The Roe Countdown

[TomB]

Name one.

Alabama.

Alabama law generally prohibits abortion at twenty weeks post-fertilization and at viability.[1] In 2019, the state enacted a total abortion ban without exceptions.[2] The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern Division has enjoined enforcement of the total ban, pending litigation, as it applies to abortions pre-viability abortion care.[3] Alabama also prohibits D&X procedures and D&E procedures;[4] the latter ban is permanently enjoined.[5] Pregnant people who seek abortion care must undergo a mandatory forty-eight-hour waiting period, biased counseling, and an ultrasound.[6] Alabama limits public funding for abortion[7] and private insurance coverage of abortion.[8] Alabama law generally requires that a parent, legal guardian,[9] or judge[10] consent to a minor’s abortion.

https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/alabama/

It is currently blocked from enforcing that law, but if Roe is overturned, that would end.

 

[Meadmaker]

2. What magical pregnancies exist where the mother's life is not in some kind of danger?

This is what I meant when I said, "And, whether speaking of Jewish law or of secular law, there will be plenty of debate about exactly what constitutes danger,"

The laws that get passed will have exceptions for the life of the mother, and both sides will go into court trying to say that the line should be drawn more restrictively or less restrictively. Abortion supporters will try to do what you are doing there, which is to say that the mother's life is always in danger.

That won't fly in a courtroom, but what if a doctor testifies that there is a 10% chance that the mother could die? What if it's 1% or 0.1%? Or 50%?

I don't know how those will shake out. The actual statutes that are passed will have some influence on that.

My advice is to be sure to vote.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Alabama.

https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/alabama/

It is currently blocked from enforcing that law, but if Roe is overturned, that would end.

Don't. Now it's just going to be "That doesn't count because reasons" and then we'll have to talk about the made up reasons.

That's why I stopped playing the "shOW mE WhERe ANyOnE SaID thAT!" game.

 

[Meadmaker]

Alabama.

https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/alabama/

It is currently blocked from enforcing that law, but if Roe is overturned, that would end.

Here's the law that was actually passed:



https://www.scribd.com/document/410208560/Alabama-2019-HB314-Abortion-Ban#from_embed


Search for the word "except".

 

[Bob001]

Name one.

Looks like states so far are still providing an exception to save the life of the mother. I can only imagine the litigation: The mother and doctor would be prosecuted for murder, and they would have to try to prove that the woman would otherwise have died. What a wonderful world!
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...-abortion-rights-if-roe-v-wade-is-overturned/

 

[Meadmaker]

I can only imagine the litigation:

Very appropriate wording.

 

[Bob001]

Very appropriate wording.

Why do you insist it can't happen in the current environment?

 

[TomB]

Here's the law that was actually passed:



https://www.scribd.com/document/410208560/Alabama-2019-HB314-Abortion-Ban#from_embed


Search for the word "except".

Fair enough.

However, I would argue that such a law still effectively outlaws abortions when there is danger to the mother. The reason being is that is sets doctors up to a point where they are risking themselves to provide medical care. The law doesn't define circumstances that are "a serious11health risk to the unborn child's mother." Which means that decisions are subject to challenge after the fact.

That said, it's actually vague enough that, with the right jury, any abortion could be arguable legal. Depression. Carrying the unwanted baby to term could bring on serious depression which could lead to suicide.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Won’t someone think of the pedophiles!

To their credit, they are thinking about the children.

 

[Random]

Fair enough.

However, I would argue that such a law still effectively outlaws abortions when there is danger to the mother. The reason being is that is sets doctors up to a point where they are risking themselves to provide medical care. The law doesn't define circumstances that are "a serious11health risk to the unborn child's mother." Which means that decisions are subject to challenge after the fact.

That said, it's actually vague enough that, with the right jury, any abortion could be arguable legal. Depression. Carrying the unwanted baby to term could bring on serious depression which could lead to suicide.

That's where the miscarriage police some in. Someone has to do a thorough criminal investigation of all miscarriages in order to find out if they were legal miscarriages, vital-life saving medical procedures, or a major felony.

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's the law that was actually passed:



https://www.scribd.com/document/410208560/Alabama-2019-HB314-Abortion-Ban#from_embed


Search for the word "except".

For those curious, the key text starts on page 7:

Section 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion except as provided for by subsection (b).
(b) An abortion shall be permitted if an attending physician licensed in Alabama determines that an abortion is necessary in order to prevent a serious health risk to the unborn child's mother. Except in the case of a medical emergency as defined herein, the physician's determination shall be confirmed in writing by a second physician licensed in Alabama. The confirmation shall occur within 180 days after the abortion is completed and shall be prima facie evidence for a permitted abortion.​

So there is quite clearly an exception, and that prior link is wrong.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Here's why the speaker's claim is hogwash:

There will be zero states where it will be illegal to terminate a pregnancy in cases where the mother's life is in danger. It won't happen, anywhere.

Even if that's true (it's likely to be true) do you want the DA to be in on the discussion about what constitutes a reasonable medical decision? Some of the existing trigger laws have some pretty strict wording that implies you have to be almost certain the mother will die.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're getting baited into a rousing game of "Show me where the law says exactly that word for word" when the whole point of these laws is that they are so vague and badly written that whoever is in power can enforce them however they want.

Hell in most of the laws the restriction take effect before a woman can even reliably know she is pregnant, which makes everything else meaningless.

 

[TomB]

To add to my previous post, I'll cite this:

Nothing in these laws specifically outlines what constitutes life-endangering or how “serious” a circumstance must be in order intervene. For physicians, who can now be fired and sued for “aiding and abetting” an unlawful abortion, this ambiguity may be determinant: Not only could it dissuade a person from performing an abortion, but also it could delay them performing one; for instance, while hospital attorneys or even government officials are consulted to determine the legality of the procedure. Simply speaking, this transgresses nearly every basic medical ethics principle — namely autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice — with a pregnant person’s life hanging in the balance.

Second, consider the language “medical emergencies,” which is increasingly being used both in law and common parlance. Mississippi’s contentious abortion law defines medical emergencies as “a condition that in the physician’s good-faith medical judgment, based upon the facts known to the physician at that time, so endangers the life of the pregnant woman or a major bodily function of the pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion.” The problem is that not all conditions that threaten a pregnant person’s life are active emergencies when they are known, treated, and managed — as my own situation shows.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/28/the-new-abortion-restriction-no-one-is-talking-about-00028171

Then there is this real world atrocity from Texas:

Anna's water had broken too early for the baby to survive. She and Scott spent the night of their wedding in the emergency room, trying to take in the heartbreaking news.

"Basically, the doctor looked at me and was like, well, the baby's underdeveloped," says Anna. "Even with the best NICU care in the world, they're not going to survive."

And as painful as it was to hear that, the doctors told Anna there was another urgent concern.

" 'You're at a high chance of going septic or bleeding out,' " she says the doctors told her — a risk of infection or hemorrhage, which could become deadly. " 'And unfortunately, we recommend termination, but we cannot provide you one here in Texas because of this law.' "
Before Roe v. Wade, a secret group provided abortions. Two new films tell the story.
Before Roe v. Wade, a secret group provided abortions. Two new films tell the story.

In Anna's situation, a patient would normally be offered two options: wait and watch for signs of danger, or terminate the pregnancy, which is usually the safest option and most guaranteed to preserve future fertility.

But under Texas law, abortions are allowed at that stage only for severe medical emergencies, defined as when a patient is "in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function."

And because fetal heart tones were detectable, doctors told Anna they couldn't offer her that option.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/28/1083536401/texas-abortion-law-6-months

Later in the article, an anti-choice source said that "medical associations should do more to help doctors understand what's allowed under the law." The problem with this is that doctors need to study and practice medicine. Not legal policy and it's possible interpretations.

 

[cosmicaug]

Here's why the speaker's claim is hogwash:

There will be zero states where it will be illegal to terminate a pregnancy in cases where the mother's life is in danger. It won't happen, anywhere.

It may be hogwash now. It probably won't be hogwash forever.

As an aside, it will kill women despite the medical emergency exceptions. Why? Because no healthcare provider wants to be jailed for a felony & lose their license to practice & no hospital administrator wants to take risks that may affect the hospital's bottom line.

Determining what is life threatening involves a judgment call. Something may be medically harmful & cause life long sequelae but not cause always cause death. Something may have a very high chance of causing death but not be guaranteed to cause death. This means that uncomplicated abortions due to these medical issues will surely be delayed,... just in case.

The "just in case" here has nothing to do with the health of the mother or the fetus; but everything to do with the legal risk to the doctor (if someone second guesses them, they will be legally imperiled). Again, no doctor wants to be stripped of their license and end up in jail (in some cases, no doubt with a murder sentence) and this will compromise medical ethics at the expense of patients. Patients will die because of this.

It may also decrease the supply of OBGYNs in general. Medical insurance will now have to also cover legal risk from someone second guessing physicians about which woman was in danger of dying as well as additional malpractice risk due to delayed care resulting in death or unnecessary injury. Doctors will factor all of this and the legal risks into the decision of what specialty to go into and it may very well decrease the pool.

 

[Meadmaker]

Why do you insist it can't happen in the current environment?

To be fair, there could be cases where it could happen. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it will, in fact, happen, eventually.

The vast majority of cases will be pretty straightforward. There are conditions where it is well known that are dangerous, and everyone agrees, and the physician will check a box on a form and there will be no debate, discussion, or litigation.

However, there will be other cases where a pro-abortion doctor stretches those limits, and in most cases, prosecutors will let it pass as long as the doctor goes through the motions. However, there will be some cases where there is a religious zealot prosecutor, or there is a doctor who has a reputation for being perfectly willing to perform abortions on a flimsiest excuse where other doctors wouldn't touch it, and the prosecutor will go after them.


So, what I object to is the idea that this will be normal. It won't be. No one wants to see people prosecuted for terminating a pregancy where the mother is in danger. Well, I shouldn't say "no one", because there's always a fringe weirdo here and there. However, most people who terminate dangerous pregnancies are not going to be hauled into court and forced to prove their innocence. It won't happen in a normal case.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fair enough.

However, I would argue that such a law still effectively outlaws abortions when there is danger to the mother. The reason being is that is sets doctors up to a point where they are risking themselves to provide medical care. The law doesn't define circumstances that are "a serious11health risk to the unborn child's mother." Which means that decisions are subject to challenge after the fact.

That is incorrect, it does define that. There's a whole section starting on page 6 which specifically does this. Furthermore, if you read how the statute defines abortion itself (starting on page 5), terminating an ectopic pregnancy is specifically NOT counted as an abortion at all.

That said, it's actually vague enough that, with the right jury, any abortion could be arguable legal. Depression. Carrying the unwanted baby to term could bring on serious depression which could lead to suicide.

There is an exception for suicide risk, but it requires a licensed psychiatrist to evaluate the patient and provide a diagnosis that such a risk exists. It does not suffice for the patient to merely claim a risk.

 

[Meadmaker]

Even if that's true (it's likely to be true) do you want the DA to be in on the discussion about what constitutes a reasonable medical decision?

To be clear, I, personally, want abortions to be legal.

However, unless you have abortion that is completely and totally unrestricted up until the moment of birth....which is odd phrasing since birth isn't a "moment", the DA will inevitably be involved in the discussion. If there is a law that makes something illegal, someone has to decide whether that law has been broken.

Some of the existing trigger laws have some pretty strict wording that implies you have to be almost certain the mother will die.

In the past twenty years, I have read exactly one anti-abortion law. That was the Alabama law I read less than an hour ago. That one doesn't imply what you stated. So, in 100% of the cases I am familiar with, your statement is not true. It is conceivable that some state somewhere has passed such a trigger law, but I will be skeptical of such a claim until I see an example.


(Note the difference in tone for saying I don't believe that claim, compared to my previous response about the earlier claim. That's not coincidence. I was absolutely certain that the previous claim was false. I'm pretty sure this one is, as well, but I'm not as certain.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Determining what is life threatening involves a judgment call. Something may be medically harmful & cause life long sequelae but not cause always cause death.

It doesn't have to. The exceptions are for both the life AND the health of the mother.

Something may have a very high chance of causing death but not be guaranteed to cause death.

It doesn't have to. Risk alone suffices. It must be a significant risk, a minuscule one won't suffice, but it does not need to be certain.

 

[Ziggurat]

We're getting baited into a rousing game of "Show me where the law says exactly that word for word" when the whole point of these laws is that they are so vague and badly written that whoever is in power can enforce them however they want.

Hell in most of the laws the restriction take effect before a woman can even reliably know she is pregnant, which makes everything else meaningless.

Some people here have been consistently wrong about what these laws actually say. First, there were supposedly no exceptions in the Alabama law. But it turns out there were. Then there was supposedly no definition of what constituted a "serious health risk to the unborn child's mother". Except it turns out there was a definition.

What the law says is actually very important. You're just butt hurt because people keep correctly pointing out that it's being misrepresented. And that's somehow the fault of the people who actually get it right.