I meant to challenge the abortion in any way, shape, or form.@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
I suppose a prosecutor could bring an action against the doctor and claim he broke the law by violating the medical standards.
@bradstevens no applicable crim law in mass. They’ve been repealed etc. they even have shield laws for out of state.
My point is simple. Prenatal pain is nonsensical as a justification for an abortion. Every healthy fetus, every single one of use, endured frequent and severe pain during pregnancy.I don’t understand what pain has to do with anything.
Seriously? Where do you stand on laws prohibiting animal cruelty?
It has nothing to do with Trump or TDS. It's a long time coming. The liberal social warriors have taken complete control of the Democratic Party and economics is nothing more than an empty campaign slogan. THe working class currently has no party representing it.did you ever imagine we’d have anything as despicable as the Dem party? In 35 years of politics I never thought we’d have anything like Dems today
It’s a mystery. The only explanation I can come up with is a severe TDS infection. There are many Democrats (Az Sen. Kelly is one) who have the chops to stand up to this bullshit, but they don’t. Fetterman can use some company. Colorado gov. Polis has weighed in on the side of political sanity, but he gets no traction.
The husband of my friend went to the ER and turned out his heart was operating at 5% efficiency and he was terminal. She wanted to put him in hospice. Medicare required a doctor's statement that he would live less than 6 months, doctor refused for liability reasons, even though his prognosis was days to weeks.
In short, McM, your real ire should be directed at cough cough lawyers.
@aloha-hoosier nah I just think youre just some old bald dumb military blockhead fck to be honest. I wouldn’t let you run a sno cone stand. But the military. Purveyors of waste and bad audits
Legislation is society setting rules of behavior on a specific topic for the good of society, am I right? When it comes to any time close to a full-term healthy baby, is there any significant medical difference between aborting and delivering the baby? At that point, why does the mother get to choose between the two? If she doesn't want it, deliver it and put it up for state adoption. Legislation should take the choice out of the mother's hands at that point because the baby is viable.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.
So one clearcut answer would be viability. If the doctor(s) consider the fetus viable, the mother can no longer "choose" to abort. She can only choose to cede her rights to the baby to the state.
Fetal Viability: The Ultimate Guide to the Legal and Medical Standard
Okay, what do I know? 🙂
Until Dobbs it was all about viability. Now it's up to states to specify whether it's viability, personhood or Micky Mouse approval.
Googling the safety of near full-term abortion, it appears it's generally safer for the woman to carry the baby to term than to undergo abortion. So it sounds like the Mass law (without reading it) is enabling doctors to make hard decisions without legal repercussions that might otherwise hamstring the doctors that lead them to cover their asses rather than do what they believe is best for the safety of the mother.
The current sanity of pregnant woman has a half-life of a nanosecond. Women should not be allowed to get pregnant without a good, solid, sane husband.
@carramrod I found your spirit animal.
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.
Ultimately, I think what we have to come to grips with isn't why some abortions bother us more than others. @bar-down has some answers for that, and I guess they work as far as they go. But I think ultimately, what we really have to come to grips with is, why do any abortions at all bother us? What is wrong with an abortion, morally speaking?
Is it simply because the fetus feels pain? If that's the case, I think McM might be onto something with his 22-24 week thing. But I don't think that's it for most people. I think most people instinctually feel that a fetus, at some point, becomes a human being that has a right to life, and I think very few of us honestly believe the point this happens is when it emerges from the birth canal and rhetorically changes from a fetus to an infant.
I still stand by my prediction that, decades from now, virtually all abortion will be banned based on some understanding of fetal personhood.
@goat I don’t know the background behind these laws and I have tried to avoid the morality part. I just know about having babies and I know how medical malpractice cases work. I believe these markers like 22-24 weeks have less to do with pain to the fetus and more to do with burdens on parents. It allows time to know if there’s downs and/or structural problems.
the former law as drafted captured anomalous shit that could crop up post twenty four weeks. Again with the idea of preserving the mother and not visiting undue burdens on parents. It wasn’t great but it was understandable.
the new law is an abomination. AMA is a guide. Instructive. It’s not dispositive in a med mal action. If a dr now kills a 40 week old baby and other drs in the field/community etc deem it reasonable there is no liability for the dr.
now. What physician carriers will do or direct I don’t know. Most give discretion to drs. You get in a car crash the carrier decides whether to settle. Most physician policies require physician consent to settle.
@bar-down I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the debate can even meaningfully exist without discussing the morality. If the question is undue burden on the parents, then why not just allow abortion up until birth at the complete discretion of the parents? For this to even be a discussion, there must be some reason you might be opposed to an abortion at all, and I don't see any way that can be divorced from morality.
SCOTUS tried to divorce it from morality in Roe by cobbling together some strange state interest framework, but we all know that was bullshit (although we all have very different reasons why we think so).
No, I think if we are going to really get down to when an abortion might be okay, we first have to look in the mirror and address why it might not be okay to begin with.
@goat absolutely. Morality is probably the biggest feature. I was just addressing the nuts and bolts and procedures and standing. It can’t be to the complete discretion of parents bc they can’t do it themselves. A dr has to do it. That said this law is about as close as it gets to the complete discretion of parents.