Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The hurdle to clear is "medical emergency". You think the Ohio lawmakers give two hoots about her emotional state?
Do you think the Ohio lawmakers give two hoots about her, period? All they care about is the fetus. Never has that been more apparent than this draconian bill that would force an 11 year old child to beg not to be forced to give birth.
Right wingers want raped women to be forced to bear the child of a rapist so they can force everyone to follow their religious beliefs. And as they implement their religious laws, they make all kinds of wild conspiracy claims about how sharia law is taking over. That is just a smokescreen while they work their religious laws onto the books while accusing another religion of trying to do what they are successfully doing.
It doesn't appear that the bill specifically defines exactly what it means, except for "medical emergency" which makes it a bit clearer. I don't think anyone here can say for sure what the legislature intended unless we have documents available on discussions on the legislative floor or any research the proponents did or purposes they had.
It was probably intended for conditions or circumstances that can cause or lead to sudden hemorrhaging and things like that. Dire situations in which a life or death decision should be made right away. "Medical emergency" suggests that.
An 11 year old being pregnant is certainly dangerous but is it an urgent enough danger to fit the exemption? Is it an "emergency"? Unclear. At least prior to a certain point, seemingly not. Earlier on it is less dangerous, as her pregnancy progresses, I'd imagine it becomes more dangerous for her body, but does it reach the point of an "emergency" shy of some actual emergency causing her sudden injury or something? Unclear. Do we want her to start experiencing an actual emergency before we allow an abortion? Not really, let it happen before she even gets near that point.
It's not hard to figure out what they meant, it's covered in the legislative analysis: There are two exceptions, no fetal heartbeat or -
Quote:
Provides that a physician is not in violation of the above prohibition if that physician performs a medical procedure designed to or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/dow...412&format=pdf
Then tell that to the person I was responding to, who had first used those words.
eta the quote in your post..
"...in the physician's reasonable medical judgment, is designed or intended to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."
I disagree with your interpretation. In my opinion, a young child having a baby could very well be a serious risk to her life. Sorry that you don't feel the same
Geezus.. It is not my interpretation, they are very specific and I see nothing that would allow an abortion because of the age of the subject.
Quote:
The prohibition does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended, in that physician's reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.2 Continuing law defines a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" as any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and does not include a condition related to the woman's mental health. https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/dow...126&format=pdf
It's not hard to figure out what they meant, it's covered in the legislative analysis: There are two exceptions, no fetal heartbeat or -
That's it, there are NO other exceptions.
What I meant is, what does that whole second section (I requote it below) mean - what qualifies under this exception?
Quote:
if that physician performs a medical procedure designed to or intended to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or prevent a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman
The prohibition does not apply to a physician who performs a medical procedure designed or intended, in that physician’s reasonable medical judgment, to prevent the death of a pregnant woman or to prevent a serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. Continuing law defines a “serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” as any medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. A medically diagnosed condition that constitutes a “serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” includes pre-eclampsia, inevitable abortion, and premature rupture of the membranes, may include, but is not limited to, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, and does not include a condition related to the woman’s mental health.
So it's left in the physician's discretion, it seems, but it does define some examples, which include some pretty serious in the moment life or death conditions. The "may" in there, about MS and diabetes, is flimsy. So basically, it means emergency situations where there is a condition affecting the mother.
It still isn't really that clear whether a pregnant 11 year old will qualify under this exemption. I don't think she would, without some diagnosed condition. I can see arguments made either way, though, that the state and size of her young body itself is enough to put her at serious risk. The possibility that a child could be raped and wind up pregnant seemingly was not even considered in this law. Shows how much these idiots know. The courts may have to decide eventually, if this law stands.
They probably passed this disgusting law in an attempt to overturn Roe/Casey with the new Court. These calculated sick people know exactly what they're doing, because this is probably unduly burdensome under Casey, to restrict abortion to before around 6 weeks. They're trying to get it all overturned. So either this law gets overturned or the whole abortion precedent in the US is overturned. Women and raped girls are used as pawns in a political game. This is why this stuff is not the state/government's business. They have no business playing games with people's lives and medical procedures.
The rape wouldn't have happened if the rapist hadn't been allowed into the country. I guess the girl should be grateful that he didn't kill her after the rape.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
