On abortion

[bluegoose]

Far be it from me to advise the church on what it should do, but a third of OB/Gyns have left the state since Idaho passed one of the most draconian anti-abortion laws in the nation. And this is during a time when the population is growing. If you want to promote having children there and want adequate obstetrics coverage in rural areas, you have to come to grips with the fact that abortion is an important part of medical care. It's not just those radical baby killers that provide it. It's every single OB/Gyn that care for and save mothers' lives by terminating problem pregnancies. And Idaho's law couldn't even carve out sensible exceptions to allow for routine women's care.

It will take years for Idaho to get back to a level resembling adequate OB/Gyn coverage. People talk about how the pro-choice movement injects politics into health care. Right now the pro-life faction is doing it in spades, and it's pregnant women who are being hurt.

And at a time when Idaho ranks only above Mississippi as having the worst Physician numbers per capita in the US.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think both extremes of the abortion issue need the conflict to continue so the pro-life/pro-choIce donations keep rolling in. And it’s a dog whistle on both sides to get out the vote.

there is reasonable middle ground on this issue but the Abortion Fear Mongering Money Machine can’t let that happen or the money dries up.

This.

[MartyFunkhouser]

So you think the church is motivated by money on this issue and not by genuine ethical/moral concerns?

I don't read his post that way at all. I read it as they are pawns in a larger scheme of the people using it as a money making machine. I agree with him.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't read his post that way at all. I read it as they are pawns in a larger scheme of the people using it as a money making machine. I agree with him.

How are they pawns, exactly? Have they not always been against abortion on demand? Do you think the church is being manipulated on this issue by outside groups, money, etc?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Far be it from me to advise the church on what it should do, but a third of OB/Gyns have left the state since Idaho passed one of the most draconian anti-abortion laws in the nation. And this is during a time when the population is growing. If you want to promote having children there and want adequate obstetrics coverage in rural areas, you have to come to grips with the fact that abortion is an important part of medical care. It's not just those radical baby killers that provide it. It's every single OB/Gyn that care for and save mothers' lives by terminating problem pregnancies. And Idaho's law couldn't even carve out sensible exceptions to allow for routine women's care.

It will take years for Idaho to get back to a level resembling adequate OB/Gyn coverage. People talk about how the pro-choice movement injects politics into health care. Right now the pro-life faction is doing it in spades, and it's pregnant women who are being hurt.

Does this particular law not allow any exceptions? That would run counter to the church's position over the years.

[LVAllen]

Does this particular law not allow any exceptions? That would run counter to the church's position over the years.

It's the most extreme anti-choice law in the entire country. Bans abortion from the moment of conception except to prevent death of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, as long as it happens in the 1st trimester and there's a police report. It's so extreme that it is currently enjoined from being enforced against a group of hospitals and physicians after a federal court determined it violated the duty to stabilize emergent patients.

Yes, it goes further than the Church's position.

[MartyFunkhouser]

It's the most extreme anti-choice law in the entire country. Bans abortion from the moment of conception except to prevent death of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, as long as it happens in the 1st trimester and there's a police report. It's so extreme that it is currently enjoined from being enforced against a group of hospitals and physicians after a federal court determined it violated the duty to stabilize emergent patients.

Yes, it goes further than the Church's position.

No matter what you think about abortion, the Idaho law is awful. It truly shows that the Idaho legislature doesn't give a damn about the health and safety of women.

[Northwestcoug]

Does this particular law not allow any exceptions? That would run counter to the church's position over the years.

This might be belaboring the point, but I want to make clear we are talking about standard of care procedures that are essential for the health of the mother in a minority of pregnancies. As my daughter is fond of saying, pregnancy is not benign. Among the many routine successful births she witnesses, she also sees devastating complications. There are a host of maladies that are miraculously staved off in most pregnancies. But when they occur, abortion care is needed to protect the mother. And when governments ban abortion care, the inevitable consequence is that a small percentage of problem pregnancies will not be adequately treated, and maternal care will suffer. I've linked stories of maternal morbidity and mortality that were a direct cause of newly enacted anti-abortion statutes; they will continue and get worse as obstetricians are banned from performing standard of care medicine.

The problem with most anti-abortion statutes is that politicians (and most people frankly) are ignorant of how abortion care has been politicized. And they are also privileged when they haven't witnessed severe complications of pregnancy. When you have politicians claiming that ectopic pregnancies can be reimplanted or restricting standard of care procedures as long as a heartbeat is present, it displays an astonishing lack of knowledge of neonatal medicine. There are just some pregnancies that are not destined to be successful. And many states have enacted legislation that not only does nothing to save those inevitable losses, but also leads to further complications in mothers. The church, by it's support of Idaho's law, has cost some mothers adequate obstetrical care.

And this isn't directed to you, but I want to talk about the baby killing trope. My daughter is stridently pro-choice. She has participated in elective abortions, and when she does it she feels like a needed advocate for those mothers. The abortions pale in comparison to the number of babies she has delivered. The cases that weigh on her mind and question her decision to become an OB/gyn are overwhelmingly the complications of a handful of births, in which she has tortured herself wondering if she could have done anything else to prevent bad outcomes. I trust that the vast majority of OB/gyns who participate in elective abortions practice medicine similarly, and they are dedicated to taking care of mothers and desired pregnancies. This seeming incongruity may be perplexing and incomprehensible to pro-life people, but it is reality. Most OB/gyns who willingly provide elective abortion services will also do everything possible to make sure babies are born healthy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This might be belaboring the point, but I want to make clear we are talking about standard of care procedures that are essential for the health of the mother in a minority of pregnancies. As my daughter is fond of saying, pregnancy is not benign. Among the many routine successful births she witnesses, she also sees devastating complications. There are a host of maladies that are miraculously staved off in most pregnancies. But when they occur, abortion care is needed to protect the mother. And when governments ban abortion care, the inevitable consequence is that a small percentage of problem pregnancies will not be adequately treated, and maternal care will suffer. I've linked stories of maternal morbidity and mortality that were a direct cause of newly enacted anti-abortion statutes; they will continue and get worse as obstetricians are banned from performing standard of care medicine.

The problem with most anti-abortion statutes is that politicians (and most people frankly) are ignorant of how abortion care has been politicized. And they are also privileged when they haven't witnessed severe complications of pregnancy. When you have politicians claiming that ectopic pregnancies can be reimplanted or restricting standard of care procedures as long as a heartbeat is present, it displays an astonishing lack of knowledge of neonatal medicine. There are just some pregnancies that are not destined to be successful. And many states have enacted legislation that not only does nothing to save those inevitable losses, but also leads to further complications in mothers. The church, by it's support of Idaho's law, has cost some mothers adequate obstetrical care.

And this isn't directed to you, but I want to talk about the baby killing trope. My daughter is stridently pro-choice. She has participated in elective abortions, and when she does it she feels like a needed advocate for those mothers. The abortions pale in comparison to the number of babies she has delivered. The cases that weigh on her mind and question her decision to become an OB/gyn are overwhelmingly the complications of a handful of births, in which she has tortured herself wondering if she could have done anything else to prevent bad outcomes. I trust that the vast majority of OB/gyns who participate in elective abortions practice medicine similarly, and they are dedicated to taking care of mothers and desired pregnancies. This seeming incongruity may be perplexing and incomprehensible to pro-life people, but it is reality. Most OB/gyns who willingly provide elective abortion services will also do everything possible to make sure babies are born healthy.

She sounds like a great doc. Good for her.

If only there was a way to find a middle ground here. I respect and appreciate those special cases, which are fairly common. At the same time, elective abortions of healthy babies are a de facto form of birth control for much of the modern world.

[Northwestcoug]

She sounds like a great doc. Good for her.

She is. And despite the many, many, many pounds of flesh she has extracted from me, I don't hesitate admitting she is in many ways a better doctor than I am.

[MartyFunkhouser]

She sounds like a great doc. Good for her.

If only there was a way to find a middle ground here. I respect and appreciate those special cases, which are fairly common. At the same time, elective abortions of healthy babies are a de facto form of birth control for much of the modern world.

We should find a middle ground, but politicians refuse to do that. They need to scream baby murderers on one side, while the other side is screaming that they hate all women. It is the same reason we can't get immigration reform passed, because the impasse is too valuable to politicians.

i hate elective abortion, but I also live in the real world. I've said it before. Let's solve this problem once and for all. Pick somewhere in the range of 12 weeks to 20 weeks. I would push for 16, but I could go lower. If a woman wants an abortion in that timeframe, she can have an abortion. After that cutoff time, abortion is available for the health and safety of the mother and to address serious fetal abnormalities that the baby is unlikely to survive from. The decision is made between the mother and her medical provider. Will some medical providers use that as a loophole to late term abortions, sure. We are never going to have a perfect solution.

However, in the very real scenario that 2 parents are given horrible news that the baby they want isn't going to survive and any time that the baby lives he or she will be in enormous pain, who I am to make the choice for those parents. Should a woman be forced to carry that baby knowing that she is basically the walking tomb for the baby that she wants? Knowing that her baby is going to suffer? The parents and doctor should be empowered to make that decision.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Speaking of abortion, this case is really interesting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/22/u...smid=url-share

Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday refused to intervene in a high-profile custody battle that involved difficult questions surrounding surrogacy and abortion, leaving in place a lower-court order that gave custody to the biological parents in the dispute.

The case drew national attention when a surrogate from Alaska refused to have an abortion after the fetus she was carrying was diagnosed with a serious heart problem. She eventually traveled to Texas and gave birth to the child over the initial objections of the parents, a couple from California.

The baby boy was born in August. He received open-heart surgery and has been in a pediatric intensive care unit at a hospital in Dallas, where the couple have also been living to be with him.

Baby is now born and first surgery was successful. Sounds like he will eventually need a couple more. So the legal parents tried to get the surrogate mother to abort and she refused. Now the baby is here and the parents sued to gain custody and have vowed to raise the kid and give him the medical care he needs.

Surrogacy is so messy.