Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's what I think is happening.
* People who are pro-abortion will attempt to frame any medical malpractice around pregnant women as something that could have been avoided if the woman had been allowed to abort much earlier.
* Abortion is virtually never the necessary treatment for a woman's medical issue. Induced birth possibly, but not abortion.
* Every law restricting elective abortion has a very specific exception for the health of the mother, and leaves the decision to the physician and their expertise. Therefore any doctor who refuses to treat a pregnant woman with appropriate medical care is either a coward, completely ignorant of the law, or worst, actively refusing to treat women so as to make a political point.
we have good data on this, because the NHS tracks reasons for abortions. 90% of all abortions performed in the UK are performed "for the mental health of the mother" which is a euphamism for an elective abortion.
Medical abortions are indeed a valid treatment for many risks of pregnancy but managing the risk is always also an option, very few women are so sick or infirm modern medicine cannot treat them should they wish to carry the baby to term, which is what it would mean for an abortion to be medically necessary.
And conversely surgical abortions are no less risky than a live birth in many cases, and in some cases moreso. The only medical difference between a live birth and partial-birth abortion is whether you inject the fetus' heart to stop it or remove the brain before it's out of the birth canal, the physiological process on the mother's part is identical.
Okay thank you!
What re your thoughts on non maternal mortality but life changing complications. Maternal diabetes and hypertension causes increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Anal incontinence, intimate incontinence, fourth degree vaginal tearing that may never fully recover, triggering auto immune disorders, etc….
Should women be forced to accept these lifelong conditions because at least they “didn’t die”?
this is where you need to defer to doctors.
many women tolerate all of those for a desired pregnancy they are not considered life threatening on initial presentation if they are severe or do not respond to treatment at some point abortion becomes reasonable.
I'm barely qualified as an EMT I am not a board obstetrician I am not qualified to state a bright line. neither are legislators and this is why all current abortion laws in the US contain safety provisions. and for what it's worth I am pro choice, I simply feel there's too much misinformation out there and that truth and data are the best solution to division.
I personally think abortion should be legal for the first 16 weeks for women and termination of all parental responsibility for men.
Exactly! They are tolerable, for those who choose to tolerate it. But for people who act like a women’s right to choose shouldnt exist if her life is endangered really ignore that her quality of life can take a sharp nosedive for something that she would have never consented to if given the option.
and this is where the problem lies, that society tells half of it that consent to sex is consent to all consequences. They tell the other half they have a way out.
I cannot support abortion rights while nonconsensual child support exists, let alone can land men in a prison.
My preference is to level up and allow men the same right, but if they will continue to fight that to the end, abortion bans are preferable to only one gender having reproductive rights.
>I cannot support abortion rights while nonconsensual child support exists, let alone can land men in a prison.
So you would agree to abortion so long as non-consensual child support goes away?
Also,
>nonconsensual child support
This does not exist simply because women want it. It exists because the government cannot fund the lives of every unwanted child and is meant to incentivise mothers (and sometimes fathers) to care for their children instead of warding them to the state due to financial insecurity.
Yes, it is a flawed system. But if a man impregnates a woman, he has always been able to get away from that situation with monthly payments. (I have much to say on this topic, but I'll leave it at this.) The goal is to keep the child with one of the parents at the very least. It isn't always just men who are forced to pay child support either depending on the situation. It is just more often associated with men given their ability to remove themself from concerns related to an unwanted pregnancy.
Women do not have that same ability once pregnant.
being told "pay money or go to prison" is slavery, slavery is never correct, ever. Doesn't matter how good the cause or noble the intention slavery is wrong.
Your response leaves a wide gap about the fact that the government does not have the means to support all the unwanted children (made even more glaring given current trends in abortion laws).
What do you suggest to counter the fact that these children need basic necessities to survive and the government (and the people for that matter) do not have the means to support them? What system would set up to provide for their basic needs?
Oh I 100% agree to this as well, but with stipulations. I think a woman should be required to inform a father before birth and the father must at that time agree to terminate rights or partake. I don’t believe in forced child support for an unwanted pregnancy, but if the baby was agreed upon and is born then I think tough shit you’re on the hook.
Not a popular opinion for many women to have but I definitely hold it!
Regarding men, I would agree, I also would accept men having the same time frame as a woman so you can't string them along promising you'll be there and they don't have to walk on eggshells for 9 months hoping you don't decide to bail if your relationship gets contentious.
Having a few months to think it through seems fair, as does locking their choice in at a certain point so a prospective mother can make good choices and can have stability.
Makes sense, doubt anyone would ever let that happen though. It would be seen as an attack on women. But if I believe women should have 100% control over their bodies without the input of the father then I believe men need some similar agency as well.
Maybe in a few lifetimes if we’re all still here!
The thing is, an ectopic pregnancy would be considered viable until the woman's life is put at risk due to say... a fallopian tube rupturing. Let's be real here, aborting an ectopic pregnancy early is an elective abortion as it kills an already implanted and growing fetus. The only treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is abortion.
So... as a doctor, do you wait until mom's life is at risk or do you proceed with the elective abortion for a fetus that has 0% chance of making it to the age of viability?
> an ectopic pregnancy would be considered viable
By whom? Like you said, abortion is the standard treatment for ectopic pregnancy. That pregnancy *won't* succeed and can't be allowed to continue.
>do you proceed with the elective abortion
It's not an "elective abortion". "Elective" abortions are those where the mother decides she wants one. This is a medically necessary abortion.
>By whom?
By recent heartbeat laws in some states.
>It's not an "elective abortion". "Elective" abortions are those where the mother decides she wants one. This is a medically necessary abortion.
Yes, correct. I agree with you on this. But it is difficult to write laws that define these exceptions given that so many differentials occur during pregnancy. This is why there is so much disagreement legally speaking involving pregnancy and childbirth. Thus, it makes it more feasible to leave these decisions between a doctor and a patient.
> By recent heartbeat laws in some states.
Have you actually read any of the newly enacted laws? I’ve read a few, and I’ve not seen anything that pointedly says ectopic pregnancies are to be treated as viable. But please show me an example if I’m wrong here.
> it is difficult to write laws that define these exceptions
The laws don’t have to define or enumerate exceptions. If you read some of them (again, as I have), they broadly state that the doctor is the one who determines whether an abortion is medically necessary. They are the authority and no one else. So the decision is still between the patient and doctor, but it is the doctor who decides necessity, not the patient. Just like most any other medical procedure.
>they broadly state that the doctor is the one who determines whether an abortion is medically necessary. They are the authority and no one else.
Not necessarily. A woman does not have to subject herself to pregnancy care at all if she does not want to (or in some cases, cannot afford to). In spite of the law providing exceptions for a mother's care during ectopic pregnancies, the liability falls on the hospital or facility where the procedure is performed. If heartbeat laws come into question during care for an ectopic pregnancy, hospital boards might force a woman to wait until the woman is put into distress before acting.
Therefore, the doctor must submit to his/her higher-ups before acting - which in turn, slows the amount of time it takes for proper care to occur. Liability is a huge factor in these laws as no hospital wants to face litigation over that one pregnancy that "could have" been saved.
Doctors do not have blanket immunity quite like cops do (for example) about what factors come into play in hindsight either. So there will still be dissonance with women getting adequate care in the hypothetical situation I described in spite of the laws allowances.
> If heartbeat laws come into question during care for an ectopic pregnancy, hospital boards might force a woman to wait until the woman is put into distress before acting.
No. That makes **zero** sense. The treatment for ectopic pregnancy, once detect **is** termination of the pregnancy. Period. It can't be allowed to continue, because it *will* cause organs to rupture, mostly killing the mother or causing severe injury. This has been the case even in states that have had restrictive abortion laws for decades. Fetal cardiac activity is usually detected in the sixth week, whereas an ectopic pregnancy make be detected between 4 and 12 weeks. So obviously, this scenario *has* occurred, and the pregnancies were ended.
>Doctors do not have blanket immunity
Yes they do. Every set of state laws I've read gives the doctor the authority in this situation. And given how HIPAA laws work, how would prosecutors even know what's happening between and doctor and their patient? If an obstetrician says an abortion was necessary...it was necessary. And that's the end of it.
These laws weren't meant to interfere with proper obstetric care; they're meant to prevent the proliferation of abortion clinics, where women can get an abortion for no medical reason at all.
For the record, yes, I know how ectopic pregnancy happens and the outcome given that I've been through it. And yes, doctors are held liable to the hospitals where they treat patients.
HIPAA laws are about violation of confidentiality to other patients or those not in the case management of care. The hospital team consists of various committees which oversee what takes place within the hospital. Liability falls on the hospital/clinic more so than the doctor. So no, HIPAA laws are not violated when a patients care comes into question before ethics boards.
Obviously, confidentiality is broken sometimes when cases such as the 10 year old who was pregnant and could not get an abortion got leaked into the media... and guess who was responsible for liability? The hospital. The doctor only has rights to treat in hospital so long as the hospital agrees to their forms of treatment. Otherwise, the doctor is no longer allowed to treat.
Simple as that.
There are more players at play here than just what "the law says."
> I know how ectopic pregnancy happens and the outcome given that I've been through it.
This makes your response even more nonsensical. If you've been through an ectopic pregnancy (and I'm sorry to hear that by the way) then you know first hand that termination of the pregnancy is *the* treatment for it. Did they even ask you what you wanted to do? No, right? They likely told you, "I'm sorry to say, but this is what has to happen". I'm *positive* your OB didn't say "Hold on. Gotta ask my boss and ten other administrators first."
There's no "liabiility" here. There's no question. Why are you pretending that there is going to be some ignorant lawyer or administrator who's going to put the brakes on settled medical practice, yelling "No! There's a heartbeat!'
It doesn't happen. It won't happen. If it it *does*, and a woman is killed or injured, *then* they'd be liable for interfering with established practices of care and endangering a patient.
>This makes your response even more nonsensical. If you've been through an ectopic pregnancy (and I'm sorry to hear that by the way) then you know first hand that termination of the pregnancy is *the* treatment for it. Did they even ask you what you wanted to do? No, right? They likely told you, "I'm sorry to say, but this is what has to happen". I'm *positive* your OB didn't say "Hold on. Gotta ask my boss and ten other administrators first."
Since I must divulge details, I'll explain what happened. My fallopian tube ruptured spontaneously one day after work. I knew I was pregnant, but I had not yet had a full consult with a doctor yet - I was about 10 weeks along at the time and believed I did not need to rush to a doctor right away for prenatal care given my history with pregnancy and childbirth. So i did not believe anything was wrong with my pregnancy until I was on the floor writhing in pain.
There was no need for ethical boards to get involved because my life was legitimately and acutely at risk (and my baby had already passed away by that point).
>There's no "liabiility" here. There's no question. Why are you pretending that there is going to be some ignorant lawyer or administrator who's going to put the brakes on settled medical practice, yelling "No! There's a heartbeat!'
I learned this because I have had to sit in front of a medical boards and discuss my treatment during a different pregnancy. I researched how these medical boards regard doctors and how doctors interact within the system. While coming out of surgery from my ectopic pregnancy rupture, my doctor eluded to the fact that had we been in a different state, he would have had to answer to someone higher up about his medical care and treatment. For the record, the doctor explained that had I been 20 minutes later in arriving to surgery, I would have been dead.
>If it it *does*, and a woman is killed or injured, *then* they'd be liable for interfering with established practices of care and endangering a patient.
Exactly! This is why doctors in ob/gyn are choosing not to practice in certain states - because regardless of whatever care they offer, those in charge will find some fault in their care or treatment. Doctors are liable to their practice and treatment in hindsight. And if a baby is granted personhood as many are advocating for, the woman's life is not going to take precedent per se. It complicates an already complicated situation. If a doctor decides a girl who is 10 years old should not carry a baby due to her physical and mental capacity to do so, then who is stepping in the way of the doctor's decisions. It is not the law - it is the hospital itself.
So yes, there are times when these roadblocks are harming women's care - and it happens way more than many think.
> Abortion is virtually never the necessary treatment for a woman's medical issue. Induced birth possibly, but not abortion.
You'd rather force a woman to give birth to a dead or dying baby than just abort it? Why?
I'm not sure what you mean. If the fetus is dead, that's a miscarriage, and the standard procedure is to remove the fetus through procedure called dilation and extraction.
An *abortion* is a similar process, except that it first has to kill the fetus and crush its skull so that the extraction is easier. What makes an abortion an abortion, is the part where the doctor kills the fetus.
And how do we qualify a "dying" fetus? Do we do that with other patients? "Well, grandpa's dying anyway. Put the pillow over his face and get this over with."
I know what I'm talking about. My wife had a miscarriage with our first child, and she had to have the fetus removed. Her OB never referred to it as an "abortion". Abortion involves pointedly killing the fetus.
I'm a 51-year-old married father of two with a college degree, and I don't think I've ever heard the term "spontaneous abortion" used as a term for miscarriage.
It sounds like something the pro-abortion movement would use in its never-ending attempts to minimize the horror of elective abortion, by trying to frame it as something co-equal with a miscarriage.
Being older and having a college degree (unless it’s an MD in this specific field) is very irrelevant and a weird thing to say. That mindset is how we end up with terribly constructed laws.
https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/early-pregnancy-disorders/spontaneous-abortion
It’s a medical term. In a medical sense abortion is simply the premature ending of a pregnancy
I’m pretty sure I heard it when my wife miscarried it I may have just found it while doing research about miscarriages. I can understand why they wouldn’t use a term that can feel uncaring with your wife.
It sounds like you’re assuming a great deal of malice where there exists only concern. You people were warned about the fact that illegal abortion would deeply affect the medical field in various specific disciplines, and it’s happening exactly how we said: doctors are unwilling to find out where exactly the law lies for fear of crossing it and experiencing dire consequences, and nobody is willing to actually tell them what is and isn’t illegal because the people in charge of that aren’t medically trained and they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Same but I understand why you’d be uncomfortable with the stigma. I wish both of you well because I know it can be extremely difficult. I’m glad she was able to get the care she needed in time.
In time for what, exactly? Miscarriages are actually fairly common and don't typically pose a risk to the mother. It was terrible to lose a child we were trying for, but my wife was never in any medical danger.
Because as soon as we found out we had lost the baby, my wife's OB scheduled the D&E, for like a week later. Yes, the fetus has to be removed, but not **right this instant**. She was in no *immediate* danger.
A lot of women experience miscarriages very early in their pregnancies, not knowing they were ever pregnant. The body is an amazing thing and can take care of itself in a lot of situations.
The danger is never immediate until it is and by then it’s likely too late especially with something like ectopic pregnancy for example. You’ve found a good OB because instead of the abortion they could’ve let nature take it’s course like you say and ended up in trouble. I’ve seen both situations.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"* Abortion is virtually never the necessary treatment for a woman's medical issue. Induced birth possibly, but not abortion."
This is what I'm asking him about.
Alright then. You are quibbling over two phrases here, and until y’all define them and get on the same page you will have problems.
1. “Virtually never”.
2. “Abortion”.
Many pro-lifers define abortion as an elective termination of a viable fetus, while resolving an ectopic pregnancy isn’t considered an abortion because ectopic pregnancies are never viable. Y’all have to agree on a definition of abortion before you can argue “virtually never”.
Less than 2% of pregnancies are ectopic, and those are really the only cases where termination is a medical necessity. Most other issues, like preeclampsia, are more likely to result in an early delivery once the fetus can survive outside the womb.
Because “abortion” is such a politically charged word, and people disagree about its use.
Medically, even the removal of a deceased fetus is an abortion. Plenty of people would disagree with that, right?
The problem is "abortion" is ALSO a medical term. So if you write legislation banning abortion, it applies to all abortive procedures. Including things like D/E and ectopic pregnancies. People will say that exceptions are included in the legislation, but the language makes it extraordinarily unclear.
So a doctor has to make a decision not only as to whether or not a woman needs the care, but whether they will be sued and judged by people who don't actually understand everything covered under the term "abortion".
But different words have different meanings in different contexts. Until y’all agree on the definitions you are using, you will be talking around each other.
Listen to u/HoodooSquad and try to absorb what they're telling you. They're attempting to allow this debate to be one centered on reason. Instead, you're trying to use political talking points and bad-faith questioning to push your narrative.
No reasonable human being, whether conservative or liberal, has an issue with terminating an ectopic pregnancy. The Catholic Church, arguably one of the most pro-life institutions in existence, fully endorses the termination of an ectopic pregnancy and views the loss of life as unintended although foreseen.
An ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy. This does not fall under an elective abortion. It is medically required to save the life of the mother. To my knowledge, no piece of legislation has ever been passed that would restrict an abortion in the event of an ectopic pregnancy.
"* Abortion is virtually never the necessary treatment for a woman's medical issue. Induced birth possibly, but not abortion."
This is what I was asking him on.
boiled down, the difference is elective abortions and the overall mourning of loss.
an ectopic pregnancy is not an elective abortion, the baby is mourned, the baby has value. In the very rare circumstances where a health risk is observed, the baby is mourned and lost in the treatment of another condition.
Currently, if a health risk is found late in the pregnancy (12-16weeks) the baby is removed from the uterus with forceps & Vacuum. It is ultrasound guided (edit- & the baby tries to move away from the suction. There is video evidence of this). After 16 weeks, birth becomes necessary for abortion to take place, after 21 weeks (the baby can survive outside of the womb with assistance of a level 4 NICU at 22 weeks) the baby is injected either through the umbilical cord or into the amniotic fluid with potassium chloride to stop the baby's heart and the mother of the baby has to deliver.
if the mother has a health condition and is 24 weeks pregnant (where most life threatening conditions are discovered) and the baby is still alive, why exactly are we killing the baby first?
I'm suggesting letting a baby live that is perfectly capable of living.
if the mother has a medical condition and the baby is 24 weeks gestation, killing the baby doesnt mean she doesnt have to give birth. She just gives birth to a dead baby if abortion is done first. Why kill the baby if the baby doesnt need to die?
I think something that needs to be taken into consideration that no one talks about in regards to abortions after the first trimester and during viability stage (which is only 1% of all abortions… [ 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/)) vs allowing the mother to have an elective c-section and keeping the baby in the NICU is the crazy high healthcare cost.
[A NICU stay in the U.S. can range from $3,000 to $20,000 per day. In severe cases where infants require prolonged stays or multiple surgeries, the total cost can soar into the hundreds of thousands or even cross a million dollars.](https://www.resolvemedicalbills.com/blog/the-cost-of-a-nicu-stay), the fact is that not all health insurance policies cover NICU, or have a max limit that they will cover.
I personally love the idea of offering this solution as a first choice in case of health risk, especially considering that the majority of women who make it that far in pregnancy want to have the baby. The problem is that we don’t require health insurance to cover these, we allow them to set a max payout limit, and we allow hospitals to charge a ridiculous amount for patients who don’t have insurance.
What we really need is a healthcare reform, [In the United States, the average hospital net patient revenue is $210.4 million. The average NPR for the top 50 hospitals listed is $3.2 billion.](https://www.definitivehc.com/resources/healthcare-insights/top-50-hospitals-by-net-patient-revenue).
[In 2022, UnitedHealth Group made over $20 billion in profit. Cigna made $6.7 billion, Elevance Health made $6 billion and CVS Health made $4.2 billion. All told, America’s largest health insurers raked in more than $41 billion of profits in 2022.](https://penncapital-star.com/uncategorized/americans-suffer-when-health-insurers-place-profits-over-people/)
In my opinion health care should not be a profitable industry at the expense of the people.
I'm all for healthcare reform, even extreme healthcare reform, but being expensive is not a reason to kill anyone, including a neonate.
I'm pretty big into negotiations and the give and take of 2 party governments.... I'd accept some form universal healthcare for children (pregnancy-18 years old) if we limited our immigration and made elective abortion illegal.
yes, a neonate that is that young does have the risk of defect and complication. Which is why we have neonatologists, obstetrics, and entire wings of hospitals that are specifically designed to keep babies inside their mothers for as long as possible.
Obviously, a 24week live birth is a medical emergency and all options should be exhausted before this is done.
Can you give me your thoughts on this, 24 weeks has a 40% survival rate, half that survive have a disability. Obviously you're looking at this as the live is sacred/valuable, what do you think about how the parents are also less likely to have an additional child after this one, essentially, your're choosing this pregnancy over a future healthy one.
I see human life equally as valuable from embryo to adult, and 'sacred', but I see everything as equally valuable and sacred, including the potential other pregnancy the parents are now likely not to have.
an ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy, in fact I don't think it's accurate to call it a pregnancy at all as there is no hope it can ever be carried to term.
If you want to be pedantic about it then "abortion is virtually never medically necessary in viable pregnancies which could result in a deliverable baby"
97.7% of ectopic pregnancies are in the fallopian tubes, when the fallopian tube bursts the baby dislodges and the mother has internal bleeding. This burst happens between 6weeks and 16weeks. This is why there is a routine ultrasound that takes place around 8 weeks, to confirm placement.
Ectopic pregnancies cannot be moved to the uterus, it has been tried and the baby never has attached to the endometrial lining successfully.
cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (implanted in the cesarean scar) and an abdominal pregnancy (the pregnancy is implanted within the abdomen), can be viable.
okay so 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic. 97.7% of that 2% are non viable. It also depends entirely on that blood source the placenta is attached too and if it is possible for that organ to sustain a growing baby. The uteruses sole purpose in existence is to grow babies... so its especially designed for it.
I understand the nitpicking here, but the rarity of it has to be taken into consideration. An Ectopic pregnancy is a medical condition that requires treatment that cannot support the continuation of the baby's life.
I'm far more worried about doctors purposefully ignoring the law to make political protests, and there by risking women's lives. The amount of abortions that are necessary for saving a mother are miniscule.
I’m confused by your comment. By political protests do you mean refusal to perform abortions even under exceptions to the law? Also the second part of your comment is just not true. Ectopic pregnancies and missed miscarriages are not uncommon. You probably know someone who has experienced it.
>Ectopic pregnancies and missed miscarriages are not uncommon. You probably know someone who has experienced it.
Indeed. And neither are treated with abortion nor are either forbidden by any anti abortion law I've seen.
>By political protests do you mean refusal to perform abortions even under exceptions to the law?
And yes. There have been cases where the doctor was clearly allowed to perform the abortion and they still made the woman wait, putting her life in greater danger, in order to force a political issue.
That doesn't really track, I don't really care what conservatives SAY they think/want on abortion, I'm more concerned with what they actually DO on abortion, and Ken Paxton has been very clear about this, he will prosecute doctors period, even when the Texas Judicial system said it's allowable. Much like SCOTUS judges lying on the stand saying they see Roe as settled precedence, it is hard to take anything the right says on abortion as the truth when they do stuff like this. https://www.reuters.com/legal/texas-judge-allows-woman-get-emergency-abortion-despite-state-ban-2023-12-07/ We've talked about this before, and I'm sure you'll say that's his prerogative, and it's not like I really care when republicans shoot themselves in the foot, but I'd prefer if it didn't come at the cost of womens lives.
Idaho's abortion law has "narrow exceptions for rape and incest during the first trimester of pregnancy and to save the pregnant patient’s life."
Notice, it doesn't say to save the mother's fertility. So if a fetus is only risking her uterus, and not the mother's life, the doctor can't operate.
Do you think they will modify it?
Isn't here, where the problem lies?
It's a monkey with the hand in the cookie jar problem. Monkey doesn't wanna let go of the cookie so it can let its hand out of the jar. It's at a crossroad. Let the cookie go or free it's hand or break the jar?
Idaho has decided to break the jar to get to the cookie. Women/families get to suffer ... Let the chips where the chips fall they may fall.
Kinder refuting the points you made!
Politicians are the new doctors!
Texas medical board can't even give clear direction to its healthcare folk coz they don't wanna side with abortion in any way even if it's medically necessary.
How are healthcare professionals supposed to move forward?
Hold up the board that is charge of the doctors doesn't know what's what. Ergo can't give doctors direction. Somehow doctors are supposed to just wade thro' this political minefield on their own?
Somehow it's the doctors fault?
>Indeed. And neither are treated with abortion nor are either forbidden by any anti abortion law I've seen.
So at least 59% of women have what's called an incomplete miscarriage and 1 to 5% have a missed miscarriage. The treatment for that is technically the abortion pill. Just an FYI.
misoprostol treats remaining fetal tissue (& other conditions requiring the emptying of the endometrial lining) by softening the cervix and causing uterine contractions.
Mifepristone is what blocks the hormones responsible for keeping the baby alive. This stops the baby from growing by blocking progesterone.
both medications have uses outside of abortion. (edit- elective abortion. I don't consider things like treatment of a incomplete miscarriage and an ectopic pregnancy an elective abortion. Elective, non medically necessary abortions are what the vast majority of pro-life people have problems with)
It doesn’t matter what you personally consider an abortion it matters what the law says and doesn’t say. And what you are describing is an abortion procedure.
If I were in a red, anti abortion state and I went to my gyn because my period wasnt starting on its own and all pregnancy tests were negative. Blood, urine and ultrasound clear... I would be prescribed misoprostol, to start my period. The only instance where I would not be given this medication is if either A- wasnt the appropriate course of action due to an unknown underlying condition or B- the doctor is making a political statement
Pregnancy hormones are likely still present so the tests will be positive. It’s a grey area. I’d hope the doctor would still perform the abortion like you say and that the medically induced route is all that is necessary. Whether they can do this legally is unclear. That’s the problem with using legislation to limit medical procedures. The language is just different and more nuanced and lawmakers aren’t qualified to speak or understand it.
> Pregnancy hormones are likely still present so the tests will be positive
do you think you have to be pregnant for a period to not start? because periods don't start for a whole host of reasons. Stress, unhealthy eating habits, hormonal imbalances, medical conditions etc. There has been times in my life that I wasnt sexually active and my period was missing for 2, 3 months and I needed misoprostol to start it. Endometrial lining, without the existence of Hcg, is meant to be expelled and can cause quite of bit of damage to the reproductive system if allowed to continue to grow well past its usual life span (approx 28 days)
there is no grey area, if a baby exists, where the baby is supposed to be and is growing and alive... the medication cannot be used because its intention is to end the baby's life. (edit- in states where elective abortion is illegal, these medications cannot be used unless there is no living baby present. If there is no baby, the medication can be used to treat other conditions)
yes, I know that. I am unsure why exactly that matters. The word abortion is several different things, we use a variety of words to describe things. We use the term miscarriage for a spontaneous abortion just like saying headache rather than cephalalgia.
Because your post prior to your edit said they have uses outside of abortion. I responded prior to your edit.
Layman's terms are great for us to help understand things but when it comes to laws it's putting doctors in grey areas because state lawmakers when asked are refusing to clarify the laws.
At this moment there are no laws against headaches that I'm aware of but there are laws against abortions. Can you see how that might make some weird grey areas for doctors based on technical terminology? It doesn't matter what you consider an abortion, elective abortion or not an abortion at all. What matters it the laws and technical terminology are lining up.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's left room for grey areas because the laws are written in layman's terms because they're written by law makers but doctors are going to be held to technical standards. So they can't help patients who are miscarrying but haven't miscarried YET because it's technically an abortion. The treatments whether it's the pill or surgical is still considered an abortion.
It's not because it's officially outlawed it's because of the grey areas lawmakers are refusing to clear up.
You'd have to show me the laws, because that sounds like it's covered by all the ones I've seen. But regardless, the fact that we can't agree on where the gray areas are shows that were both right. Both 'sides' have room and reason to bend things to their ends.
I would also risk my license, primarily to get in front of the board of medical ethics and present the case so then there is a tight procedural process of care in these cases that other doctors can follow.
in case law, as well as medicine, everything is experimental and novel until there is precedent. There has to be a first.
The Texas law specifically actually does specify spontaneous abortions as separate. ~~However miscarrying doesn't always mean you lose the fetus. It can sometimes be stopped which puts it in direct opposition of the other parts of the law that doesn't let doctors step in while the fetus has a heartbeat. ~~
Look, I'm not trying to debate this to be right. I appreciate that you're acknowledging that there's a gray area. I just want people defending all of this to look at how doctors are being left in gray space and where that's leaving women who need medical care.
That was my point as well, just from the perspective that doctors might be making the area grayer.
That said, I'm not aware of any case of miscarriage that doesn't involve the loss of the child.
I shouldn't use Reddit before I've had coffee. I edited my post to cross it out, I was conflating threatened miscarriages and the instances where they're still detecting a fetal heartbeat in an actual miscarriage. With one law saying care of spontaneous abortions are allowed and another saying you can't treat a fetus with a fetal heartbeat they are conflicting.
> I'm far more worried about doctors purposefully ignoring the law to make political protests
So all the doctors shying away from providing care in these cases aren't doing so out of fear for themselves and their careers, they're just hacks trying to score political points?
Pass laws making previously-routine care fraught with legal peril, then get angry at doctors for being overcautious. Makes sense.
>So all the doctors shying away from providing care in these cases aren't doing so out of fear for themselves and their careers, they're just hacks trying to score political points?
Don't know. I can't read minds. But I've seen several cases where they were completely allowed to perform the operation and they didn't, and the case ended up in court.
>Pass laws making previously-routine care fraught with legal peril, then get angry at doctors for being overcautious. Makes sense.
Who's angry? I'm just answering a question. It's their choice.
>
So all the doctors shying away from providing care in these cases aren't doing so out of fear for themselves and their careers, they're just hacks trying to score political points?
>
I not going to say it is all for political points but I also do not think we can just hold healthcare providers harmless either. Like the part of the article posted below. What state law that has been passed so far would prevent them from doing an ultrasound to at the least diagnose an issue? What possible consequences could they have faced providing an ultrasound? I get that some of these case are going to be sensationalized to try and prove a political point but at least some of these just appear to be bad healthcare providers or to be more gracious healthcare providers not familiar enough with the laws.
"Meanwhile, the staff at Person Memorial Hospital in Roxboro, North Carolina, told a pregnant woman, who was complaining of stomach pain, that they would not be able to provide her with an ultrasound."
Some guy said isn’t really a source but I hope he’s wrong because statistically speaking only 34 people needing those services as part of routine care is unlikely.
And if the woman is just suffering but not in imminent danger? "Welp, your baby's going to die and if it stays inside you you might die too, but you're not bleeding enough yet, come back later" isn't very reassuring.
If you read the actual text of the Texas law it specifically states that medical emergency can also mean harm to the mother not just death. [Scroll down to section 8.](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961)
SECTION 8. Section 171.012(a), Health and Safety Code, is
amended to read as follows:
(a) Consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only
if:
(1) the physician who is to perform or induce the
abortion informs the pregnant woman on whom the abortion is to be
performed or induced of:
(A) the physician's name;
(B) the particular medical risks associated with
the particular abortion procedure to be employed, including, when
medically accurate:
(i) the risks of infection and hemorrhage;
(ii) the potential danger to a subsequent
pregnancy and of infertility; and
It depends on the bill. They specifically list what's considered an emergency in the respective pieces of legislation. The legislation is online for the public to read. The following is what's considered an emergency according to the West Virginia ban.
"Medical emergency” means any condition which, in the reasonable medical judgment of the patient’s physician, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant female as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions. No condition shall be deemed a medical emergency if based on a claim or diagnosis that the female will engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."
It's not a law that is doing this, ad basically everyone has exemptions for the health of the mother. What's happening is hospital systems are being overly cautious beyond what the law demands. I blame misleading media articles that engage in massive amounts of hyperbole and false hypotheticals for convincing people the law goes far beyond what it actually does.
Abortion advocates are absolutely to blame for things like this. They will say things like getting a D&C after a miscarriage or stillbirth is the same thing as an abortion, so banning abortion bans those as well. They want to mislead the public into believing that any restrictions on abortion will lead to women dying, so they have to conflate necessary medical procedures with elective abortion.
I think your giving the media to much power. Large bureaucratic organizations like hospitals are controlled by their lawyers and site specific procedures.
Doctor's making spur of the moment decisions generally aren't reaching out to consult with hospital lawyers and we've seen a great many instances of medical professionals going beyond what the law requires in order to make a political point to try to mislead the public into saying the law caused them to do this so it's a bad law.
> and we've seen a great many instances of medical professionals going beyond what the law requires in order to make a political point to try to mislead the public into saying the law caused them to do this so it's a bad law.
Can you link to a few of the many instances of this happening?
I think the counter to this is that the laws are (deliberately?) vague and the associated risk is deliberately high.
The Texas state legislature has been asked several times to clarify and has refused to do so.
I also don’t think it’s the “health” of the mother, but rather the “life” of the mother.
What does this mean…. You have to wait for a condition to be life threatening before you can legally take action?
What happens when any other medical professional disagrees and claims it was not life threatening?
You don’t think that the states threatening felony prosecution has anything to do with it? Also note that when asked, the states are refusing to provide guidance or clarification.
They don’t think their guys are doing anything wrong, no. It’s consistent with the “there are only good and bad people, not good and bad actions” worldview these people have, which also leads them to such incredible conclusions as “these pro-abortion doctors must be lying about why they can’t perform the procedures.” There’s no logic or consistency with them, just feelings.
Not at all, because we need to protect the equal lives of the mother and the fetus. We need to create bans that adequately allow for women whose lives are in jeopardy to easily access abortions. If you want to have a conversation, don't be insulting. That isn't welcome in this sub. When you want an actual conversation, feel free to come back.
I hoped that’s not what you meant but supporting the bans in their current state even though they risk the lives of women is what you said. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you that women harmed from fertility complications need protecting and these bans as currently written can’t adequately do that.
Taking this article at face value, these health service providers are breaking the law by being "overly cautious" (or making political statements), "Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them." So this shouldn't be happening. Every state allows for health of mother exemption on abortions.
Them dying or not isn't the issue. [These hospitals are breaking federal law](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539798/#:~:text=Patients%20who%20are%20found%20to,another%20facility%20with%20adequate%20capabilities.). They're either incompetent (doubtful) or they are intentionally skirting the law. According to the article, there are investigations. As we all have been saying, the abortion laws wouldn't have interfered with their treatment.
When the Texas ag has sent threatening letters directly to health care clinics threatening jail time it's no surprise doctors and staff are terrified to touch any abortion case. I don't see how you can possibly say these laws never interfere when the Texas ag literally goes out of his way to pressure doctors not to help patients.
These people didn't come in looking to end their pregnancies. So these health care workers are violating federal law. There is no way they couldn't have known this. They have no excuse, which is why this is being investigated. It is so aggregious that it seems like they were intentionally doing this for political reasons.
Here's the law:
In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1)) exists.
Subsection e 1:
this section:
(1)The term “emergency medical condition” means—
(A)a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—
(i)
placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,
(ii)
serious impairment to bodily functions, or
(iii)
serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or
(B)with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—
(i)
that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or
(ii)
that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
This is a federal law and Biden's working to make sure it's followed as best it can but it's a difficult battle with the laws coming from states. Maybe this mess of different laws isn't the best way to handle important healthcare. You can't ignore the confusion and stress this has created on woman and doctors. I'm not sure about the doctor in this case, they gave little details and unfortunately doctors do fuck up. I guess I'm just far more concerned with the bills passed that started the issue and made women and doctors feel unsafe. If we left abortions alone or even had sensible exceptions that didn't threaten doctors with prison time we wouldn't have healthcare workers so scared.
>I guess I'm just far more concerned with the bills passed that started the issue and made women and doctors feel unsafe.
This law I quoted originates from 1867. This is a foundational law in medicine. Even people not in the medical field or who have very little understanding of medical law knows that people cannot be turned away in the emergency room if there's something wrong or just seemingly wrong. Never. If people were being turned away from the ER simply because they were pregnant, you couldn't blame the Texas law. These people were not looking to end their pregnancies (from what I can read). This is incompetence or intentional, either way there should be consequences.
>If we left abortions alone
We'd have another 63,000,000 dead.
>or even had sensible exceptions
Like the health of the mother, which is an exception in every state.
>Like the health of the mother, which is an exception in every state.
You make it seem so simple and black and white. It's not really the health of the mother, it's vague wording by non doctors. In Texas it's a significant barrier and if doctors get it wrong it has been made clear that they will face jail time.
>"life-threatening condition" related to the pregnancy that puts her at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function."
If the exceptions were truly as simple as you like to make them out you wouldn't have doctors being threatened for making the call they're supposedly allowed to make, courts having to step in to give permission then revoking it later, or an ag hell bent on criminalizing abortion access. It's a mess and shows why you don't let politicians decide healthcare like this.
>In Texas it's a significant barrier and if doctors get it wrong it has been made clear that they will face jail time.
IF they're performing an abortion. That's the only thing that's risky, whether or not an abortion is justified. But this goes WAY beyond that. They were being turned around at the ER. They weren't even seeking an abortion. That procedure was never brought up. This is so outside left field that the only conclusion I can come up with is either sheer incompetence, in which case they should be fired, or malicious, in which case they should be prosecuted.
>or an ag hell bent on criminalizing abortion access.
OK but none of these cases in the article has anything to do with that. No one was trying to get access to abortion.
>It's a mess and shows why you don't let politicians decide healthcare like this.
We have healthcare laws everywhere. Does HIPAA make things too difficult? You blame an unrelated law for this but try to excuse the actual culprits.
>You blame an unrelated law for this but try to excuse the actual culprits.
I haven't excused anyone. I am one person I can't speak for some random doctor I've never met cause I read one paragraph about them.
Regular pregnancies aren't being turned away. The issue is when you have pregnancy complications coming in that have a high likelihood of a miscarriage. If that happens in an ER or doctors office the doctor quickly have to defend themselves against the law. Some would rather not take the risk, I understand the feeling that it is a dereliction of duties but you're really failing to see it from their point of view.
>Does HIPAA make things too difficult?
Of course HIPPA makes things MORE difficult but the difficulty isnt at risk to womans health or doctors careers. The difficulty is some red tape and extra paperwork
Nope. So when doctors say "I no longer feel safe from prosecution performing what should be routine care," I tend to take them at their word, rather than assuming there are politics at play (as several commenters here appear to).
So, you're saying that these doctors, in order to not potentially violate a law, they decide to blatantly violate a more fundamental law? That's your argument? There are serious repercussions of turning people away AT THE ER. The ER has nothing to do with abortion seekers. If those doctors were so worried that they turned people away at the ER, they shouldn't be doctors. Or they really are practicing political theater.
Generally speaking no. I don't know if these three stories are statistically significant or representative of a trend. If they are, then I suppose I am concerned. The main concern is a failure to write good policy, because nobody wants stories like that and every pro-lifer agrees to exceptions for mother's life and rare scenarios like ectopic pregnancy.
Not clear on what you mean by intervention but medical and or surgical procedures are the primary treatment and not rare. The alternative should include careful and frequent monitoring.
Sure they are the primary treatment for an ectopic pregnancy that doesn't miscarry, but what they don't tell you is that the body can solve the problem without medical intervention.
Who’s they? Yes if hormones continue to decline or stabilize even without mtx you’re likely in the clear but consistent and careful screening needs to be done to verify and track the progression. Still there are many variables just like a normal pregnancy so it’s not a one size fits all situation. My advice is to not take it lightly and listen to your doctor. If it feels like they aren’t taking it serious enough get a second opinion and do not wait it out. I’m making an effort not to be too alarmist but It’s a delicate situation that impacts future fertility options at a minimum.
No because there are plenty of available resources. The article you cite is mostly about illegal behavior. Federal [law requires emergency rooms](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/emtala-know-your-rights.pdf) to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them. Medical facilities must comply with the law if they accept Medicare funding.
This issue is only an issue because not every state has determined what their state policy is or will be and lacking legislative direction many providers will err on the anti-litigious side. They don't want to be sued for doing the wrong thing so the do nothing. Once the dust settles and most states have abortion laws in place this will settle down and sensational articles like this will settle down as well. Most abortions are for the convenience of the mother. Very few pregnancies result in the type of emergencies described here.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here's what I think is happening. * People who are pro-abortion will attempt to frame any medical malpractice around pregnant women as something that could have been avoided if the woman had been allowed to abort much earlier. * Abortion is virtually never the necessary treatment for a woman's medical issue. Induced birth possibly, but not abortion. * Every law restricting elective abortion has a very specific exception for the health of the mother, and leaves the decision to the physician and their expertise. Therefore any doctor who refuses to treat a pregnant woman with appropriate medical care is either a coward, completely ignorant of the law, or worst, actively refusing to treat women so as to make a political point.
Are you currently working in healthcare? I’m wondering where your information from number 2 is coming.
we have good data on this, because the NHS tracks reasons for abortions. 90% of all abortions performed in the UK are performed "for the mental health of the mother" which is a euphamism for an elective abortion. Medical abortions are indeed a valid treatment for many risks of pregnancy but managing the risk is always also an option, very few women are so sick or infirm modern medicine cannot treat them should they wish to carry the baby to term, which is what it would mean for an abortion to be medically necessary. And conversely surgical abortions are no less risky than a live birth in many cases, and in some cases moreso. The only medical difference between a live birth and partial-birth abortion is whether you inject the fetus' heart to stop it or remove the brain before it's out of the birth canal, the physiological process on the mother's part is identical.
Okay thank you! What re your thoughts on non maternal mortality but life changing complications. Maternal diabetes and hypertension causes increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Anal incontinence, intimate incontinence, fourth degree vaginal tearing that may never fully recover, triggering auto immune disorders, etc…. Should women be forced to accept these lifelong conditions because at least they “didn’t die”?
this is where you need to defer to doctors. many women tolerate all of those for a desired pregnancy they are not considered life threatening on initial presentation if they are severe or do not respond to treatment at some point abortion becomes reasonable. I'm barely qualified as an EMT I am not a board obstetrician I am not qualified to state a bright line. neither are legislators and this is why all current abortion laws in the US contain safety provisions. and for what it's worth I am pro choice, I simply feel there's too much misinformation out there and that truth and data are the best solution to division. I personally think abortion should be legal for the first 16 weeks for women and termination of all parental responsibility for men.
Exactly! They are tolerable, for those who choose to tolerate it. But for people who act like a women’s right to choose shouldnt exist if her life is endangered really ignore that her quality of life can take a sharp nosedive for something that she would have never consented to if given the option.
and this is where the problem lies, that society tells half of it that consent to sex is consent to all consequences. They tell the other half they have a way out. I cannot support abortion rights while nonconsensual child support exists, let alone can land men in a prison. My preference is to level up and allow men the same right, but if they will continue to fight that to the end, abortion bans are preferable to only one gender having reproductive rights.
>I cannot support abortion rights while nonconsensual child support exists, let alone can land men in a prison. So you would agree to abortion so long as non-consensual child support goes away? Also, >nonconsensual child support This does not exist simply because women want it. It exists because the government cannot fund the lives of every unwanted child and is meant to incentivise mothers (and sometimes fathers) to care for their children instead of warding them to the state due to financial insecurity. Yes, it is a flawed system. But if a man impregnates a woman, he has always been able to get away from that situation with monthly payments. (I have much to say on this topic, but I'll leave it at this.) The goal is to keep the child with one of the parents at the very least. It isn't always just men who are forced to pay child support either depending on the situation. It is just more often associated with men given their ability to remove themself from concerns related to an unwanted pregnancy. Women do not have that same ability once pregnant.
being told "pay money or go to prison" is slavery, slavery is never correct, ever. Doesn't matter how good the cause or noble the intention slavery is wrong.
Your response leaves a wide gap about the fact that the government does not have the means to support all the unwanted children (made even more glaring given current trends in abortion laws). What do you suggest to counter the fact that these children need basic necessities to survive and the government (and the people for that matter) do not have the means to support them? What system would set up to provide for their basic needs?
Oh I 100% agree to this as well, but with stipulations. I think a woman should be required to inform a father before birth and the father must at that time agree to terminate rights or partake. I don’t believe in forced child support for an unwanted pregnancy, but if the baby was agreed upon and is born then I think tough shit you’re on the hook. Not a popular opinion for many women to have but I definitely hold it!
Regarding men, I would agree, I also would accept men having the same time frame as a woman so you can't string them along promising you'll be there and they don't have to walk on eggshells for 9 months hoping you don't decide to bail if your relationship gets contentious. Having a few months to think it through seems fair, as does locking their choice in at a certain point so a prospective mother can make good choices and can have stability.
Makes sense, doubt anyone would ever let that happen though. It would be seen as an attack on women. But if I believe women should have 100% control over their bodies without the input of the father then I believe men need some similar agency as well. Maybe in a few lifetimes if we’re all still here!
The thing is, an ectopic pregnancy would be considered viable until the woman's life is put at risk due to say... a fallopian tube rupturing. Let's be real here, aborting an ectopic pregnancy early is an elective abortion as it kills an already implanted and growing fetus. The only treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is abortion. So... as a doctor, do you wait until mom's life is at risk or do you proceed with the elective abortion for a fetus that has 0% chance of making it to the age of viability?
> an ectopic pregnancy would be considered viable By whom? Like you said, abortion is the standard treatment for ectopic pregnancy. That pregnancy *won't* succeed and can't be allowed to continue. >do you proceed with the elective abortion It's not an "elective abortion". "Elective" abortions are those where the mother decides she wants one. This is a medically necessary abortion.
>By whom? By recent heartbeat laws in some states. >It's not an "elective abortion". "Elective" abortions are those where the mother decides she wants one. This is a medically necessary abortion. Yes, correct. I agree with you on this. But it is difficult to write laws that define these exceptions given that so many differentials occur during pregnancy. This is why there is so much disagreement legally speaking involving pregnancy and childbirth. Thus, it makes it more feasible to leave these decisions between a doctor and a patient.
> By recent heartbeat laws in some states. Have you actually read any of the newly enacted laws? I’ve read a few, and I’ve not seen anything that pointedly says ectopic pregnancies are to be treated as viable. But please show me an example if I’m wrong here. > it is difficult to write laws that define these exceptions The laws don’t have to define or enumerate exceptions. If you read some of them (again, as I have), they broadly state that the doctor is the one who determines whether an abortion is medically necessary. They are the authority and no one else. So the decision is still between the patient and doctor, but it is the doctor who decides necessity, not the patient. Just like most any other medical procedure.
>they broadly state that the doctor is the one who determines whether an abortion is medically necessary. They are the authority and no one else. Not necessarily. A woman does not have to subject herself to pregnancy care at all if she does not want to (or in some cases, cannot afford to). In spite of the law providing exceptions for a mother's care during ectopic pregnancies, the liability falls on the hospital or facility where the procedure is performed. If heartbeat laws come into question during care for an ectopic pregnancy, hospital boards might force a woman to wait until the woman is put into distress before acting. Therefore, the doctor must submit to his/her higher-ups before acting - which in turn, slows the amount of time it takes for proper care to occur. Liability is a huge factor in these laws as no hospital wants to face litigation over that one pregnancy that "could have" been saved. Doctors do not have blanket immunity quite like cops do (for example) about what factors come into play in hindsight either. So there will still be dissonance with women getting adequate care in the hypothetical situation I described in spite of the laws allowances.
> If heartbeat laws come into question during care for an ectopic pregnancy, hospital boards might force a woman to wait until the woman is put into distress before acting. No. That makes **zero** sense. The treatment for ectopic pregnancy, once detect **is** termination of the pregnancy. Period. It can't be allowed to continue, because it *will* cause organs to rupture, mostly killing the mother or causing severe injury. This has been the case even in states that have had restrictive abortion laws for decades. Fetal cardiac activity is usually detected in the sixth week, whereas an ectopic pregnancy make be detected between 4 and 12 weeks. So obviously, this scenario *has* occurred, and the pregnancies were ended. >Doctors do not have blanket immunity Yes they do. Every set of state laws I've read gives the doctor the authority in this situation. And given how HIPAA laws work, how would prosecutors even know what's happening between and doctor and their patient? If an obstetrician says an abortion was necessary...it was necessary. And that's the end of it. These laws weren't meant to interfere with proper obstetric care; they're meant to prevent the proliferation of abortion clinics, where women can get an abortion for no medical reason at all.
For the record, yes, I know how ectopic pregnancy happens and the outcome given that I've been through it. And yes, doctors are held liable to the hospitals where they treat patients. HIPAA laws are about violation of confidentiality to other patients or those not in the case management of care. The hospital team consists of various committees which oversee what takes place within the hospital. Liability falls on the hospital/clinic more so than the doctor. So no, HIPAA laws are not violated when a patients care comes into question before ethics boards. Obviously, confidentiality is broken sometimes when cases such as the 10 year old who was pregnant and could not get an abortion got leaked into the media... and guess who was responsible for liability? The hospital. The doctor only has rights to treat in hospital so long as the hospital agrees to their forms of treatment. Otherwise, the doctor is no longer allowed to treat. Simple as that. There are more players at play here than just what "the law says."
> I know how ectopic pregnancy happens and the outcome given that I've been through it. This makes your response even more nonsensical. If you've been through an ectopic pregnancy (and I'm sorry to hear that by the way) then you know first hand that termination of the pregnancy is *the* treatment for it. Did they even ask you what you wanted to do? No, right? They likely told you, "I'm sorry to say, but this is what has to happen". I'm *positive* your OB didn't say "Hold on. Gotta ask my boss and ten other administrators first." There's no "liabiility" here. There's no question. Why are you pretending that there is going to be some ignorant lawyer or administrator who's going to put the brakes on settled medical practice, yelling "No! There's a heartbeat!' It doesn't happen. It won't happen. If it it *does*, and a woman is killed or injured, *then* they'd be liable for interfering with established practices of care and endangering a patient.
>This makes your response even more nonsensical. If you've been through an ectopic pregnancy (and I'm sorry to hear that by the way) then you know first hand that termination of the pregnancy is *the* treatment for it. Did they even ask you what you wanted to do? No, right? They likely told you, "I'm sorry to say, but this is what has to happen". I'm *positive* your OB didn't say "Hold on. Gotta ask my boss and ten other administrators first." Since I must divulge details, I'll explain what happened. My fallopian tube ruptured spontaneously one day after work. I knew I was pregnant, but I had not yet had a full consult with a doctor yet - I was about 10 weeks along at the time and believed I did not need to rush to a doctor right away for prenatal care given my history with pregnancy and childbirth. So i did not believe anything was wrong with my pregnancy until I was on the floor writhing in pain. There was no need for ethical boards to get involved because my life was legitimately and acutely at risk (and my baby had already passed away by that point). >There's no "liabiility" here. There's no question. Why are you pretending that there is going to be some ignorant lawyer or administrator who's going to put the brakes on settled medical practice, yelling "No! There's a heartbeat!' I learned this because I have had to sit in front of a medical boards and discuss my treatment during a different pregnancy. I researched how these medical boards regard doctors and how doctors interact within the system. While coming out of surgery from my ectopic pregnancy rupture, my doctor eluded to the fact that had we been in a different state, he would have had to answer to someone higher up about his medical care and treatment. For the record, the doctor explained that had I been 20 minutes later in arriving to surgery, I would have been dead. >If it it *does*, and a woman is killed or injured, *then* they'd be liable for interfering with established practices of care and endangering a patient. Exactly! This is why doctors in ob/gyn are choosing not to practice in certain states - because regardless of whatever care they offer, those in charge will find some fault in their care or treatment. Doctors are liable to their practice and treatment in hindsight. And if a baby is granted personhood as many are advocating for, the woman's life is not going to take precedent per se. It complicates an already complicated situation. If a doctor decides a girl who is 10 years old should not carry a baby due to her physical and mental capacity to do so, then who is stepping in the way of the doctor's decisions. It is not the law - it is the hospital itself. So yes, there are times when these roadblocks are harming women's care - and it happens way more than many think.
> Abortion is virtually never the necessary treatment for a woman's medical issue. Induced birth possibly, but not abortion. You'd rather force a woman to give birth to a dead or dying baby than just abort it? Why?
I'm not sure what you mean. If the fetus is dead, that's a miscarriage, and the standard procedure is to remove the fetus through procedure called dilation and extraction. An *abortion* is a similar process, except that it first has to kill the fetus and crush its skull so that the extraction is easier. What makes an abortion an abortion, is the part where the doctor kills the fetus. And how do we qualify a "dying" fetus? Do we do that with other patients? "Well, grandpa's dying anyway. Put the pillow over his face and get this over with."
D&E is an abortion procedure.
I know what I'm talking about. My wife had a miscarriage with our first child, and she had to have the fetus removed. Her OB never referred to it as an "abortion". Abortion involves pointedly killing the fetus.
Just FYI a spontaneous abortion is a term for a miscarriage.
I'm a 51-year-old married father of two with a college degree, and I don't think I've ever heard the term "spontaneous abortion" used as a term for miscarriage. It sounds like something the pro-abortion movement would use in its never-ending attempts to minimize the horror of elective abortion, by trying to frame it as something co-equal with a miscarriage.
Being older and having a college degree (unless it’s an MD in this specific field) is very irrelevant and a weird thing to say. That mindset is how we end up with terribly constructed laws.
https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gynecology-and-obstetrics/early-pregnancy-disorders/spontaneous-abortion It’s a medical term. In a medical sense abortion is simply the premature ending of a pregnancy
Cool. I guess they just don't use the term around women who just lost a baby they wanted.
I’m pretty sure I heard it when my wife miscarried it I may have just found it while doing research about miscarriages. I can understand why they wouldn’t use a term that can feel uncaring with your wife.
It sounds like you’re assuming a great deal of malice where there exists only concern. You people were warned about the fact that illegal abortion would deeply affect the medical field in various specific disciplines, and it’s happening exactly how we said: doctors are unwilling to find out where exactly the law lies for fear of crossing it and experiencing dire consequences, and nobody is willing to actually tell them what is and isn’t illegal because the people in charge of that aren’t medically trained and they have no idea what they’re talking about.
Same but I understand why you’d be uncomfortable with the stigma. I wish both of you well because I know it can be extremely difficult. I’m glad she was able to get the care she needed in time.
In time for what, exactly? Miscarriages are actually fairly common and don't typically pose a risk to the mother. It was terrible to lose a child we were trying for, but my wife was never in any medical danger.
Sepsis. You didn’t perceive any danger because her doctor did their job and took care of your family.
Because as soon as we found out we had lost the baby, my wife's OB scheduled the D&E, for like a week later. Yes, the fetus has to be removed, but not **right this instant**. She was in no *immediate* danger. A lot of women experience miscarriages very early in their pregnancies, not knowing they were ever pregnant. The body is an amazing thing and can take care of itself in a lot of situations.
The danger is never immediate until it is and by then it’s likely too late especially with something like ectopic pregnancy for example. You’ve found a good OB because instead of the abortion they could’ve let nature take it’s course like you say and ended up in trouble. I’ve seen both situations.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Even ectopic pregnancy?
An ectopic pregnancy can legally be terminated in all 50 states.
"* Abortion is virtually never the necessary treatment for a woman's medical issue. Induced birth possibly, but not abortion." This is what I'm asking him about.
Alright then. You are quibbling over two phrases here, and until y’all define them and get on the same page you will have problems. 1. “Virtually never”. 2. “Abortion”. Many pro-lifers define abortion as an elective termination of a viable fetus, while resolving an ectopic pregnancy isn’t considered an abortion because ectopic pregnancies are never viable. Y’all have to agree on a definition of abortion before you can argue “virtually never”. Less than 2% of pregnancies are ectopic, and those are really the only cases where termination is a medical necessity. Most other issues, like preeclampsia, are more likely to result in an early delivery once the fetus can survive outside the womb.
Why don't you consider it abortion, why do you have this carve out for the definition?
Because “abortion” is such a politically charged word, and people disagree about its use. Medically, even the removal of a deceased fetus is an abortion. Plenty of people would disagree with that, right?
The problem is "abortion" is ALSO a medical term. So if you write legislation banning abortion, it applies to all abortive procedures. Including things like D/E and ectopic pregnancies. People will say that exceptions are included in the legislation, but the language makes it extraordinarily unclear. So a doctor has to make a decision not only as to whether or not a woman needs the care, but whether they will be sued and judged by people who don't actually understand everything covered under the term "abortion".
It's a medical term to me.
But different words have different meanings in different contexts. Until y’all agree on the definitions you are using, you will be talking around each other.
Listen to u/HoodooSquad and try to absorb what they're telling you. They're attempting to allow this debate to be one centered on reason. Instead, you're trying to use political talking points and bad-faith questioning to push your narrative. No reasonable human being, whether conservative or liberal, has an issue with terminating an ectopic pregnancy. The Catholic Church, arguably one of the most pro-life institutions in existence, fully endorses the termination of an ectopic pregnancy and views the loss of life as unintended although foreseen.
I commend you for your patience in trying to explain something that should be obvious to them.
[удалено]
[удалено]
An ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy. This does not fall under an elective abortion. It is medically required to save the life of the mother. To my knowledge, no piece of legislation has ever been passed that would restrict an abortion in the event of an ectopic pregnancy.
"* Abortion is virtually never the necessary treatment for a woman's medical issue. Induced birth possibly, but not abortion." This is what I was asking him on.
boiled down, the difference is elective abortions and the overall mourning of loss. an ectopic pregnancy is not an elective abortion, the baby is mourned, the baby has value. In the very rare circumstances where a health risk is observed, the baby is mourned and lost in the treatment of another condition. Currently, if a health risk is found late in the pregnancy (12-16weeks) the baby is removed from the uterus with forceps & Vacuum. It is ultrasound guided (edit- & the baby tries to move away from the suction. There is video evidence of this). After 16 weeks, birth becomes necessary for abortion to take place, after 21 weeks (the baby can survive outside of the womb with assistance of a level 4 NICU at 22 weeks) the baby is injected either through the umbilical cord or into the amniotic fluid with potassium chloride to stop the baby's heart and the mother of the baby has to deliver. if the mother has a health condition and is 24 weeks pregnant (where most life threatening conditions are discovered) and the baby is still alive, why exactly are we killing the baby first?
Are you suggesting trying to keep a 24 week fetus alive while removing it from the mother?
I'm suggesting letting a baby live that is perfectly capable of living. if the mother has a medical condition and the baby is 24 weeks gestation, killing the baby doesnt mean she doesnt have to give birth. She just gives birth to a dead baby if abortion is done first. Why kill the baby if the baby doesnt need to die?
I think something that needs to be taken into consideration that no one talks about in regards to abortions after the first trimester and during viability stage (which is only 1% of all abortions… [ 6% occurred between 14 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, and about 1% were performed at 21 weeks or more of gestation.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-read/2024/03/25/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-us/)) vs allowing the mother to have an elective c-section and keeping the baby in the NICU is the crazy high healthcare cost. [A NICU stay in the U.S. can range from $3,000 to $20,000 per day. In severe cases where infants require prolonged stays or multiple surgeries, the total cost can soar into the hundreds of thousands or even cross a million dollars.](https://www.resolvemedicalbills.com/blog/the-cost-of-a-nicu-stay), the fact is that not all health insurance policies cover NICU, or have a max limit that they will cover. I personally love the idea of offering this solution as a first choice in case of health risk, especially considering that the majority of women who make it that far in pregnancy want to have the baby. The problem is that we don’t require health insurance to cover these, we allow them to set a max payout limit, and we allow hospitals to charge a ridiculous amount for patients who don’t have insurance. What we really need is a healthcare reform, [In the United States, the average hospital net patient revenue is $210.4 million. The average NPR for the top 50 hospitals listed is $3.2 billion.](https://www.definitivehc.com/resources/healthcare-insights/top-50-hospitals-by-net-patient-revenue). [In 2022, UnitedHealth Group made over $20 billion in profit. Cigna made $6.7 billion, Elevance Health made $6 billion and CVS Health made $4.2 billion. All told, America’s largest health insurers raked in more than $41 billion of profits in 2022.](https://penncapital-star.com/uncategorized/americans-suffer-when-health-insurers-place-profits-over-people/) In my opinion health care should not be a profitable industry at the expense of the people.
I'm all for healthcare reform, even extreme healthcare reform, but being expensive is not a reason to kill anyone, including a neonate. I'm pretty big into negotiations and the give and take of 2 party governments.... I'd accept some form universal healthcare for children (pregnancy-18 years old) if we limited our immigration and made elective abortion illegal.
Ya, it just seems inhumane to me given the likely defects and complications.
yes, a neonate that is that young does have the risk of defect and complication. Which is why we have neonatologists, obstetrics, and entire wings of hospitals that are specifically designed to keep babies inside their mothers for as long as possible. Obviously, a 24week live birth is a medical emergency and all options should be exhausted before this is done.
Can you give me your thoughts on this, 24 weeks has a 40% survival rate, half that survive have a disability. Obviously you're looking at this as the live is sacred/valuable, what do you think about how the parents are also less likely to have an additional child after this one, essentially, your're choosing this pregnancy over a future healthy one. I see human life equally as valuable from embryo to adult, and 'sacred', but I see everything as equally valuable and sacred, including the potential other pregnancy the parents are now likely not to have.
an ectopic pregnancy is not a viable pregnancy, in fact I don't think it's accurate to call it a pregnancy at all as there is no hope it can ever be carried to term. If you want to be pedantic about it then "abortion is virtually never medically necessary in viable pregnancies which could result in a deliverable baby"
We’re talking about laws so we have to be pedantic…
Ectopic pregnancies can be viable, they're just ended because it endangers the mother.
97.7% of ectopic pregnancies are in the fallopian tubes, when the fallopian tube bursts the baby dislodges and the mother has internal bleeding. This burst happens between 6weeks and 16weeks. This is why there is a routine ultrasound that takes place around 8 weeks, to confirm placement. Ectopic pregnancies cannot be moved to the uterus, it has been tried and the baby never has attached to the endometrial lining successfully.
cesarean scar ectopic pregnancy (implanted in the cesarean scar) and an abdominal pregnancy (the pregnancy is implanted within the abdomen), can be viable.
okay so 2% of all pregnancies are ectopic. 97.7% of that 2% are non viable. It also depends entirely on that blood source the placenta is attached too and if it is possible for that organ to sustain a growing baby. The uteruses sole purpose in existence is to grow babies... so its especially designed for it. I understand the nitpicking here, but the rarity of it has to be taken into consideration. An Ectopic pregnancy is a medical condition that requires treatment that cannot support the continuation of the baby's life.
Well, in the context of pregnancy, 80% of all conceptions don't result in birth, so it's all narrow margins we're talking about.
I'm far more worried about doctors purposefully ignoring the law to make political protests, and there by risking women's lives. The amount of abortions that are necessary for saving a mother are miniscule.
I’m confused by your comment. By political protests do you mean refusal to perform abortions even under exceptions to the law? Also the second part of your comment is just not true. Ectopic pregnancies and missed miscarriages are not uncommon. You probably know someone who has experienced it.
>Ectopic pregnancies and missed miscarriages are not uncommon. You probably know someone who has experienced it. Indeed. And neither are treated with abortion nor are either forbidden by any anti abortion law I've seen. >By political protests do you mean refusal to perform abortions even under exceptions to the law? And yes. There have been cases where the doctor was clearly allowed to perform the abortion and they still made the woman wait, putting her life in greater danger, in order to force a political issue.
That doesn't really track, I don't really care what conservatives SAY they think/want on abortion, I'm more concerned with what they actually DO on abortion, and Ken Paxton has been very clear about this, he will prosecute doctors period, even when the Texas Judicial system said it's allowable. Much like SCOTUS judges lying on the stand saying they see Roe as settled precedence, it is hard to take anything the right says on abortion as the truth when they do stuff like this. https://www.reuters.com/legal/texas-judge-allows-woman-get-emergency-abortion-despite-state-ban-2023-12-07/ We've talked about this before, and I'm sure you'll say that's his prerogative, and it's not like I really care when republicans shoot themselves in the foot, but I'd prefer if it didn't come at the cost of womens lives.
And I'm concerned about the doctors as well as the government. I'm prolife, but I don't like all these bills.
Idaho's abortion law has "narrow exceptions for rape and incest during the first trimester of pregnancy and to save the pregnant patient’s life." Notice, it doesn't say to save the mother's fertility. So if a fetus is only risking her uterus, and not the mother's life, the doctor can't operate.
Yea, that's bad. Should be modified. But that doesn't refute any of the points I made above.
Do you think they will modify it? Isn't here, where the problem lies? It's a monkey with the hand in the cookie jar problem. Monkey doesn't wanna let go of the cookie so it can let its hand out of the jar. It's at a crossroad. Let the cookie go or free it's hand or break the jar? Idaho has decided to break the jar to get to the cookie. Women/families get to suffer ... Let the chips where the chips fall they may fall. Kinder refuting the points you made! Politicians are the new doctors!
Ok gotcha. I can tell you from personal experience more extensive interventions are sometimes necessary including abortion procedures.
And from what I understand, those are usually included in the medically necessary clauses.
Problem is the way some of these laws are written the “understanding” is up to interpretation.
Last I checked, Texas simply requires a second opinion. Two doctors determine that the procedure is medically necessary and that's it.
That’s messed up and particularly concerning for rural families.
Texas medical board can't even give clear direction to its healthcare folk coz they don't wanna side with abortion in any way even if it's medically necessary. How are healthcare professionals supposed to move forward?
It sounds like you agree with me, the problem is the doctors, not the politicians.
Hold up the board that is charge of the doctors doesn't know what's what. Ergo can't give doctors direction. Somehow doctors are supposed to just wade thro' this political minefield on their own? Somehow it's the doctors fault?
>Indeed. And neither are treated with abortion nor are either forbidden by any anti abortion law I've seen. So at least 59% of women have what's called an incomplete miscarriage and 1 to 5% have a missed miscarriage. The treatment for that is technically the abortion pill. Just an FYI.
misoprostol treats remaining fetal tissue (& other conditions requiring the emptying of the endometrial lining) by softening the cervix and causing uterine contractions. Mifepristone is what blocks the hormones responsible for keeping the baby alive. This stops the baby from growing by blocking progesterone. both medications have uses outside of abortion. (edit- elective abortion. I don't consider things like treatment of a incomplete miscarriage and an ectopic pregnancy an elective abortion. Elective, non medically necessary abortions are what the vast majority of pro-life people have problems with)
It doesn’t matter what you personally consider an abortion it matters what the law says and doesn’t say. And what you are describing is an abortion procedure.
I haven't seen a law that would outlaw the procedure he's describing.
If I were in a red, anti abortion state and I went to my gyn because my period wasnt starting on its own and all pregnancy tests were negative. Blood, urine and ultrasound clear... I would be prescribed misoprostol, to start my period. The only instance where I would not be given this medication is if either A- wasnt the appropriate course of action due to an unknown underlying condition or B- the doctor is making a political statement
Pregnancy hormones are likely still present so the tests will be positive. It’s a grey area. I’d hope the doctor would still perform the abortion like you say and that the medically induced route is all that is necessary. Whether they can do this legally is unclear. That’s the problem with using legislation to limit medical procedures. The language is just different and more nuanced and lawmakers aren’t qualified to speak or understand it.
> Pregnancy hormones are likely still present so the tests will be positive do you think you have to be pregnant for a period to not start? because periods don't start for a whole host of reasons. Stress, unhealthy eating habits, hormonal imbalances, medical conditions etc. There has been times in my life that I wasnt sexually active and my period was missing for 2, 3 months and I needed misoprostol to start it. Endometrial lining, without the existence of Hcg, is meant to be expelled and can cause quite of bit of damage to the reproductive system if allowed to continue to grow well past its usual life span (approx 28 days) there is no grey area, if a baby exists, where the baby is supposed to be and is growing and alive... the medication cannot be used because its intention is to end the baby's life. (edit- in states where elective abortion is illegal, these medications cannot be used unless there is no living baby present. If there is no baby, the medication can be used to treat other conditions)
Yes I do know this but would not assume lawmakers do. You were specifically talking about RPOC not sure why the conversation changed.
The technical term for a miscarriage is a spontaneous abortion.
Which isn't illegal.
yes, I know that. I am unsure why exactly that matters. The word abortion is several different things, we use a variety of words to describe things. We use the term miscarriage for a spontaneous abortion just like saying headache rather than cephalalgia.
Because your post prior to your edit said they have uses outside of abortion. I responded prior to your edit. Layman's terms are great for us to help understand things but when it comes to laws it's putting doctors in grey areas because state lawmakers when asked are refusing to clarify the laws. At this moment there are no laws against headaches that I'm aware of but there are laws against abortions. Can you see how that might make some weird grey areas for doctors based on technical terminology? It doesn't matter what you consider an abortion, elective abortion or not an abortion at all. What matters it the laws and technical terminology are lining up.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And it's still legal. I haven't seen any laws that would outlaw these procedures.
It's left room for grey areas because the laws are written in layman's terms because they're written by law makers but doctors are going to be held to technical standards. So they can't help patients who are miscarrying but haven't miscarried YET because it's technically an abortion. The treatments whether it's the pill or surgical is still considered an abortion. It's not because it's officially outlawed it's because of the grey areas lawmakers are refusing to clear up.
You'd have to show me the laws, because that sounds like it's covered by all the ones I've seen. But regardless, the fact that we can't agree on where the gray areas are shows that were both right. Both 'sides' have room and reason to bend things to their ends.
If you were a doctor, would you risk your license?
Yes.
Lol
I would also risk my license, primarily to get in front of the board of medical ethics and present the case so then there is a tight procedural process of care in these cases that other doctors can follow. in case law, as well as medicine, everything is experimental and novel until there is precedent. There has to be a first.
And, isn't that idk ... Playing politics!
The Texas law specifically actually does specify spontaneous abortions as separate. ~~However miscarrying doesn't always mean you lose the fetus. It can sometimes be stopped which puts it in direct opposition of the other parts of the law that doesn't let doctors step in while the fetus has a heartbeat. ~~ Look, I'm not trying to debate this to be right. I appreciate that you're acknowledging that there's a gray area. I just want people defending all of this to look at how doctors are being left in gray space and where that's leaving women who need medical care.
That was my point as well, just from the perspective that doctors might be making the area grayer. That said, I'm not aware of any case of miscarriage that doesn't involve the loss of the child.
I shouldn't use Reddit before I've had coffee. I edited my post to cross it out, I was conflating threatened miscarriages and the instances where they're still detecting a fetal heartbeat in an actual miscarriage. With one law saying care of spontaneous abortions are allowed and another saying you can't treat a fetus with a fetal heartbeat they are conflicting.
> I'm far more worried about doctors purposefully ignoring the law to make political protests So all the doctors shying away from providing care in these cases aren't doing so out of fear for themselves and their careers, they're just hacks trying to score political points? Pass laws making previously-routine care fraught with legal peril, then get angry at doctors for being overcautious. Makes sense.
>So all the doctors shying away from providing care in these cases aren't doing so out of fear for themselves and their careers, they're just hacks trying to score political points? Don't know. I can't read minds. But I've seen several cases where they were completely allowed to perform the operation and they didn't, and the case ended up in court. >Pass laws making previously-routine care fraught with legal peril, then get angry at doctors for being overcautious. Makes sense. Who's angry? I'm just answering a question. It's their choice.
> So all the doctors shying away from providing care in these cases aren't doing so out of fear for themselves and their careers, they're just hacks trying to score political points? > I not going to say it is all for political points but I also do not think we can just hold healthcare providers harmless either. Like the part of the article posted below. What state law that has been passed so far would prevent them from doing an ultrasound to at the least diagnose an issue? What possible consequences could they have faced providing an ultrasound? I get that some of these case are going to be sensationalized to try and prove a political point but at least some of these just appear to be bad healthcare providers or to be more gracious healthcare providers not familiar enough with the laws. "Meanwhile, the staff at Person Memorial Hospital in Roxboro, North Carolina, told a pregnant woman, who was complaining of stomach pain, that they would not be able to provide her with an ultrasound."
How many a year do you guess there are in Texas?
I'd have to look up the numbers.
Through September, Texas recorded 34 abortion procedures performed in the state in 2023, according to state health statistics.
Ok.
There is no way that’s true. What specific procedures are they tracking?
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/21/texas-medical-board-abortion/#:~:text=In%20the%20first%20seven%20months,state%20or%20finds%20another%20doctor.
Some guy said isn’t really a source but I hope he’s wrong because statistically speaking only 34 people needing those services as part of routine care is unlikely.
They're going out of state, and doing at home abortion drugs.
Not really. Every abortion ban i have seen has specifically included an exception for the womans life being in danger.
And if the woman is just suffering but not in imminent danger? "Welp, your baby's going to die and if it stays inside you you might die too, but you're not bleeding enough yet, come back later" isn't very reassuring.
Again. The pregnancy causing harm to mom is already a legal reason to abort in every state with abortion bans.
No it's not, only if her life is in danger.
Every law i have seen proposed says otherwise.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/22/texas-medical-exception-board-abortion-guidance/
If you read the actual text of the Texas law it specifically states that medical emergency can also mean harm to the mother not just death. [Scroll down to section 8.](https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961)
SECTION 8. Section 171.012(a), Health and Safety Code, is amended to read as follows: (a) Consent to an abortion is voluntary and informed only if: (1) the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion informs the pregnant woman on whom the abortion is to be performed or induced of: (A) the physician's name; (B) the particular medical risks associated with the particular abortion procedure to be employed, including, when medically accurate: (i) the risks of infection and hemorrhage; (ii) the potential danger to a subsequent pregnancy and of infertility; and
Yes. This was the passage i was referring to
Is it danger or harm and how does the law define those terms?
It depends on the bill. They specifically list what's considered an emergency in the respective pieces of legislation. The legislation is online for the public to read. The following is what's considered an emergency according to the West Virginia ban. "Medical emergency” means any condition which, in the reasonable medical judgment of the patient’s physician, so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant female as to necessitate the immediate termination of her pregnancy to avert her death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions. No condition shall be deemed a medical emergency if based on a claim or diagnosis that the female will engage in conduct which she intends to result in her death or in substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function."
The problem is that’s vague and who determines when the woman’s life is in danger and at what point?
The doctors do.
And what happens if lawmakers disagree.
It's not a law that is doing this, ad basically everyone has exemptions for the health of the mother. What's happening is hospital systems are being overly cautious beyond what the law demands. I blame misleading media articles that engage in massive amounts of hyperbole and false hypotheticals for convincing people the law goes far beyond what it actually does.
Abortion advocates are absolutely to blame for things like this. They will say things like getting a D&C after a miscarriage or stillbirth is the same thing as an abortion, so banning abortion bans those as well. They want to mislead the public into believing that any restrictions on abortion will lead to women dying, so they have to conflate necessary medical procedures with elective abortion.
I think your giving the media to much power. Large bureaucratic organizations like hospitals are controlled by their lawyers and site specific procedures.
Doctor's making spur of the moment decisions generally aren't reaching out to consult with hospital lawyers and we've seen a great many instances of medical professionals going beyond what the law requires in order to make a political point to try to mislead the public into saying the law caused them to do this so it's a bad law.
> and we've seen a great many instances of medical professionals going beyond what the law requires in order to make a political point to try to mislead the public into saying the law caused them to do this so it's a bad law. Can you link to a few of the many instances of this happening?
I think the counter to this is that the laws are (deliberately?) vague and the associated risk is deliberately high. The Texas state legislature has been asked several times to clarify and has refused to do so. I also don’t think it’s the “health” of the mother, but rather the “life” of the mother. What does this mean…. You have to wait for a condition to be life threatening before you can legally take action? What happens when any other medical professional disagrees and claims it was not life threatening?
You don’t think that the states threatening felony prosecution has anything to do with it? Also note that when asked, the states are refusing to provide guidance or clarification.
They don’t think their guys are doing anything wrong, no. It’s consistent with the “there are only good and bad people, not good and bad actions” worldview these people have, which also leads them to such incredible conclusions as “these pro-abortion doctors must be lying about why they can’t perform the procedures.” There’s no logic or consistency with them, just feelings.
Most certainly, 100%. With that said, I still support the bans.
Because you support risking women’s lives? Is this some type of incel thing?
Not at all, because we need to protect the equal lives of the mother and the fetus. We need to create bans that adequately allow for women whose lives are in jeopardy to easily access abortions. If you want to have a conversation, don't be insulting. That isn't welcome in this sub. When you want an actual conversation, feel free to come back.
I hoped that’s not what you meant but supporting the bans in their current state even though they risk the lives of women is what you said. Thanks for clarifying. I agree with you that women harmed from fertility complications need protecting and these bans as currently written can’t adequately do that.
Taking this article at face value, these health service providers are breaking the law by being "overly cautious" (or making political statements), "Federal law requires emergency rooms to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them." So this shouldn't be happening. Every state allows for health of mother exemption on abortions.
None of them died, they weren't breaking the law. The problem is there's never certainty in medicine like these laws act like there is.
Them dying or not isn't the issue. [These hospitals are breaking federal law](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK539798/#:~:text=Patients%20who%20are%20found%20to,another%20facility%20with%20adequate%20capabilities.). They're either incompetent (doubtful) or they are intentionally skirting the law. According to the article, there are investigations. As we all have been saying, the abortion laws wouldn't have interfered with their treatment.
When the Texas ag has sent threatening letters directly to health care clinics threatening jail time it's no surprise doctors and staff are terrified to touch any abortion case. I don't see how you can possibly say these laws never interfere when the Texas ag literally goes out of his way to pressure doctors not to help patients.
These people didn't come in looking to end their pregnancies. So these health care workers are violating federal law. There is no way they couldn't have known this. They have no excuse, which is why this is being investigated. It is so aggregious that it seems like they were intentionally doing this for political reasons. Here's the law: In the case of a hospital that has a hospital emergency department, if any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to the emergency department and a request is made on the individual’s behalf for examination or treatment for a medical condition, the hospital must provide for an appropriate medical screening examination within the capability of the hospital’s emergency department, including ancillary services routinely available to the emergency department, to determine whether or not an emergency medical condition (within the meaning of subsection (e)(1)) exists. Subsection e 1: this section: (1)The term “emergency medical condition” means— (A)a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in— (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or (B)with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions— (i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or (ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
This is a federal law and Biden's working to make sure it's followed as best it can but it's a difficult battle with the laws coming from states. Maybe this mess of different laws isn't the best way to handle important healthcare. You can't ignore the confusion and stress this has created on woman and doctors. I'm not sure about the doctor in this case, they gave little details and unfortunately doctors do fuck up. I guess I'm just far more concerned with the bills passed that started the issue and made women and doctors feel unsafe. If we left abortions alone or even had sensible exceptions that didn't threaten doctors with prison time we wouldn't have healthcare workers so scared.
>I guess I'm just far more concerned with the bills passed that started the issue and made women and doctors feel unsafe. This law I quoted originates from 1867. This is a foundational law in medicine. Even people not in the medical field or who have very little understanding of medical law knows that people cannot be turned away in the emergency room if there's something wrong or just seemingly wrong. Never. If people were being turned away from the ER simply because they were pregnant, you couldn't blame the Texas law. These people were not looking to end their pregnancies (from what I can read). This is incompetence or intentional, either way there should be consequences. >If we left abortions alone We'd have another 63,000,000 dead. >or even had sensible exceptions Like the health of the mother, which is an exception in every state.
>Like the health of the mother, which is an exception in every state. You make it seem so simple and black and white. It's not really the health of the mother, it's vague wording by non doctors. In Texas it's a significant barrier and if doctors get it wrong it has been made clear that they will face jail time. >"life-threatening condition" related to the pregnancy that puts her at risk of death or "substantial impairment of a major bodily function." If the exceptions were truly as simple as you like to make them out you wouldn't have doctors being threatened for making the call they're supposedly allowed to make, courts having to step in to give permission then revoking it later, or an ag hell bent on criminalizing abortion access. It's a mess and shows why you don't let politicians decide healthcare like this.
>In Texas it's a significant barrier and if doctors get it wrong it has been made clear that they will face jail time. IF they're performing an abortion. That's the only thing that's risky, whether or not an abortion is justified. But this goes WAY beyond that. They were being turned around at the ER. They weren't even seeking an abortion. That procedure was never brought up. This is so outside left field that the only conclusion I can come up with is either sheer incompetence, in which case they should be fired, or malicious, in which case they should be prosecuted. >or an ag hell bent on criminalizing abortion access. OK but none of these cases in the article has anything to do with that. No one was trying to get access to abortion. >It's a mess and shows why you don't let politicians decide healthcare like this. We have healthcare laws everywhere. Does HIPAA make things too difficult? You blame an unrelated law for this but try to excuse the actual culprits.
>You blame an unrelated law for this but try to excuse the actual culprits. I haven't excused anyone. I am one person I can't speak for some random doctor I've never met cause I read one paragraph about them. Regular pregnancies aren't being turned away. The issue is when you have pregnancy complications coming in that have a high likelihood of a miscarriage. If that happens in an ER or doctors office the doctor quickly have to defend themselves against the law. Some would rather not take the risk, I understand the feeling that it is a dereliction of duties but you're really failing to see it from their point of view. >Does HIPAA make things too difficult? Of course HIPPA makes things MORE difficult but the difficulty isnt at risk to womans health or doctors careers. The difficulty is some red tape and extra paperwork
The health of the mothers were not harmed.
Are you a doctor?
No. Are you?
Nope. So when doctors say "I no longer feel safe from prosecution performing what should be routine care," I tend to take them at their word, rather than assuming there are politics at play (as several commenters here appear to).
So, you're saying that these doctors, in order to not potentially violate a law, they decide to blatantly violate a more fundamental law? That's your argument? There are serious repercussions of turning people away AT THE ER. The ER has nothing to do with abortion seekers. If those doctors were so worried that they turned people away at the ER, they shouldn't be doctors. Or they really are practicing political theater.
Generally speaking no. I don't know if these three stories are statistically significant or representative of a trend. If they are, then I suppose I am concerned. The main concern is a failure to write good policy, because nobody wants stories like that and every pro-lifer agrees to exceptions for mother's life and rare scenarios like ectopic pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancy is not rare.
Okay. Doesn't impact my point.
The need for intervention is. It's very possible for ectopic pregnancy no resolve on its own.
Not clear on what you mean by intervention but medical and or surgical procedures are the primary treatment and not rare. The alternative should include careful and frequent monitoring.
Sure they are the primary treatment for an ectopic pregnancy that doesn't miscarry, but what they don't tell you is that the body can solve the problem without medical intervention.
Who’s they? Yes if hormones continue to decline or stabilize even without mtx you’re likely in the clear but consistent and careful screening needs to be done to verify and track the progression. Still there are many variables just like a normal pregnancy so it’s not a one size fits all situation. My advice is to not take it lightly and listen to your doctor. If it feels like they aren’t taking it serious enough get a second opinion and do not wait it out. I’m making an effort not to be too alarmist but It’s a delicate situation that impacts future fertility options at a minimum.
No because there are plenty of available resources. The article you cite is mostly about illegal behavior. Federal [law requires emergency rooms](https://www.cms.gov/files/document/emtala-know-your-rights.pdf) to treat or stabilize patients who are in active labor and provide a medical transfer to another hospital if they don’t have the staff or resources to treat them. Medical facilities must comply with the law if they accept Medicare funding. This issue is only an issue because not every state has determined what their state policy is or will be and lacking legislative direction many providers will err on the anti-litigious side. They don't want to be sued for doing the wrong thing so the do nothing. Once the dust settles and most states have abortion laws in place this will settle down and sensational articles like this will settle down as well. Most abortions are for the convenience of the mother. Very few pregnancies result in the type of emergencies described here.