How Would A Rape/Incest Exception For Abortion Work?

LOL... RBG has the same opinion that I share, and it horrifies you to suddenly realize how ridiculous your position is within the context of the law. You seem to still believe in the theory that if law doesn't reflect your wishes, it's problematic. How about just going to a state, like CA where all of your happiness could be ensured. They allow abortion even after the child is borne, or did you forget?

Sorry, your worries are yours. I suggest you could try creating a consensus for your views, and try the correct process which is legislation. Having someone with your views simply dictate it from the bench doesn't seem very democratic, and isn't that really the problem? That you can't just tell folks what to do and think?

 

True. Even in TX. And in TX should you be raped or suffer incest, there are alternatives, you just don't like admitting these things. But hey, your feelz... and that's all you really worry about. not the law, not the effects of your tyranny on others, just your feelz. So, you rail, endlessly. It is tiring...

Janet Yellen said aloud what so many in the plantation expect. I just applied it to you. You can't demonstrate an actual harm. You cannot claim that the medical advances of the day will almost entirely solve for your claim of harm vis a vis mother's deaths, etc. You haven't been able to demonstrate the reason why unencumbered lives are more "successful" other than to admit that the real motivation is making sure young women enter the work force instead of being mothers. Sorry these truths effect you so.

 

Demonstrate that any women would die because of this policy. Or did you simply want to deny medical science exists....

 

Why not actually use the law? Have a rape kit. Show the incident occurred as claimed. Charge the rapist/family member for their crimes. Actually punish the perps. No?

 

why not just let the woman and her doctor figure it out, the government has no business in this

if the woman wants to go to the cops, that is a separate issue

 

I just don't get the BS you guys peddle. Do you just insist on your ability to rape and incest at will, and make women victims and have to rely on third party medical treatment to fix them from these assaults? Why do you not also want what is in the best interests of society here? Why wouldn't you punish the perps of these crimes? Or don't you think they are crimes?

 

I just don't get the BS you guys peddle, if you don't want an abortion, don't get one

why would the right want to punish rape victims?

 

No, that is false. RGB noted the weakness of Roe, but unlike you she did not see that as a justification for reversing that decision.

And, that is the important part, obviously.

 

But we have no choice but to live in a country and in a culture where abortions are allowed.

 

yep, freedom and all that... no fascist theocracy allowed in a free society

 

This is total sophistry. And, once again you choose to argue by accusing me of stuff I've not said - or even addressed!!

Abortion in cases of rape and incest is limited by Texas law both in terms of a short deadline for a decision under traumatic circumstances and by the elimination of abortion facilities. Also, by establishing a bounty on women Texas has ensured there are dangers in searching for abortion services.

Women, including in Texas, are motivated to become educated, to have careers, to work to support themselves, etc. - exactly as are men. There is NO question that teens removed from school due to pregnancy is a huge hit on these goals. Plus, women in Texas DO have to work to support themselves and if pregnant must also incur the cost of pre/post natal care.

Claiming this is some sort of work force argument is just about as derogatory of women as you could possibly design.

 

Did this country have a "fascist theocracy" prior to 1973?

 

I've cited on that specific topic.

The issue is whether doctors are allowed to carry out the solutions specified by medical science - by standard of care.

The question remaining is whether the standard of care may be applied without the doctor, hospital or woman being criminally charged.

In the cites above are cases where doctors are consulting lawyers, hospital boards and prosecutors to determine if they can do what medical science specifies to ensure their patient survives.

 

Really? What are the indications that the right wing will allow abortions?

Let's remember that Justice Thomas has even called for an end to contraception in his official decision vs. Roe.

We've already seen the end of any consideration for rape and incest victims. We've seen the forced closure of abortion facilities. We've seen states working to extend their laws to cover those who have abortions in other states. We've seen these laws threatening doctors who have to judge criminal law vs standard of care for keeping patients alive - causing medical decisions to be made by lawyers, hospital boards and prosecutors as doctors contemplate prison time for saving their patients. Etc.

I really don't see any justification for your claim that abortions will be allowed.

In fact, that's especially true for those who don't have the money to escape state authority.

 

I really don't believe there has ever been a time in America where abortion law wasn't based on religious belief of those with enough power to create that law.

Today, over 70% of evangelical Christians want there to be laws preventing abortion.

That's a significant force.

Consider that the majority of Americans are on the pro-choice side of this, yet the political realities of their representation in legislatures means we get the Supreme Court we have, the end of Roe, and increasingly harsh laws against women in the effort to end abortion.

 

you mean did they have Christian that wanted to do bad things like thinking they had a God given right to own slaves in the past... sure

 

No I meant exactly what I posted not the words you chose to put in my mouth.

 

When did Justice Thomas do that? I though he merely floated the possibility?

 

what did you post, you asked me a question

you said : "Did this country have a "fascist theocracy" prior to 1973?"

and I said did you mean these early Christians...... they seemed pretty fascist to me

 

For ordinary rape, there are two possibilities. One possibility is abortion is allowed for a very early window during the earliest period of gestation. A woman who has been the victim of rape has more opportunity to get an abortion earlier than a woman who is just having continual sex. (This has been discussed in other threads)

The other possibility might require a police report to be filed. Or it might require some kind of collaborating evidence that she was indeed raped, in which case there would inevitably be some raped women who would not be able to get abortions, and/or women might have to take more precautions like they do in Muslim Middle Eastern countries, being escorted by friends so there are witnesses around them at all times.

In any case, a woman might have a limited window to file a police report. If she files a police report that she was raped, but she is already 3 months pregnant, they are likely to deny approval for the abortion.

For incest, it's possible they might only allow abortion if the male relative is prosecuted. They can take a DNA sample from the fetus, and find out which family member it matches.

We can make the argument that she does not really "need" abortion if the family member who is molesting her is not prosecuted. She will just continue to be molested and probably keep getting impregnated again, whether or not she is allowed to get this abortion this one time.

 

I'm not the one pushing the labor force argument. Democrats are. I'm simply using the observation that democrats expect poor folks to have abortions rather than have children, which is entirely different than the case for allowing women to terminate based on rape or incest.

My advice? Think before you have sex. If, as you say, teens take a "huge hit", well, then they should consider it before they engage. We shouldn't have to offer killing unborn children as a solution for irresponsibility.

 

As noted, doctors all have the ability to rectify things in cases of health and survivability of the mother. Why do you insist on calling financial or future success as a "medical necessity" then. You know it's dishonest at best. The real question is that folks breaking the law to "cure" their "huge hit" as you suggested earlier is a standard in the law that has been removed. But, as is the case, the medical "care" here is thus reportable, and has been endlessly explained, chargeable. The breathlessness of what is already covered in the law seems unnecessary at best.

The real assertion not dealt with here is that folks like you have been suggesting women will die. The obvious answer is no. Why would they? Medical services are better now than in the 1940s, wouldn't you agree? So explain again why women then might be at risk?

 

.
And so you really do want American women treated like animals as Taliban countries do...your sympathy lies there along with the poster who gave this a "Like".

So you , and the poster who gave you a "Like" seem to like that out come.......how sick and twisted is that !!!

 

In his concurring decision on Roe he states clearly that the grounds for eliminating Roe also apply to past decisions on same sex marriage, sodomy and contraception.

He calls for revisiting these past rulings in light of his call to eliminate the basis by which these are protected today.

Beyond that, it appears pretty clear that his views would extend far more broadly - that those were just the cases he called out specifically. For example, do individuals have a right to ANY personal healthcare decision making? Why?

Justice Thomas writes in his Roe decision:

 

No, Dems are absolutely NOT saying that. YOU are saying that. And, you are obviously wrong. One can find why women have abortions. They can be ASKED!! Now, what you need to do is to try to accept what they are saying.

As for teens, how about you spending some time convincing teens that they shouldn't have sex? LOL!

But, on the reality front, conservatives are working HARD to ensure that teens are LESS informed and have LESS access to contraceptives.