Idaho State GOP Says Abortion Should Be Illegal, Even When Used To Save a Woman's Life
Republican voters disagree.
The Idaho Republican Party on Saturday amended its platform to oppose abortion in all instances, including as a life-saving procedure for a pregnant woman. The party platform now supports more restrictions on abortion than currently exist in any state law and declares abortion to be "murder from the moment of fertilization," even when it is required to save a woman's life.
Scott Herndon, a Bonner County resident running unopposed for the Idaho Senate, sponsored the platform amendment. "For the last 49 years we have essentially lost the argument in the culture because we have focused on abortion as the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of a living human being," Herndon said to fellow delegates, according to the Idaho Capital Sun. "We will never win this human rights issue, the greatest of our time, if we make allowances for the intentional killing of another human being."
According to the Idaho Capital Sun, the party did, however, approve an amendment clarifying that miscarriages should not be subject to criminal penalties. However, language regarding miscarriage does not appear in the finished platform. Reason reached out to the Idaho GOP for confirmation but has not received a reply at the time of publication.
Contrary to Herndon's position, the most strident pro-life activists have long argued that life-saving abortions are not actually abortions. "Abortion is not necessary to save a woman's life," reads an FAQ from the Life Institute. "Treatment for conditions arising in pregnancy, such as pre-eclampsia or sepsis, are NOT abortions, even if the life of the baby is lost, as the intention is not to harm the baby."
The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164. Herndon "vocally opposed adding the exemption" and "argued that both lives, meaning fetus and mother, are of equal value in that situation."
If the Idaho GOP can turn this platform position into law, Idaho women could be legally compelled to die from eclampsia, infections due to incomplete miscarriage (the treatment of which would constitute abortion to the Idaho GOP), and ectopic pregnancy, which is the leading cause of first-trimester maternal death, according to the University of California, Davis Health System.
The new platform doesn't necessarily seem like a real attempt to court voters. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that only 8 percent of Americans support a total ban on abortion with no exceptions. Even among self-described Republican voters, only 16 percent support such stringent restrictions. According to Pew, pro-choice extremism is slightly more popular, with 19 percent supporting legal abortion with no exceptions, a number that rises to 30 percent among Democratic voters.
Americans, it seems, are not broadly supportive of any extreme abortion policy. Time will tell if their elected representatives will listen to them.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey, why save one life when you could let two die?
Socons gotta socon, i guess.
I without a doubt have made $18k inside a calendar month thru operating clean jobs from a laptop. As I had misplaced my ultimate business, I changed into so disenchanted and thank God I searched this easy task (ky-06) accomplishing this I'm equipped to reap thousand of bucks simply from my home. All of you could really be part of this pleasant task and will gather extra cash on-line
travelling this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://getjobs49.tk
I currently consider it self defence.
I would entertain a debate though.
Or you could have actually read the platform document from 2 fucking years ago and found out that Reason is, as usual, lying through their fucking teeth. But sub-75-IQ left wing Marxist pieces of shit gonna sub-75-IQ left wing Marxist piece of shit, I guess.
Great retort dumbass.
Whose sock are you?
Both sides are wacked. So this is what politics in America has come too. Killing a pregnant woman is two murders, but aborting a full term baby is not.
Better to kill a woman and probably a baby too, maybe already a wife and mom, than to save her life. A bet most dad with two kids already would agree.
Both sides are wacked.
Yup. I was all "Yeah, these rural Idaho conservatives are pretty whacko. That's kinda what political platforms (i.e. not legistlation) in remote, rural Idaho is for." and then I read the 6th paragraph and thought, "We could really use a remote rural Idaho for people like Emma Camp too."
It's not remote. It's semi-rural. And they aren't wack jobs.
The idea that you get to murder an unborn child "to save the life of the mother" is a fictional context--it virtually never happens. But it sounds oh, so deranged, and wacked, and..... just declasse, right?
Life is life no matter how small, and a bs restriction to bolster the enemy's argument is stupid.
virtually never
So it does happen. What's the mother in this case, your noble sacrifice?
In fact, I made $30,030 in just 5 weeks working part-time right from my apartment. When I lost my last business I got tired right away and luckily I found this job online and with that I am able to start reaping lots right through my house. Anyone can achieve this top level career and make more money online by:-
.
Reading this article:>>>> http://oldprofits.blogspot.com
Hard cases make bad law.
Note that the Idaho GOP platform from 20fucking20 - that's 2 years ago, for the benefit of you innumerate stupid pieces of fucking SHIT - does not say that abortion should be outlawed even if the life of the mother is at stake, it's just silent on the issue and states a broader policy preference that rape and incest are not valid exceptions.
It's interesting that you advocates for choice and The Science! were dead fucking silent when Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard's parents wanted to move them from Moloch-worshiping state hospitals to religious hospitals who had agreed to not only accept the children as patients, but also to provide all of the transportation and infrastructure to move them to hospitals where physicians were willing to treat them instead of withhold care until they died. Almost like you're just a death cult or something.
If you'd like to be aborted at any time, let me know and I'll be more than happy to put that bullet through your skull.
Whose sock are you?
"Life is life no matter how small..." Hey KKKathyL, you kill MILLIONS of small lives of bacteria, every time you brush your rotting teeth!!! I think that your brain AND your heart are pretty small indeed!
Right, but you lost custody of your kids because you like to fuck your underage daughter shreek. Your opinion on this matter means less than dog shit. Also, despite being a bitch, a cunt, and a histrionic raving harpie you are not actually a biological women, so you can shut your flapping cock holster about this issue. That's the Vox and Atlantic talking point, right?
Hi again, Tulpa!
“Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:
Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
My life is a mess,
Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
I whinny seductively for the horses,
They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
My real name is Mary Stack,
NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
On disability, I live all alone,
Spend desperate nights by the phone,
I found a man named Richard (Dick) Decker,
But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
Dick Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!
So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/11/farmers-kept-refusing-let-him-have-sex-with-their-animals-so-he-sought-revenge-authorities-say/#comments-wrapper
Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
Pause…
Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!
So Richard Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!
So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!
But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!
Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!
Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!
What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?
-Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
Yours Truly,
R Mac / Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan
If it never happens, then why pass a law agin it? Seems the bill's author, and you, have admitted it does happen, just by claiming the law is necessary.
I do agree that ectopic pregnancies should be outlawed... And ALL other acts of cruel imperfection by Mother Nature (AKA Gaia) ass well!!!!
You don't treat ectopic pregnancies with an abortion. It wouldn't work since the fetus isn't in the uterus. It requires surgery, that is not defined as abortion.
Sqrlsy doesn't handle facts well. Maybe do some all caps invective about "gubmint science" instead.
Yeah, obviously, he's now blabbering trying to sound clever. Because he lost on the facts, now he resorts to absurdist diatribes.
See below. The examples given by the author for life threatening problems wouldn't be addressed appropriately by an abortion. In a miscarriage you receive a D&C not an abortion (the fetus has already demised in this situation). In life threatening pre-eclampsia, (which is almost universally a third trimester problem) a C-section is more appropriate. Early on diet, anti-seizure medications and anti-hypertensives are better and safer than an abortion (yes abortions have a low risk factor but still higher than the medications prescribed for early onset pre-eclampsia). Also, depending on what part of Idaho they live in, Oregon and Washington are right across the border, and Idaho only has five facilities that even offer abortion in the whole state. So the majority of those seeking abortions have to travel out of state anyhow.
Still, it is silly, and members of the GOP should push back against this nonsense, and tell them to stop helping.
If you are correct about what is and isn't abortion, then "Life saving abortion" never happens. In which case the plank was unneeded. If in fact there are cases where abortion is required to save the life of the mother, then this decision is out of step with most members of the GOP and the rest of the country, and people really ought to tell them to stop helping.
Being forced to defend the most extreme elements of [Team] is one of the reasons our country continues to be split with no apparent ability to compromise. This is not a common GOP position. It is fringe. There is no need to defend it.
In my 17 years of nursing, in which I did work on/gyn and L&D some of the time, and after three complicated births of our own (one of which falls into a category the pro-abortion advocates state abortion is necessary (it wasn't And the doctor even said it was the worst option even if we had been open to it)) I haven't ran across a case where abortion was actually necessary under life threatening circumstances except in cancer cases (can't get most chemo or radiation while pregnant, but again abortion really isn't necessary because the chemo most likely would terminate the pregnancy anyhow), in which case almost no one actually options for abortion anyhow by most studies (maternal instinct and wanting to pass on a legacy when you're life is threatened). But in the few cases where abortion might be accepted, you have time to travel to Washington or Oregon (they aren't more than an hour flight from any point in Idaho) to get it. But again, why get an abortion when the chemo will do it anyhow. Maybe in some forms of uterine cancer or ovarian cancer, an abortion may possibly be warranted, related to hormonal influence on certain cancers, but even then abortions, both chemical and surgical, require administration of the same hormones. I guess maybe if you needed a complete hysterectomy, and it was before the third trimester, then maybe. If it's in the third trimester, you could do both a C-section and hysterectomy at the same time (seen it done).
And if you weren't an illiterate, half-retarded, single-issue Moloch-worshiping piece of shit you might realize that the party platform *FROM TWO MOTHERFUCKING YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!* says absolutely nothing about what this lying piece of shit author pretends it says. It says no exceptions for rape or incest. It is silent on anything regarding the life of the mother.
Does that help, you stupid piece of shit, or would like a 2nd grade grammar student to see if they can break it down to your level for you?
Kinda like how third trimester abortions never happen, but without them being enshrined in federal law we are living in a literal theocracy ripped from the pages of The Handmaid's Tale. It's almost like you're an unprincipled piece of shit or something.
"it virtually never happens."
Then why did the Idaho GOP decide they needed to opine on it?
If it is so rare that it's ok that the GOP makes such an extreme pronouncement, then it is rare enough that you and the Idaho GOP shouldn't care if it happens once in a blue moon.
I don't know that they actually did. There is some ambiguity about what the platform actually means, under the worst reading it means what the author states, but it could also mean that the examples brought up in debate aren't actually abortion, therefore the GOP voters didn't feel it was necessary to create an exception in their platform (but that doesn't mean they won't in actual legislation). She quotes exactly one Republican who confirms that it means what the author says it means, however, how many other Republicans did she contact for verification?
Oh fuck, she didn't even contact that Republican, she is taking a quote from another source, that didn't contact any other Republicans for quotes, or chose not to print what they answered. And that source is a ultra conservative blogger trying to make a name for himself, who is currently running for multiple offices in Pocatello, who lost the race last year for Mayor of Pocatello to a non-aligned (no party)
Incumbent. Also, David Worley is such a non-entity that he isn't even listed as notable person from Pocatello. Pocatello is probably the most conservative big town in Idaho. And he lost to an independent. This is who the author is citing. He also lost his primary bid for the Republican nominee for his state district. Again, in Bannock county, Republicans control 4/5 legislative districts,and have for decades (the last time a Democrat won the Presidential Vote in this country was Johnson 1964). So, the source she is quoting (instead of contacting herself) is a no name internet personality, who has lost two races in the past two years, in a strongly Republican area. Just so we are clear. Oh and his campaign website is hilarious, it doesn't even list what district he was running for or what office, this spring. It just says he was running 'for Idaho'.
And to take it even further, Governor Little performed 7% better in Bannock county than in the state as a whole.
So to be clear, she didn't cite the CDA Press, the Lewiston Tribune or the Idaho Statesman (the papers of Coeur d'Alene, Lewiston and Boise respectfully), she is quoting an unknown blogger from Pocatello who is a perpetual also ran Down Quixotic candidate and wannabe Sean Hannity.
Maybe the same reason why you are having fits of apoplexy about states banning third trimester abortions even though your side insists that they happen so rarely as to not be worth mentioning.
Almost like you're just a stupid, hypocritical bitch or something.
Then why did the Idaho GOP decide they needed to opine on it?
This really is getting into outright 1A and cancel culture. Did the Idaho GOP peaceably assemble? Do they have any legislative authority? So the minority party (in the federal government) expressed an idea that some people think is whacko (and I somewhat agree is whacko) in something like the 10th smallest state in the Union? What's the National GOP supposed to do? Tell them they can't even talk about shit?
So, uh, what exact lengths *won't* you go to in order to purge ideas you might find discomforting from the far corners of society? As I said, I'm not entirely in disagreement with the idea that they're whacko fringe but they're literally the whacko fringe corner of the country. Like, if Seattle wants to defund their own police department and cede territory to the CHAZ, I think it's stupid, but it's Seattle. It's not until Antifa starts setting up AZs and looting, rioting, and arsoning in other cities or on federal properties that it becomes a real concern. Bums in San Francisco shitting on the street is pretty fucked up but, as long as it stays in San Francisco, not my problem.
Fetal murder varies by state.
Nobody is aborting full term babies. That is not a thing.
Lol, and here comes sarcasmic the retarded cunt to prove my point. If it's not happening, then why are you throwing a histrionic bitch fit about people opposing it?
Perhaps it's because you're an incredibly stupid, lying cunt:
You’ve fallen prey to Reason’s misrepresentation.
The Idaho GOP isn’t outlawing medical interventions to save the life of the mother by killing the fetus, they are simply saying that such medical interventions shouldn’t be called “abortions”.
Tell me just who is aborting a full term baby moron. I'll wait.
Truth is late term abortions are super rare and done because the fetus isn't viable or the mother's life is at risk.
Even if you didn't go look up studies confirming that one would think that just by not being a complete fucking dumbass you'd wonder why a would-be mother would carry around a fetus for MONTHS and then decide to abort late into the pregnancy. What kind of woman would ever do that and why? Just for shits?
Use your head.
You can generally count on Idaho Republicans to be at the forefront of overly-conservative regressive positions.
Really? Name me another "overly-conservative" "regressive" position?
Why do you think preventing the murder of an unborn child is regressive?
Because a fetus isn't legally a person and has no rights so it's not murder. BTW you have to be born to be a child.
Based on what? Government definition? So if government changes that stance who is in the wrong now.
Questions of morality are not the realm of government except in instances of direct harm such as murder.
Based on what every normal person believes in the Western world except for you nut jobs.
No, that isn't even close to being true. Not even close. Since we've already established multiple times in the past you're scientific illiteracy on this subject, we now see how socially illiterate you are. In fact this is hotly debated in every single western society, which the vast majority btw are far stricter than we are even after the recent court decision. Look up abortion laws and culture in Europe nimrod.
Hint it is not treated as birth control or to end inconvenient abortions in most the western world, like it is in the US. In most countries it's taboo and almost always banned after 16 weeks at the latest (most European countries ban it earlier than that.
I'm starting to wonder if FL is ever correct about anything he asserts?
Why am I not surprised you're on the side of the fascists no matter what the argument is?
Whole lotta test tube babies and 28-week premies who might take issue with your biologically illiterate assertion there. Good thing you're such an ignorant piece of shit you wouldn't even comprehend their arguments.
Luckily you're an autistic NEET shut-in who couldn't fuck a woman with a bottle of chloroform and an Econoline, so this isn't really an issue that concerns you.
You know, if you put as much thought into actual arguments as you did insults you wouldn't be scraping the bottom of the gene pool.
I-da-ho? YOU-da-ho!!!! HERE is your Idaho ignoramus!!!
And do you want POLITICIANS to decide, instead of moms and their doctors? Speaking of clueless politicians, see https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/23/idaho-republican-anti-abortion-swallow-camera , “Anti-abortion lawmaker gets anatomy lesson – women cannot swallow camera for exam.” (“Pill-cam”). It seems Idaho representative Vito Barbieri wasn’t listening in the third grade, when another student asked the teacher, “If babies come from mommy’s tummy, how come they don’t get digested?” And he’s not done ANY even vaguely serious studying of health matters since then, either! This clearly shows the UTTER medical ignorance of many power-hungry politicians, who would STILL over-regulate medicine, in order to pander to fanatics! Ignorance for the win, over decency, humility, and self-restraint!
That's no more biologically illiterate than you genuinely believing that men with a penis and testes can become pregnant, or that a fetus is a biological clone of its mother until it exists her vagina.
More lovelies from Republican politicians: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/politicians-learned-anything-since-clayton-williamss-campfire-rape-joke/ “Bad weather is like rape, he (Clayton Williams) said; “if it’s inevitable, just relax and enjoy it.” And “raped women can’t get pregnant”, they say! https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/idaho-lawmaker-still-thinks-rape-cant-result-pregnancy-and-its-2016/ “Nielson’s comments echoed those of former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin, who once memorably said on a television interview, ‘If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.’”
Republican “facts” and “logic” summarized: Abortion-prohibiting laws will need NO exceptions for rape, because raped women don’t get pregnant! If raped women DO get preggers, it MUST mean that they ENJOYED it, so it wasn’t REALLY rape, then, was it?
I hope you're on Guam when it capsizes and drowns the entire population, like your Democrat politicians genuinely believe is possible.
You aren't familiar with Idaho, are you?
And yes, preventing surgery that will save the life of the mother is regressive.
Extremism is regressive.
I'm very familiar with Idaho. And most of it isn't nearly as conservative or regressive as you maintain. They are actually fairly libertarian, especially northern and central Idaho.
Also, prove that all Idaho supports this, even all Idaho Republicans. The platform doesn't actually state rather or not it applies to life saving treatment, and the only evidence that the platform means what the author implies was a single quote from a Senator from a rural and low population county, far in the north.
And yes, preventing surgery that will save the life of the mother is regressive.
No. Settling for a ~50% loss of life when an ~100% preservation of life is conceivable is definitively regressive. The best aspect of progressivism is the idea that we can do better. The acceptance that sometimes babies have to die in order for mothers to live is the opposite of that. Especially in the noted absence of countervailing facts. I agree, the idea that we could save 100% of fetuses is absurdly idyllic, but the idea that we should move towards that definitively isn't regressive.
"regressive"
LOL
Yes, regressive.
I doubt you've ever even been to Idaho.
What's regressive about their positions?
IT JUST IS OKAY?!?!?!?!?!?!
It actually is really funny. Not even principled progressivists. Just pure ego-maniacal death cult nihilists.
The Science: "We've done it! We've perfected incubating a fertilized human embryo and with the funding we've obtained from The Church and various religious organizations, not to mention the funds raised from a near limitless supply of stem cells and other biological products contained in umbilical cord blood and afterbirth, there will never again be a reason another fertilized embryo has to die!"
"Progressives": "Fuck you! Embryos and fetuses need to die or women aren't free!"
no person is required to reside in Idaho.
Fortunately, those of us who live here are pretty clear about the important things.
Like not making an excuse to murder an innocent.
>>not making an excuse to murder an innocent
I don't even kill bugs.
Bugs are not innocent.
not those Heinlein ones no
Yeah! KathyL doesn't need an excuse to murder an innocent!
The sheer PLEASURE of it all, is enough, alone!!! Whatever satisfies my self-righteous "punishment clitoris" is all that it takes! SHAKE that Groove Thang, that "punishment clitoris", Babe!
What have very varied thinkers through the years said about this? "Beware of all those in whom the urge to punish is strong." - Friedrich Nietzsche “Mistrust all those in whom the desire to punish is imperative.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe "Let he who is without sin, throw the first stone." - Jesus
I just don't know how you cogently argue this. If the mother dies from health complications in the pregnancy, the baby dies too. If you're talking about late-term complications, abortion isn't usually the remedy, it's induced labor or a C-section, because the problem often removes getting the baby out, and it's viable after 23 weeks in the vast majority of cases.
And ectopic pregnancies are not viable. I'm told there's been some 1 in 10 million cases where an ectopic pregnancy has resulted in a live birth, but it's not normal. The typical end of an untreated ectopic pregnancy is the fetus dies and the mother either suffers some severe medical issues from the bleeding, or else she dies too.
So it's worth noting that there's plenty of people who are pro-life advocates who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Hey, fuck! You didn't make an argument, fuck!
It's worth noting, FUCK! That you have not made an argument for anything other than.... FUCK!
So, fuck! More fuck!
Are you advocating for murdering unborn children, fuck, or are you just slamming people who aren't like you?
F.U.C.K.
Hey fellow Mises/Libertarian members of the GOP Alliance: Look! We have a new star filled with dispassionate rhetoric and reason. Hello newb, welcome to the comment board of reason.com. Your advocacy that libertarians should just sit around and let the State strap you down until you have Jesus’ baby will be very welcome around here. Welcome!
You’re not any better now.
Well... damn.
But I think you misunderstood his/her point.
QUESTIONS THAT THE FANATICS WON’T EVER ANSWER: What do YOU think that the punishment should be for deliberately killing a fertilized human egg cell? Ditto the punishments for likewise killing a fertilized egg of an ape... A monkey... A rat... An insect... If your Righteous Punishments From on High are DIFFERENT in these cases, then WHY? WHERE do the differences come from? And what gives YOU (or the 51% of the voters) the right to punish the rest of us?
Never, ever, have I gotten any serious answers, when I pose these questions, about what the PUNISHMENTS should be! (Could it be that the fanatics don’t want us to focus on THEIR obsession, which is their smug and self-righteous “punishment boners”?). Also, the unwillingness to answer questions is strongly indicative of authoritarianism. At the root here is the unmistakable attitude of “Because I said so, peons! Do NOT question your Rulers!”
Actually he made a very sound argument. I assume that's why you resorted to the crazy response.
An abortion isn't the correct treatment for an ectopic pregnancy. Most abortion procedures wouldn't even work, as the fetus isn't in the uterus. It generally requires general surgery. So, yes it's a stupid argument.
Generally it requires excision via laparoscopy. It isn't an abortion.
He literally said abortion isn’t usually the remedy, soldier. Based on your posts (which are very informative btw), it seems like you would agree with that assessment.
So if abortion isn’t the treatment for ectopic pregnancy or other complications, I fail to see why the GOP of Idaho would open their mouths and insert their feet. It just seems like such a non-issue to get caught up on
But it really didn't. One representative, who happens to be Republican, said in an interview to an extreme right wing wannabe media celebrity that this includes all abortions, including life saving. No one else actually did. As to my snark, both ridiculed Idaho and conservatives as being uninformed, but they are the ones wrong, as in it isn't considered an abortion in any state, or by any Church, or group except the pro-abortion people who use it as an example disingenuously. In fact Idaho law specifically states ending an enctopic pregnancy is not an abortion. Nor is treating a miscarriage. Medically speaking they are both wrong, especially in their ridicule. It's impossible to treat an ectopic pregnancy with any treatment that is currently accepted as an abortion. It isn't rare, it's impossible. It's physically impossible. (BTW I just caught spell check changing ectopic to entopic if it did it anywhere else in any of my posts, fuck Microsoft). So, in other words, both Inquisitive and Thinking are implying others are uninformed when they don't even have the basic facts correct. It isn't rare. It's fucking impossible. Period. It's a removal of a cyst. It's done via three small incisions in the abdomen, one for the scope, one for the surgical arm, on for the gas. It doesn't use hormones to induce a miscarriage, or to cause dilation and effacement for evacuation. It's not technically a fetus, except in very imprecise legalese that is contradicted by previous definitions in the same legislation (Idaho Penal Code 18).
Scientifically and medically it is not a fetus. Technically it doesn't become a fetus until the 9th week, after implantation in the uterus.
Surgery is always indicated if bleeding is present or the mass is greater than 3.5 cm. Non-surgical treatment is warranted only if they have verified no IUP (heterotopic pregnancy) and mother has no other medical conditions. Fucking Wikipedia calls the medication an abortion drug but it isn't. The medication is actually a chemotherapy drug that may cause a spontaneous abortion (listed side effect), however, that isn't why it's administered nor is it the purpose of giving it. Instead it is given to cause the body to resorbed the embryonic mass (which is actually the desired outcome because it's the safest). However, in over 50% of cases, and the ones that are considered life threatening, surgery is required. So, the surgery isn't an abortion, nor is the medication option given for the purpose of causing an abortion (which could happen, however, the medication is not a medicine generally approved for medical abortions). The medication is called Methaotrexate (it's also used in severe inflammatory conditions such as severe RA, severe psoriasis and severe Crohn's) it's mode of action is to inhibit cell division, especially in the reproductive tissues, so basically it stops the embryo from developing, allowing the body to resorb it. It isn't prescribed ever for elective abortions.
They aren’t “arguing this”. What they are saying is just that a life-saving intervention that results in the death of the fetus shouldn’t be called an “abortion”.
According to Pew, pro-choice extremism is slightly more popular, with 19 percent supporting legal abortion with no exceptions, a number that rises to 30 percent among Democratic voters.
And I find this distressing as hell, too. It's really a sign of a depraved population that extreme positions like this are mainstream enough to be tolerated.
I can believe your distressed, and I'm sorry.
I'm sorry that you can't murder unborn children for no reason other than.... whatev!
Protecting innocent life from murder isn't depraved--wanting to murder innocents just becuz truly is depraved. Satanic. Demonic.
We don't merely tolerate the idea that unborns must be protected, we advocate for specific restrictions, like no, you can't kill it for no reason.
The Republic tolerates *you* because liberty is paramount. Your ideas are barbaric.
You do know he's agreeing with you, right?
This is what happens when you're too caught up in your own righteousness to pay attention to, or live in reality.
Says the idiot who thinks an abortion is the correct treatment for an ectopic pregnancy.
LOL
"Idaho State GOP Says Abortion Should Be Illegal, Even When Used To Save a Woman's Life"
This claim seems sketchy. Who wants to bet that their platform doesn't actually mention banning "abortion to save a woman's life".
Let's see:
https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.226/c4b.2cd.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-Updated-Idaho-GOP-Platform.pdf
"A. Conscience Clause- All persons and legal entities have the right of conscience and should be protected under Idaho law if they conscientiously object to participate in practices that conflict with their moral or religious beliefs. This includes, but is not limited to, abortion, the prescription for and dispensing of drugs with abortifacient potential, vaccination, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, eugenic screenings, euthanasia, assisted suicide, harmful futile procedures, and the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration.
Sec. 3 Right to Life
A. We affirm that abortion is murder from the moment of fertilization. All children should be protected regardless of the circumstances of conception, including persons conceived in rape and incest. The federal judiciary has played the tyrant in dozens of Supreme Court pro-abortion opinions since Roe v. Wade, and Idaho has the sovereign authority to defy the federal judiciary and to criminalize all murders by abortion within the state’s jurisdiction.
B. We strongly encourage adoption as an alternative to abortion and support legislation that expands opportunities and provides assistance to the adoptive process.
C. We reaffirm our support for the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, and for the rights of the unborn child. We oppose abortion based on sex selection, convenience, or as a method of birth control.
D. We oppose partial birth abortion and we support legislation to abolish this practice.
E. We oppose all abortion.
F. We oppose the expenditure of any Idaho taxpayer funds by any unit of government, including federal, state, county, and municipal government, to any provider of abortion and strongly support legislation to enact the same.
Huh, nothing that say anything about banning lifesaving medical procedures. They say "We oppose all abortion", but that's as close as it gets. Nothing like the bullshit Emma Camp is hyperventilating about.
This whole article is just the usual blue check gaslighting.
Reason is a fundamentally dishonest publication.
Fucking 2020, Oh Perfect Bitch! We are now more than half-way through 2022!!!
Did you READ the above article?
"The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164. "
Ectopic pregnancies will now be a DEATH SENTENCE in Idaho, 'cause of SINNERS who DARE to suffer random ectopic pregnancies!!! And YOU, Perfectly EVIL Bitch, will be there (right?) cheering ON the death of the "sinning" mother!!!
(Does Your Perfect GINORMOUS Punishment SheMale Clitoris-Boner get all engorged when you see all of the suffering and death?)
Name a lethal danger that is resolved by abortion and not surgery (salpingectomy, salpingostomy) or a C-section, Sqrlsy.
Broken hip in an auto accident, massive torso injuries, where remnants of the fetus just BARELY have a heartbeat, the woman is bleeding out from a mangled hip and destroyed tissues, and both can NOT be saved! Or sepsis setting in after premature water breaking!!!
Abortion is surgery in the first place anyway, in late-term abortions!!! C-section is surgery! Name me a bladder-removal operation that isn't surgery!!! Duh! Double-duh!
In sepsis after water break, C-section would be the only treatment that would save her life. Abortion requires hours of hormonally induced dialation and effacement of the cervix to conduct. In all cases you listed, you don't have that time. A C-section requires less than 15 minutes. Place a spinal block, make the incision, generally in non emergency cases you choose a horizontal incision, but in an emergency situation a transverse is more appropriate and quicker, since she will already be in the OR for the other procedures, in the auto accident case, and an abortion would actually delay surgery longer (therefore putting her life at even greater risk) from bleeding out, there would be no medical reason to choose an abortion over a C-section in either scenario. If it is pre-term, they don't do either, they do the emergency surgery and hope for the best. Only in Hollywood (i.e. not real life) do they have to choose. It doesn't happen. The doctor doesn't delay surgery to perform an abortion (which dilation and effacement can take up to 24 hours to complete, if using IV meds, 48 hours if using vaginal suppositories. So the only choice in either scenario, in real life, real medicine,not fucking Chicago Med on NBC, would be to do the surgery with or without a C-section. If it isn't term, the standard of practice is to utilize the least anesthesia possible (because that is the biggest risk to the fetus) and to provide maximum care to support the mother (i.e. blood and IV fluids) while they do the surgery. Since both of these would also save the life of the fetus, at bo time is the surgeon actually having to save the life of the mother or the child. However, the risk of miscarriage is extremely high, in which case they would also treat the miscarriage. They don't wait to terminate the pregnancy before starting the surgery. Fuck, trauma is the last place you have time to do an abortion. Either an emergency C-section (and since she needs emergency surgery anyhow, fuck she's already in the OR). If she has internal injuries, most likely they are going to be in the abdomen from an auto accident, so you already need to open the abdomen anyhow, again, C-section. Thoracic injuries, one surgeon working on the chest, while the other performs the C-section. They can be done simultaneously. The same for the hip and the C-section. Fuck. Do you think in a trauma situation you have time to wait on an abortion? Yeah, in any emergency surgery I've ever taken care of post op or assisted in the ER on, the Surgeon said wait, we have to wait until she has an abortion. Uhm, no that never has happened except on TV. Never.
We always asked women between 12-50 if they might be pregnant, but that was not to do an abortion to save her life but so we knew what anesthesia we should use.
Did you not see where the amendment to specifically carve out medical situations for the mother was quite impressively defeated?
No.
"The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164. "
Sinners must DIE-DIE-DIE!!! Only SINNERS and WITCHES get ectopic pregnancies! It is KNOWN!!! Science!!!
From the article:
"Some delegates shared stories or concerns about ectopic pregnancies, which are non-viable pregnancies that endanger the mother, and suggested adding an exemption for abortion if the life of the mother is in “lethal danger.” A motion for amendment including that exception failed in a 412-164 vote."
Ectopic pregnancies aren't treated with abortion but through salpingectomies and salpingostomies, the removal of a Fallopian tube.
Why would you advocate abortion for a situation where abortion is inapplicable? Someone was pulling a fast one.
You're really too stupid and ignorant to be arguing here.
Did you READ the above article? And THIN about it?
"The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164. "
In light of the above lopsided vote, are you SURE that YOUR definitions of abortions and non-abortions will prevail? Would you put YOUR "free market" money, right now, in Idaho, into a facility for providing remedy for ectopic pregnancies?
Does the pending Idaho legislation ever CLEARLY spell out that ectopic pregnancy remedies are NOT to be defined as "abortions" under the new laws? You and Soldier are just making this crap up, I bet! With NO guarantee at ALL that Idaho politicians and DAs will NOT be utter ideological idiots and assholes!
"Does the pending Idaho legislation "
Do you understand that there is a difference between a platform and legislation?
Of course not.
what you think ML actually reads the articles? he comes here to bait and troll.
That's your job Jeff. It's what you're paid for. And I did read the article and that's why you're so mad.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha
"All abortion" includes lifesaving medical abortions. They are clear that no abortion should be legal.
The examples given abortion isn't warranted (pre-eclampsia, C-section is quicker and safer) or aren't even abortions (a D&C is what you get when you have a miscarriage, which isn't an abortion).
Most of what you call "lifesaving medical abortions" don't actually involve abortion.
Eclampsia, pre-eclampsia and ectopic pregnancies are the examples most commonly used by abortion fanciers, but none of them are actually resolved by abortion. If you'd taken grade 10 science you would have known that.
I have said this multiple times,to inquisitive squirrel, Sqrsly and Molly and alphabet. In pre eclampsia, abortions is the only one which might stop the condition listed, however, abortion is still not the most appropriate or risk free and timely treatment regimen.
All of ye ignorant "binders full of women", with your womb-binders... Just TRUST in Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, who will decide FOR you, what is an "abortion", and what is not! And whether your life may be saved, or not!
And after your baby is born? Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, the Perfect Christian Theologian, will encourage your baby to commit suicide!
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, will now SPEAK! HARKKK silently and RESPECTFULLY, all ye lowly heathens, as She Directs Death, and announces WHICH few of us MIGHT deserve to live, and WHO all deserves to DIE-DIE-DIE!!!
https://reason.com/2022/01/25/did-these-three-officers-willfully-deprive-george-floyd-of-his-constitutional-rights/?comments=true#comment-9323626
“You should really join ᛋᛋqrlsy, ᛋᛋhrike. You two goosestepping fascists offing yourselves would definitely be a mitzvah.”
-Quote MammaryBahnFuhrer the "Expert Christian Theologian"
Now we know he has lost the argument. He is not quoting gibberish trying to sound intelligent but failing miserably. Pretty soon we will get the Tim Enchanter diatribe.
Yup, Sqrlsy feeels like an idiot and now he's mad. "Tim" shitpost incoming.
What is funny, is the Mormon Church doesn't even classify D&C or surgical excisions of an ectopic cyst (it's not really a fetus since it's not in the uterine environment, it's a cyst) as abortions and I bring up Mormons because they have the most influence in the Republican party. They never have. Even pre-Roe, these weren't classified as abortions in Idaho, while the state outlawed abortions in all cases.
Ask, and ye shall receive wisdom!
Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!
So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…
Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:
Hi Fantastically Talented Author:
Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.
At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
So fucking tiresome.
>>Americans, it seems, are not broadly supportive
Americans are not broadly anything
This will work out about as well as the pro-choice folk’s choice to challenge Mississippi’s 15 week on demand abortion law.
* No more self-defense claim when killing a murderous attacker
* No more cops killing anybody
* No more soldiers killing anybody
* No more state executions for capital crimes
No more withdrawing life support from someone in a permanent vegetative state.
No more effectively relieving the pain of the dying.
Prosecution of those who survive suicide attempts.
Republican voters disagree. - Emma
Listen Emma, here is the way government works.
Abortion is a state issue.
Idaho may create restrictive abortion law(s).
If Republicans disagree, they can duly elect different representatives to change the law OR amend their state constitution.
This is how democracy works. If you don't like Idaho's laws, move somewhere else. Or change the laws through the appropriate process.
If the Idaho GOP can turn this platform position into law, Idaho women could be legally compelled to die from eclampsia, infections due to incomplete miscarriage (the treatment of which would constitute abortion to the Idaho GOP), and ectopic pregnancy,</I.
this is so obviously untrue, and so obviously will never happen. Only a soft-headed fever-dream abortion fanatic with a Handmaid's tale fetish could possibly spend one second worrying that this might happen.
Reason Editors and the far left progressive trolls, hardest hit.
Every Party gets to choose the hill it wishes to die on.
The actual part from the citation doesn't state even in life saving cases, that was a single Republican she quotes out of over 90 elected republicans at the state level.
It isn't an abortion if it is removing the remains of an incomplete pregnancy, it is a D&C. Calling it an abortion is pure fucking bullshit, lying, etc. They are two completely different procedures. As for pre-eclampsia, this generally occurs in the third trimester, and the correct treatment is delivering the child, not aborting it. It is actually quicker and safer to induce or conduct a C-section in the third trimester than it is to abort. Life threatening pre-eclampsia requires prompt, immediate treatment (I worked Labor and Delivery and my wife had pre-eclampsia) it takes 48 hours on average to conduct an abortion in the third trimester, a C-section takes half an hour. Which one is more life saving, when minutes count (which it does in pre-eclampsia).
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/02/health/abortion-myths-mental-health-wellness/index.html
Myths about abortion and women's mental health are widespread, experts say
from above…
Women denied an abortion who carried their babies to term were "much more likely to experience physical health issues at the time of childbirth, as childbirth is much more risky than having an abortion," Biggs said. Two of the women in the study died during childbirth.
A 2012 study found the risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the risk from abortion.
After five years, the study found women denied an abortion were more likely to "live in poverty and much more likely to suffer economic hardship, including more bankruptcies, debt and challenges meeting basic living needs," Biggs said.
Women who were turned away were also more likely to be tethered to a violent and abusive partner, and to have chronic health conditions, Biggs said. "They also lowered their aspirations (for the future), and they were less likely to achieve them," she added.
^*)#^)#$&^&#*&^*#((#$^*(#
One of the above links … A 2012 study found the risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than the risk from abortion. translates to: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/
The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States
Early abortion, yes. Late term abortions are extremely rare, so they have very little to no impact on the overall statistics. Also, you are ignoring the time issue. So you are an idiot, who ignored what I wrote. Someone who is trained, had practical experience etc. God, do you ever get tired of making yourself look stupid.
Hint 48 hours is longer than 30 minutes, idiot.
focusing here, are we, on a TINY percentage of cases, aren't we?
Late-term (third trimester) abortions account for a SMALL percentage of abortions anyway! People only resort to them for good reasons! About 1.3%. See https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2019/mar/07/abortion-late-term-what-pregnancy-stage The truth about late-term abortions in the US: they're very rare.
Also see https://www.wired.com/story/roe-fall-limit-screening-fatal-congenital-conditions/ “Roe’s Fall Will Limit Screening for Fatal Congenital Conditions”. Self-righteous anti-abortion fanatics may soon heap HUGE helpings of extra grief on parents who will be FORCED to have Mom carry a soon-dead to birth! Shall we ALSO rub Mom’s nose in her forced futile efforts, in the form of the dead baby? Would THAT help satisfy your punishment boners as well?
That doesn't change any of the facts I presented.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/abortion-is-never-medically-necessary
This article cites one of the leading on/gyn specialist in the nation, who happens to state the same facts I just did above.
But you'll probably deny it because it comes from the Washington Examiner not CNN, because you're a close minded partisan hack. I actually explained the facts and your response was to bring up impertinent data.
So then you're totes OK with this?
Self-righteous anti-abortion fanatics may soon heap HUGE helpings of extra grief on parents who will be FORCED to have Mom carry a soon-dead baby to birth! Shall we ALSO rub Mom’s nose in her forced futile efforts, in the form of the dead baby? Or do you want to "adopt" the dying baby for hours or days at the most, and pretend that this will "help" the mother?
You've heard on anencephalia, for example, I suppose? You ready to adopt?
Definitions of anencephalia. a defect in brain development resulting in small or missing brain hemispheres. synonyms: anencephaly. type of: birth defect, congenital abnormality, congenital anomaly, congenital defect, congenital disorder. a defect that is present at birth.
I am not sure how I feel, just that so far you haven't, nor has the author, actually given an example where an abortion would be the correct treatment. The author falsely calls a D&C an abortion (miscarriage treatment). Pre-eclampsia treatment in the third trimester is better treated with a C-section, before that diet change, anti-convulsants, and anti-hypertensives are the better option (and carry less risk even than abortions). In an ectopic pregnancy an abortion wouldn't even work (the fetus is outside the uterus, thus it requires surgery to remove it, and it isn't classified as an abortion, it's a different procedure). For RH incompatibility (which is more of a danger to the fetus than mother anyhow) there are very effective medications. Additionally, the author fails to mention that Idaho has only five abortion providing facilities in the whole state. Meaning almost every abortion is conducted out of state already. So, basically the argument for mother's life is for the most part a red herring, when you actually understand medicine, and the direct impact if this passes wouldn't change the status quo.
it's also not even a bill, but a platform plank, and they quote exactly one Idaho GOP senator from Bonners county, population all of 47,000 (out of a population of 1.3 million statewide residents) residents that states he believes the platform means not even to save a life. Did they bother to reach out to any of the other 87 other Republican legislatures? Or any of the elected Republican executive branch (which every single elected office is Republican).
"Additionally, the author fails to mention that Idaho has only five abortion providing facilities in the whole state. Meaning almost every abortion is conducted out of state already."
Whatever happened to the free market here? NO real providers may set up shop in Idaho, then, under new rules, to apparently include "non-abortions" of their ectopic pregnancies. The old pre-civil-war USA had ZERO provisions for freeing-the-slaves-against-the-wills-of-their-masters institutions! If you want to be freed from your masters, travel to another state! So then there are NO burdens imposed on you, slaves! Just FLEE to be free, is all!
The "binders full of women" in Idaho must then FLEE from their Idaho womb-binders, and THEN they can be free! Free, at last, free! Praise Government Almighty; FREE at last!
Every hospital in Idaho offers surgery for ectopic pregnancy because abortion wouldn't work to treat an abortion. Fuck you're an idiot.
I just stated this multiple times. It isn't an abortion, And wouldn't be covered under any law making abortion illegal, idiot. Bringing it up is dishonest.
Are you incapable of reading? You can't treat an ectopic pregnancy with an abortion.
God, and the rest of your post basically shows you lost the argument.
Did you READ the above article?
"The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164. "
In light of the above lopsided vote, are you SURE that YOUR definitions of abortions and non-abortions will prevail? Would you put YOUR "free market" money, right now, in Idaho, into a facility for providing remedy for ectopic pregnancies?
Read the article, as it quotes the ectopic pregnancy example as the one mentioned in the example. Again, in this case abortion isn't even how you treat it. So during the debate, the only example given was something that isn't even treated by an abortion. So, no the vote means nothing. Because again the examples given aren't treated by an abortion, ergo no exceptions would be needed. Anyone with even mediocre logical abilities would realize that. The fact that the pro-abortion side to keep bringing up conditions which aren't treated by abortion makes you wonder if any life threatening condition is actually treated by abortion.
And this has been brought up multiple times, yet the pro-abortion advocates continue to use the same examples, despite abortions not being the best treatment, least risky treatment or even a treatment at all (miscarriage is a D&C, getting an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy wouldn't solve the problem and likely make things more risky). The hormones utilized in an abortion make it more likely the cyst would rupture- either the hormones needed to dialate the cervix (which would be useless because you couldn't even access the cyst this way) or the hormones used in the oral treatment. These procedures actually pre date Roe by decades, though the methods have changed with technology, and they've never been classified as abortions. Not even the Catholic Church or Mormons classify them as abortions (and in Idaho what the Mormon church classified something as is extremely pertinent). So under no circumstances would these ever be classified as an abortion in Idaho. They weren't before Roe in Idaho, either. You are now reaching into a world of extremist what ifs. I mean not even the Mormons classify these procedures as abortions, the largest denomination in Idaho, and with massive influence in the GOP.
Would you put YOUR "free market" money, right now, in Idaho, into a facility for providing remedy for ectopic pregnancies?
No answer given here by you... I suspect the answer is "no", for good reasons! Idaho "R" politicians and DAs can NOT be trusted here, because they have YUUUUGE punishment boners, and NO sound, benevolent sense of good, balanced judgment! They in NO real sense, "love their neighbors"! Not in this case, at least!
Every hospital already provides that treatment, that provides gyno care and most that provide general surgery, because it isn't even close to an abortion. You don't go to an abortion clinic for the treatment. I worked in Idaho for over a decade as a med Surg nurse, we did the procedure frequently, but didn't offer abortions. Technically it isn't even a fetus, it's considered a cyst, since it's outside the uterine environment. So, you don't understand shit. There would be no reason to fear. It's always been legal, even pre-Roe, despite only five facilities that offer abortions, this is frequently done at almost every single hospital in the state (all of but two, who never offer abortions), for insurance it's never coded as an abortion, and the largest and most influential religious group in Idaho also doesn't define it as an abortion, nor the second largest (Catholics). In fact, not a single major Christian denomination defines it as an abortion (nor a D&C for a miscarriage as an abortion) and I don't know of a single one of even the most obscure fundamentalist groups that do. 81% of Idaho are Christians, 35% are Mormon or Catholic, neither do the next five largest denominations in the state (Pentecostal, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal and Baptist). Combined this is over 50% of the state. So, under no scenario would this matter. All the for profit hospitals, and almost all the not for profit (most of which are ran by one of the religious groups I noted above in Idaho) already offers proper treatment for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages, while over 99% of them don't offer abortion. You keep bringing this up just shows how incapable you are of understanding facts that run counter to your narrative. Since it's never been defined as an abortion. No medical professionals, when actually doing the procedures, refers to them as an abortion, and no major defines the procedures as abortions, that even when abortion was outlawed in Idaho, pre Roe, they weren't classified as abortions and they are widely offered at almost every hospital that can do surgery, especially every hospital that offers gyno care, despite almost none of them (minus two, of the five abortion facilities in Idaho, only two are hospitals), bringing this up is a red fucking herring. As for the free market, it's already answered the question, as treatment for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages are widely available, while abortions are not, and none are planning on discontinuing these procedures because of this story.
Nor is BlueCross of Idaho discontuing coverage of this (the largest medical insurance provider in the state).
BlueCross of Idaho won't be getting put in prison or otherwise punished for "murdering" non-viable pregnancies here, if "Team R" gets their way. Doctors will be getting punished. BlueCross of Idaho will keep right on making money... They will make MORE money, 'cause they will now be able to REFUSE to make payments to doctors who commit CRIMES by MURDERING non-viable cysts in women's tubes! How DARE they try to save women's lives?!?
Nor will anyone else. I've already cited the pertinent law in Idaho which specifically states ectopic pregnancies are not abortions. Fuck, don't you even bother to read the shit people post in response to you, or just argue with the fucking voices in your head. I've addressed this multiple times and you keep repeating the same stupidity over and over that isn't fucking correct nor pertinent. FOR THE LAST TIME ASSHOLE TREATING AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY IS NEVER A FUCKING ABORTION AND HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED ONE EXCEPT BY DISINGENUOUS PRO-ABORTION ACTIVIST AND IDIOTS TRYING TO SOUND CLEVER. Which are you moron?
And this isn't even a fucking proposed law asshole. It's empty fucking party rhetoric. BTW the same party is the one that wrote Idaho Penal Code 18, which specifically states ectopic pregnancy treatment is NOT A FUCKING ABORTION no matter how much you keep ignoring that fact. Fuck you are stupid and incapable of adjusting your argument. Just keep repeating the same fucking thing, no matter what information you are presented. Fuck, you reference the wrong fucking Monty Python Skit. Fucking Dead Parrot would suit you better.
Simple question: Then WHY did the Idaho "Team R" NOT bother to STATE OUTRIGHT, in their latest platform, "Remedies for ectopic pregnancies are NOT considered abortions in Our Righteous Eyes, as we bestow upon the faithful, our latest delicious scraps of red meat"?
So as to enrich lawyers and others who will quibble, sing, and dance, in front of the judge, jury, and possible victims of the latest new "justice", EXACTLY what constitutes an "abortion", for which exact circumstances, for which exact victims of "justice", at a given time?
Oh come on SM76, don't bring facts and logic into an emotional tantrum by pro-death cultists. We need MOHR abortions to keep Moloch happy.
Big chief Warren says, "close down those pregnancy crisis centers! We cannot have icky pro-lifers actually helping young women keep their children! The horror!!!"
Purest whataboutism! THEY do stupid shit, so it is OK for us to KILL those sinning women who get ectopic pregnancies!!! Withhold their medical care, in the name of non-viable cysts!
Calling it an abortion is pure fucking bullshit, lying, etc.
And we all know that prosecutors and judges never bullshit or lie.
Well, then the defense will bring in medical experts who will make it clear that the procedure was not an abortion, and the jury will decide accordingly. That’s the way our legal system works.
What we shouldn’t do is call something by the wrong name in a law just because calling it by the right name seems politically inconvenient.
Besides current penal code in Idaho already defines these treatments as not being abortions. Penal codes written mostly by the Idaho GOP. Which makes me suspect that, like every medical professional and all of medical and American legal history believes and almost all theological persuasions believe, these aren't abortions. No matter how much disingenuous fucks keep trying to use these examples to argue for abortions.
Which one is more life saving, when minutes count (which it does in pre-eclampsia).
Not to entirely refute your experience or second guess any in-the-moment decisions, but even this is sensationalist, stealing a few bases in their favor, and further exculpating the mother's poor behavior by sacrificing the unborn child. I covered this in another thread. Pre-eclampsia is very much akin to pre-hypertension or pre-diabetes. The survival rate for untreated pre-eclampsia during pregnancy is something like 99.5% and you don't (the mother doesn't) actually die of pre-eclampsia. You die of a hemorrhage or organ failure as the result of hemolysis.
Saying "I want to abort my baby because I have pre-eclampsia" is a bit like saying "I want to have my foot cut off because I have pre-diabetes." You're right that once it's to the point where 'the foot' has to be amputated, C-section is the better option. However, I think there's a point to be made that lots and lots of people who are varying levels of pro-Vaxxers and 'preventative medicine' advocates are effectively saying they defend a woman's right to abort because she chooses not to get vaccinated. That they're pro-preventative medicine (even to the point of locking people in cages and killing them) unless it means we avoid killing babies, then they're out.
So? Texas is in federal court right now to try to ban medically necessary abortions. This is a mainstream Republican position.
A D&C is not an abortion (hint a D&C is what you do for a miscarriage) and treatment for pre-eclampsia requires immediate medical intervention, a C-section is a lot fucking quicker than an abortion. So, you and the author are pulling shit out of your ass.
Any doctor that prescribes an abortion in the third trimester for pre-eclampsia should lose their license. It is blatant medical malpractice. A late term abortion takes on average 48 hours. An induction takes less than 24 hours on average, a C-section less than half an hour. In severe pre-eclampsia every fucking minute counts. The correct treatment protocol is high dose mag sulfate to reduce the chance of seizing followed by immediate delivery of the child, i.e. a C-section is the most life saving procedure in this case. But don't let actual medical facts detract you from your diatribe and worship of abortions.
The new platform doesn't necessarily seem like a real attempt to court voters. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that only 8 percent of Americans support a total ban on abortion with no exceptions. Even among self-described Republican voters, only 16 percent support such stringent restrictions. According to Pew, pro-choice extremism is slightly more popular, with 19 percent supporting legal abortion with no exceptions, a number that rises to 30 percent among Democratic voters.
Emma, follow the logic here. This means: Democrats are more extreme than Conservatives.
MollyGodiva (Scott) and ENB hardest hit.
"According to Pew, pro-choice extremism is slightly more popular, with 19 percent supporting legal abortion with no exceptions..."
This is "extremism" per your definition? When only 1.3% of abortions are 3d-trimester, for perfectly good reasons? You want to FORCE moms to deliver soon-dead babies, and rub their noses in their dead babies?
There are MANY reasons why doctors and could-be-moms should decide, and NOT self-righteous voters and politicians! Summary of this and more here! http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ "The Sociobiology of Abortion" sub-section by indexed header...
This is "extremism" per your definition? When only 1.3% of abortions are 3d-trimester, for perfectly good reasons? You want to FORCE moms to deliver soon-dead babies, and rub their noses in their dead babies?
This is a non-sequitur. That would be like saying that whatever the Idaho GOP wants is irrelevant, because the number of women who were chained to a gurney and forced to give birth until they died since 1974 was zero.
Straight from the article...
"The Idaho GOP's platform throws this reasoning out with the bath water. According to the Idaho Reports Blog, an amendment to allow exceptions for "lethal danger" was proposed, with supporting delegates citing ectopic pregnancy concerns. That amendment was defeated 412–164. "
Ectopic pregnancies will now be a DEATH SENTENCE in Idaho, 'cause of SINNERS who DARE to suffer random ectopic pregnancies!!! And YOU will be there (right?) cheering ON the death of the "sinning" mother?
Straight from the article:
"Self-described Republican voters" had better speak up at the ballot box, in Idaho!
Why, this is party rhetoric no one has offered legislation even remotely close to this. Scare mongering and scientifically, legally and medically illiteracy is all you've offered. But, but ectopic pregnancy. Not an abortion. But but ectopic pregnancies. Still not an abortion. Ectopic pregnancies (stamping your foot). Still isn't an abortion never has been and no one is proposing to make it an abortion.
Simple question: Then WHY did the Idaho "Team R" NOT bother to STATE OUTRIGHT, in their latest platform, "Remedies for ectopic pregnancies are NOT considered abortions in Our Righteous Eyes, as we bestow upon the faithful, our latest delicious scraps of red meat"?
So that ALL doctors and fertile women should quiver and shake in the presence of the POWER TO DECIDE, which will be vested in the hands of Idaho politicians and DAs, perhaps?
Correct, they don't want imprecise language in a platform plank describing something that isn't an abortion but a necessary surgical procedure. Abortion is by definition the elimination of an otherwise viable fetus and ectopic pregnancies are never viable.
Abortion is by definition the elimination of an otherwise viable fetus and ectopic pregnancies are never viable.
That is not how Idaho law defines an abortion.
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH6/SECT18-604/
(1) "Abortion" means the use of any means to intentionally terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child except that, for the purposes of this chapter, abortion shall not mean the use of an intrauterine device or birth control pill to inhibit or prevent ovulations, fertilization or the implantation of a fertilized ovum within the uterus.
There is no viability condition in that definition.
"terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child" if you terminate a living fetus, it means the fetus is viable. An ectopic pregnancy is not considered a fetus, it's technically a cyst, as it develops outside the uterine environment. In a miscarriage, the fetus is already dead, that's why a D&C isn't an abortion either. The definition says in multiple ways, the fetus is viable. Viable pregnancy means that the fetus is alive. That's basically all viable means. Now in some usages it can also mean after the 23rd week, or if the fetus has a chance to survive outside the uterine environment (but surviving outside the uterine environment is again a fuzzy definition. Survive for how long, with what interventions? But the first definition of viable means capable of living.
So if there is a miscarriage or the fetus dies in utero or it’s an ectopic pregnancy, it’s not considered an abortion. Seems pretty clear to me.
Miscarriage - you are right, since killing the fetus wasn't an intentional act.
Dead fetus in utero - you are right, since the fetus was no longer a developing fetus and abortion wasn't the procedure that killed it.
But ectopic pregnancy? Again the law says that a fetus is a fertilized egg (see below). It doesn't say that the fertilized egg has to be in the right spot.
Then WHY do they fence-straddle? Just to appeal to extremist busy-bodies?
At least a partial "fix" is simple.... "Our new law will in no way prohibit or punish the remedies for ectopic pregnancies".
But... But that would decrease the "red meat" being thrown to the fanatics, to write that down that way!
First this isn't legislation it's a party platform, i.e. no force of law. Secondly it isn't even necessary because the law already addresses what is considered and abortion, and guess what, ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion by Idaho Law. See 18 section 503, which I quote below.
18-503. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this chapter only:
24 (1) "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, med-
25 icine, drug, or any other substance, device or means with the intent to termi-
26 nate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the
27 termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death
28 of the unborn child. Such use, prescription or means is not an abortion if
29 done with the intent to:
30 (a) Save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;
31 (b) Remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; or
32 (c) Remove an ectopic pregnancy.
33 (2) "Complication" means that condition which includes, but is not lim-
34 ited to, hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, cervical laceration,
35 pelvic inflammatory disease, endometritis, and retained products. The depart-
36 ment may further define "complication."
37 (3) "Conception" means the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human
38 ovum.
Party platforms lead to laws! What is "Team R" really saying here then? "Go ahead and TRUST us, we don't REALLY mean what we are saying, we won't REALLY do this"? "Vote for us anyway, we are just grand-standing here"?
It gets really simple... "Team R" wants to be "compassionate"... With OTHER people's wombs! And now they are threatening to be quite "compassionate", not only with other people's wombs, but with their tubes as well! To the point when we can gleefully KILL women, in the name of a non-viable cyst! All for more red meat for the extremists!
If the above is NOT true, one added sentence in their platform would have clarified it!
No, most party platforms don't lead to anything but hot air. And why would they suddenly consider these things abortions when they wrote the law above, the churches that most belong to don't consider these treatments abortions, most don't even qualify under medicine as anything close to abortion, and they've never been considered abortions, even when abortion was illegal pre-Roe? No one but you and people trying to scare monger by disingenuously equating these to abortions, ever has considered these abortions. Why would they suddenly change their minds? The only people I've ever seen call these procedures "abortions" are pro-abortion extremists trying to confuse the situation or lie about it their opponents. No one but you and people who flat out are lying, consider these procedures even close to being abortions. The Republicans are not suddenly going to label procedures that for over a century have not been considered abortions, abortions to throw women in jail. This section of the penal Code hasn't barely changed since pre Roe days, when all abortions were illegal in Idaho. They are not going to change this now. It makes no fucking sense to, no one wants it changed. Because no one pro-life I've ever met or talked to considers these abortions, because we aren't dealing with a fetus that could ever be born alive. In most cases it never even reaches the level of a fetus. And in the case of ectopic pregnancies, this can refer to any embryonic tissue, rather or not an embryo is present (i.e. it could also be the yolk sack or other tissue that isn't an embryo). A miscarriage, the fetus is already dead, so a D&C is not killing a living fetus. In an ectopic pregnancy, the mass is almost never even close to being properly formed, and rarely even has basic organs. It's closer to a tumor than a fetus. That's why it's generally considered a cyst. So, no the GOP is not suddenly going to make D&C for miscarriages illegal. Nor will the make it illegal to remove an ectopic pregnancy (which will almost never develop and almost never be born alive even without termination). And then even if against all logic and history and science and medicine and precedence, the legislature actually passes a completely unprecedented bill, the first in it's history, to define these as abortions, it still has to be signed by the Governor (Little is a lot of things but he isn't politically stupid enough to make these abortions). And then even if that happens by some weird coincidence and a prosecutor is actually stupid enough to bring charges, you still have to convince a jury. Oh, and Idaho also has a fairly robust and simple voter referendum process, so the law also has to survive probable voter referendums. So, basically anyone who considers this even remotely possible is fucking stupid or lying. Which are you? Stupid or lying?
Look it's clear that you think Republicans here are well-intentioned and acting in good faith and we should interpret their statements generously with these ideas in mind. But not everyone believes that. If they want their skeptics to also believe that they are well-intentioned and acting in good faith, they should state that more clearly instead of relying on some well of imaginary trust that may or may not exist.
If they don't actually oppose ALL abortions, then they shouldn't say "We oppose all abortions".
Why add an unnecessary sentence? Because their voters already know for the most part that these have never been considered abortions. And they know the only people who try to argue that they are abortions are activists purposely being disingenuous to scare monger less informed people into voting for absolutely zero abortion regulations. Find me one single pro-life activists who thinks these procedures are abortions. I've never seen it, ever. The only people I've ever seen label these as abortions are extremists pro-abortion activists. You're right it's an extremists position, an extremists disingenuous position pushed only by those who oppose any abortion regulations and use these examples to misrepresent and demonize anyone who disagrees with them. Period.
Yes, allowing abortion up to crowning is extreme, even if it doesn’t happen that often (yet).
So WHERE is your example place where 100% easy access to late-term abortions has led to a stampede to such abortions? Past the 1.3% of abortions rate?
Kinda like saying gun ownership will lead to 50% of everyone shooting someone else every day, here, maybe? Just fear-mongering, plain and simple?
Show me any example of pro-lifers classifying a D&C or ending an ectopic pregnancy as an abortion, ever. And don't say above because nothing in the story supports that. Nothing. Absolutely zero. The author tries to suggest that it does, but presents absolutely zero evidence other than a UC Davis report created by known pro-abortion activists.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-11/missouri-ectopic-pregnancy-bill-tries-to-limit-abortion-drugs-to-treat-condition
Missouri Anti-Abortion Bill Sows Confusion Over Ectopic Pregnancies
From there...
"But one Missouri bill in particular is drawing ire for criminalizing the use of certain drugs to treat ectopic pregnancies, which are not viable and potentially life-threatening."
Not exactly what you're asking for, but it IS scary enough that NON-medical self-styled "experts" in such matters are starting to micro-manage so-called "NON-abortions"... Because they lust after extremist pro-life votes!
https://utswmed.org/medblog/truth-about-ectopic-pregnancy-care/
Blog by...
Patricia Santiago-Munoz, M.D.
Obstetrics and Gynecology
From there...
Still, some people argue that intervening (my SQRSLY comment, meaning, fixing an ectopic pregnancy) is immoral, comparing it to termination of a viable pregnancy. An opinion article published recently on The Federalist spread misperceptions about ectopic pregnancy management and potentially stigmatized women who seek care. The author, who has no medical training, suggested ectopic pregnancy care is unnecessary – a conclusion she based on “data” from sources such as an outdated medical opinion from the early 1980s and a political/religious magazine article.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/09/is-abortion-really-necessary-for-treating-ectopic-pregnancies/
Word leaks out about your "aborted" Fallopian-tube cyst... Fear of witch-burners showing up at your door are NOT totally unfounded! Idaho "Team R" is NOT helping!
"I think that you deliberately got yourself an ectopic pregnancy, just so that you'd be forced to travel out of state, just to make "Team R" look bad! You heathen slut and WITCH!!!"
What people support in a survey and what they actually care enough about to change their votes are two very different things.
The new platform doesn't necessarily seem like a real attempt to court voters. A 2022 Pew Research survey found that only 8 percent of Americans support a total ban on abortion with no exceptions. Even among self-described Republican voters, only 16 percent support such stringent restrictions. According to Pew, pro-choice extremism is slightly more popular, with 19 percent supporting legal abortion with no exceptions, a number that rises to 30 percent among Democratic voters.
So if I put the two parties on the scales of extremism, the Democrats' scale slams downward.
Early Pregnancy Loss (EPL aka miscarriage aka spontaneous abortion) can occur before 20 weeks of gestation and very often before the woman knows she is pregnant. Current estimates of the frequency of EPL are 9-17% for women age 20-30 and up to 80% for women age 45 or older (not to mention trisomy 21 btw). Overall the frequency of EPL is probably 10-30%. So, someone or something is murdering (or otherwise causing the deaths of ) millions of "preborn persons" worldwide every year. Here's a hint for those who like to play that game: someone or something caused the deaths of millions of people, including preborn innocents, during the Great Flood and has been doing so ever since (OK, we'll skip the mythology, but the reality of ongoing divine mass murder remains).
If you read the link it doesn't say the opposed abortion if life saving necessarily. It is one sentence: we oppose all abortions. So, it could be read that way, but it could also be read to mean elective abortions. The author quotes one Republican senator of 88 Republican legislatures in Idaho to prove the sentence means even in the case of life saving procedures. The author then disingenuously list circumstances in which abortion is not the procedure utilized or not the most appropriate treatment for the conditions listed. I find this extremely disingenuous and dishonest journalism. Basically an article meant to elicit a reaction rather than truthfully present the facts. I assume the author's intent was to paint those opposed to abortions as extremists, and cherry picked a single legislature to provide evidence. It was plainly partisan.
I support abortion during the first trimester, however, the dishonesty of this author pisses me off, and makes me side with the pro-life side.
I also support abortions during the first trimester, but the pro-choice people have lost me with their disingenous and irrational arguments and their total unwillingness to compromise.
The pro-life arguments at least are coherent and consistent, even if I don’t fully agree with them.
In the end, most people simply don’t care because it doesn’t affect them.
It is one sentence: we oppose all abortions. So, it could be read that way, but it could also be read to mean elective abortions.
When does "all" not mean "all"?
The author then disingenuously list circumstances in which abortion is not the procedure utilized or not the most appropriate treatment for the conditions listed.
The "most appropriate" treatment is highly dependent on the particulars of the patient, no? I am totally willing to defer to your judgment that, for instance, an abortion is not the most appropriate treatment for pre-eclampsia *in most cases*. But what about rare cases in which the most appropriate non-abortion procedure is unavailable or unwise? Perhaps because the patient has a unique set of risk factors, or perhaps the patient is not at a facility where the most appropriate treatment is feasible.
This is the problem when legislators attempt to write overbroad, blanket rules in most cases, not just with abortion. Because legislators cannot predict every possible scenario, they wind up either criminalizing behavior that shouldn't be criminalized, or permitting behavior that shouldn't be permitted. Hayek recognized this problem a long time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersed_knowledge
That is why it is best to leave these types of decisions to local authorities and local decision-makers who have the necessary information to make the most proper choice in the moment.
when the conditions the author describes aren't currently even treated with abortions. A miscarriage is a D&C and has never been illegal, even pre-Roe, has never been classified as an abortion, and no Christian denomination, not even abortion absolutists such as Baptists, Catholic and Mormons, classify it as an abortion. Abortion is actually more likely to kill someone if done on an ectopic pregnancy than the condition itself. In an ectopic pregnancy, it's considered a removal of a cyst (again all the criteria I listed above applies to the surgery to remove the ectopic cyst). In pre-eclampsia, last trimester pre-eclampsia requiring emergency treatment, C-section is by far the best and safest choice. In early onset pre-eclampsia, medication and diet, as well as possibly bed rest are far safer and more appropriate than an abortion. It goes further, as in the debate on the platform plank, in the life threatening situation, the only example was an ectopic pregnancy, which again makes you more likely to die than the ectopic pregnancy, and surgical excisions have never been classified as an abortion. Ergo, the opposition never produced a medically warranted example and the one example they gave you can't even treat with an abortion. Ergo, all may not mean all. As it is, in the whole state of Idaho, the 13th largest state, there are only five facilities that even offer abortions. But hundreds that offer treatment for all the conditions the author cited, and which no church or group defines as an abortion (except oddly enough pro-abortion advocates) with the exception of pre-eclampsia and as I said, abortion isn't even the safest and most appropriate treatment for this condition either. So, no, if we are defining life threatening pregnancies, than all doesn't mean all.
And just to be clear, if it can be managed outpatient, it's not life threatening. Almost universally life threatening pre-eclampsia occurs in the third trimester, in which case, the best and safest treatment (because it's the fastest and time matters, minutes matter in that case),is a C-section.
So if the goal really is life saving, than C-section is the safest and best alternative in that instance.
And just so we are clear, pre-eclampsia is not pregnancy induced hypertension, although this is the causative factor.
Further in the rare instance of pre-eclampsia before the third trimester, 99% of the state doesn't have access to abortion currently, in which case, we gave a bolus of mag sulfate, followed by a mag sulfate drip, anti-hypertensives and shipped them to a higher level of care, which in almost every single case was to a out of state hospital, often in Oregon or Washington.
What if there is a situation in which C-section is not the best option?
There isn't. When my wife experienced it, in the 36th week, with a
4+ protein in her urine, blood pressure above 180/140, and positive clonus that wasn't responding to Mag Sulfate and IV antihypertensives (i.e. about as bad as pre-eclampsia can get), with a medical history that precluded any abdominal surgery, they still were prepping her for a C-section because of her condition (her medical history rules out any abdominal surgery except extreme life saving methods). Luckily her water broke and she delivered before the OR was ready, but her case was so bad that there was no other option but a C-section (an abortion takes to long). The physician said it was basically the worst case scenario and that the only option was a C-section. Because of her surgical history she's been told not to get any abdominal surgery unless it was the only method to save her life. So, there isn't a case where a C-section isn't appropriate. If it was appropriate for my wife, then there's never a medical reason it wouldn't be appropriate.
I don't doubt that your wife's condition was exactly as you describe it, but then again claiming an abortion is *never* appropriate is a very strong claim. What if there is another woman suffering from another condition with a unique set of risk factors for which a C-section would be a particularly dangerous procedure? As I say below, that is the problem with legislatures writing these overbroad rules. Even if we assume that they have they purest of intentions, they are not clairvoyant and they cannot foresee every possible scenario.
If that case existed (and you just described my wife's condition) an abortion would be even more dangerous. I'm telling you this based on 17 years of medical experience and speaking with multiple OB/GYN specialists. If it's to dangerous to do a C-section then an abortion will surely kill the mother.
'woman suffering from another condition with a unique set of risk factors for which a C-section would be a particularly dangerous procedure' I just wrote that this is exactly the case in my wife's case. She was told that she has a 50/50 chance of dying if she had a C-section. If she didn't and couldn't deliver within an hour, she had about a 75% chance of dying from the pre-eclampsia. The doctor stated under no condition would an abortion give any better odds. She had an hour. Only an hour. There is no hypothetical situation that is possible, medically speaking, worse then what we were facing. And we were flat out told the one option with the least likelihood of survival was an abortion, because it would take to long. Period. You can't come up with a hypothetical (to show how unique and worse case scenario my wife's chronic condition is, albeit it's only life threatening under extreme conditions, she has had articles written in multiple peer reviewed journals of pediatrics and surgical journals about it, and she currently has a team of 20 specialists at the Mayo Clinic consulting on possible treatments and interventions to address the most acute problems). So, no... Simply no. She was given last rights when she was born (after the priest did a baptism within an hour of her birth, because her family is Catholic) she also was given last rights when she was 12 years old (and given about a ten percent chance to survive the next 24 hours) because of the massive emergency surgeries she had done, the trauma to her abdomen as a result of those surgeries, to save her life, just no. It's basically impossible, medically speaking.
Basically, you have a better chance of winning the lotto of five different states at the same time (five different lottos not the powerball multistate lotto), while being struck by lightning and being eaten by a great white shark at the same time, and getting hit by a meteorite, while saving the universe from Thanos, then of finding a case that C-section was less medically safe than it was in my wife's case.
So maybe it's possible, in the entire history of every single hominid that has ever lived, back to the first division in the great ape branch, that possibly you might find a hypothetical woman that an abortion would be the safest option on acute, intractable pre-eclampsia. And I'm being generous.
So you’re saying there’s a chance?
/bad joke
Actually, Lloyd had a greater chance of arranging a threesome between Mary Swanson and J.P. Shay then of his hypothetical happening.
BTW I wouldn't have kicked either out of bed for eating crackers.
I have had a crush on Lauren Holly since Picket Fences.
Additionally, if for some reason a surgery isn't safe, then an abortion wouldn't be safe either.
Besides the fact that in these cases you rarely have more than an hour to act. The only option that is guaranteed to resolve the situation in less than an hour is a C-section. Now some pro abortion sites claim a late term abortion only takes an hour, but that is by only counting the time starting after dialation is complete and the cervix is fully effaced. To get to that point generally requires 48 hours, unless your providing the necessary medications to cause dialation and effacement via IV, which in other words means you are inducing labor anyhow, because they are the same medications. And if you are inducing labor, it generally takes less than 24 hours because you're giving it IV. So, even then,delivering the baby is faster than an abortion. If you are already inducing labor, without complications then the only reason to abort the fetus is personal choice. It is not medically necessary under those circumstances. If complications occur before dialation and effacement, again, C-section is the only option.
As a man, I can’t always get “the most appropriate treatment” for whatever medical condition I have. That’s because the US government regulates such procedures and because my insurance company needs to approve them. I don’t see what makes the treatment of pregnancy complications any different.
And your sudden support for subsidiarity is touching, but unfortunately very selective.
And abortion isn't even close to the most appropriate treatment for any condition he's hypothesized.
Even if you think I am a complete hypocrite on the matter of subsidiary, that doesn't nullify the argument in favor of subsidiarity. That would be a logical fallacy instead.
"Idaho State GOP Says Abortion Should Be Illegal, Even When Used To Save a Woman's Life"
"California DNC says abortion should be legal even at the end of the third trimester even if its just because the mother changed her mind."
Which is worse?
It isn't even the whole Idaho GOP. The platform doesn't even state what she says it does. Her evidence is a single cherry picked legislature, out of 88 Republican legislature. I strongly suspect she contacted multiple Republicans until she found one that would say what she wanted and then disregarded every other one that didn't support her accusation or even denied that is what the platform meant.
Okay, here is part of the problem here.
Here is how Idaho law defines "abortion" and "pregnancy":
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title18/T18CH6/SECT18-604/
(1) "Abortion" means the use of any means to intentionally terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child except that, for the purposes of this chapter, abortion shall not mean the use of an intrauterine device or birth control pill to inhibit or prevent ovulations, fertilization or the implantation of a fertilized ovum within the uterus.
(11) "Pregnant" and "pregnancy." Each term shall mean the reproductive condition of having a developing fetus in the body and commences with fertilization.
So, consider an ectopic pregnancy. An ectopic pregnancy is a "pregnancy" as defined by the law - it's a developing fetus within the woman's body, just not in the right spot. So a medical procedure to remove the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy would fit the legal requirement of an "abortion" as defined above - it's an intentional act to remove the developing fetus with full knowledge that the act will kill the fetus - even if the developing fetus is not viable. There isn't a viability standard in the Idaho definition of abortion. Right now an "abortion" to remove the fetus from an ectopic pregnancy is legal because current Idaho law has an exception for the health of the mother. If that exception is taken away, then yes it would be illegal to "abort" an ectopic pregnancy.
But I could be wrong. If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong.
No it wouldn't. Because it isn't a fetus if it's ectopic. It's a cyst. Since it's not a fetus, it can't be an abortion. Idiot. I've already stated this multiple times, and only worked as a nurse in Idaho for over ten years, and we never did an abortion, by state law, but we did do several surgeries to treat ectopic pregnancy. Because it isn't technically a fetus.
And this is already addressed in Idaho Code 18-503. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this chapter only:
24 (1) "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, med-
25 icine, drug, or any other substance, device or means with the intent to termi-
26 nate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the
27 termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death
28 of the unborn child. Such use, prescription or means is not an abortion if
29 done with the intent to:
30 (a) Save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child;
31 (b) Remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; or
32 (c) Remove an ectopic pregnancy.
33 (2) "Complication" means that condition which includes, but is not lim-
34 ited to, hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, cervical laceration,
35 pelvic inflammatory disease, endometritis, and retained products. The depart-
36 ment may further define "complication."
37 (3) "Conception" means the fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human
38 ovum.
Idaho Penal Code 18 section 503, if you had searched typed in ectopic pregnancy in the search bar on your citation it would have brought up the pertinent, and proceeding, section, of the legal code you thought made your point (but you were wrong about).
Embarrassed yet?
Soldiermedic, the item you cited, Title 18 Chapter 5, is the Pain-Capable Unborn Protection Act, which refers only to abortions after 20 weeks when the fetus can supposedly feel pain. If you go to Section 505, it criminalizes only those specific abortions. It even says in the definitions section that that definition of abortion only refers to that chapter only.
The section I cited, Title 18 Chapter 6, is the "trigger law" that was passed very recently to go in effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned.
18-622. CRIMINAL ABORTION. [EFFECTIVE DATE – SEE SUBSECTION (1)] (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, this section shall become effective thirty (30) days following the occurrence of either of the following circumstances:
(a) The issuance of the judgment in any decision of the United States supreme court that restores to the states their authority to prohibit abortion;
It covers more broadly all abortions, not just the ones specifically after 20 weeks. It also just recently went into effect, so for all of those years you were removing ectopic pregnancies, this law didn't even apply to you.
Because it isn't a fetus if it's ectopic. It's a cyst. Since it's not a fetus, it can't be an abortion.
I have no reason to doubt that from a medical perspective, an ectopic pregnancy would be better described as a cyst. However, as far as the law is concerned, it's not about what the doctors say it is, it is about what the LAW defines it to be.
According to the LEGAL definition in Title 18, Section 6 (the one that is NOW operative because Roe v. Wade was overturned):
"Abortion" means the use of any means to intentionally terminate the clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman with knowledge that the termination by those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child...
So an ectopic pregnancy is certainly "clinically diagnosable", as you well know. So, is an ectopic pregnancy a "pregnancy" as defined by the law?
"Pregnant" and "pregnancy." Each term shall mean the reproductive condition of having a developing fetus in the body and commences with fertilization.
So the answer is yes, since even with an ectopic pregnancy, the fetus is "developing". Okay, so is the fetus of an ectopic pregnancy a "fetus" as defined by the law?
"Fetus" and "unborn child." Each term means an individual organism of the species Homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.
So the answer is yes, once the sperm fertilizes the egg, then that's a fetus, regardless of whether that fertilized egg winds up in the correct spot or not.
So it sure seems to me, that according to THIS law, it would be illegal to perform an abortion on an ectopic fetus/cyst.
Now, according to THIS law, an abortion to save the life of the woman is not illegal (section 622):
(3) It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under subsection (2) of this section and to any disciplinary action by an applicable licensing authority, which must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, that:
(a)(i) The abortion was performed or attempted by a physician as defined in this chapter;
(ii) The physician determined, in his good faith medical judgment and based on the facts known to the physician at the time, that the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman. No abortion shall be deemed necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman because the physician believes that the woman may or will take action to harm herself;
But according to the GOP platform, they are opposed to "all abortions". Sure, it could mean that what they meant by "all abortion" is something other than "all abortions", but that isn't what they wrote. We can try to read into their statements a friendly interpretation but at some point we have to go by the words that they actually wrote, not the words that we wish they would have written.
Oh, by the way, the good news is, the left have essentially admitted that abortion is more important than the earth burning itself to a cinder.
Climate change just came in nearly dead last in the number of things most important to voters in my state. Abortion was (mostly) at the top, with inflation following that, followed by "other" so I'm guessing that whatever "other" contained was a constellation of issues that couldn't be categorized . After that, depending on the age and income of the voter, border security, guns, climate change and crime (surprisingly) competed for fourth, fifth sixth and 7th place place. However, I must say that 'border security' was often mostly in 4th place, above crime, guns and climate change-- with climate change coming in most often in dead ass last place.
If you were rich, and white and Democrat, abortion went up significantly, crowding almost everything else out, with climate change a distant 4th place, beating out 'guns' which even with Democrats came in dead last.
Addendum: I was wrong, rich, white Democrats border security came in dead last.. it was such a small sliver I didn't notice it on the chart, so Guns was 2nd to last, with border security not mattering at all.
So they need a cheap nanny.
But back to the guns issue, I have to admit that surprised me. That kid with the pillow company must be totally dejected about now.
"even when it is required to save a woman's life."
So, I kept noticing that, despite all those (Always fragmentary.) quotes, the above was never between quotation marks. So I read the platform.
There's no, "even when it is required to save a woman's life." in there. Wow, big surprise.
There is a statement of: "We oppose all abortions."
But nothing about "even when it is required to save a woman's life".
I oppose a lot of things I none the less am willing to do in an emergency.
The document you're quoting from is from 2 years ago and makes absolutely no mention whatsoever about "saving a woman's life" - it only states that they oppose abortion *even in cases of rape and incest*.
Now obviously you're incredibly stupid by nature of being a woman, but even a half-retarded slit can learn how to fucking read. You might give that a shot.
I think I found a big part of the problem...
It is legal to perform an abortion to save a mother. No idea why it is all over the place that it isn't.
Right from the Idaho Criminal Code.
Actual Idaho law:
Part that matters "An abortion performed upon a woman who is in the third trimester of pregnancy shall only be lawful if the same is performed in a hospital and, in the judgment of the attending physician, corroborated by a like opinion of a consulting physician concurring therewith, either is necessary for the preservation of the life of such woman or, if not performed, such pregnancy
would terminate in birth or delivery of a fetus unable to survive."
Code section in context:
"18-608. CERTAIN ABORTIONS PERMITTED -- CONDITIONS AND GUIDELINES. (1)
Abortions shall only be lawful if and when performed in a hospital or in a
5
physician's regular office or a clinic, which office or clinic is properly
staffed and equipped for the performance of such procedures and respecting which the responsible physician or physicians have made satisfactory
arrangements with one (1) or more acute care hospitals within reasonable
proximity thereof providing for the prompt availability of hospital care as
may be required due to complications or emergencies that might arise.
(2) An abortion performed upon a woman who is in the second trimester of
pregnancy shall only be lawful if the same is performed in a hospital.
(3) Thirdtrimester abortions undertaken for preservation of the life of a pregnant patient, as permitted by this subsection, shall, consistent with accepted
medical practice and with the well-being and safety of such patient, be performed in a manner consistent with preservation of any reasonable potential
for survival of a viable fetus."
Didn't let me finish.
It is Idaho Senate Bill 1385 that will take effect and it has carve outs for legal and illegal. The new code is Idaho Code 18-622 that speaks to criminal abortion.
Legal being to save the life of the mother. Incest or rape of a minor that gets pregnant.
It is not a ban on all abortions and also, who is the ALL Idaho GOP that they are supposedly talking to?
Basically, previous (current) law has exceptions and with this bill takes effect it also has exceptions in it as well.
Keep it up Gov-Gun POWER mad F'Tards....
"saving" imaginary sh*t with Gov-Guns is EXACTLY why this nation is falling into despair.