On abortion

[Non Sequitur]

Here's an idea for SCJ: Know when to retire. If you decide to remain on the court until you die then you may be screwing your preferred party.

So, you think that SCJ decisions should be tied to political party affiliation? Spoken like a true conservative.

[Moliere]

So, you think that SCJ decisions should be tied to political party affiliation? Spoken like a true conservative.

If you put term limits on scotus you’ll make it even more partisan than it is now.

[Shaka]

So, you think that SCJ decisions should be tied to political party affiliation? Spoken like a true conservative.

I think it should be tied to the interpretation of the Constitution. However, the political leanings of the justices is going to be a factor in that interpretation. It's been that way for a loooooooooooong time. Don't act like liberal justices are the bastion of non-political interpretation of the constitution.

[All-American]

If you put term limits on scotus you’ll make it even more partisan than it is now.

Term limits for judges is an accommodation for something that should never have happened but may be too late to put back in the bag.

[Northwestcoug]

If you put term limits on scotus you’ll make it even more partisan than it is now.

This has been said before but I still don’t understand it. Nominations are a once in a lifetime achievement which potentially alters the court for a generation or more. The political stakes couldn’t be higher. How is that less partisan than judges who will only be in the court for a few years?

[Non Sequitur]

I think it should be tied to the interpretation of the Constitution. However, the political leanings of the justices is going to be a factor in that interpretation. It's been that way for a loooooooooooong time. Don't act like liberal justices are the bastion of non-political interpretation of the constitution.

There is a huge difference between political leanings and political loyalty. I would hate it if I thought a liberal justice ruled based on party loyalty.

[Northwestcoug]

Here is a sobering article on the inevitability of maternal deaths when severe limits are placed on abortion:

https://www.propublica.org/article/g...-thurman-death

tl:dr: A Georgia mother of a 6 year-old went to North Carolina to have a medically induced first trimester abortion, since it's illegal in Georgia. The NC clinic was already overflowing with out of state patients, so this woman didn't get adequate follow-up. She returned home and began having signs of a septic abortion (when products of conception haven't been completely expelled and an infection starts). Doctors delayed a D&E, the standard of care with retained products of conception, under the cloud of Georgia's law that makes it illegal to use any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy". Since the poorly written law makes it unclear what part of gynecologic care for fetal death is still legal in that state, the standard of care was delayed until it was too late. She then died from a completely preventable illness.

This literally exemplifies the fact that abortions will continue to happen irrespective of laws. And the fallout is reverberating to non-abortion care. Witness half the maternal-fetal medicine specialists leaving Idaho once their restrictive abortion law was passed.

[myboynoah]

Just horrible.

[Northwestcoug]

Another state’s extreme anti-abortion laws literally kill a woman needlessly. If the previous propublica article about a mother’s death didn’t move the needle for America (that woman was seeking a legal abortion), maybe a married mother with a desired pregnancy will? Maybe not, she was an immigrant.

https://www.propublica.org/article/j...s-abortion-ban

tl:dr Mother of one was 17 weeks pregnant and she began labor. The chances of that fetus surviving to a deliverable age were literally zero. Standard of care is to hasten delivery, by both medical and surgical procedures. But because ostensibly pro-life politicians in Texas inow better, they crafted a bullshit law that makes it a crime for doctors to intervene as long as there is a heartbeat. So this woman languished in the hospital, staff doing regular ultrasounds to check for a heartbeat, but only giving supportive care. Once the heart stopped beating they delivered the fetus, but not before an ascending infection took hold and ultimately killed the mother three days later. 100% preventable.

I’m sure Ted Cruz’s statement that ‘pregnancy is not a life threatening illness’ got the intended response from the extreme pro-life crowd. But now that they got their power and enshrined their extreme views in multiple states, pregnancy for too many is going to revert to the tenuous condition that humanity dealt with just a few generations ago.

This is the inevitable end result of leaving the abortion issue up to the states. Are elected officials smart enough to make health care decisions? Get used to it America.

[All-American]

Another state’s extreme anti-abortion laws literally kill a woman needlessly. If the previous propublica article about a mother’s death didn’t move the needle for America (that woman was seeking a legal abortion), maybe a married mother with a desired pregnancy will? Maybe not, she was an immigrant.

https://www.propublica.org/article/j...s-abortion-ban

tl:dr Mother of one was 17 weeks pregnant and she began labor. The chances of that fetus surviving to a deliverable age were literally zero. Standard of care is to hasten delivery, by both medical and surgical procedures. But because ostensibly pro-life politicians in Texas inow better, they crafted a bullshit law that makes it a crime for doctors to intervene as long as there is a heartbeat. So this woman languished in the hospital, staff doing regular ultrasounds to check for a heartbeat, but only giving supportive care. Once the heart stopped beating they delivered the fetus, but not before an ascending infection took hold and ultimately killed the mother three days later. 100% preventable.

I’m sure Ted Cruz’s statement that ‘pregnancy is not a life threatening illness’ got the intended response from the extreme pro-life crowd. But now that they got their power and enshrined their extreme views in multiple states, pregnancy for too many is going to revert to the tenuous condition that humanity dealt with just a few generations ago.

This is the inevitable end result of leaving the abortion issue up to the states. Are elected officials smart enough to make health care decisions? Get used to it America.

For purposes of this discussion, does it matter that the abortion unquestionably would have been legal even under the law of Texas as it existed over three years ago, which is when this happened?

[Northwestcoug]

For purposes of this discussion, does it matter that the abortion unquestionably would have been legal even under the law of Texas as it existed over three years ago, which is when this happened?

Huh? I haven’t verified the dates, but the article says this:

But Texas’ new abortion ban had just gone into effect. It required physicians to confirm the absence of a fetal heartbeat before intervening unless there was a “medical emergency,” which the law did not define. It required doctors to make written notes on the patient’s condition and the reason abortion was necessary.

The law did not account for the possibility of a future emergency, one that could develop in hours or days without intervention, doctors told ProPublica.

Barnica was technically still stable. But lying in the hospital with her cervix open wider than a baseball left her uterus exposed to bacteria and placed her at high risk of developing sepsis, experts told ProPublic

are you saying the heartbeat provision wasn’t law then in Texas?

[All-American]

Huh? I haven’t verified the dates, but the article says this:



are you saying the heartbeat provision wasn’t law then in Texas?

No, I'm saying the heartbeat provision would not have precluded the abortion.

[Northwestcoug]

No, I'm saying the heartbeat provision would not have precluded the abortion.

That’s not how I’m reading it. The new law said that unless it was a medical emergency (it technically wasn’t at that time), doctors had to confirm the absence of a heartbeat before any intervention. That’s why they were treating supportively and constantly checking for a heartbeat, delaying necessary care because of the law.

what am I missing?

[All-American]

That’s not how I’m reading it. The new law said that unless it was a medical emergency (it technically wasn’t at that time), doctors had to confirm the absence of a heartbeat before any intervention. That’s why they were treating supportively and constantly checking for a heartbeat, delaying necessary care because of the law.

what am I missing?

The applicable statutory definition of “medical emergency.”

Though in fairness, it’s not you missing it. The statute is missing it. There isn’t one.

But then, you can’t say it “technically” wasn’t an emergency if there isn’t a technical definition. A medical emergency is what the doctor says, and writes down. This absolutely was a medical emergency and should have been treated as such.

[Northwestcoug]

The applicable statutory definition of “medical emergency.”

Well I'll let you parse the legal definition of it. But there is one reason why that mother is dead. The abortion law that didn't allow medical professionals treat her with the standard of care.