Looks like it is based on the physician's judgment "in accordance to accepted standards of care."
If his judgment is wrong, does anyone have standing to sue? Should they have standing?
Why is birth the dividing line and what counts as "birth?" During contractions, can he go into the uterus and kill the fetus?
Pro-choice peeps, what say you on the dividing line/standard? Pro-life peeps, who pays for the health care of a physically non-viable fetus that must be delivered?
@bradstevens standard of care deviation should apply like all med mal. Mass is obviously insane Dems so who knows what they’ll do with governing statutes.
abortion is typically just Dems pandering to the lazy people they love. Pull out. Wear a rubber. Get on birth control. But plan b. It requires incredible laziness to get pregnant.
but now we’re pregnant. By 24 weeks you have the tests that tell what you need. Downs. Structural mess. All of it. 22-24 weeks should be limit if you’re going to allow abortions
Everyone should be forced to watch a fetus fight for its life while being pulled apart limb from limb before advocating for abortion after 20 or so weeks. If the argument for is due to defects, then we oughtta bring back the discussion for eugenics…
"in accordance to accepted standards of care."
I don’t think any standard of care would justify an abortion (killing) a full term healthy baby. Any provider who says there is such a standard is a political advocate, not a medical provider.
The celebration of those who observed signing this bill was despicable.
does anyone have standing to sue? Should they have standing?
This is a great question. I don’t think it’s possible for nobody to have standing. Judicial review is implied by the existence of a separate and independent judicial branch.
I don’t think it’s possible for nobody to have standing. Judicial review is implied by the existence of a separate and independent judicial branch.
I don't think that's true.
Are we dabbling on the fringes of this argument with the surrogate who refused to abort the child she was carrying?
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
@bradstevens I don’t know what he’s talking about. Unless there’s a statutory exclusion it’s simply med mal like any other med mal. Duty. Br standard of care. Causation. Damages. You get expert. They get expert. That’s it.
I don't think that's true.
I briefed it once. Statute and previous Supreme Court opinion effectively said nobody had standing to challenge decision of local government. I argued the constitution required judicial review to be preserved. There is no law on the issue.
don’t know what he’s talking about. Unless there’s a statutory exclusion it’s simply med mal like any other med mal. Duty. Br standard of care. Causation. Damages. You get expert. They get expert. That’s it.
I can’t think of a standard of care that would support killing a healthy, viable, full term kid.
The prior law was fine. This is vile. Evil. Murder. Period. Hopefully that pos gov rots for eternity in hell.
pubs. Bad policy. Dems. Murderers. Rot in hell.
Democrats are the very worst of us. And @aloha-hoosier you are one dumb dude. Your Trump obsession puts you in the same category as the dumbest people I’ve ever read. Hickory. Shooter. Bowl. Enjoy your company. You’re gross.
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-laws-c112-ss-12n
Absolutely vile. And in taking the time to look it obviates the need to resort to the typical med mal elements formula instead giving complete discretion to these fckd up goofy misfit doctors.
sad times. Anyone who supports Dems better hope there isn’t a god. @aloha-hoosier take your unfit bs and insert it.
Don't lump me with the abortion supporting crowd. I'm for a second and third trimester ban nationwide with the only exceptions being if the baby is dead or if there's actual physical danger to the mother, as in possibility of death. The current Republican leadership has decided that if a state wants to allow abortion on demand until birth, it's A-OK. Guess that means your good with it too. Aren't you a Democrat?
@aloha-hoosier huh! There’s no conferred federal right to abortion. It’s a state issue. Federalism. States set stats governing medical behavior. These are pure dems advocating the murder of full term babies. This is solely the direction of the Dem party. So when shallow thinking blinkards like you @big-ryan @zeke4ahs @hurryinghoosiers are preoccupied with the paint colors at the White House excuse me if I’m not interested while the Dem party allows for the murder of full term babies. And make no mistake. This is murder of a human being. A viable full term human
@unclemark why don’t you flood the zone the mass gov. Devils among us. Not bad policy. Devils. Murderers.
This is one situation that is definitely worthy of a federal law. There absolutely shouldn't be late-term abortions in nationwide except for extremely tight exceptions.
@aloha-hoosier the law prior was fine. I’ve deposed dozens if not hundreds of doctors. Freaks. Misfits. Carte blanche to kill full term babies in mass. I know med mal. I know how the statutes work. This law is a joke. Democrats are the devil. No hyperbole. Democrats should receive zero votes. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the devil.
@aloha-hoosier the law prior was fine. I’ve deposed dozens if not hundreds of doctors. Freaks. Misfits. Carte blanche to kill full term babies in mass. I know med mal. I know how the statutes work. This law is a joke. Democrats are the devil. No hyperbole. Democrats should receive zero votes. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for the devil.
Congressional Republicans used to fight for a late-term abortion ban. They don't do that now. The Mass law (and similar laws in 9 other states, I believe) should be motivating them to bring that back up but it hasn't.