Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So even if a woman is in danger of dying, she can't get an abortion?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:37 PM
Original message
So even if a woman is in danger of dying, she can't get an abortion?
I cannot get my mind around that right there. Regardless of one's feelings on late term abortion or on abortion in general, there is absolutely no reason to omit an exemption for cases when a woman's life is in danger should she carry her pregnancy to term. I repeat: NO REASON.

I sincerely hope I'm mistaken and I look forward to being corrected by someone in the know. My understanding of this law, as I have read in many articles, is that it does not include an exemption for cases in which the woman's life is in jeopardy. Please tell me this isn't so. I cannot bear to even consider the implications of a government that, in effect, has just signed a death warrant for thousands of women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Phredicles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's the Culture of Life in action;
enjoy!:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. There is a LIFE exception, but not a HEALTH exception. The problem, though, is where the line is.
Is eclampsia life-threatening? Is severe depression? How immediate does this threat need to be -- imminent or just eventual?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Wealthy Women Will Simply Go to Canada
or elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. True...politicians write these laws knowing damn well they'll never have to worry about them.
Most of them are men, and most of the women in Congress are beyond child-bearing age, and in any case, if a spouse or mistress or daughter of theirs needed an abortion, they can afford to have one no matter what the law is here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. This is the key to the attitudes on the right. Money BUYS rights.
Edited on Wed Apr-18-07 01:44 PM by TahitiNut
"Rights' are yielding to entitlements - a class-based society. Privacy ONLY if it's purchased and reproductive control ONLY if purchased. In a very true sense, it's perverted prostitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
16. Ummmm, you do know that D&E's are not something that women
choose to do except in very rare cases. It is usually done to save the live or the health of the mother, which is usually an emergency situation. Your comment makes no sense in this instance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
19. This is the part that leaves me lost
Does a woman have to be on her deathbed before they'll permit the procedure? Is the simple fact that carrying to term going mean she may never recover not enough? What if carrying to term could mean that the woman would end up on life support for the rest of her life after the child is born?

I'm very fuzzy on the details of what they just ruled on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eyesroll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Yeah, that's unclear.
Also: What constitutes a risk to life? Must it be certain she'd die without it? Is a 50% risk of death enough? 10%? And what if there was a 100% chance she'd die if kept pregnant, but a 50% chance she'd die if she had a pre-viability c-section (which is still allowed as a form of abortion) but only a minimal chance she'd die after an intact D&E? Must she have the c-section?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
4. Doctors will be afraid to do what they need to do to save the life of the mother.
That is the worst part of this. They will be thinking in the back of their minds about who gets to judge them later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramapo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
5. Requires major surgery
There is a specific procedure banned. A woman could still undergo abdominal surgery. Sure it is much more dangerous but that doesn't matter to the zealots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. So in other words....
More dangerous means that, statistically, more women will die. I assume the people who support such a thing believe they "deserve" it? :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. These freaks believe that any woman who wants her fetus dead and gone,
Edited on Wed Apr-18-07 01:52 PM by kestrel91316
no matter how badly deformed it is, deserves to die.

It's that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. That will be the next thing the radicals go after.
Any surgery resulting in fetal termination or for the purpose of termination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
6. No health exemption is why it wound up in SCOTUS. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. You're not mistaken. The RWers are having an orgasm over this ruling, no doubt.
However, I just cannot imagine any ETHICAL doctor would let a woman die if he/she knew carrying to full term would kill her. Now, a RW religious wacko nut job doctor WOULD gladly do that, but not a doctor who is ethical and of a sound mind.

This just means coat hangers will become a commodity now.:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
11. Sure. She just has to have a saline abortion
and go completely through labor. If that endangers her life, oh well, she's only a woman, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ramapo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Yep, choose your poison
Now will there be a case that requires a woman to have the banned procedure in order to protect her life? Is there an institution and medical team with the guts to violate the law in order to save the woman? I'd like to see a case prosecuted and hope that there are enough people out there who would actually give a damn and rise up in support of those involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. According to the Constitution or to the Roberts Court?
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:53 PM
Response to Original message
14. But, but, but
she can buy a glock and take out a few fellow humans with her. As long as she doesn't have an abortion, it's A OK. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. Is THAT INSANE or what???!!!!!
It's all so illogical! They support gun ownership, the death penalty, WAR, and letting a woman die in order to save a fetus that may or may not survive?:crazy:

This country is in big trouble with this SCOTUS. Justice Kennedy really fucked up on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rocknrule Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
15. You might be a fundie if...
you think an unborn fetus is more of a person than the woman carrying it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
17. That's correct..
what's more is, I have a friend who was carrying twins who had to have that particular procedure done on one baby to save the other, so I guess under the new law, both the babies and the mother would probably die.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jedicord Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-18-07 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
23. Way back when we had an elected President...
Clinton vetoed a similar law, mainly because of the fact that it had no clause for the health of the woman carrying the fetus.

That law also had a stipulation that the father and grandparents of the fetus could sue the mother and the doctor for damages. This stipulation had me more angry - the wishes of the mother did not even have the rights that the father or the grandparents had. Does this law also contain this stipulation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC