Is supporting term limits and exceptions for abortion radical thinking?

[CJD]

(06-26-2024, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The problem with it being a single doctor's call is that it would absolutely be abused, and the main perpetrators would be the wealthy and influential.  Just like it was when abortion was illegal.  Would this happen in significant numbers?  I don't believe so.  But I don't think some form of oversight would be a bad thing either, just to ensure the system is not abused.  I would absolutely not be in favor of criminal consequences, professional consequences would suffice for anyone caught abusing their position.

My concern with that is it would incentivize the doctors to just not provide abortions under any circumstances because they don't want their profession affected. 

As a parallel, many lawyers simply choose not engage in cases that they don't have a high confidence that they'll win because conviction rate is a key statistic in career advancement. 

If doctors were facing a similar decision where they could help a woman at the risk of their careers, how many doctors do you think would do it?

I get wanting to root out abuse, but punishing doctors would only restrict access to care for the women that genuinely need it.

As I said in previous posts, a conservatively high estimate is that 1 to 2% of all abortions nationwide, with no "medically necessary" term limit restrictions, are done electively past 13 weeks. That percentage won't go up if these term limits were instituted. They could only go down.

So that's your best case scenario in terms of "abuse" of the system. Realistically, we'd be talking about less than 1%.  And even then, instituting these measures risks the health of more than 1 to 2% of pregnant people.

I just don't see the benefit of doing it. You may catch a hand full of "bad doctors" and end up harming 10 times as many women.

[*pally*]

You are already seeing OB/GYNs leaving the states with the most restrictive abortion laws.

Sooner or later people have to trust the system to work. 1 doctor or a panal it will all come down to a judgment call. And it is poor women who suffer because those with means can just get on a plane. Women who don't have an abortion before 20 weeks generally want that baby but something has changed that necessitates an abortion usually maternal or fetal health. Most genetic testing can't happen until about 20 weeks. The late 2nd or early 3rd trimester is when many maternal complications occur.

The way it is now you have women having to go septic before doctors will risk removing a dead or dying fetus. You have babies being born only to die within minutes or hours which everyone knew months ago was going to happen. They are forcing women to carry a full-term pregnancy for a baby who won't survive putting them through sustained emotional agony and frankly a lot of unnecessary expense.

The right to lifers love to throw around the "post-abortion line" or claim a woman in labor would get an abortion. Those are absolute inflammatory lies. NO ONE is advocating for abortions of viable fetuses. But nor do we want to tie the hands of the professional expertise these doctors have when dealing with emergent situations.

[HarleyDog]

Reading both sides of this discussion has me sitting on the fence. Having a board or committee decides would just be a group of people with certain criteria to be met agreeing it has been met and then putting their blessing on it. Whereas, a single Dr educated with the same criteria can easily make that decision alone. But I agree with SSF and the possibility of abuse.

Something about having a committee decide rubs me wrong. Maybe because it removes the personal relationship between the Dr. and the patient. For most women, the decision to have an abortion is a very personal and emotional one. Maybe that is the main reason the committee thing rubs me the wrong way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2024, 12:21 PM)CJD Wrote: My concern with that is it would incentivize the doctors to just not provide abortions under any circumstances because they don't want their profession affected.

Which is why a panel would be good.  A three doctor panel that meets weekly should be able to sort out a large number of cases in a short amount of time.  As I said, if the system is abused it will be to benefit the wealthy.  I have zero issue with stopping that. 

Quote:As a parallel, many lawyers simply choose not engage in cases that they don't have a high confidence that they'll win because conviction rate is a key statistic in career advancement. 

You're obviously talking prosecutors, but this doesn't happen the way most think.  If a charging DA doesn't think the facts meet the BRD level of proof then not filing charges is the correct decision.  There aren't a large number of crimes floating in the maybe middle here.  Most arrests have the perpetrator dead to rights.  

Quote:If doctors were facing a similar decision where they could help a woman at the risk of their careers, how many doctors do you think would do it?

I get wanting to root out abuse, but punishing doctors would only restrict access to care for the women that genuinely need it.

Yes, and I think a review panel would eliminate that risk.  Whenever I get a judgment call that I think is dicey I kick it upstairs.  Let the people making 50k more plus than me a year hang their hat on that decision.  I damned sure know the department won't back me if I make it on my own.

Quote:As I said in previous posts, a conservatively high estimate is that 1 to 2% of all abortions nationwide, with no "medically necessary" term limit restrictions, are done electively past 13 weeks. That percentage won't go up if these term limits were instituted. They could only go down.

So that's your best case scenario in terms of "abuse" of the system. Realistically, we'd be talking about less than 1%.  And even then, instituting these measures risks the health of more than 1 to 2% of pregnant people.

I just don't see the benefit of doing it. You may catch a hand full of "bad doctors" and end up harming 10 times as many women.

I'll flip that question around, if you don't mind.  With such a small number of potential cases a review panel would need very little time every week to go through the cases.  An hour every Wednesday, if even that.  Your point that the numbers are comparatively small actually argues in favor of a more robust screening process as it would take very little time.

(06-26-2024, 12:44 PM)pally Wrote: You are already seeing OB/GYNs leaving the states with the most restrictive abortion laws.  

Sooner or later people have to trust the system to work.  1 doctor or a panal it will all come down to a judgment call.  And it is poor women who suffer because those with means can just get on a plane.  Women who don't have an abortion before 20 weeks generally want that baby but something has changed that necessitates an abortion usually maternal or fetal health.  Most genetic testing can't happen until about 20 weeks.  The late 2nd or early 3rd trimester is when many maternal complications occur.

The point being it's much harder to have four people abuse the system in your favor than one.  As stated above, the numbers are relatively small, so a review panel wouldn't need to take much time every week to do their due diligence.  

Quote:The way it is now you have women having to go septic before doctors will risk removing a dead or dying fetus.  You have babies being born only to die within minutes or hours which everyone knew months ago was going to happen.  They are forcing women to carry a full-term pregnancy for a baby who won't survive putting them through sustained emotional agony and frankly a lot of unnecessary expense.

I'm wondering what the numbers are on these, as they are frequently used to make this argument.  In case of an emergency a emergency review could be performed.  Doctors are on call, this wouldn't be out of the norm for them.

Quote:The right to lifers love to throw around the "post-abortion line" or claim a woman in labor would get an abortion.  Those are absolute inflammatory lies.  NO ONE is advocating for abortions of viable fetuses.  But nor do we want to tie the hands of the professional expertise these doctors have when dealing with emergent situations.

Again, you're either being ignorant here or willfully deceptive.  No Dem of prominence will state that they are against elective third trimester abortions.  If no one is advocating for them then why can't they agree they should be banned?  The dodge of "that's a discussion between a woman and her doctor" is always the response.  Why the dodge if no one is advocating for them to be legal?  You yourself consistently dodge this point.

[CJD]

(06-26-2024, 01:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which is why a panel would be good.  A three doctor panel that meets weekly should be able to sort out a large number of cases in a short amount of time.  As I said, if the system is abused it will be to benefit the wealthy.  I have zero issue with stopping that. 



You're obviously talking prosecutors, but this doesn't happen the way most think.  If a charging DA doesn't think the facts meet the BRD level of proof then not filing charges is the correct decision.  There aren't a large number of crimes floating in the maybe middle here.  Most arrests have the perpetrator dead to rights.  



Yes, and I think a review panel would eliminate that risk.  Whenever I get a judgment call that I think is dicey I kick it upstairs.  Let the people making 50k more plus than me a year hang their hat on that decision.  I damned sure know the department won't back me if I make it on my own.


I'll flip that question around, if you don't mind.  With such a small number of potential cases a review panel would need very little time every week to go through the cases.  An hour every Wednesday, if even that.  Your point that the numbers are comparatively small actually argues in favor of a more robust screening process as it would take very little time.

You have a surprising amount of faith in the speed at which things get through bureaucratic red tape. If people's health weren't at stake, I'd tend to agree with you due to the expected low number of cases. The problem I have is what if a situation is identified on Wednesday afternoon after this weekly meeting? Will the patient just have to wait a week to find out if she's allowed to have an abortion? What if she can't wait that long? I guess you could create some sort of emergency option, but that just adds more structure and uncertainty to the system when an abortion may need to be conducted in a matter of hours or minutes depending on the severity of the patients' condition.

Let's imagine the number is a flat 1 million abortions per year. That means that you're putting 69,000 abortions through this panel per year, but only 10,000 of those would be controversial cases. So that means 59,000 women are sitting and waiting for a decision from this board when they may not have the time. All to "catch" 10,000 cases where a doctor may be abusing the system. How many of those 59,000 women risk permanent health damage or death while they wait?

To go back to the law analogy, there was a doctrine written in 1769 that stated "the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer."

In this case, we'd be instituting a structure that would prefer to catch 1 guilty person at the expense of the suffering 6 innocent people.

I personally agree with the spirit of the original doctrine.

[*pally*]

rather than call out the lies you want to force people to make decisions based on them.

Why Democrats won't outlaw medical procedures is that we trust women and their medical professionals

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2024, 01:25 PM)CJD Wrote: You have a surprising amount of faith in the speed at which things get through bureaucratic red tape. If people's health weren't at stake, I'd tend to agree with you due to the expected low number of cases. The problem I have is what if a situation is identified on Wednesday afternoon after this weekly meeting? Will the patient just have to wait a week to find out if she's allowed to have an abortion? What if she can't wait that long? I guess you could create some sort of emergency option, but that just adds more structure and uncertainty to the system when an abortion may need to be conducted in a matter of hours or minutes depending on the severity of the patients' condition.

I actually addressed exactly that later in the same post.  Doctors are on call.  having a three member panel that could convene via Teams or Zoom for high priority cases would be absolutely doable.  If you're talking an absolute decide now or patient dies scenario, that would be an exception, much like performing medical care on a minor without the parent's permission in such circumstances.

Quote:Let's imagine the number is a flat 1 million abortions per year. That means that you're putting 69,000 abortions through this panel per year, but only 10,000 of those would be controversial cases. So that means 59,000 women are sitting and waiting for a decision from this board when they may not have the time. All to "catch" 10,000 cases where a doctor may be abusing the system. How many of those 59,000 women risk permanent health damage or death while they wait?

Why would those 59k be at risk?  As explained above high priority cases would not need to wait for the weekly panel.

Quote:To go back to the law analogy, there was a doctrine written in 1769 that stated "the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer."

In this case, we'd be instituting a structure that would prefer to catch 1 guilty person at the expense of the suffering 6 innocent people.

I personally agree with the spirit of the original doctrine.

I'm not seeing the harm here that you are.  The fact that you're talking about such a small percentage of cases means that addressing them as explained above is eminently doable.

(06-26-2024, 01:38 PM)pally Wrote: rather than call out the lies you want to force people to make decisions based on them.

Exactly what "lies" are you commenting on?

Quote:Why Democrats won't outlaw medical procedures is that we trust women and their medical professionals

So, you're admitting now that Dems will not outlaw elective abortions in the third trimester?  Completely changing your position in the span of two posts.  Impressive.

[CJD]

(06-26-2024, 05:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually addressed exactly that later in the same post.  Doctors are on call.  having a three member panel that could convene via Teams or Zoom for high priority cases would be absolutely doable.  If you're talking an absolute decide now or patient dies scenario, that would be an exception, much like performing medical care on a minor without the parent's permission in such circumstances.



Why would those 59k be at risk?  As explained above high priority cases would not need to wait for the weekly panel.


I'm not seeing the harm here that you are.  The fact that you're talking about such a small percentage of cases means that addressing them as explained above is eminently doable.


Exactly what "lies" are you commenting on?


So, you're admitting now that Dems will not outlaw elective abortions in the third trimester?  Completely changing your position in the span of two posts.  Impressive.

It all sounds very aspirational, but I just have doubts this panel would function as seamlessly, responsively and quickly as you think it will. And that's not even getting into the politics of who is on this panel and what their opinions on access to abortion may be. 

When it comes to essential life needs like healthcare, I think the fewer barriers there are, the better. And that may just be something you and I will have to agree to disagree on.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-26-2024, 06:31 PM)CJD Wrote: It all sounds very aspirational, but I just have doubts this panel would function as seamlessly, responsively and quickly as you think it will. And that's not even getting into the politics of who is on this panel and what their opinions on access to abortion may be. 

When it comes to essential life needs like healthcare, I think the fewer barriers there are, the better. And that may just be something you and I will have to agree to disagree on.

Honestly, at the end of the day this isn't something I'm even that big on.  I just like to posit what ifs and put myself in positions I don't necessarily believe personally.  I don't think the barriers are as extensive as you may believe, but I do agree we've probably mined this vein out.  Cheers!