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

[email protected]

1163

"Pro-life" woman seeks abortion and gets denied (lemmy.ca)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

260 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

From her lawsuit:

According to the lawsuit, doctors told Farmer that she was at risk of infection, severe blood loss, the loss of her uterus and death.

This is immediate danger. The law would not have been broken had the procedure been performed..

[–] [email protected] 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

"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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 19 hours ago

If your water breaks at 16 weeks, that is an emergency. According to the lawsuit, they knew this quite well:

By the time Ms. Farmer arrived at TUKH, she had been evaluated and it was clear that she had lost all her amniotic fluid, and her pregnancy—which she had dreamed of and longed for—was no longer viable. And unless she received immediate medical intervention to end the pregnancy in a medical setting, she was at risk of severe blood loss, sepsis, loss of fertility, and death.

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.