_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
1338 points (98.5% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
3507 readers
865 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It doesn't really matter since the right to abortions was added to the state constitution.
It still matters because the Federal courts can set precedent that the Federal law (obviously, that's how Federalism works) overrides state abortion bans.
As your own link said, they didn't break the law.
She was stable. The law says the hospital had to wait until she was in danger.
A lawsuit from a pro lifer who is suing because she wanted an abortion isn't proof they broke the law.
Unfortunately the HHS Secretary isn't empowered to create law, nor are they empowered to interpret law. They can only share opinions, provide guidance, create policy, etc. So no, in this case, you are not quite right.
Further, as the other user pointed out: the hospital would rather be sued by the individual for violating their rights than by the state for violating the law. Regardless of potential precedent or final outcome, one is far, FAR more costly than the other.
As they say, when the punishment is less than the profit, it's not a punishment, it's a business expense
Ultimately, laws can only be judged on their ability to create outcomes. This one has failed miserably
And you don't seem to be listening to people who are telling you that the law doesn't have to be draconian to cost people their lives.
If some number of hospitals conclude that the cost of letting people die and settling wrongful death cases is lower than the cost of defending patients' rights to an abortion under their specific circumstances, then those hospitals will set policy that prohibits providing those abortions. Because they are profit-driven, not charities (a separate but related problem)
I will say it again: if the cost is less than the profit, it's not a punishment, it's a business expense. Put another way, if actually breaking law A costs less than defending accusations of breaking law B, they will break law A every time.
I'm really tired of trying to explain to people that laws and politics do not exist in a bubble.
A) You hope it will. In the meantime, we continue to see cases of people being in danger or even dying.
B) Good for you that you can hand-wave away other people's lives and safety as just a temporary bump in the road.
Your callousness is disconcerting, to say the least, and I'm done with this conversation now because I can't teach you to stop looking at people as statistics.
I'll come back for one last comment to make this clear:
It is never, EVER acceptable to force someone to use their body to save the life of another. Ever. CORPSES have more rights than that (you have to volunteer to be a donor before death).
You want women to have fewer rights than corpses?
And that's without even arguing whether a clump of cells that can't survive on its own is even considered a life.
You can think someone sucks for having an abortion, and we can discuss what happens when a fetus could possible be viable on its own. But bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. If someone says "disconnect me from the thing attached to my body" you fucking do it. End of story. Call them horrible, callous, a sinner, whatever you want. But you do not force people to use their body as an incubator against their will.
You obviously don't understand the concept of bodily autonomy. Parental obligation is not the same as losing bodily autonomy. A parent is not required to give up a kidney or liver for their child. Accountability for a child's behavior is not the same thing as losing bodily autonomy.
It's no different than if you agree to a blood donor and decide in the middle of donation that you want to stop. They cannot force you to continue, even if someone's life depends on it. The fetus' bodily autonomy comes in the form of not having its organs harvested, and being allowed to survive outside the woman's body if it can. There is no form of autonomy that involves another person. That is literally antithetical to the definition of autonomy
You are wrong, flat out, and I encourage you to learn more about ethics before making such patently erroneous statements
"Made for them". I see you've resorted to the God argument. My wife's uterus wasn't made for anyone but her. Your theocratic fascism is disgusting.
I've already quoted from that exact link.
From link you were talking about:
"At the time of the discussion, Farmer was medically stable, with some vaginal bleeding that was not heavy. “Therefore contrary to the most appropriate management based (sic) my medical opinion, due to the legal language of MO law, we are unable to offer induction of labor at this time,” the report quotes the specialist as saying."
Again, she was stable at the time. The law required that they not perform an abortion.
A political official saying something is not the law. Filling a lawsuit is not the law.
The doctors said she wasn't in immediate danger.
You presented it as a law being broken. The only law broken would have been if doctors performed the abortion early because she voted to make it illegal.
"At risk" isn't an immediate threat. Having high blood pressure makes you, "at risk." That's not the same as having a heart attack which is an immediate threat to your life.
The law only allows abortion under immediate threat.
She wanted an early abortion because it was the safe option. But the law precludes proactive healthcare.