06-26-2024, 01:00 PM
(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.
