Woman forced to carry fetus with no skull to term

[Janet_Miller]

The baby will receive end of life care and a burial.

Or she can cross the state line to abort.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw abortion as a state matter and not for the federal government.

End of story

[WuWei]

@JayJay

there exist conditions that will make the fetus non-viable…as determined by a physician (or physicians if you feel a second opinion must be gotten).

That would seem to be the case based on the link in the OP.

[WuWei]

The baby will probably be still born.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

“Sorry if we cause women pain because we rushed these laws through without consulting experts. But evil baby killing must stop now, you see…it’s acceptable collateral damage if some women suffer trauma”.

Mmmmm Inflation Reduction Act.

[Janet_Miller]

It happens, happened to one of my in-laws and she went onto have a healthy baby girl after that.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t support Roe v Wade, nor do I.

[zantax]

Any halfway competent state politician would leave this question to voters via referendum.

[WuWei]

@zantax

Any halfway competent state politician would leave this question to voters via referendum.

I’m not sure I agree with that. Going to limiting voting to females of childbearing age?

[tnt]

@zantax

@WuWei

OP Link

Davis told WAFB-9 that her pregnancy has been impacted by a condition known as acrania. It is not explicitly mentioned on the Department of Health’s list, although that list does include a broad exception for other types of anomalies—as long as two physicians deem that anomaly valid.

Oh, so another ten year old flees Ohio to have an abortion she could have had in Ohio story.

No - two physicians have to confirm the anomalies that are on the list.

This anomaly is NOT on the list, so there can be no abortion.

That’s how I read that.

[Steel-W0LF]

@JayJay

I’m diminishing ideologues who don’t think through the consequences of their actions, and people like you who then say “Oh that’s Ok…we can fix that later. Oops! Our bad!”

Or make nonsense posts like “Oh the states will vote those types of people out”.

The problem is…no the states won’t vote those types of people out.

And warnings were given this is what would happen BEFORE all these restrictive laws were passed…and people like you pooh poohed those warnings as “overreaction”.

And there’s scant evidence more thought will be given to them now.

Which is worse:
A) using the one case in a 1,000 where an abortion would be warranted to justify killings the 999 children that were not.

B) outlawing the killing of 999 children and later having to fix the law to allow the one.

Or solution: quit trying to use the <1% to justify the other 99%

[zantax]

@WuWei

@zantax

Any halfway competent state politician would leave this question to voters via referendum.

I’m not sure I agree with that. Going to limiting voting to females of childbearing age?

No, why should we, it’s mens children too.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

Do you make a policy for abortions because of a birth defect that occurs in 4 in 10,000 (or 1 in 20,000 depending on the source) live births?

I think you have to allow for exceptions in the law. We can’t leave it up to assumption.

Of people who “kill” some people do it with intent, some on accident, some by proxy (I held the door open for someone to kill) etc.

Not sure of the percentage breakdown but I would guess There is a hierarchy of “killing”.

[Steel-W0LF]

@WuWei

@zantax

Any halfway competent state politician would leave this question to voters via referendum.

I’m not sure I agree with that. Going to limiting voting to females of childbearing age?

Only if men no longer have to pay “support”.

[WuWei]

@zantax

@WuWei

@zantax

Any halfway competent state politician would leave this question to voters via referendum.

I’m not sure I agree with that. Going to limiting voting to females of childbearing age?

No, why should we, it’s mens children too.

Mmmmmmm. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy, do males get pregnant?

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

Do you make a policy for abortions because of a birth defect that occurs in 4 in 10,000 (or 1 in 20,000 depending on the source) live births?

I think you have to allow for exceptions in the law. We can’t leave it up to assumption.

Of people who “kill” some people do it with intent, some on accident, some by proxy (I held the door open for someone to kill) etc.

Not sure of the percentage breakdown but I would guess There is a hierarchy of “killing”.

Isn’t that what courts are for?

[PurpnGold]

@Steel-W0LF

Or solution: quit trying to use the >1% to justify the other 99%

We do this with speeding laws. Why should I be forced to drive under a speed limit when I’m a responsible driver?

Speed laws use the 1% to justify limiting for everyone.

[PurpnGold]

@WuWei

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

Do you make a policy for abortions because of a birth defect that occurs in 4 in 10,000 (or 1 in 20,000 depending on the source) live births?

I think you have to allow for exceptions in the law. We can’t leave it up to assumption.

Of people who “kill” some people do it with intent, some on accident, some by proxy (I held the door open for someone to kill) etc.

Not sure of the percentage breakdown but I would guess There is a hierarchy of “killing”.

Isn’t that what courts are for?

Using courts to determine whether or not someone should get an abortion is a bad idea. Unless there is some special process that expedites those cases.

If you have to make a decision by 12 weeks but find out when you are 8 weeks… then can a court case be ruled in 4 weeks? Not in our current system.

[Steel-W0LF]

@PurpnGold

@Steel-W0LF

Or solution: quit trying to use the >1% to justify the other 99%

We do this with speeding laws. Why should I be forced to drive under a speed limit when I’m a responsible driver?

Speed laws use the 1% to justify limiting for everyone.

That comparison doesn’t jive at all.

We limit speeds to protect others from the speeders.
We limit abortions to protect others from the abortionists.

Another valid comparison would be saying: speeding should be legal because what if I have to get to the hospital? Trying to use an exception to justify the everyday.

[zantax]

@WuWei

@zantax

@WuWei

@zantax

Any halfway competent state politician would leave this question to voters via referendum.

I’m not sure I agree with that. Going to limiting voting to females of childbearing age?

No, why should we, it’s mens children too.

Mmmmmmm. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy, do males get pregnant?

No, they get women pregnant, did you not get the birds and the bees talk?

[PurpnGold]

@Steel-W0LF

Another valid comparison would be saying: speeding should be legal because what if I have to get to the hospital? Trying to use an exception to justify the everyday.

Ahh but even under Roe… abortion had limits, right?

Using your speeding analogy… conservatives are looking to lower the speed limit for everyone and remove exceptions to speeding like an ambulance or cop.

[JayJay]

I’m doing none of that.

I’m saying that these states that were so eager for abortion bans of course went too far in the other direction.