Thirteen-year-old girl is forced to give birth under Mississippi abortion ban

There is no confusion here. The healthcare decisions of a person under the age of 18 (or as the state prescribes) belong to the parents or legal guardian.

I may not agree with the parent's decision on healthcare (such as refusal of transfusions, denial of medicine, and other stuff we see today). But, these issues ARE covered.

The state is simply not qualified to take away healthcare rights.

 

Still under the act - and why “iffy”? It was nowhere near viable and medication abortion is used up to 12 weeks.

https://time.com/6303701/a-rape-in-mississippi/

 

No, you don't know that. Not all prosecutors are like that. Some are more willing to tackle the big, complex cases because it's the right thing to do and they thrive on the challenge. Gov prosecutors aren't this dull, spineless, monolith you are characterizing them as.

 

This case demonstrates that your idea here doesn't work.

The youngster in question did not have the sex ed to suspect that she could be pregnant.

 

She WAS allowed. Someone lied to them.

 

Doctors can NOT bet their medical licenses, their entire career's as doctors, on your ridiculous excuse.

 

Not the fault of the law. The fault lies with the people who let partisanship reign in order to push a pro-abortion agenda.

 

The report, from the charity Save the Children, highlights the fact that girls under the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy than women in their 20s, and that babies born to younger mothers are also at greater risk.

That is saying it's much more likely to kill you if you are pregnant girl 13 than if you are 20 and older.

That is what it is saying to me. What does it say to you?

 

It's funny that you two are arguing that a overzealous prosecutor that wants to make a name for themselves and tackle cases "because its the right thing to do" would try and prosecute in this instance despite the law being clear and that you don't apply the same logic to doctors.

But here's the thing. The law IS clear. There IS NO AMBIGUITY to it. None. Notta. Zilch. Based on that alone and without using any hypothetical "overzealous prosecutor" psychic future telling possibility we can say definitively and objectively say that this 13 year old could have gotten a legal abortion PER THE LAW. The fault does not lie with the law. It might lay with the people. But the law itself is not at fault.

 

You don't get to decide what is "too much" danger.

You don't get to decide if it is perfectly OK for the girl to no longer be capable of natural birth.

You don't get to decide the harm done by forcing a girl to carry a rape fetus.

Those decisions are not yours to make, unless YOU are the person raped.

 

And this has been some of the issue. Because the process is not clear cut medical staff are being guided by lawyers nd THEY are the ones determining if intervention should occur. That is why the lawsuit is happening in Texas so some definitions and or guidelines can be determined

 

This is an ABSURD distinction.

Plus, you are adding facts not in evidence.

The issue isn't "could have gotten".

The issue is can she get an abortion from a doctor who could not possibly be prosecuted?

Plus, this DOES add into the Republican insistence that girls who can get pregnant should not learn about that fact in school, in order to be protected from Republican law.

 

And it is NOT the birth that is killing them it is hypertension - specifically eclampsia (or more accurately HELLP spectrum)

 

Could she get an abortion TODAY? I mean, right now on Aug 16, 2023?

If not, why not?

 

The doctors are being guided by lawyers who's sole job is to protect the hospital and cost them as little money as possible. They're not looking out for the interests of any doctor themselves, and they certainly are not looking out for the interests of the patients.

While the law in Texas might be ambiguous (don't know as I haven't looked into it), the law in Mississippi is not. Even to plain people.

 

The answer is "yes".

There is no such position in the Republican platform. The Republican platform is teaching abstinence, which necessitates that girls be taught that having sex can lead to pregnancy. Try again.

 

Nope. Because she already had the child.

 

If it were so clear why was this girl not able to obtain an abortion?

 

Okay then - what is the likelihood that a similar situation will occur again?

 

Because someone lied to her.

 

For a 13 year old to get raped. Highly likely. The law is the same.

 

Abstinence has been shown to be a complete failure in terms of reducing pregnancy.

 

your understanding of the term "crime" sucks big time. . It's a failure of the PARENTS not the GOP. And the law allows abortion in cases of rape. whenever a 13 year old become pregnant-by definition RAPE has occurred. I realize you have an unbridled hatred for the GOP, but your anger is both specious and misplaced

 

I am agnostic but I don't bash people of faith. Then again, I don't do stuff that causes the majority of people of faith to call my lifestyle "sinful". Most of those who constantly bash Christians tend to be those who are overly concerned about the religious right calling them sinners

 

The article claims there is no process for applying for a rape exemption from Mississippi law.

Can you show what the process is?