.  Otherwise, the Louisiana law wouldn't actually ban any abortions since technically there is a risk with any pregnancy.

Again, the Louisiana law is stupid because that’s the only exception they allow.  If you’ve been raped or if the fetus isn’t viable, then you can’t get an abortion, which is insanely stupid.

This whole conversation started because Toastrel added his own narrative to the story by implying that there was a complication in the pregnancy that could kill the mother and yet she still couldn’t get an abortion.

To which I then pointed out that if that was true, then she WOULD be able to have one since that’s actually the lone exception carved out in the law.

6 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Ughhhh.  Yes, of course that’s true.  Just about ANYTHING you do in life is a risk.  I just ate lunch.  Technically there was a risk to my life by doing so because there is a chance that I could choke and die.  That doesn’t mean that I can go to the ER and demand medical attention to observe me eat to make sure I don’t die while doing so.

Having an abortion is a risk as well.  You stated it correctly in your last post, it’s in regards to complications that would elevate the risk above what is normally expected.  
Again, the Louisiana law is stupid because that’s the only exception they allow.  If you’ve been raped or if the fetus isn’t viable, then you can’t get an abortion, which is insanely stupid.

This whole conversation started because Toastrel added his own narrative to the story by implying that there was a complication in the pregnancy that could kill the mother and yet she still couldn’t get an abortion.

To which I then pointed out that if that was true, then she WOULD be able to have one since that’s actually the lone exception carved out in the law.

No. Being pregnant IS a condition that carries significant risk. Nine months of continued, and possibly deadly risks.

 

Quite a bit more than you having lunch.

I look forward to the Maga Fascists, using Gestapo tactics, charging a doctor and the patient with murder, after she has a miscarriage and the doctor has to remove the placenta and clean her out.