@unclemark I still don't know that it's a good idea. @bar-down is not describing the reality of the medical profession, but he is describing a theoretical future reality. That's why he would prefer to have the limitations set by the legislature. And it seems to me like the 2022 law did a pretty good job.
But the end result of this law is not going to be a sudden spate of late term abortions. A late term abortion is a serious medical procedure. You don't get one because you're suddenly scared of postpartum depression, like @co-hoosier suggested in his ridiculous post above. You get one when there is a serious medical issue that wasn't foreseen earlier in the pregnancy.
@goat goat think of it like this. Mom presents to the er thinking her water broke. Turns out she had prom. Premature rupture of membranes. Amniotic fluid Can give rise to sepsis “dry birth” etc. the Dre know the standard of care. You do A, B, C. If you do ABC and the baby dies or mom dr has no liability. Dr misdiagnosis and says you pissed yourself and sends patient home. At home sepsis baby dies. That’s med mal. The standard of care to perform the tests was breached.
same applies here. Med mal would occur if the procedure of the abortion was botched. Not the decision to have the abortion. Why? Bc abortion is legal to birth without restrictions. So viability age health of mom doesn’t matter. If mom wants one and dr thinks it’s best. Mom is too young. Will be depressed. That’s it. There’s no distinction between 5 weeks and 40
I think you’re missing the point of what I asked and how Goat responded.@bradstevens no. This isn’t a matter of first impression. These are issues that have been studied for some time. this isn’t some academic morality discussion we’re only learning about now as you and goat apparently want to play profs with. It’s absurd. We KNOW what the tests reveal. When they reveal them. We know what pain meds are administered. We don’t know exactly what the baby feels but we suspect pain that only gets worse with time and obviously know the reason THEBABY is provided with pain meds. Not just mom. The baby. Third trimester. Stress response. Pain. There’s zero reason for the law post 24 weeks save a lefty lunacy signal
some things are clear. This is one. The law is deplorable. We don’t need some esoteric morality bullshit discussion to try to obfuscate what’s patent. Late term is cruel and evil and the law sets no standards. It’s the government sanctioned murder of a viable baby in a method that causes pain.
We aren’t talking about the edge factor or theory supporting the morality of abortion w/r/t the Mass law. I understand your horror. Without knowing more, it sounds ghastly to me, too.
But even you say you are OK with earlier abortions. So I’m asking:why? What is the difference in your mind. You can call that “playing academic,” which of course you know I like to do, but I think I’m just trying to figure out or see what people think about a rational justification for the lines that are drawn.
The buried assumption behind my motive is that a rational justification matters or is driving anything in the analysis or people’s political views. Both your and Goat’s response implicitly challenge that assumption and I think that’s fair and important to do.
@goat the law prior was good. Fine. And agreed there won’t be a rash of these things. But what I’m explaining to you and where you are completely wrong is medical malpractice and the dr being in jeopardy.
@goat and women are nuts. So coh is not wrong. My ex panicked with my minion. Was too freaked out so demanded a c section. Far more serious than vaginal birth
But the end result of this law is not going to be a sudden spate of late term abortions. A late term abortion is a serious medical procedure. You don't get one because you're suddenly scared of postpartum depression, like @co-hoosier suggested in his ridiculous post above. You get one when there is a serious medical issue that wasn't foreseen earlier in the pregnancy.
The law was passed for a reason. As I’ve said, I don’t think there is any medical standard allowing a doctor to kill a full term healthy baby in the womb. A c-section would always be safer for all concerned. Yet the law opens the door to killing the kid. It’s a terrible law.
For full term babies we must think of abortions as killing the baby, and not in terms of terminating a pregnancy. A c-section will terminate the pregnancy. The question will always be why is it good medical practice to kill the kid.
@co-hoosier @unclemark what would give rise to liability on the part of the dr for the decision to grant an abortion was removed. Period. Now the only inquiry isn’t into the decision to abort unless the dr said it wouldn’t be viable or something along those lines but instead simply how the procedure was performed.
if a girl presented at 40 weeks and said I don’t want this baby and the dr said okay we will abort under that law I don’t see a case against the dr
Mass law is such that abortions are available at all stages of pregnancy with no restrictions. Under 16 parental consent is it. Whether it’s week 5 or 40 it’s just the judgment of the dr.
I like the trimester framework Blackmon established. For me the decision is almost 100% unlogical. One must choose between two competing values that many hold dear. I choose choice and I don’t feel compelled to explain when life begins or any other moralistic factor. The mother chooses, ( during first trimester) end of story.
@co-hoosier the old law made sense. It was post the big test then if unforeseen happened thereafter it set the circumstances to allow it still. This change is nothing more than a woke dumb lesbo lefty wanting abortions with no restrictions to pander to the far left radical nuts
AMA
According to American Medical Association (AMA) policy, third-trimester abortions should not be performed except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. While third-trimester abortions can technically be done to protect maternal life or health, the AMA states they are generally unnecessary because maternal health factors can usually be managed while accommodating the fetus
I think you’re missing the point of what I asked and how Goat responded.@bradstevens no. This isn’t a matter of first impression. These are issues that have been studied for some time. this isn’t some academic morality discussion we’re only learning about now as you and goat apparently want to play profs with. It’s absurd. We KNOW what the tests reveal. When they reveal them. We know what pain meds are administered. We don’t know exactly what the baby feels but we suspect pain that only gets worse with time and obviously know the reason THEBABY is provided with pain meds. Not just mom. The baby. Third trimester. Stress response. Pain. There’s zero reason for the law post 24 weeks save a lefty lunacy signal
some things are clear. This is one. The law is deplorable. We don’t need some esoteric morality bullshit discussion to try to obfuscate what’s patent. Late term is cruel and evil and the law sets no standards. It’s the government sanctioned murder of a viable baby in a method that causes pain.
We aren’t talking about the edge factor or theory supporting the morality of abortion w/r/t the Mass law. I understand your horror. Without knowing more, it sounds ghastly to me, too.
But even you say you are OK with earlier abortions. So I’m asking:why? What is the difference in your mind. You can call that “playing academic,” which of course you know I like to do, but I think I’m just trying to figure out or see what people think about a rational justification for the lines that are drawn.
The buried assumption behind my motive is that a rational justification matters or is driving anything in the analysis or people’s political views. Both your and Goat’s response implicitly challenge that assumption and I think that’s fair and important to do.
The reaction of the fetus for me. Pain & suffering, simple as that. Many people deserve it, a fetus does not. Anyone that has seen what happens to a fetus & its reaction during abortion after 24 weeks & still supports it is a special kind of fvcked up. I’m an atheist, so religion isn’t a factor for me…
So on the standing question, it would be the Mass medical board bringing a case against the doctor?The law allows a doctor to say “the gestating person was at 38 weeks and terribly frightened of giving birth, in my professional opinion, the gestating person would have suffered post partum depression so we killed the kid to treat the depression.” There is so much wrong here I don’t know where to begin.
Incorrect. For a doctor to do such a thing would be a grave violation of medical rules and they would be stripped of their ability to practice.
@bar-down The law requires doctors to follow medically recognized standards of care. This does not mean they can just recommend an abortion for whatever reason they want. They still have to follow what the licensing board expects them to follow.
Again I don't know if this law was a good idea. But you guys are absolutely swallowing fear mongering about it. Doctors are not suddenly free to provide late term abortions on a whim.
I'm not sure how much I trust medical boards, etc. with issues like this anymore. I think Mass, for example, still champions hormone "therapy" for minors suffering from gender dysphoria.
@bradstevens why would they have standing? They could try and claim an ethics violation that impacts licensure but they wouldn’t have standing to sue. Use AMA standards etc.
if crazy doc and mom are on the same page the only one with potential standing is the bio father as I see it. Child doesn’t get it in wrongful death or birth cases
or do u mean to attack the law? Not the dr