Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[GMDino]

Hey remember when a bunch of you (and right wing politicians) said this didn't even really happen?

Yeah...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-sentenced-life-prison-rape-10-year-old-sought-abortion-indiana-rcna92687

Quote:[color=var(--article-body--date-source--color)]July 5, 2023, 2:32 PM EDT[/color]
[color=var(--article-body--byline--color)]By Doha Madani[/color]
The man charged with raping a 10-year-old girl who traveled to Indiana for an abortion pleaded guilty to rape Wednesday and was immediately sentenced to life in prison.


Gerson Fuentes, 28, was charged with two felony counts of rape in an indictment filed in Franklin County, Ohio, last year in a case that made national headlines after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Fuentes, a Guatemalan national, confessed to raping the child in an interview with police, according to documents filed in Franklin County Municipal Court. 

He was charged with the rape of a minor and was supposed to stand trial in January, but the case was delayed.
Fuentes was sentenced to life in prison with a possibility of parole after 25 years and will have to register as a Tier 3 sex offender.

Prosecutors said the victim’s mother did not object to the plea and agreed to the sentencing recommendation.
[color=var(--caption--color)]Gerson Fuentes in Franklin County common pleas court for his bond hearing in Columbus, Ohio, on July 28, 2022.[color=var(--caption--source--color)]Paul Vernon / AP file[/color]
Franklin County Judge Julie Lynch said that the court considers Fuentes’ crime among the most serious offenses and that it was “hard pill” for the court to agree to the joint sentencing recommendation, apparently referring to the possibility of parole.

"If that family hadn’t begged me to take this joint recommendation, this would never be happening,” Lynch said.

The child tested positive on a pregnancy test and sought out an abortion, prosecutors confirmed in court Wednesday.
Fuentes was the live-in boyfriend of the child's mother, and the girl was under age 10 at the time of the rape, prosecutors said.[/color]

The girl had to travel to a neighboring state to terminate the pregnancy, her physician, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, told The Indianapolis Star last summer. Ohio’s “fetal heartbeat” law, which outlaws abortion, was enacted hours after the Supreme Court overturned abortion protections in a 6-3 ruling in June last year.

The Indiana Medical Licensing Board reprimanded and fined Bernard for speaking publicly about the girl's case in violation of patient privacy laws.

But the board cleared her of more serious allegations she was accused of by Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, among them that she failed to report child abuse and that she was unfit to practice medicine. Bernard sent a cease-and-desist letter last year asking Rokita to stop making “false or misleading statements” about her.

Bernard's attorney, Alice Morical, said in a statement in May that Bernard was grateful to be exonerated of such allegations by the board.

"Dr. Bernard bravely stood up for access to compassionate medical care and she is a consummate professional who deserves to care for her patients without reproach," Morical said.

Indiana University Health, where Bernard works as an OB-GYN, investigated the issue last year and determined that she had complied with patient privacy laws.

Indiana has also passed a near-total abortion ban, with exceptions for rape, incest and potentially fatal medical complications, but a judge temporarily blocked it last year.

[*pally*]

Ohioans, today, delivered petitions containing over 700,000 signatures from all 88 counties, to the Secretary of State’s office. These petitions are for placing an amendment on the Nov ballot to codify reproductive rights . Only 413,000 signatures from 44 counties are required.

The illegally gerrymandered Republican supermajority Ohio legislature is so sure the Nov amendment will get over the required 50%+1 vote necessary, that they are forcing a quickie election in Aug in an attempt to change the threshold for passing amendments to 60%+1

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-05-2023, 09:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Hey remember when a bunch of you (and right wing politicians) said this didn't even really happen?

No one said it didn't happen.  If you didn't deliberately misrepresent people's posts, i.e. lie, you'd have half your post count.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2023, 12:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said it didn't happen.  If you didn't deliberately misrepresent people's posts, i.e. lie, you'd have half your post count.

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-biden-indiana-newspapers-938874e6b63b13e17f9d6f153915ec08

Quote:In conservative media circles, questions raised about the sourcing quickly shifted to claims that the story was a lie.


“The idea that you would have politicians in America try to exploit a story like this and make up a story like this in order to advance their own sick agenda tells you they are not serious about the issue,” Fox News analyst Charlie Hurt said on Tuesday.


The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial on Tuesday, called it “an abortion story too good to confirm.” The Journal wrote that “all kinds of fanciful tales travel far on social media these days, but you don’t expect them to get a hearing at the White House.”


Under the headline “Correcting the Record on a Rape Case” Thursday, the Journal wrote that “it appears President Biden was accurate.”


“The country needs to find a rough consensus on abortion now that it has returned to the states and the political process,” the Journal wrote. “One way to help is to make sure the stories about abortion, from either side of the debate, can be readily confirmed. Passions are already heated enough."

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/07/13/ohio-republicans-attempted-erasure-of-a-10-year-old-rape-victim-is-incredibly-sick-and-disturbed/

Quote:The Washington Post, the conservative Daily Caller and other media outlets published stories saying that the case was unverified. The Wall Street Journal Editorial page suggested the story was a “fanciful tale.” The National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty referred to the case as “a fictive abortion and a fictive rape.”


Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost went on Fox News Monday to raise further doubts. He said he works closely with law enforcement authorities and he’d gotten “not a whisper” about the case. “What I’m saying to you is there is not a damn scintilla of evidence,” he doubled-down to the Columbus Dispatch next on Tuesday.


Hamilton County Republican Party Chair Alex Triantafilou on Twitter called the case, “A garbage lie that a simple google search confirms is debunked.”


State Rep. Brian Stewart tweeted the Washington Post story saying he “wouldn’t trust an abortionist to tell me whether the sky is blue.”



Ohio U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan tweeted, “Another lie. Anyone surprised?”

(07-07-2022, 08:45 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Back to the original point of this thread, I have a question. (It's really a question, because I haven't been following it) Do we have any proof that this ten year old girl needing an abortion even exists, outside of abortion provider who's pissed about the ruling saying she does?

(07-07-2022, 01:50 PM)Sled21 Wrote: It was made by an abortion provider, who just got put out of business. I'm not saying it's not true, but she would have plenty of reason ($$$) to make the whole thing up

(07-12-2022, 01:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: I notice this is still a single source story.

(07-12-2022, 01:37 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Ohio AG... "Not a shred of evidence anywhere to be found on this case."

No rape kit, no report of rape, not whispers among any of the Sheriff's offices or police depts. This story is going to fall apart just like 
Russian Collusion
Nicholas Sandman
Jesse Smullet

(07-12-2022, 04:01 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Nope, nobody wants her name. An acknowledgement that a police report for rape of a juvenile, as required by law, from any LE source, with the name redacted would suffice. It's so funny how when something fits your narrative, you require no proof at all. A simple allegation from an abortion provider being put out of business is all it takes for you.

(07-13-2022, 02:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's weird how that works, eh?


Deflecting from a perfectly valid, and accurate, criticism of your stated positions isn't really a good look.  Say you're completely correct with your accusation, how does that change the fact that you're doing the exact same thing?

(07-13-2022, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uhh, I'm pro choice and have said so numerous times over the years.  Could you fail any harder? 


No, I don't like you.  But that doesn't change the facts at hand either.  Which you obviously realized since you gave up trying to make a fact based argument.  Let's be very clear, anecdotes should not be a national news story.  No one wants to invade this child's privacy, if she exists, but a national news story should be corroborated, just maybe?

(07-13-2022, 05:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll please forgive me, but corroboration should, per journalistic standards, be done prior to a story even being published.  So, in this case, it didn't happen fast enough for anyone.


I love when you try and be clever.  It's not even dad tier and it never fails to amuse me.

(07-13-2022, 10:06 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Politicians said it never happened. Truth.

At least one poster in that thread wouldn't believe it until they had enough proof for themselves. Going so far as to say the doctor could have made it up for monetary reasons...which is why I believe they didn't believe it at all.

At least one other poster (that's you) agreed with them.

"lie"

[Luvnit2]

Abortion should and now is a state issue. Each state has the right to pass their own law on abortion by going through the state legislative process. Abortion is an issue everyone needs to get together to come up with a plan that respects the life of the mother and also the rights of the child. Science has progressed and we now know when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

I have not see any state abortion plan that ignored the health of the mother (life threatening) in determining abortion is legal. I believe most plans allow for abortion for rape or incest.

I choose to side with the child on abortion cases unless death of mother, rape or insist is involved. But I would hope in cases of rape and insist the mother should make a decision no later than 12 weeks to abort. Once a fetus has a heart beat, there needs to be extreme cases to abort in my opinion. I believe it is simply murder of the baby. Many people are in line to adopt for those who make slow decisions.

I just wish we would have a intelligent conversation versus using abortion as a political football.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2023, 11:17 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Abortion should and now is a state issue. Each state has the right to pass their own law on abortion by going through the state legislative process. Abortion is an issue everyone needs to get together to come up with a plan that respects the life of the mother and also the rights of the child. Science has progressed and we now know when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

I have not see any state abortion plan that ignored the health of the mother (life threatening) in determining abortion is legal. I believe most plans allow for abortion for rape or incest.

I choose to side with the child on abortion cases unless death of mother, rape or insist is involved. But I would hope in cases of rape and insist the mother should make a decision no later than 12 weeks to abort. Once a fetus has a heart beat, there needs to be extreme cases to abort in my opinion. I believe it is simply murder of the baby. Many people are in line to adopt for those who make slow decisions.

I just wish we would have a intelligent conversation versus using abortion as a political football.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services/

Quote:A Review of Exceptions in State Abortions Bans: Implications for the Provision of Abortion Services
Mabel Felix , Laurie Sobel , and Alina Salganicoff Follow @a_salganicoff on Twitter
Published: May 18, 2023
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn ?subject=A%20Review%20of%20Exceptions%20in%20State%20Abortions%20Bans%3A%20Implications%20for%20the%20Provision%20of%20Abortion%20Services%20-%20Issue%20Brief&body=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kff.org%2Fcf90d68%2F Print

• ISSUE BRIEF
   
•  APPENDIX
  

Key Takeaways
Abortion is currently banned in 14 states and many other states have attempted to ban or severely restrict access to abortion. Nearly all of these bans include exceptions, which generally fall into four categories: to prevent the death of the pregnant person, when there is risk to the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and when there is a lethal fetal anomaly.

• In practice, health and life exceptions to bans have often proven to be unworkable, except in the most extreme circumstances, and have sometimes prevented physicians from practicing evidence-based medicine.
• Abortion bans and restrictions have led physicians to delay providing miscarriage management care. Many states allow for the removal of a dead fetus or embryo, but pregnant people who are actively miscarrying may be denied care if there is still detectable fetal cardiac activity or until the miscarriage puts the life of the pregnant person in jeopardy.
• Mental health exceptions are rare despite the fact that 20% of pregnancy-related deaths are attributable to mental health conditions.
• Law enforcement involvement is often required to document rape and incest, which often prevents survivors from accessing abortion care. Furthermore, survivors in states where abortion care is restricted can have difficulty finding an abortion provider.
• In many states there is more than one abortion ban in the books, in some of those states, the exception provisions in the bans are often at odds with each other. These multiple bans and varying exceptions create confusion among patients and providers.
  

Introduction
Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, state abortion bans and the exceptions they contain – or lack – have garnered significant attention. Conversations about these exceptions, however, often obscure the reality that many of these exceptions can be unworkable in practice. There are reports of people being unable to obtain abortions, despite the fact that their pregnancies fall into these broad exception categories. While there is no accurate estimate of the number of people seeking abortion care in circumstances that qualify for an exception in states than ban abortion, the number of people who have received abortion care post –Dobbs in states that have banned abortion is very low.  Many of the exceptions included in these bans use definitions that are vague, narrow, and non-clinical, and effectively remove the ability of health care providers to best manage the care of pregnant people, instead leaving that decision to the state or the clinician’s home institution. Further complicating matters, several states have multiple bans in effect, often with contradicting definitions, requirements, exceptions, and standards, creating ambiguity for clinicians and their patients. This brief analyzes the exceptions to abortion bans and discusses how their purported aims to provide life-saving care may not be achieved in practice.


What kinds of exceptions do abortion bans contain?
Exceptions to state abortion bans generally fall into four general categories: to prevent the death of the pregnant person, to preserve the health of the pregnant person, when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, and where the embryo or fetus has lethal anomalies incompatible with life.


To prevent the death of the pregnant person
All state abortion bans currently in effect contain exceptions to “prevent the death” or “preserve the life” of the pregnant person. As explained in further detail in the section below, these exceptions may create difficulties for physicians, as it is unclear how much risk of death or how close to death a pregnant patient may need to be for the exception to apply and the determination is not up to the physician treating the pregnant patient.

When there is risk to the health of the pregnant person
Many state bans currently in effect – with the exception of Arkansas’ bans, Idaho’s total ban, Mississippi’s total ban, Oklahoma’s bans, South Dakota’s ban, and Wisconsin’s ban – contain some form of health exception. Exceptions to preserve the health of the pregnant person can vary (sometimes significantly) from state to state (Table 1).


Most states with bans that contain a health exception permit abortion care when there is a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. These exceptions are limited by the lack of specific clinical definitions of the conditions qualifying for the exception. Only the Arizona ban explicitly defines the bodily functions that may be considered “major.”  The other states that use this language in their bans do not define what constitutes a “major bodily function,” nor what constitutes a “substantial impairment” to a major bodily function. This vague language puts physicians providing care to pregnant people in a difficult situation should their patients need an abortion to treat a condition jeopardizing their health and can leave the determination of whether an abortion can be legally provided to lawyers for the institution in which the clinician practices. For instance, in Ohio, where the abortion ban has a health exception, the law lists a couple of conditions that may fall under this exception, such as pre-eclampsia and premature rupture of the membranes, but with no further detail.  Using this language as guidance, it would be difficult for physicians to know if a significant health issue would fall under the exception. The difficulties presented by the simultaneous vagueness and narrowness of the exceptions are exacerbated by the lack of deference given to clinicians’ medical judgment under these bans.

In their lawsuit against the Ohio abortion ban, providers challenged the provisions of the health exception, arguing its vagueness makes it impossible to treat some patients presenting with serious health concerns. As an example, one provider detailed the case of a woman with stage III melanoma who was denied cancer treatment while pregnant and was also denied abortion care in Ohio because clinicians could not confirm whether the ban’s exceptions applied to her case. Instead, this woman left the state to terminate her pregnancy and receive cancer treatment.

However, even if these terms were defined more clearly, they would still exclude many health conditions pregnant people face. In Georgia, for example, where the health exception is slightly narrower than Ohio’s, providers challenging the ban note that the exceptions do not permit abortion care when it is needed to prevent: “(1) substantial but reversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, (2) less than ‘substantial’ but irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, or (3) substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a bodily function that is not ‘major.’” A medical condition may still be a significant health event, yet not qualify under the exceptions, even if their limits were more clearly defined.

In Texas’ abortion ban, the health exception is limited to situations where there is “a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that […] poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless the abortion is performed or induced”. A condition needs to be “life-threatening” and “be aggravated by, caused by, or arising from the pregnancy” for a clinician to be able to intervene by providing abortion care. Many serious health conditions unrelated to the pregnancy do not qualify under this exception, nor do conditions where the pregnant person’s life is not at risk, but where there is nonetheless serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. In cases where terminating a pregnancy is necessary to begin medical treatment, it is difficult to ascertain if the pregnancy itself can be said to be aggravating the condition and therefore qualify for the exception.


MENTAL HEALTH
Mental health conditions account for over 20% of pregnancy-related deaths in the US, yet almost all states with health exceptions limit them to conditions affecting physical health, with some going further and explicitly precluding emotional or psychological health conditions. Alabama, the only state that includes mental health concerns in its health exception, requires a psychiatrist to diagnose the pregnant person with a “serious mental illness” and document it is likely the person will engage in behavior that could result in her death or the death of the fetus that due to their mental health condition. The law does not define “serious mental illness” and does not allow physicians to determine what serious mental illnesses qualify for the exception.  In addition, abortion bans and restrictions in Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Idaho, Florida, Iowa, West Virginia, and Wyoming explicitly exclude mental/emotional health. Several other states (Texas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, the remaining Kentucky ban, and one of Arkansas’ total bans) limit their life and/or health exceptions to physical conditions, without explicitly calling out mental/emotional health exceptions.

ECTOPIC PREGNANCIES AND MISCARRIAGES
Some states’ abortion laws specify that care for ectopic pregnancies and pregnancy loss is not criminalized in its statutes. Most states with these provisions in their bans allow for the removal of a dead fetus or embryo, but not for miscarriage care, generally. This means that pregnant people who are actively miscarrying may be denied care if there is still detectable fetal cardiac activity. There have already been reports of such situations in Texas and Louisiana. In Louisiana, for example, a pregnant woman went to the hospital after experiencing sharp pain and bleeding. She was informed her fetus had likely stopped growing a few weeks prior, as its size did not correspond to the length of her pregnancy, and that it had very faint cardiac activity. Despite the pain and the blood loss she was experiencing, she could not receive the regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol commonly prescribed to pregnant patients who are miscarrying to ensure that the pregnancy is safely expelled from the body completely in a timely manner, thereby decreasing the risk of sepsis and infection. Instead, she had to wait for the miscarriage to progress without medical intervention, which would have expedited the process and reduced her medical risk.  In states where the abortion bans do not clarify that miscarriage care is not criminalized – even when there is still detectable cardiac activity – pregnant people may not be able to receive care to manage their pregnancy loss unless and until it becomes a medical emergency.

GREATER RISK TO THE HEALTH OF PREGNANT PEOPLE
In deciding whether or not to provide abortion care to preserve the health of a pregnant patient, physicians now face the risk of a jury or the state disagreeing with their judgment about the gravity of the health risk the pregnant person was experiencing, and as a result, face prison time, monetary fines, and loss of professional license. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, the decision to have an abortion pre-viability when facing a health risk was one the pregnant person would make in consultation with medical professionals. How much risk constituted too much risk was up to the pregnant person and their physician, taking into account the needs and overall health history of the pregnant patient.  In states with abortion bans, in deciding whether or not to provide abortion care to preserve the health of a pregnant patient, physicians now face the risk of a jury or the state disagreeing with their judgment about the gravity of the health risk the pregnant person was experiencing, and as a result, face prison time, monetary fines, and loss of professional license.

In state court challenges against the bans, providers have argued that the vagueness of the bans is unconstitutional, since it places them in a situation where it is unclear how they might follow the law. As a result, physicians may be more reluctant to provide abortion care when pregnant patients present with serious medical conditions and may deny abortion care to pregnant people with conditions that threaten their health until their condition deteriorates and the narrow exceptions inarguably apply. This delay in care, however, creates greater and avoidable risks to the health of the pregnant person. Additionally, many conditions that threaten the health of pregnant people are not included in all or most health exceptions.

The difficulties these bans and their unclear exceptions create may additionally deter physicians from practicing medicine in states that ban abortion. There have already been reports of physicians expressing reluctance or refusing to relocate to these states, as well as physicians leaving these states due to their restrictive laws. A substantial portion of these states’ residents already live in maternity deserts – areas where there are no obstetric providers or birth centers – and studies have shown that maternal mortality rates are higher in states that restrict abortion. Physicians being deterred from practicing in states with restrictive abortion laws may exacerbate these disparities in access to obstetric care and health outcomes.

Zurawski v. State of Texas
Five women who were denied abortion care in Texas ­- despite facing dangerous pregnancy complications – and two ob-gyns filed a lawsuit in Texas state court asking the court to clarify the scope of the medical emergency exceptions in the state’s three abortion bans. Plaintiffs are specifically asking the court to clarify that:

• Physician judgment should be granted deference in measuring the risk the pregnant person is facing,
• Impairment of a “major bodily function” includes harm to fertility and the reproductive system,
• Acute risk does not have to be already present or imminent for the exceptions to apply, and
• Health exceptions apply in situations where treatment for a condition is unsafe during pregnancy and for fetal conditions and diagnoses that can increase the risk to a pregnant person’s health.
  

Plaintiffs argue the misapplication of the health exceptions violates state constitutional guarantees to fundamental and equal rights.
THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TREATMENT AND ACTIVE LABOR ACT (EMTALA)

The intersection of federal law requiring hospitals to provide stabilizing care and state abortion bans is another murky area hospitals and physicians must navigate. Enacted in 1986, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Medicare enrolled hospitals to perform an appropriate medical screening examination to any patient who presents to their dedicated emergency department. If a patient is identified as having an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide stabilizing treatment within the hospital’s capability or transfer the patient to another medical facility.

HHS, through its Office of the Inspector General (OIG) may impose a civil monetary penalty on a hospital ($119,942 for hospitals with over 100 beds, $59,973 for hospital under 100 beds/ per violation) or physician ($119,942/violation).  HHS OIG may also exclude physicians from participating in Medicare and State health care programs. This is countered by the possibility that physicians could also face monetary penalties and prison time for violating state abortion bans, even if they determine that an emergency abortion is needed to stabilize the health of the patient.

As states were starting to implement abortion bans after the Dobbs decision, in July 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance regarding the enforcement of EMTALA that clarifies hospitals and physicians have obligations to provide stabilizing care, including abortion in medically appropriate circumstances, when a patient presenting at an emergency department is experience an emergency medical condition.
After HHS issued this guidance, two lawsuits were filed. HHS sued the State of Idaho to block enforcement of Idaho’s abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with EMTALA and the State of Texas sued to block enforcement of the HHS guidance in Texas.

These two cases have resulted in conflicting decisions in the federal district courts. In the Idaho case, the court concluded that because the Idaho law does not include exceptions for health or life, the law conflicts with EMATLA. The Idaho law only allows physicians to assert a defense to criminal prosecution if in their good faith medical judgment performing the abortion was “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” There is no affirmative defense (see box below) if the physician performed the abortion to prevent serious harm to the patient, rather than to save her life. The district court has blocked Idaho from enforcing the abortion ban to the extent it conflicts with EMTALA while the litigation proceeds.

The federal district court in Texas reached the opposite decision and blocked HHS from enforcing its EMTALA guidance in Texas. The court highlighted that the HHS Guidance states that abortion may be required for medical conditions that are likely to become emergent. Texas law requires that life-threatening physical conditions to already be present. The court concluded that Texas is likely to succeed on their claim that the HHS Guidance exceeds HHS’s statutory authority: “The Guidance goes well beyond EMTALA’s text, which protects both mothers and unborn children, is silent as to abortion, preempts state law only when the two directly conflict. Since the statute is silent on the question, the Guidance cannot answer how doctors should weigh risks to both a mother and her unborn child.” The Biden Administration has appealed this decision to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Exception vs. Affirmative Defense
Some state abortion bans lack exceptions but identify situations that may be used as an affirmative defense in court – among these are Tennessee’s 6-week LMP ban, Idaho’s total ban, Kentucky’s 15-week ban (but not the state’s earlier gestational bans), and all of Missouri’s bans.  An “affirmative defense” allows someone charged with a crime to show in court that their conduct was permissible even though the action itself is illegal. An affirmative defense does not make it legal to provide abortion care in the situations delineated in the law and means that a clinician who provided abortion care is open to prosecution – regardless of the reason they provided an abortion – and would bear the burden of proof to demonstrate that they provided care according to the conditions delineated as possible affirmative defenses in the abortion ban. Bans that rely on an affirmative defense leave physicians more vulnerable to criminal prosecution and they make it even riskier for physicians to provide abortion care in situations where the life or health of the pregnant person is at risk.


Sexual Assault Exceptions
A few of the state abortion bans contain exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, generally requiring that the sexual assault be reported to law enforcement. Some states allow for a Child Protective Services (CPS) report in lieu of a law enforcement report for minors who are survivors of sexual assault or incest.

It is well documented that survivors are often afraid to report sexual violence to the police due to fear of retaliation, shame, reporting an incident to officials who will not respond adequately, not wanting friends or family to know, fear of the justice system, or other personal reasons. It is estimated that out of every 1000 sexual assaults, only 310 are reported to the police and 50 of these reports will lead to arrest, 28 of which will lead to a felony conviction. Even for survivors who do report to law enforcement, state abortion bans do not make clear exactly what information needs to be given to a provider to make it clear that the abortion would be legal in that state. Reporting requirements place barriers in the way of survivors seeking abortion care in these states.
Among the few sexual assault exceptions, some have specific gestational limits. For instance, the total ban currently in effect in West Virginia contains an exception for cases of rape or incest, but it is limited to 8 weeks from the last menstrual period (LMP) for adults and 14 weeks LMP for minors.
Although sexual assault exceptions are intended to protect survivors, experts agree that they rarely work. There is anecdotal evidence of survivors in states with rape exceptions and who have compiled the necessary documentation, but still not being able to access abortion because they couldn’t find any abortion providers in their state.

Hyde Amendment
The Hyde Amendment is a policy that restricts the use of federal funds to cover abortion, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the pregnant person is endangered (Hyde Exceptions). The policy is not a permanent law, but rather has been attached as a temporary “rider” to the Congressional appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and has been renewed annually by Congress. In the past, federal courts have interpreted the Hyde provisions to require states to pay for abortions that fall into the Hyde Exceptions and have blocked enforcement of state statutes that prohibit coverage for these cases. However, the enforceability of these requirements has been unclear since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs. Although all bans currently in effect contain exceptions to safeguard the life of the pregnant person, most states with abortion bans do not have exceptions for cases of rape or incest, and therefore, would not allow for the provision or coverage of those services to Medicaid recipients, contrary to previous court orders. To date, no court or federal agency has issued orders or guidance on states’ obligation to provide coverage for Hyde Exceptions when their bans prohibit the provision of abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Lethal Fetal Anomaly Exceptions
Bans in several states contain exceptions for lethal fetal anomalies, usually limited to those anomalies that would result in the death of the baby at birth or soon after. As with health exceptions, lethal fetal anomaly exceptions are poorly defined and limited in statute. The only state with this kind of exception that has a comprehensive list of conditions that fall under this category is Louisiana, but since the state has multiple abortion bans in effect (one of which does not include exceptions for fatal fetal anomalies), the applicability of this exception is still unclear. Other states, like Indiana, provide some general criteria, such as how long after birth the baby can be expected to live for a pregnancy to fall under the fetal anomaly. Any condition that would result in a life expectancy shorter than three months fits under the exception. The religious freedom lawsuit against the state’s ban – Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Medical Licensing Board of Indiana — specifically challenges the narrow limits of the exception, arguing that other common conditions, such as Tay-Sachs disease would result in the death very early in childhood.

What happens in states with more than one abortion ban in effect?
In many states there is more than one abortion ban in the books, and in some of those states the exception provisions in the bans are at odds with each other. 


In Oklahoma, four bans are currently in effect, each with different exceptions. The state’s pre-Roe, total ban contains only an exception to preserve the life of the pregnant person. The total ban with criminal penalties enacted in 2022 contains exceptions to preserve the life of the pregnant person and clarifies that treatment to remove an ectopic pregnancy does not constitute an abortion. The state’s total ban with private, civil enforcement contains exceptions to preserve the life of the pregnant person in a medical emergency (but does not define what a medical emergency is), for cases of rape, sexual assault, or incest that have been reported to law enforcement, and in situations where federal law preempts state law. This ban also clarifies that treatment to remove an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. The state also has a 6-week LMP ban with private, civil enforcement that contains exceptions for medical emergencies (once again, without providing a definition for what constitutes a medical emergency) and where federal law preempts state law. The conflicting exceptions in the bans result in a situation where the only real exception in the state is for cases where an abortion is necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant person. Applying any other exception in the states’ other total bans would open physicians to criminal penalties and loss of license.


Mississippi is another state with multiple bans in effect that contain contradicting exceptions. The state’s total ban only has exceptions for cases when an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant person or when the pregnancy was caused by rape (there is no exception for incest in the state). However, the state’s 15-week LMP ban contains exceptions for fatal fetal abnormalities and serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function, along with a life exception. In situations where there is more than one ban in effect, it might seem that the easiest way to follow the law would be to adhere to the abortion ban with the strictest gestational limit. This would not suffice in Mississippi, however, since the total ban contains an exception for pregnancies caused by rape, but the state’s 15-week LMP ban does not contain such an exception. Therefore, following any one of the state’s abortion bans would not remove the legal risk of providing abortion care in the state. Instead, providers must assess how the abortion bans and their exceptions work in conjunction.

Conclusion
Although a lot of attention has been devoted to debates about exceptions in abortion bans, many of these exceptions are not workable in practice. Outside of testimony from providers, it is difficult to assess how many people who qualify for abortion care under the exceptions are actually able to do so, since states do not report or underreport this information. However, it is apparent these bans create barriers to accessing abortion care, even in situations where the exceptions they outline should apply. Most importantly, these bans place the health and lives of pregnant people at risk by potentially preventing physicians from providing medically appropriate care. This inability to provide evidence-based care may additionally make physicians reluctant to practice medicine in restrictive states, amplifying already-existing discrepancies in ability to access obstetric care and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes.

[*pally*]

(07-06-2023, 11:17 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Abortion should and now is a state issue. Each state has the right to pass their own law on abortion by going through the state legislative process. Abortion is an issue everyone needs to get together to come up with a plan that respects the life of the mother and also the rights of the child. Science has progressed and we now know when a fetus can survive outside the womb.

I have not see any state abortion plan that ignored the health of the mother (life threatening) in determining abortion is legal. I believe most plans allow for abortion for rape or incest.

I choose to side with the child on abortion cases unless death of mother, rape or insist is involved. But I would hope in cases of rape and insist the mother should make a decision no later than 12 weeks to abort. Once a fetus has a heart beat, there needs to be extreme cases to abort in my opinion. I believe it is simply murder of the baby. Many people are in line to adopt for those who make slow decisions.

I just wish we would have a intelligent conversation versus using abortion as a political football.

name a time when abortion wasn't a political football?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-06-2023, 09:21 AM)GMDino Wrote: Politicians said it never happened.  Truth.

At least one poster in that thread wouldn't believe it until they had enough proof for themselves.  Going so far as to say the doctor could have made it up for monetary reasons...which is why I believe they didn't believe it at all.

At least one other poster (that's you) agreed with them.

"lie"

I'm going to own it and admit I had this confused with the incident Pally cited in the other thread.  That also involved a ten year old being raped and that's what I was referring to.

That being said, I never said it didn't happen, only that it should be corroborated.  So, unfortunately, you're again mischaracterizing my position.  Good effort on this post, though.  Lots of time and effort.

[Luvnit2]

(07-06-2023, 11:48 AM)pally Wrote: name a time when abortion wasn't a political football?

I can't because it does not exist. That is my point, we need to put politics aside to come up with fair solutions for both the mother and the unborn child. We say we are a humane society, we need to prove it once and for all.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2023, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to own it and admit I had this confused with the incident Pally cited in the other thread.  That also involved a ten year old being raped and that's what I was referring to.

That being said, I never said it didn't happen, only that it should be corroborated.  So, unfortunately, you're again mischaracterizing my position.  Good effort on this post, though.  Lots of time and effort.

It wasn't a lot of effort because I didn't lie.  The truth is very easy to defend.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2023, 11:54 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I can't because it does not exist. That is my point, we need to put politics aside to come up with fair solutions for both the mother and the unborn child. We say we are a humane society, we need to prove it once and for all.

We had one.  It was up to the person who had the fetus in their body.  

But now a bunch of men in different states get to tell the woman they know better.

[Luvnit2]

(07-06-2023, 11:34 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-review-of-exceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services/

I am not sure the validity of there opinion. I don't know if they are neutral or pro abortion. But reading through it, it appears to me most to all states have exceptions on the abortion ban.

The other thing that is very important, it is 2023 and there are many states available to get an abortion if the state you live is too stringent. One store mentioned Ohio 10 year old had to go to Indiana, I am not sure where in Ohio she lived, but in Cincinnati, I can get to Indiana in 20 minutes so not like this is a huge hardship going to  another state to get a procedure not offered in your home state.

We are also make choices where we live, it is a free country. People can move to a state that best represents their values.

But the reality is each state can make abortion laws respecting the mother and the unborn child that is humane and fair for both.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2023, 12:03 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I am not sure the validity of there opinion. I don't know if they are neutral or pro abortion. But reading through it, it appears to me most to all states have exceptions on the abortion ban.

The other thing that is very important, it is 2023 and there are many states available to get an abortion if the state you live is too stringent. One store mentioned Ohio 10 year old had to go to Indiana, I am not sure where in Ohio she lived, but in Cincinnati, I can get to Indiana in 20 minutes so not like this is a huge hardship going to  another state to get a procedure not offered in your home state.

We are also make choices where we live, it is a free country. People can move to a state that best represents their values.

But the reality is each state can make abortion laws respecting the mother and the unborn child that is humane and fair for both.

I mean sure you can just skip the parts about how abortions are being denied if with the exceptions, but your reality doesn't make room for that.

Indiana is may only be "10 minutes away" but that doesn't say where in Indiana she went.  But I mean if you had to drive ten hours to get a transfusion because a bunch of people you don't know passed a law saying you couldn't get one it would be no sweat.  Right?

The greatest country in the world and you can't make your own medical choice because of someone else's religions and decisions.

The greatest country in the world that will next have states going after contraceptives because...women slutty.

If it was a "free country" women would make that decision for themselves.  But your concern is not about women it's about control.

[*pally*]

(07-06-2023, 11:54 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I can't because it does not exist. That is my point, we need to put politics aside to come up with fair solutions for both the mother and the unborn child. We say we are a humane society, we need to prove it once and for all.

I'd love to have this discussion without religion being brought into it but that's not going to happen either

[Luvnit2]

(07-06-2023, 12:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: We had one.  It was up to the person who had the fetus in their body.  

But now a bunch of men in different states get to tell the woman they know better.

Interesting you state bunch of men versus any woman.

How can Democrats say they care about life, yet thin it is OK to abort a baby full term. Cheer for killing a 5 month old baby. I speak of normal pregnancy, not rape, incest or health of the mother.

Why does  living human baby have no rights with liberals. Liberals fight and act as though they are social justice warriors, yet killing babies is OK. It baffles me.

[KillerGoose]

(07-06-2023, 12:14 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Interesting you state bunch of men versus any woman.

How can Democrats say they care about life, yet thin it is OK to abort a baby full term. Cheer for killing a 5 month old baby. I speak of normal pregnancy, not rape, incest or health of the mother.

Why does  living human baby have no rights with liberals. Liberals fight and act as though they are social justice warriors, yet killing babies is OK. It baffles me.

I don't know of anyone advocating for full term abortions. That isn't the position that any reasonable person is taking. If you are reading that somewhere, you are simply seeing the minority position and taking it is as the majority. 

[*pally*]

(07-06-2023, 12:14 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Interesting you state bunch of men versus any woman.

How can Democrats say they care about life, yet thin it is OK to abort a baby full term. Cheer for killing a 5 month old baby. I speak of normal pregnancy, not rape, incest or health of the mother.

Why does  living human baby have no rights with liberals. Liberals fight and act as though they are social justice warriors, yet killing babies is OK. It baffles me.

5-month fetuses are not full-term.  

And I don't know of ANY Democrat who has advocated for a full-term healthy fetus to be aborted.  I hear conservatives make that claim all the time but they run when asked for proof of actual advocacy by Democrats.  This goes back to only listening to conservatives telling you what Democrats think instead of listening to regular Democrats telling you what they think.

[GMDino]

(07-06-2023, 12:14 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Interesting you state bunch of men versus any woman.

How can Democrats say they care about life, yet thin it is OK to abort a baby full term. Cheer for killing a 5 month old baby. I speak of normal pregnancy, not rape, incest or health of the mother.

Why does  living human baby have no rights with liberals. Liberals fight and act as though they are social justice warriors, yet killing babies is OK. It baffles me.

The vast majority of elected officials are men.  

And who said anything about full term?  That would be that hyperbole I hear board posters don't like?

A fetus has no rights because those same men don't give them any.  

Oh, and I am anti-abortion.  I find it a horrible choice for a woman to have to make no matter what their circumstances.  I am for increased sex education and easier access to contraceptives which are both shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  I am for anything we can do to help women when they are pregnant to consider adoption if keeping the baby is not an option.

But I don't get to make their choice for them.

[*pally*]

(07-06-2023, 12:25 PM)GMDino Wrote: The vast majority of elected officials are men.  

And who said anything about full term?  That would be that hyperbole I hear board posters don't like?

A fetus has no rights because those same men don't give them any.  

Oh, and I am anti-abortion.  I find it a horrible choice for a woman to have to make no matter what their circumstances.  I am for increased sex education and easier access to contraceptives which are both shown to reduce unwanted pregnancies.  I am for anything we can do to help women when they are pregnant to consider adoption if keeping the baby is not an option.

But I don't get to make their choice for them.

Abortion will never be legislated nor preached out of existance.  If someone wants to minimize abortion they should be advocating for fixes to the reasons behind the abortions in the first place.

[Luvnit2]

Abortion should never go away. I personally have no issue with a woman making a decision up to 15 weeks during her pregnancy.

The earliest a baby has been born and survived is 21 weeks and 5 days. Two babies born prematurely hold the record for this. Surprisingly, the first record holder was born in 1987, at a time when the medical care of premature babies (neonatology) was a very new field.

At the end of the 4th week of gestation, the heartbeats of the embryo begin. The heart, whose development starts at the 3rd week of gestation, has rapid and irregular contractions capable of pumping the blood inside the vessels.

https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-science-of-fetal-pain/
The substantial published scientific literature on the topic shows that unborn babies can experience pain at least by 15 weeks gestational age (15 weeks LMP, since Last Menstrual Period, the fetal age estimate used by most obstetricians) or earlier.

Ww know a lot more about the fetus/unborn baby each year. A lot of people say trust the science. Roe vs. Wade was way behind on knowing the specifics of unborn babies. Doe's' it make sense to use science to guide each state's decision versus emotion. I understand this is a very emotional and tough decision to decide to abort a baby. Mothers should be educated to the law and also the well being of their fetus as it is developing. This way they can make a decision to abort within 15 weeks so they baby does not suffer.

I don't see any reason any state would object to exceptions, number 1 being the health of the mother after 15 weeks. I understand (I have 3 daughters) a woman should have a say as their body, but at a certain time a fetus turns into a baby. There are many stories of women getting abortions after 15 weeks and the baby was alive, but since the woman wanted the baby terminated (aborted), the doctor had to kill the baby.

There has to be middle ground with abortion in every state. All parties need to be open minded, use today's science and solutions to make everyone satisfied can be achieved.