Utopia Talk / Politics / 10y old rape victim denied abortion

Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Sun Jul 03 07:53:44 http://www.jpost.com/international/article-711042 10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in Ohio The 10-year-old girl, who was denied an abortion days after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, had to travel across state lines to try to have the procedure. 10-year-old rape victim denied abortion in Ohio The 10-year-old girl, who was denied an abortion days after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, had to travel across state lines to try to have the procedure. GOP comments Begrup was referring to statements made by Ohio State Representative Jean Schmidt during an abortion hearing bill in April - where she said, in a hypothetical situation where a teenager was to be raped, that the teenager would have the "opportunity" to help that child become a "productive human being," according to a report by Cincinnati.com. Days earlier, Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn (R) responded to a Daily Journal reporter, who asked if abortion should still be illegal even in the case of a young girl being impregnated by one of her family members - to which Gunn responded: “That is my personal belief. I believe life begins at conception.”
Sam Adams Member	Sun Jul 03 07:58:39 Some republicans are as dumb as aoc.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 08:35:27 Yeah, the Republicans have gone too far in some states. The rapist should be executed, not worth the chance of re offending. And, Im ine of
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 08:37:06 And Im one of the most anti death penalty ppl on these boards. But if she is pregnant they can verify with certainty it was him and what he did. Public beheading should send a message.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 08:38:05 At the very least federally we should codify exceptions for such extreme circumstances.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 08:53:33 Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to utilize existing health of mother clauses. Pregnancy itself is a massive danger to pre-pubescent girls.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 08:56:00 "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman." Per text Yep, find whatever retard denied her service and lobotomize them
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 10:00:27 Forwyn, There is clear motivation to play things up for sensationalism. Assuming this is true, its sensational enough. Its crazy how the left seems more upset over the reversal of Roe than the child rapist.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 10:06:25 Well, a headline such as this is taking it from the family. It is quite likely they went to one doctor/clinic and were told no, and found it easier to cross state lines than to shop around. It is much the same as when females bitch and moan and cry on social media about not being able to get a tubal, because they don't think doctors should be able to exercise discretion on voluntary procedures. But it is said to have to shop around at all, text should include young girls explicitly in "health of mother" clauses to alleviate confusion. It doesn't because retards have crystallized on this "even rape babies are gifts from God" in the post RvW environment.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 10:07:29 it is sad*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 03 10:28:08 The abortion debate may be one of the most retarded "debates". Completely stripped of sanity, reason or an honest wrestle with the facts. Either it is ok to abort full term babies, or not even 10 year old girls who have gotten incest raped may have one. Complete madness.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 11:12:36 Has anyone found out if they caught the rapist? This seems to be no where in any of the stories.
www.yeswecansong.com Member	Sun Jul 03 12:11:51 Do you all see how desperate habebe is to change the topic of the thread?
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 12:28:54 It goes to the credibility of the story. If this is a true story, where is the rapist?
www.yeswecansong.com Member	Sun Jul 03 12:36:43 If you would know the identity of the rapist, what difference would it make? Would the child then be allowed to break the law in Ohio? It changes nothing. You only want to change the topic of the thread to protect your GOP.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 12:39:27 I havnt even found a mention of they have him in custody. What reason do we have to think this is a true story?
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 12:40:56 That doesn't excuse the GOP in Ohio and several other states from being extremists. But this story doesn't hold water.
www.yeswecansong.com Member	Sun Jul 03 12:42:11 If they had him in custody, would the child then be allowed to have an abortion in Ohio?
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 12:46:51 If this is an entirely made up story she wouldn't need an abortion. Again, the law is extreme. Why is this a believable story? Why is an extreme anti abortion law more of a story than child rape?
www.yeswecansong.com Member	Sun Jul 03 12:48:56 It is not more of a story, it is simply the story of this thread. You try to change the topic of this thread to protect the GOP.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 12:51:06 Habebe: How does the death penalty help this 10 year old?
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 12:53:13 You are deflecting from the real world life altering consequences your dumb policy imposes on this girl and others like her, compounding the result. Going on about how the rapist should be killed is an irrelevance. Abortion should be legal here and it is a monstrous imposition by the state to prevent girls and women in such situations from accessing it.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Sun Jul 03 12:54:00 "Why is an extreme anti abortion law more of a story than child rape?" Maybe cause GOP appointed extremist judges have just stripped away the right to abortion and dozens of repub states are forcing through laws banning abortion even in cases of incest and rape? Rape and incest aren't going away dude, but forcing the women to have the baby is something new that your party wanted
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 12:57:09 Seb, It saves future victims. Seems clear. We agree that the law is in the wrong here. But TBH at this point this story sounds more like a cautionary fictional tale. There is zero evidence to suggest this is accurate that I have seen. Omg/YWCS, No the GOP proponents are wrong here. Not protecting them.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 12:57:22 Forwyn: "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman" Trouble is, no doctor is going to risk falling foul of criminal law until he or she has evidence in *this specific case* that this risk is real. So they will wait until the evidence of such impending impairment is clear. This is the consequence of the republicans shitty policies, and a large, well funded activist movement that thinks there shouldn't be such exemptions and will do their best to bring prosecutions.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 13:00:10 Jmb, We agree this law is wrong. Rape and incest account for mabey about 1/10 of 1% of abortions. Still, in such cases this wrong and its proponents are wrong. That doesnt mean this is a credible story.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 13:03:22 This is Jussie Smollet 2.0. If what happened to JS was true, that would be terrible. But it was bullshit. Even the left doesn't beleive it. If they did they should be concerned that a child rapist is loose and likely raping more children.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 13:03:57 Most abortion providers are activists anyway. It's easy to prove that 70lb girl bodies are not made for pregnancy and will - not can - be damaged by carrying a pregnancy to term. This story was "passed on" by just such a provider in Indiana.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 13:06:35 Habebe: "Seb, It saves future victims. Seems clear." We aren't talking about future victims. We are talking about this 10 year old girl. Rapists will still rape even after you install the death penalty. Which brings us back to the point: what will third do for this 10 year old girl? Nothing. "We agree that the law is in the wrong here." I told you this is that the laws in the US were like, and you insisted no, it was no worse than most European countries. You are totally wrong. "But TBH at this point this story sounds more like a cautionary fictional tale. " No, it sounds exactly like what everyone has been saying about these trigger laws and and conforms exactly to what I expected when I read a few of them. You don't fucking understand that the anti-abortion movement are not upset about roe v Wade because they feel the wrong branch of govt permitted abortion, or the wrong level (state v federal). They genuinely think all abortion should be banned, they don't care what misery is inflicted on women and girls in pursuit of that. They aren't confined to states, they want all states, and indeed other countries, to adopt their policy (they have long tried to tie US aid to influence recipient countries abortion policies, and they are active in the UK also - by which I mean us based groups funded entirely by the US organising protests and bloccades of UK abortion clinics, and lobbying and donating to UK politicians to get them to change the law) "There is zero evidence to suggest this is accurate that I have seen." That is simply denial.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 13:09:48 Forwyn: Every doctor knows that if they are taken to court the prosecution will bring out a number of cases where 10 year olds have given birth successfully, and will challenge the doctor to show evidence that any of the risks were materialising, and why they thought this pregnancy wasn't one of the ones that could have worked out fine. And most doctors and midwife's will not take that risk. This is how your shitty shitty system works.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 13:12:51 It will not be long before the republicans move the goalposts to start pushing to ban abortion nationally at a federal. Level. And all the crap about states rights will be put to one side.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 13:13:55 Seb, Now who is deflecting? What makes this a believable story? Because you want to beleive? You know what dead rapists don't do? Rape any one.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 13:14:11 Fictional ones dont either.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 13:16:25 http://www...abortion-idINKBN0GK23W20140820 Ireland is apparently a fictional nation that doesn't exist.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Sun Jul 03 13:21:33 "It will not be long before the republicans move the goalposts to start pushing to ban abortion nationally" Already done dude http://www...e-v-wade-abortion-ban-1373779/ Mike Pence Calls for National Abortion Ban Also the trump piles of shizz in the supreme court are going after contraception and gay marriage next
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 13:25:11 Successful birth isn't enough. All the doctor has to prove - via text of the law - is serious risk to a major bodily function of the mother. Reproductive function would be one of those. Only 108 mothers are listed on Wikipedia with "successful" (most of those pre-term, and involving Cesareans) pregnancies 10 or younger, whereas some 70k girls between 10 and 19 die from pregnancy each year.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 13:29:02 Jmb, Yeah, Pence is crazy. Plenty of crazy all around though. Democrats want vaesectomies for all males.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 13:38:40 I mean listen, this could be true. But the story definitely has alot of holes in it.Maybe they dont want to mention the rapist because he is a protected class, who knows. Luckily she was not in Ireland as the courts have apparently concluded raoe victims can not go to England to get an abortion. A sizeable amount of the GOP is wrong in supporting European style laws like Ireland.
patom Member	Sun Jul 03 13:48:34 A sizeable amount of the GOP is wrong in supporting European style laws like Ireland. If that is true then why are the Republican Representatives in both state and federal government pushing for a reversal of the current edict of the USSC or in this case Ohio law.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 14:08:53 Habebe: That's an 8 year old article and Ireland changed its laws as a result.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 14:12:16 Forwyn: "is serious risk to a major bodily function of the mother" In this specific case, not hypothetically. They aren't doing to take the risk that a court or jury decides that they need evidence of complications in this specific patient. And if you think it's oh so obvious, then make it clearer: statutory exemption from the ban for children under some age etc. The reason the law is worded this way is for precisely this reason: the strongest proponents want to ban all abortion, and useful idiots like you just want a fig leaf to pretend it's not happening.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Sun Jul 03 14:15:01 As for habebe saying the story is fake, then why is the govenor of south dakota discussing it? She pulls a habebe and tries to change the topic to shizz like talk about the rapist instead then says the law shouldnt change http://www...oem-abortion-children-00043886 ‘A tragic situation’: Governor discusses pregnant 10-year-old with CNN host When pressed further, Noem said, “What I would say is, I don’t believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy. And so there’s more that we have got to do to make sure that we really are living a life that says every life is precious"
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 14:25:00 So the governor of SD has inimate knowledge that we do not about a rape in Ohio? I don't know enough to say its definitely fake. Im saying its odd no one seems concerned that a child rapist may be on the loose.And AFAIK this story is not confirmed to be true. If there is evidence I'm unaware of I would be glad to see it. None of that changes the fact that this is a bad law supported by Republicans.We are all in agreement there.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 14:25:30 Even most Republicans want exceptions.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 14:51:50 "then make it clearer: statutory exemption from the ban for children under some age etc." "the strongest proponents want to ban all abortion, and useful idiots like you" I was in the mood to have a civil discussion, but that's okay. Your presence here is clearly not necessary. Before you entered: "text should include young girls explicitly in "health of mother" clauses to alleviate confusion." "It doesn't because retards have crystallized on this "even rape babies are gifts from God" in the post RvW environment." You have stated nothing that I hadn't already covered. Fuck off.
Hrothgar Member	Sun Jul 03 16:02:17 This whole abortion bull shit could be easily compromised if being weren't such raging social media ass holes now days. 1st trimester = abortion legal. 2nd, 3rd no abortion unless woman's life at risk carrying the pregnancy further. Boom, 90% of Dems and Republicans satisfied. Back to focusing on Russia going full Nazi and causing WW3.
murder Member	Sun Jul 03 16:19:25 "This whole abortion bull shit could be easily compromised if being weren't such raging social media ass holes now days. 1st trimester = abortion legal. 2nd, 3rd no abortion unless woman's life at risk carrying the pregnancy further." It's very generous of you to agree to negotiate away someone else's rights. I have a great idea, men found to be unsatisfying lovers by any woman lose the right to engage in lawful sex for the rest of their lives. I'm sure we can all agree that my proposal is very reasonable.
nhill Member	Sun Jul 03 16:22:17 Yes, I’m sure that’ll get 90% consensus across the aisle. Been into those Cuban cigars again, I see. Share w/ me?
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 17:12:16 Forwyn: And yet here you are arguing that the present wording allows it and the doctors are idiots for not providing it. The reason the law doesn't provide clear unambiguous protection is because it is not meant to. It is functioning exactly as the key supporters intended it to. And you can say "will it ought not to, it ought to say something else" but we all know you and others on the right aren't every going to stand up and push that line and have that fight, nor will republican legislators. They'll be terrified of being confronted at primaries by people asking them if they think life begins at conception and being an abortion loving RINO. You enabled and supported this bullshit, it's far too late to be mumbling that you didn't support it going quite so far.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 17:20:44 "present wording allows it and the doctors are idiots for not providing it." True. Any provider worth their salt could easily show what a risk it is for a 10 year old to carry to term. This is why even the very short list of global ten years olds that carry are C-sectioned pre-term. But yes, retard. I enabled it by predicting this outcome years ago and voting against such candidates in every primary.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 17:22:50 Perhaps your qualm is that I'm not marching in the street with people who hate me for my immutable characteristics. Too bad.
patom Member	Sun Jul 03 17:25:38 Habebe, how much proof do you need that this is a true story? I just did a google search and there are literally a dozen articles on this. None of them say it's a false story. Even FOX seems to have confirmed it.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 17:42:24 Patom, Define confirmed? I understand the victim in such a case would not be public info.However the unfortunate side effect of that is that its less confirmable. So then we are left with the rapist. Isn't it odd no story mentions his name or even if he is in custody or there is a known child rapist on the loose. I don't even think we have a statement from the clinic that such an event occurred. So how was this confirmed?
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 17:45:13 Again, this could be real. All Im saying is that as of yet *from what I have seen* there is zero evidence available to support its legitimacy.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 17:54:47 Many will remember the NPR story that ran on all the major news outlets. Gorsuch refused to wear a mask and Sotomayer had to work from home because of it due to her prior health issues. But as it turns out, it was pure fiction by the story writers at NPR. Many other news outlets just accepted that NPR confirmed the story and ran it. Gorsuch, Sotomayer and chief Roberts all made public statements saying that never happened. NPR prints fictional stories and most news sites don't independently confirm their stories.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 17:55:55 Many news outlets printed retraction after the justices called BS. NPR doubled down on their story.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 18:25:14 Forwyn: "Any provider worth their salt could easily show what a risk it is for a 10 year old to carry to term" You clearly do not understand how such a law works. As I've explained already, showing it is generally risky isn't the same as showing a specific individual faced that risk. The Ohio legislation site seems to be down but as I recall the wording is specific. There's an extremely high chance a doctor being convicted if they have no specific evidence of complications in the individual undergoing the procedure. The fact that other individuals of that age are likely to have complication that impact their health isn't necessarily indicative that individual will. Nobodies going to take that risk to absolve you of your stupid fucking law that you let get passed through when you hitched your wagon to these misogynistic religious nutjobs.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 18:25:53 If you need doctors to go to court and risk criminal penalties in order to make your policy work, your policy is fucked.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 18:40:48 The idea you need a law to ban third trimester abortion is stupid anyway. Any one having an abortion at that stage is doing it after they have already been expecting to bring the baby to term and it's a medical issue where the life of the mother or child is at risk. Show me these supposed frivolous third trimester abortions that are being done on a whim. I'll bet those that you find that aren't medical are in situations where earlier term abortion was either illegal or made impractical by restrictions, forcing illegal late term abortion.
Seb Member	Sun Jul 03 18:42:49 I love how habebe is so convinced the law cannot be working exactly as drafted that he's gone full moon landing truther, and demanding ever more unreasonable "proof" the story is real.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 18:49:04 "absolve you of your stupid fucking law that you let get passed through when you hitched your wagon to these misogynistic religious nutjobs." Lol I'm now responsible for Ohio's retarded law As much as you're responsible for the laws of Italy or Poland
kargen Member	Sun Jul 03 18:52:25 "In short, Ohio has banned abortions at approximately six weeks gestation." "A child abuse doctor in Ohio contacted Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an obstetrician-gynecologist in Indiana, after receiving a 10-year-old patient who was six weeks and three days pregnant" The Ohio law took affect maybe a week ago. The girl if we believe this story was raped five weeks before that. "If you are pregnant, your body needs time to develop detectable levels of HCG. This typically takes seven to 12 days after successful implantation of an egg." So why was the girl not given a pregnancy test in the three weeks before the law went into place? Seems damn convenient to find a raped minor within a few days of the law being put in place and just three days outside the time when an abortion could happen.
Jesse Malcolm Barack Member	Sun Jul 03 18:58:01 "Seems damn convenient to find a raped minor within a few days of the law being put in place" "So why was the girl not given a pregnancy test in the three weeks before the law went into place?" Oh man, cry fake news - check Blame the victim - check Theres 332.4 million people in America, not fuzzing surprising passing laws forcing people to have their rapists baby is going to have this effect dude
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 19:03:54 yOu ClEaRlY dO nOt UnDeRsTaNd HoW sUcH a LaW wOrKs Absent judiciary abuse, a lawyer can emphasize high-risk on prepubsescent girls, which goes far beyond the general risk of, say, preeclampsia (2-8%), because these risks range from 70%+ to 100%. The girl might survive in the Western world, but only with significant intervention; they will have a pre-term delivery via Cesarean. In Africa the mortality is north of 50%, for both mother and baby. It will become lodged in the birth canal and tear soft tissue throughout a days-long labor cycle. Regardless, the pregnancy itself will disrupt the development of the mother, and likely render her sterile, as well as causing major stresses to her cardiovascular system that can linger for life. Significant risk to two major systems. Text: "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" And juries will be convinced by these horror stories, especially when they hear rates such as 90, 99, 100%.
kargen Member	Sun Jul 03 19:11:21 Not blaming the victim if there is a victim to be blamed. Maybe blame the DR that doesn't check her a week and two weeks after the rape? Honestly if you were the parent of a ten year old girl that was raped would you wait more than six weeks to have her checked? I do believe the law is a bad law. Rape, incest, risk to mothers life should all be reason to allow abortion even beyond first trimester in my opinion. This just seems overly contrived. There is at least a three week period of time where a DR could have known she was pregnant and the law was not in affect. So why wait 45 days after the rape?
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 19:13:43 "I love how habebe is so convinced the law cannot be working exactly as drafted that he's gone full moon landing truther, and demanding ever more unreasonable "proof" the story is real" Ever more evidence? What evidence? An unidentified person said a crime occured that had no criminal. That is the entirety of the evidence. By that standard of proof Trump should be president.
Dukhat Member	Sun Jul 03 19:18:44 Forwyn did some googling for the heavy (for him) lift of defending that a 10 year old girl has a right to an abortion. Any underaged girl has the right to an abortion because they cannot give consent and thus must have been raped but that is too much for foreskin to defend. He is still a Republican after all. That being said, no way would any doctor take on the procedure in any state with a Trump-dominated judiciary. The risk of ruining your career is too great. But having empathy for others has never been a strong suit for Forwyn or any other republican.
Habebe Member	Sun Jul 03 19:19:20 And again, Im not saying tthis didnt happen. But no one has any reasonable explanation why there is no mention of amthe child rapist.
kargen Member	Sun Jul 03 19:19:55 My timeline is a bit off. They actually had a window of four weeks instead of just three between the time when they should know she was pregnant and the time the Ohio law went into affect. The press somehow knew of the story the very day it supposedly happened and because of the age of the girl and patient/care giver rights to privacy the story can never be confirmed unless the parents come forward to do so.
Forwyn Member	Sun Jul 03 19:27:51 Cuckhat with the generalities to screech as is his nature. No, a sixteen year old girl is not raped by her sixteen year old boyfriend by nature of her being underage. Yes, leftist ideology might indicate a mutual rape, especially if they each had a beer. Anyway, I have stated here multiple times that I largely adhere to evictionism, so I'm a little confused why the resident leftists are crying so much. Probably not enough people on their social medias to scream at, because they already blocked them all.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 01:46:10 Forwyn: A good prosecutor will respond to your expert witness like this: "But this *is* the United States, and medical intervention is a given." "What percentage of prepubescent girls have no issues?" "So it is possible for a ten year old girl to give birth with no issues?" "What evidence did you have, at the time of abortion, that this girl was having medical complications that posed a risk to her, other than the simple fact she was pregnant?" "Would the law have been drafted this way if pregnancy itself was to be considered a risk to health?" No medical professional is going to put their life on the line in this way just to save your conscience. And if you voted republican in federal elections, yeah your accountable. Its been the longstanding policy to get rid of protections that prevent this kind of bullshit happening.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 02:13:49 Kargen/habebe: Your attitude here is precisely what's wrong with the whole abortion debate. You are coming to this story with preconceptions of what rape - as a crime - looks like. Surely a rape of a minor must be an easily noticed affair leading to a quick prosecution. Similar to how abortion must mostly be about cold women killing their unborn children for frivolous reasons, necessitating state intervention to stop it. A child under ten who has been raped is likely to have been raped by a family member. Father, uncle, sibling, in the late case likely all a victim of abuse by someone else. It will likely not have been reported the same day it happened. Charges will likely involve a long history of abuse and so will not result in a rapid trial. And there will be a need to avoid prejudicing the trial, or if a sibling they will be protected. As for not having an abortion immediately, how many providers are there in state and what does their backlog look like? There's nothing surprising in this case in not knowing the perpetrator, in not having managed to secure an abortion in the six weeks since the rape occurred, nor in finding such a case so quickly (they are depressingly common and it was obvious this sort of thing would happen).
earthpig GTFO HOer	Mon Jul 04 03:53:18 Rugian, please always remember that your side supports the incestious rape of pre-teens, their serfdom to the rapist for 18 years, the grooming of teen boys to commit those rapes, and zero social welfare programs for either the mother or the child (as evidenced by a complete lack of tax hike proposals following the imposition of 'trigger laws').
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 04:04:55 Forwyn: https://legiscan.com/OH/text/SB23/id/1990622 The bill bans abortion on detection of a heartbeat except: (B) Except when there is a medical emergency or medical necessity, an abortion shall be performed or induced only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: These are defined as: "(1) "Medical emergency" has the same meaning as in section 2919.16 of the Revised Code." I can't access this as legisltion.ohio.gov is still down - however I will bet simply being pregnant while 10 does not constitute in law a medical emergency. "(2) "Medical necessity" means a medical condition of a pregnant woman that, in the reasonable judgment of the physician who is attending the woman, so complicates the pregnancy that it necessitates the immediate performance or inducement of an abortion." The language, as I said, excludes simply *begin* pregnant at 10. You will need evidence of a specific medical condition of the specific pregnant girl; not that it is statistically likely that one will eventually occur. You will not be able to prove reasonable judgement with no specific evidence in this particular case. And no court would allow a reasonable judgement being drawn on the complete absence of evidence - because of the precedent it would set in other medical malpractice cases. The law is working as intended: to maximise protection of "heartbeats" and make it practically impossible to conduct an abortion. This is what the activists pushing this want. This is what people who decided to hitch the republican bandwagon to this cause consented to and supported, and this is the platform republicans have been pushing. You can't go "yeah, but not my part of the party". If you voted for the republicans, this is what you were voting for - and it is abhorent.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 04:32:01 EP: Rugian isn't in the thread?
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 04:45:54 According to wiki, medical emergency means: " "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman." This does not include potential bodily damage that stems from the woman's mental health." There would need to be specific evidence that such a complication of pregnancy is occurring in this case for a doctor or midwife to use this defence. You are asking doctors to perform an abortion and hope that the court would find him innocent on the basis of a sweeping interpretation that deemed it reasonable for a doctor to consider pregnancy in and of itself to be a medical emergency for pre-pubescent girl. There is absolutely no guarantee that a court would find that way. Instead, they are going to have to wait until it is apparent.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 04:53:52 This is what happens when the state decides to step in and create bureaucratic hoops for women and girls to access healthcare. The whole republican movement has been heavily focused for 40 years on a crusade to strip away women and girls freedoms and liberties in this space, specifically so a chunk of their constituency can impose state controls on this. You absolutely don't get to be surprised that having removed the protections afforded by Roe V Wade that the resultant state laws are oppressive and create these cruel, fucked up situations. That was always the intention - removing the protections afforded by Roe V Wade was the necessary step to do it. To the folks that care about banning abortion, they do not give a flying fuck about woman and girls negatively impacted by it.
murder Member	Mon Jul 04 07:25:43 "To the folks that care about banning abortion, they do not give a flying fuck about woman and girls negatively impacted by it." ^ correct
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 04 08:19:17 Well you morons are partly to blame since you anchored this issue where nail clippings and human fetuses had the same moral relevence. I tried talking sense into you, warned you that a few decades of moral inconsistency was not very impressive. It was settled in ancient times they tell me. Well, maybe the fact that you take your cues on bioethic from bronze age thinkers, is part of the problem? Funny how both sides are drawing on bronze age wisdome to argue their version of insanity.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 04 08:28:10 So, anyonenwho beleives this happened with the available evidence also beleives that mass fraud employed by Biden isnhow he stole the white house. Cool.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 04 08:44:30 Isn't cool how when stories fit your desired narrative statistics no longer matter? Good guy with a gun stories. The Left:That never happens, just anecdotal evidence!!! 10 year old rape victims not permitted an abortion because of dumb laws that lack RARELY used exceptions. The left: This is happening every day now, they have stolen our freedoms. Also the left: How does executing rapists prevent future rapes? Why is that the focus? We need more aborrions, no need tonworry about rapists.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 09:02:34 Nim: "you anchored this issue where nail clippings and human fetuses had the same moral relevence" Utter bullshit Nim - the whole argument all along has been there is clearly a point where a fetus becomes enough of a potential person that it needs legal protection. And indeed in the US that is what the settled law allowed for. You are engaging in the standard strawman bullshit you so often do.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 09:11:15 Habebe: "10 year old rape victims not permitted an abortion because of dumb laws that lack RARELY used exceptions." Exceptions that never had to be used for abortions in the first and early in second trimester because it wasn't banned; and rarely thereafter because the abortion would have happened earlier in the pregnancy. However, the LEADING reason for abortion more than half way through the pregnancy (less than 1 % of US abortions) is for medical exemptions which are now far more tightly curtailed. Woo hoo Habebe, lovely circular logic. These kinds of cases are now going to become very very common because that exemption is suddenly very very important and was not needed previously. This was pointed out at the time. "How does executing rapists prevent future rapes?" No, what we asked you is how does executing the rapist of a 10 year old girl forced to have the rapist child help the victim? It doesn't. At all. All it does is let you feel you have done something to help her, but only on your own fucking retarded terms. Rape is already illegal, when rapists are caught, they go to prison. That also prevents them harming future victims. It does not stop rape happening though - there are always more rapists, and there will be more victims of rape. You want to help the victims of rape? Start by letting them get abortions, and if you won't do that, oh, lets say a million dollars in automatic taxpayer funded compensation to pay for the costs of raising a child.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 09:12:25 Here is a simple fact: Every rapist you execute will have raped at least one person. And some of those people are going to become pregnant. So no, executing rapists isn't a fucking solution here.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 04 09:42:24 "Exceptions that never had to be used for abortions in the first and early in second trimester because it wasn't banned" What percentage of abortions do you think are due to rape? 90%?80%?40%?10%? How many rapists have only one assault?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 04 10:03:11 Seb "the whole argument all along has been there is clearly a point where a fetus becomes enough of a potential person that it needs legal protection." Wow.. That is the not "the" or even *an* argument, that is the _debate_ where opinions distribute anywhere from conception to right up until birth. Virtually everyone agrees that there is a clear point where it given legal protection. You are disqualified from this topic for many reasons.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 10:31:56 "What percentage of abortions do you think are due to rape? 90%?80%?40%?10%?" What is the point of that question? You are implying that the exception for victims of rape is an oversight and understandably so because it's little used. That's bollocks: specific exemptions haven't needed to be used as it was often not needed except for late term abortions and most abortions under such circumstances occur earlier. The fact that there are many other abortions that are not medical emergencies or to terminate the results of rape doesn't mean that the need for an exemption was not foreseen or foreseeable. It was in fact a discussion at the time. It is not an oversight. The exclusion is deliberate: the proponents do not believe victims of rape should be able to terminate their pregnancies.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 10:35:14 Nim: "where opinions distribute anywhere from conception to right up until birth" You referred to "you morons" "where nail clippings and human fetuses had the same moral relevence" and that you "tried to talk sense". Who on this board argued for abortion on demand up to birth? Who on this board argued that a fetus at all stages has the same moral relevance of nail clippings? These are your claims - substantiate them.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 10:40:11 "Virtually everyone agrees that there is a clear point where it given legal protection." Exactly my fucking point, and that was in fact the legal position before the SC ruling. And here you are suggesting the problem is because "you morons" were arguing a fetus has moral equivalence to toenail clippings. Well yes, at some point a fetus does (otherwise discretionary abortion shouldn't be allowed) at some point it doesn't (otherwise you could always abort a fetus). The SC ruling and dumbass red state heartbeat laws are not some unfortunate overcorrection from a position where fetuses obvious to all but the most unhinged as deserving of protection were allowed to be aborted on demand. Yet that is how you are presenting it - "this could all have been avoided if the morons had just compromised a bit". That's bullshit Nim and you know it.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 04 11:47:37 Seb, "What is the point of that question?" Your notion that the only reason its rare is because abortion was readily available. Its rare because its a rare event. Generally women have abortions because they don't want a baby for many reasons. Most abortions in the US are via prescription which only works jnder 11 weeks, not for legal reasons but that's how the pill works. That is still legal everywhere in the US according to Merrick Garland. So , yes, abortion up to 11 weeks is still legal everywhere in the US effectively. Im not saying its an oversight, you love to argue against the made up arguments you want me to have. I do beleive that most states within the next year or so will have exemptions as laws adjust to the ruling.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 12:25:02 Habebe: Use of the *exemption* is rare because in most cases you would not need to invoke an exemption. Either way, it's not relevant how rare or common it is. It is necessary, it was known to be necessary, and it was deliberately excluded. "That is still legal everywhere in the US according to Merrick Garland" Incorrect. States have declared it illegal (Indiana for example). The issue here is that it's hard for states to enforce, particularly if the prescriber is put of state. So you will see: 1. Penalties on the woman themselves 2. Attempts to find mechanisms to enforce put of state 3. Push for a federal ban.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 12:25:58 Also I expect states will start to use things like social media evidence and others to convict people of using such facilities.
Habebe Member	Mon Jul 04 12:30:08 "Incorrect. States have declared it illegal (Indiana for example). The issue here is that it's hard for states to enforce, particularly if the prescriber is put of state." 1. I did say according to the AG. 2. So like Germany? Where its technically illegal, but effectively not.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 13:35:40 Habebe: Not really - there's a big difference knowing that is the policy of the authorities not to prosecute, Vs it being the policy of the authorities to prosecute, but they haven't yet found a way to gather evidence to do so.
kargen Member	Mon Jul 04 16:10:41 "Incorrect. States have declared it illegal (Indiana for example). The issue here is that it's hard for states to enforce, particularly if the prescriber is put of state." Those laws will not hold under scrutiny. They will be fast tracked through the courts and overturned. Until then there is no way to enforce laws that attempt to ban the morning after pill. It will take some time but the most restrictive laws will be challenged and probably be overturned.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 18:06:34 kargen: "Those laws will not hold under scrutiny. They will be fast tracked through the courts and overturned." Why do you think courts will overturn them? The entire point of putting lots of republican hacks into the judiciary was precisely to get them to make rulings that let these kinds of laws be enacted. The supreme court has just made a fairly definitive ruling there is no constitutional rights basis for states legislatures not to be able to make such restrictive laws. So on what legal basis would a court strike these laws down? And even if they had one, why do you think it would just not move up the chain and be overturned? You seem to think that the advocates of these laws don't really mean it. They do. And you've stuffed the courts full of people that either believe it to, or are in the pockets of people who believe it. "Until then there is no way to enforce laws that attempt to ban the morning after pill." Sure there is - take the texas model - as soon as anyone finds out that you had an abortion, they can sue you - and maybe find evidence in discovery from your social media and other records I'm sure.
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 18:07:52 There will be no shortage of well funded activists to do this - same as we have nutty US religious foundations bankrolling protests at UK abortion clinics.
Forwyn Member	Mon Jul 04 18:09:13 "So on what legal basis would a court strike these laws down?" Ask Florida, retard. Each state has its own Constitution.
kargen Member	Mon Jul 04 18:29:56 "The supreme court has just made a fairly definitive ruling there is no constitutional rights basis for states legislatures not to be able to make such restrictive laws." Their ruling was narrow in scope and said the states should decide. As the states decide those cases will go through the courts. The easiest to overturn will be when the mothers health or life is at risk. There will be arguments about what constitutes risk of life. Very few people (judges included) support the idea that an abortion should never happen. I'm guessing most states will end up with laws similar to or more lenient than what is seen in most of Europe. I don't see a law suit in Texas going anywhere. You have to prove a cause of action and damages. The cause of action would of course be the abortion but what damages would be caused to the person filing the suit?
Seb Member	Mon Jul 04 18:32:59 Forwyn: Want to bet that when it gets to Floridas supreme court it will be upheld?
	show deleted posts