06-26-2024, 05:31 PM
(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.
