United States | News & Politics

6936 readers

553 users here now

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

527

US women are being jailed for having miscarriages -BBC 2021 (www.bbc.com)

submitted 3 months ago by alphanerd4 to c/[email protected]

122 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Rachelhazideas 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Tell me you understand nothing about the risks of pregnancy without telling me.

Natural miscarriages =/= abortions.

One is planned, controlled for, with after care. The other one can potentially lead to sepsis and death.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I completely agree with you, and that's precisely why I'm effectively pro-choice. Women should have absolute privacy here.

My wife has had a miscarriage before, and my coworker had to walk back a pregnancy after a miscarriage. I'm absolutely sympathetic to that, hence why I'm so adamant that privacy is always respected. I also think women have absolute control over what they do with their body, so even if they are trying to induce a miscarriage, I think the should be completely free to do that and never the subject of a criminal charge.

I'm not sure how what I wrote could be misconstrued to the contrary.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I’m okay with abortion being technically illegal, but the above would likely make it legal for all intents and purposes, and I’m okay with that.

Do you have any ideas how few doctors are going to be willing provide care if this is the state of abortion law?

I’m okay with abortion being technically illegal

As someone who has never been involved with an abortion and would not want that choice made, I am not.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Why wouldn't doctors want to? The first trimester is essentially a blank check (the vast majority of abortions), and everything after that has a pretty high bar (intent plus sealed medical history). The likelihood of anyone getting charged is incredibly low, especially if they can point to any form of medical expediency.

It would be similar to the self-defense laws in many red states, they're so loose that charges almost never stick if there's any possibility that it was self defense.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The short answer is liability.

Here's where we already are in the current circumstance, just pick the article you want: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=ob%252Fgyn+leave+red+states

But why start out with a goal of "technically illegal but defacto legal" - that seems inherently bad no matter what the issue is. The laws should be what we agree the laws to be, not what we agree them to be but then wink and fail to enforce.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

The "goal" here is to respect the rights of both the mother and the child. The mother has a right to her body, but the fetus also has a right to life. Usually it's easy to craft policy such that "my rights end where yours begin," but they overlap in this case.

It doesn't make sense to me to give the woman priority just because she can communicate her wants and needs. I think pro-life people generally go way too fast in prioritizing the rights of the unborn, and pro-choice people go too far in prioritizing the rights of the mother. So that's why I have this compromise, it:

prioritizes the woman's rights at the most important time - limits harassment about miscarriages, allows confidentiality in cases of rape and incest, and provides a backup plan for those who cannot afford to be mothers
retains the mother's discretion in handling medical issues
prioritizes the fetus' rights at all other times
errs on the side of the mother if there's a conflict (e.g. mother's life is at risk)

I think it's a fair balance. It does prioritize the mother, but only when the alternative involves likely harassment of many innocent innocent people (like in the article), so I think it's a fair compromise.

[–] Omgpwnies 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There needs to be exactly two groups involved in deciding to terminate a pregnancy: The pregnant person, and their medical team, with the pregnant person's choices taking precedence over everyone else's. If they want an abortion, they get one. If the doctors believe that the pregnancy is non-viable or carries an extreme risk to the parent, then the decision to terminate should be made only by the pregnant person.

It would be similar to the self-defense laws in many red states, they’re so loose that charges almost never stick if there’s any possibility that it was self defense.

And the doctors now risk getting arrested and having their mugshot published for everyone to see, having to go to court to fight it, possibly spending time in jail while waiting for trial. There's a saying "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride".

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

If they want an abortion, they get one

I agree, but only for the first half of the pregnancy.

If the doctors believe that the pregnancy is non-viable or carries an extreme risk to the parent, then the decision to terminate should be made only by the pregnant person.

Also agree. Abortion for medical necessity should be allowed for the entire pregnancy.

And the doctors now risk getting arrested

Only if they violate the above. Doctors can already get arrested for malpractice, and I see this as essentially euthanasia of an unwilling patient. Police would need to prove intent to violate the law.

I think it's incredibly unlikely that doctors would actually be arrested unless they're knowingly doing a lot of illegal abortions.