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.
[/b]
This is not a health problem, the baby will self-abort period. The only outcome here is a dead fetus, that is it. So the question is if the outcome is known, what purpose is the law serving here? What is the end goal and what will that end goal serve for the public good?
Laws are made to serve the public good, how is the application of this law serving the public good in this case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Miscarriages happen all the time. It's part of the natural process of reproduction. There's no law that can be passed to prevent them.
Miscarriage is a separate issue and not relevant to this conversation. Again Laws are made to serve the public good, how is the application of this law serving the public good in this case?
Blah blah blah, I live in a county with no OB also. It’s a half hour trip into town. Big whoop. People in big cities sit in traffic for longer.
This is such a talking point that it really makes me angry. I live where there are few services and complain about it all the time but at the end of the day, rural counties do not have the population base or density for tons of services. It was my choice to live here. Health professionals don’t work for free and some clinics do get govt grants or extra funds for serving these areas but at the end of the day, it’s a business and not the government’s job to fix the problem.
This is exactly why abortion clinics are clustered in urban areas and are rarely if ever located in rural areas.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,502 posts, read 12,502,824 times
Reputation: 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Exactly. Her MD wouldn't certify that the necessary condition/s existed for her to abort under TX law. Therein lies the problem.
In the linked story it mentioned something about it was possible that her uterus could have burst, imo that would threaten the life and health of the mother. I wonder why her doctors and lawyers only used that information after the fact to tell the media but apparently not tell the courts?
In the linked story it mentioned something about it was possible that her uterus could have burst, imo that would threaten the life and health of the mother. I wonder why her doctors and lawyers only used that information after the fact to tell the media but apparently not tell the courts?
Likely because it was a contrived/manipulated case to pursue an agenda. The fact is that her MD did/would not certify the conditions exist to qualify her for abortion.
I'm old enough to remember when all the pro-life Repubs were saying "Calm down, these laws have exceptions when it comes to the health of the mother! You're overreacting!"
Well, here we are....
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.
