I don’t understand your argument. The new law permits aborting (killing) a healthy full term infant.
Only if a qualified medical professional's opinion is to do so. I found the prior law to be more than adequate, but this is why people hate lawyers. In practice, this isn't going to start happening regularly or normally.
Again, I am not supportive of this change, but your outrage is not productive.
@co-hoosier i don't remember any of that nor really care to be honest. i just meant he used to think and be rational. his posts in this thread and emojis are ridiculous. lurker as well. as you correctly noted the law is unequivocal. the prior provided standards. the present none.
Mark doesn’t believe in personal accountability- Rush made his parents crazy, it wasn’t their fault. He’s the quintessential Democrat - it’s ALWAYS someone else’s fault.
How often this happens doesn’t matter. Killing a full term healthy infant would not be an unintended consequence of this law.
I don’t understand your argument. The new law permits aborting (killing) a healthy full term infant.
Only if a qualified medical professional's opinion is to do so. I found the prior law to be more than adequate, but this is why people hate lawyers. In practice, this isn't going to start happening regularly or normally.
Again, I am not supportive of this change, but your outrage is not productive.
Thank you. Reasonable voices in this thread are few and far between.
@unclemark that’s your take bc your knowledge could fit on a tip of a fingernail. What’s more it’s that blatant ignorance that gives rise to laws like this.
abortion at 40 weeks is legal. That’s it. There’s no qualifier. The qualifiers were removed. No matter how far you want to reach. Nor is there liability. Coh is dead on. Instead of inserting you’d do well to listen and learn. It’s the ignorant that allow this to happen. Some of you are trying to impute things that do not factor in. Killing a full term baby is legal in mass and the dr has no liability. That’s it.
@unclemark it’s always something with Dems isn’t. Eh open borders. That’s not what they mean. Defund. Oh they don’t mean that. No limits on abortion. They don’t mean that. Yes. They do. Stop voting for them. When they say something they mean it
@unclemark that’s your take bc your knowledge could fit on a tip of a fingernail. What’s more it’s that blatant ignorance that gives rise to laws like this.
abortion at 40 weeks is legal. That’s it. There’s no qualifier. The qualifiers were removed. No matter how far you want to reach. Nor is there liability. Coh is dead on. Instead of inserting you’d do well to listen and learn. It’s the ignorant that allow this to happen. Some of you are trying to impute things that do not factor in. Killing a full term baby is legal in mass and the dr has no liability. That’s it.
That's not accurate. The qualifier is the physician's judgment. Again, I am not supportive of this change, but you cannot have a discussion without acknowledging what is happening and what is not.
I think many of us would agree that removing specific objective qualifiers in favor of subjective ones is a dangerous idea. That being said, there is not simply no consequences for bad actors in such case of failing to provide medical advice based on the standards of care. For example, if a mother is full-term with a healthy baby, how would abortion fall within professional standards of care? Delivery seems much more likely.
Secondly, isn't the physician protected by shield-law only if they meet professional standards of care? If there is a healthy fetus and mother and she decides she doesn't want to the baby, isn't a physician violating professional standards of care by aborting a baby that would otherwise have a chance to survive and live?
@jdb explain to me the difference between a 23 week viable baby and a 38 week. If we deem it legal to commit abortion there is no difference.
Standard of care relates to the procedure. Did they follow the proper procedures in performing the abortion. Did they say it wasn’t viable when it actually was. Did they misdiagnose something. Did they botch it. Those are actionable.
if a patient presents and says it’s my body my choice and I don’t want the baby and the dr performs the abortion I don’t see a case if it’s done properly.
abortion is legal to birth. That’s the law. Describe to me the medical negligence in doing what the patient asks that is legal now. 5 weeks. 30 weeks. 40 weeks. There’s no difference.
@jdb and in addition to what I wrote who has standing. Mom will have signed a detailed informed consent.
all of this is likely an academic debate and won’t even come up but what I wrote comports with the law and the law is nothing more than a woke virtue signal by a lesbian gov
Seems to me that most Dems support abortion after birth. This woman strangled her 3 little kids to death and white liberal women everywhere are treating her like a hero and role model.
https://twitter.com/LukaLev/status/2090451802755858898
@unclemark that’s your take bc your knowledge could fit on a tip of a fingernail. What’s more it’s that blatant ignorance that gives rise to laws like this.
abortion at 40 weeks is legal. That’s it. There’s no qualifier. The qualifiers were removed. No matter how far you want to reach. Nor is there liability. Coh is dead on. Instead of inserting you’d do well to listen and learn. It’s the ignorant that allow this to happen. Some of you are trying to impute things that do not factor in. Killing a full term baby is legal in mass and the dr has no liability. That’s it.
If by "legal" you mean "not criminal" it was already legal. Massachusetts got rid of all criminal penalties for abortion years ago.
@jdb As of now, this is correct. Regardless of the change in the law, a physician performing a medically unnecessary late-term abortion would be violating all sorts of medical standards.
The thing people keep forgetting is that a late-term abortion is not a simple procedure. It's a serious medical intervention. It does not get done lightly. It inherently entails severe risks. A doctor doing it without very demonstrable necessity would be violating both medical ethics and standards of practice from here to Tuesday.
Show me the elements of the medical negligence claim. And name the plaintiff.
now there might be hospital prohibitions or physician group prohibitions or malpractice carrier prohibitions and again I do not believe this going to be some common thing at all, but that statute removed the conditions under which a dr can do it and left it up to his judgment. AMA says it shouldn’t be done but that’s not dispositive.
You’ve got drs that will perform gender transformation surgeries on kids. You don’t think there are enough to believe that depression, my body my choice, etc is enough?
and yet again no one will answer who has standing? Mom wanted it. Signed informed consent. Dr did it perfectly.
what is the liability? It’s not criminal. And it’s not civil in mass. That dr walks.
Boom @jdb @goat @unclemark
This is absolutely what I’m talking about. Coh too. Read the first paragraph
https://laterabortion.org/why-do-clinicians-provide-later-abortion-care
you find a dr who performs it. Has the training. Doesn’t botch it. And has other drs who believe as those do in this initiative there is nothing happening to that dr.
so before the statute clearly delineated the conditions under which a dr could perform a later term abortion. Removed you empower the lunatic drs in this articles beliefs
Colorado
https://cwhccolorado.com/for-patients/abortion-faq-facts/index.html
No legal liability, no professional sanctions.
Youre trying to impute something that does not exist. If drs decide now they’re going to perform third term abortions bc mom wants an abortion they are free to do so. There are drs already doing it
Seems to me that most Dems support abortion after birth. This woman strangled her 3 little kids to death and white liberal women everywhere are treating her like a hero and role model.
All of them need to be institutionalized