_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
1169 points (98.6% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3441 readers
1710 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It doesn't really matter since the right to abortions was added to the state constitution.
It still matters because the Federal courts can set precedent that the Federal law (obviously, that's how Federalism works) overrides state abortion bans.
And as the article I posted explains, those hospitals broke federal law when they refused to provide the abortion.
As your own link said, they didn't break the law.
She was stable. The law says the hospital had to wait until she was in danger.
A lawsuit from a pro lifer who is suing because she wanted an abortion isn't proof they broke the law.
This is the link I was talking about. I probably should have been clearer. But this isn't just the plaintiff's opinion, it's a clear statement by the HHS secretary.
Unfortunately the HHS Secretary isn't empowered to create law, nor are they empowered to interpret law. They can only share opinions, provide guidance, create policy, etc. So no, in this case, you are not quite right.
Further, as the other user pointed out: the hospital would rather be sued by the individual for violating their rights than by the state for violating the law. Regardless of potential precedent or final outcome, one is far, FAR more costly than the other.
As they say, when the punishment is less than the profit, it's not a punishment, it's a business expense
Ultimately, laws can only be judged on their ability to create outcomes. This one has failed miserably
My point is that this isn't some random person stating as much. It's an actual finding by the federal government, and adding to that the lawsuit makes it crystal clear the hospital is in the wrong.
If I tell my doctor friend Bob not to call 911 unless there's an emergency, my other friend Tom has a seizure that Bob believes may kill him, and Bob doesn't call 911, is that my fault or Bob's?
The fact that numerous abortions have happened in ban states and nobody has been charged so far is evidence that emergency allowances aren't some draconian measure.
And you don't seem to be listening to people who are telling you that the law doesn't have to be draconian to cost people their lives.
If some number of hospitals conclude that the cost of letting people die and settling wrongful death cases is lower than the cost of defending patients' rights to an abortion under their specific circumstances, then those hospitals will set policy that prohibits providing those abortions. Because they are profit-driven, not charities (a separate but related problem)
I will say it again: if the cost is less than the profit, it's not a punishment, it's a business expense. Put another way, if actually breaking law A costs less than defending accusations of breaking law B, they will break law A every time.
I'm really tired of trying to explain to people that laws and politics do not exist in a bubble.
That calculation can change at any time. Since every state with an abortion ban allows for emergency abortions, federal law requires that they be available, and no doctors have been prosecuted for performing an emergency abortion, there is no logical reason to believe this will happen. However, there is now a significant risk of someone suing the hospital if a woman becomes injured or dies. When they realize they can make more money by following the law, this problem will go away.
A) You hope it will. In the meantime, we continue to see cases of people being in danger or even dying.
B) Good for you that you can hand-wave away other people's lives and safety as just a temporary bump in the road.
Your callousness is disconcerting, to say the least, and I'm done with this conversation now because I can't teach you to stop looking at people as statistics.
A) These kinds of calculations change all the time. That's why we have other companies that hire and fire people constantly or make other seemingly absurd decisions - the cost and benefit calculations change. There's more money to be made in providing early deliveries, like one doctor said they would, than there is in sending patients (customers) on their way with no treatment and getting sued for it. Based on the hundreds of abortions that have happened in Missouri since the ban clearly other doctors think this is true.
B) Allowing abortion in all cases would be a fallacious and nightmarish way to handwave human life as expendable in the name of bodily autonomy.
You don't want to kill people unnecessarily, do you? That would make you so callous as to be inhumane.
I'll come back for one last comment to make this clear:
It is never, EVER acceptable to force someone to use their body to save the life of another. Ever. CORPSES have more rights than that (you have to volunteer to be a donor before death).
You want women to have fewer rights than corpses?
And that's without even arguing whether a clump of cells that can't survive on its own is even considered a life.
You can think someone sucks for having an abortion, and we can discuss what happens when a fetus could possible be viable on its own. But bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. If someone says "disconnect me from the thing attached to my body" you fucking do it. End of story. Call them horrible, callous, a sinner, whatever you want. But you do not force people to use their body as an incubator against their will.
Your claim is wrong. Parents and guardians are forced to use their bodies to provide for children after they're born. They may not be inside the mother any longer, but if the child is harmed or killed, they're liable for child abuse, manslaughter, murder, etc.
The fetus has bodily autonomy as well. The woman's body is made to accommodate the fetus, while no human being is made to accommodate organ harvesting. It is, by definition, a human organism, and thus a human being. A fetus is not a "thing."
You obviously don't understand the concept of bodily autonomy. Parental obligation is not the same as losing bodily autonomy. A parent is not required to give up a kidney or liver for their child. Accountability for a child's behavior is not the same thing as losing bodily autonomy.
It's no different than if you agree to a blood donor and decide in the middle of donation that you want to stop. They cannot force you to continue, even if someone's life depends on it. The fetus' bodily autonomy comes in the form of not having its organs harvested, and being allowed to survive outside the woman's body if it can. There is no form of autonomy that involves another person. That is literally antithetical to the definition of autonomy
You are wrong, flat out, and I encourage you to learn more about ethics before making such patently erroneous statements
Nobody is obligated to give up any bodily organ for the child that wasn't made for them. This is why the "hooked up to a guy with kidney disease" argument doesn't work. However, the uterus was made for the child. It isn't just accountability for the child's behavior, it's also accountability for the child's very life.
It is quite different from deciding not to donate blood. First, donating blood is an extraordinary use of the human body. It isn't made to accommodate blood donations. It is only through medical marvels that it's possible. Pregnancy is a totally ordinary use of a mother's body. The uterus is made to accommodate the fetus. Second, there are plenty of people who donate blood and thus there is no onus on you in particular to provide blood to a particular person. If one person doesn't provide blood, they can get blood from someone else who volunteers. However, when an abortion is performed, there is no recourse for the baby - it dies. It cannot be relocated outside the mother to be grown elsewhere, like inside a different mother. Even if this were possible, it is not done in hundreds of thousands of cases, leaving those human beings to die.
I know plenty about ethics, and I encourage you to learn more yourself so you do not justify killing innocent people any longer.
"Made for them". I see you've resorted to the God argument. My wife's uterus wasn't made for anyone but her. Your theocratic fascism is disgusting.
Interesting that you catch on a single word in my argument and discard the rest. You're the one who introduced God to this. I was speaking strictly biologically, and if you're so blinded by your ideology that a single word is enough to set you off this badly, I don't think you have any place in a discussion like this.
I've already quoted from that exact link.
From link you were talking about:
"At the time of the discussion, Farmer was medically stable, with some vaginal bleeding that was not heavy. “Therefore contrary to the most appropriate management based (sic) my medical opinion, due to the legal language of MO law, we are unable to offer induction of labor at this time,” the report quotes the specialist as saying."
Again, she was stable at the time. The law required that they not perform an abortion.
A political official saying something is not the law. Filling a lawsuit is not the law.
And you apparently didn't read the rest of the article which states in no uncertain terms the hospital was wrong, nor do you know the statements of her lawsuit: she was refused even routine care for her miscarriage even though she was told several times she was in danger.
The doctors said she wasn't in immediate danger.
You presented it as a law being broken. The only law broken would have been if doctors performed the abortion early because she voted to make it illegal.
From her lawsuit:
This is immediate danger. The law would not have been broken had the procedure been performed..
"At risk" isn't an immediate threat. Having high blood pressure makes you, "at risk." That's not the same as having a heart attack which is an immediate threat to your life.
The law only allows abortion under immediate threat.
She wanted an early abortion because it was the safe option. But the law precludes proactive healthcare.
If your water breaks at 16 weeks, that is an emergency. According to the lawsuit, they knew this quite well:
It could not be a more obvious example of a medical error. When the law says this is allowed, the law is not at fault.
Not sure why you replied with the same remark to two different comments, but whatever.