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.
Since they wouldn't perform the abortions, and since no woman would ever be so selfish as to want one, you should have no issue with such abortions being illegal.
This bill actually has nothing to do with the legality of late term abortions as I read it.
Yes, a dying infant. The parents get to decide whether to keep the baby comfortable or use measures to prolong the baby’s life for hours, days, or weeks. That’s what every parent of a dying child gets the “privilege” of doing. What do you think should be done differently? Should it be up to you? Some random lawmaker?
What in that scenario would lead you to believe that the baby is necessarily dying?? I don't see anything in that statement that points to the fact that the baby is terminally ill. It's actually pretty typical for newborns to sometimes need oxygen before they completely start breathing on their own. The new bill doesn't even mandate that a late term abortion be performed in a hospital so how would the long-term prognosis even be known if a medical team is not there to appropriately evaluate the health of the baby??
A woman seeking to abort would no longer need to obtain an ultrasound before having an abortion, under the proposed law. Currently, three physicians must conclude that a third-trimester abortion is necessary to preserve the health or life of the woman. Those requirements are stripped under the proposed legislation, which also removes the state’s mandate that second and third-trimester abortions be performed in hospitals.
Yes I listened to that. Then I listened to a video showing Tran outlining what the bill consisted of before he questioned her. Then I read the points of the actual bill. The intent of this bill is not to allow abortions up until birth. It may be so that the bill does not prevent them in unique circumstances.
If the intent isn't to allow late term abortions then why make a bill allowing late term abortions?? I don't get it, am I missing something?? This bill actually eliminates all medical requirements for having a late term abortion so I don't understand this statement "It may be so that the bill does not prevent them in unique circumstances." If the bill strips away all medical requirements for an abortion than how would a unique situation even come into the equation, you're now taking away any and all restrictions which makes this a free-for-all at will late term abortion bill
"The bill eliminates the requirement that two other physicians certify that a third trimester abortion is necessary to prevent the woman's death or impairment of her mental or physical health, as well as the need to find that any such impairment to the woman's health would be substantial and irremediable. The bill also removes language classifying facilities that perform five or more first-trimester abortions per month as hospitals for the purpose of complying with regulations establishing minimum standards for hospitals."
Gilbert: No, I’m talking about your bill. How late in the third trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated it would impair the mental health of the woman?
Tran: Or physical health.
Gilbert: Okay. I’m talking about the mental health.
Tran: Through the third trimester. The third trimester goes all the way up to 40 weeks.
Gilbert: Okay. But to the end of the third trimester?
Tran: Yep. I don’t think we have a limit in the bill.
Are people really arguing that women are going to go to their neighbor's garage and get a late term abortion with no anesthesia and no medical support?
Y'all have no argument.
Right now, even if the fetus is terminally ill, missing a brain, or has some other serious defect that is incompatible with life, women have to travel thousands of miles to only a handful of doctors who will perform the surgery. Do you really, really think thousands of doctors are going to start performing late term abortions - and on healthy women with healthy fetuses?
There's a better chance of catching a boogeyman under your bed.
Are people really arguing that women are going to go to their neighbor's garage and get a late term abortion with no anesthesia and no medical support?
If they are willing to "spread their legs" as some posters are fond of saying, whose telling what evil these wimmen are capable of!! They will probably get pregnant just so they can have an abortion on the due date, amirite?
If a pregnancy is being terminated at 39 weeks, it's most likely for a damn good reason. Because in most cases, it'd just be easier to have the baby at that point.
If they are willing to "spread their legs" as some posters are fond of saying, whose telling what evil these wimmen are capable of!! They will probably get pregnant just so they can have an abortion on the due date, amirite?
Yeah. Every woman's dream.
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.
