८ ऑगस्ट, २०२२
"Although he doesn’t provide abortion care right now, laws limiting the procedure have created confusion and uncertainty over what treatments are legal for miscarriage..."
"... and keep him from even advising pregnant patients on the option of abortion, he said. Aiding and abetting an abortion in Texas also exposes doctors to civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२५ टिप्पण्या:
This is absolute bullshit that only idiots like Inga will believe.
Who can say how this will play out, and to whose benefit? I personally as an educator know premed students who are pro-life and shy away from becoming obgyns because of the fear of being expected or required to recommend or perform abortions. I expect these students will now find both a career as an obgyn, and a practice in a pro-life state, far more appealing. So should we expect a surge of Catholic obgyns filling up these now open positions?
Sure! if the WaPo says it, it's TRUE! and spin free! this IS what's happening
Non-issue. Why would anyone desiring to conceive healthy children want such a medical care provider? Let the market self-segregate. Let these obgyns and nurses go to pro-abortion states where their clientele, if it's not down at planned parenthood to begin with, shares their views.
I can tell you right now I don't want one of these 'medical profesionals' entertaining such conflicts near me or my family.
Let them practice their non-art on anti-natalists in Oakland for all I care.
Sounds like bullshit to me. There may be some some crusading abortionists out there but, from what I've seen of doctors, they're extremely controversy-averse. Taking abortion off the table will no doubt be seen as a plus for many aspiring OB/GYN's.
"This is absolute bullshit that only idiots like Inga will believe."
WaPo? Idiots like her are the ones being targeted, so it's all good. They could just as easily claim that cow farts are changing the planet's climate and the readership will lap it up and ask for more.
Six weeks to baby meets granny in state, if not in process. That said, human rights proponents recognize the dignity and agency of both mother, father, and child, four choices, and an equal right to self-defense. Neither slavery nor diversity are tolerable in an American system of social, political, judicial, and moral climate. Women, and girls, should expect more of themselves, their husbands/boyfriends, and civilized society has a compelling interest to discourage human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice to a hard problem: keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the bodies of evidence aborted and sequestered.
Demos-cracy is aborted at the twilight fringe. Democracy dies in darkness. h/t WaPoo
Ob/gyns are medical professionals who serve the life, health, and longevity prospects of both mother and baby, and father, too. It would be the divergent doctor, indeed, who would did approach their duties without the thought and effort to reconcile with all parties involved. They are baby and women doctors who have the best interests of mother and child in mind.
Wait a minute. Some states say they will restrict abortions, so abortionists decide not to go to those states? Isn't that how the free market works?
This is BS, unless this is a very stupid OB/GYN.
Catholic OBs working for Catholic hospitals have been providing care for miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, and pre-eclampsia right along.
If an OB can't tell the difference between a D and C for miscarriage/polyps/heavy bleeding and an abortion, then he probably needs to go into a different specialty, Like waiting tables.
Are the state medical associations still under the Gramscian capture of the left, even though the state government may be righty?
Then you may have the situation where a new doc has to perform an abortion to get a license, but wiould immediately go to jail for doing it.
In other words, the medical board chokes off the supply of new ob-gyns.
I would not put it past them.
Kind of how state bar associations threaten to take away bar cards from prosecutors who use legal tactics they don’t like.
Even federal prosecutors, in violation of the Supremacy Clause.
JSM
Never be a shortage of abortionists. They are one step away from opening offices in strip malls
I agree with Doc Mike. Probably bullshit. It's just clickbait to make women in Blue states feel empowered.
Sorry Ann.
Overturning Roe is widely popular. It is even popular with pro-choice people like me.
The WAPO is a worthless publication that is flailing and printing garbage.
And it really doesn't matter anymore.
Because the Fascist Regime just sent their Secret Service to raid the leader of their political opposition.
We are on the brink of civil war. Prepare.
All your whinging and "cruel neutrality" are out he window now.
I remember when the Right used to say 'America, love it or leave it'
Mark said...
I remember when the Right used to say 'America, love it or leave it'
And I remember lottsa lefties like you claiming you were going to leave American, real soon now, and yet here you remain.
I remember when abortion was illegal and many doctors routinely performed a "D&C" and everyone knew what it meant. But I don't think doctors should have to work in the shadows again like that.
Real doctors don't give a shit what the legislators of their state say about the practice of medicine.
"But I don't think doctors should have to work in the shadows again like that."
They don't have to, and those who are raising this smokescreen are just pro-aborts posing for the liberal media and other pro-aborts such as yourself to try and undermine the very clearly written laws in the hopes of making money off killing children and selling their bodies.
Drs like this one are rather like slavery supporters in the North prior to the civil war who pretended they couldn't really decide if it was ok to return a slave to the master so they went ahead and did it because "the law was unclear".
It's amusing to me that Althouse continues to hold on the the cherished "truths" of what life was like prior to the judicial hubris of Roe v Wade. As has been made very clear since that decision, the "historical basis" was nothing but bull, with the number of "back alley" abortions dramatically overstated, the "doctors working in the shadows" mostly a work of fiction, and the shrieking harpies of modern Molech worship aggrandizing every little incident to the media so that it would appear unfettered abortion was inevitable and necessary.
This would be a good time to research “abortion refusal laws”
In my opinion the greatest impact of the recent Supreme Court decisions is not that some doctors may be afraid to perform abortions, but rather that doctors will not by by fear of legal action be forced to perform an abortion.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
I remember when abortion was illegal and many doctors routinely performed a "D&C" and everyone knew what it meant. But I don't think doctors should have to work in the shadows again like that.
I don't remember that but abortion was legal in CA by the time I was in post graduate training in Surgery. I do remember a Catholic doctor whose daughter was raped her first week at Notre Dame. She came back to CA and he saw that she had a D&C. He was taking no chances.
All 23 states that restrict abortion beyond what was legal under Roe allow the removal of ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages. Many have explicit language mentioning both cases, but even when they don't the laws allow intervention to save the life of the mother. This article by Alexandra DeSanctis list each state an the provisions made for these cases. It may be under a paywall, so here is the quote for Texas:
Texas prohibits abortion except in cases when a mother’s life is at risk or she is in danger of substantial impairment. Physicians are required to perform whatever procedure is most likely to protect the unborn child without posing a greater risk to the mother.
The law excludes abortions in which “in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, the pregnant female on whom the abortion is performed, induced, or attempted has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced.”
The law contains explicit language stating that “an act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to: (A) save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child; (B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or (C) remove an ectopic pregnancy.”
So, Doctors who'd rather abort babies than deliver them will be avoiding "Red States"?
This sounds like a real win for mothers in those States
Like I believe that the WaPo actually did any actual research before writing this piece. I doubt that any significant number of doctors will allow this to affect where they practice. As far as abortionists go, they are welcome to go to New York and California and stay out of Tennessee.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा