Is supporting term limits and exceptions for abortion radical thinking?

[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.