Below is today’s column on common talking point among Democratic members and pundits on how the recent Dobbs decision will present a barrier to women seeking treatment for ectopic pregnancies. It is not only legally and medically false but it is dangerous if women actually believe what they are hearing or reading from these figures. There are ample grounds for pro-choice advocates to oppose the decision without spreading alarm over a danger that does not exist.
Here is the column:
After the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a common rallying cry for pro-choice advocates has been the endangerment of women with ectopic pregnancies who would now be barred in some states banning or severely limiting abortion services. Reps. Judy Chu, Jan Schakowsky, and others have insisted that women with such pregnancies are now without protection. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even used the issue to justify hounding and harassing justices eating in public in reference to a recent incident involving Justice Brett Kavanaugh at a restaurant with his wife: “Poor guy. He left before his soufflé because he decided half the country should risk death if they have an ectopic pregnancy within the wrong state lines.” These views have been amplified by academics like Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. It is a great talking point but it just happens to be untrue as both a legal and medical matter. Worse yet, this common claim could be putting women physically at risk by suggesting that they might be legally at risk if they seek such treatment.
There are obviously good-faith objections to the Dobbs decisions on the underlying constitutional interpretation. However, critics have created a parade of horribles that extend beyond that opinion, including arguments expressly rejected by the Court. That includes President Biden who has repeatedly suggested that contraceptives and travel for women could be now curtailed under the decision.
The majority expressly and repeatedly rejected the application of this holding to these other rights. It stressed “intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage” are not impacted by its holding because “abortion is fundamentally different.” The court and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence return to the point again and again: “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Only Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that these other cases should be examined. Yet even Thomas stressed this opinion expressly rejects that application.
However, the ectopic pregnancy talking point is not just false, it is dangerous. These pregnancies can be life threatening and must be addressed as soon as possible. These interventions are not abortions and even restrictive states expressly state so.
When a pregnancy implants in the fallopian tube, it is not a viable pregnancy but it creates a potentially fatal risk for the mother from tubal rupture and internal bleeding. Treating such woman is not an abortion of a viable pregnancy. Indeed, as noted in a recent column, the procedures are vastly different, including the fact that “mifepristone and misoprostol, used commonly to provide medical abortions, specifically do not treat a pregnancy outside of the uterus.”
This is reflected in some of the most restrictive laws. For example, Oklahoma’s law expressly states “An act is not an abortion if the act is performed with the purpose to . . . remove an ectopic pregnancy.” Texas, Louisiana, and other states have the same express exemption. However, even if the law were silent on ectopic pregnancies, it is doubtful that the courts would ignore the medical and factual classifications to treat such emergency procedures as abortions or ignore that the mother’s life is in danger without medical intervention.
Yet, women would not know that in listening to leaders or reading news accounts. In the New Yorker, Jia Tolentino explained “abortion bans will hurt, disable, and endanger many people … who encounter medical difficulties…One woman in Texas was told that she had to drive fifteen hours to New Mexico to have her ectopic pregnancy—which is nonviable, by definition, and always dangerous to the mother—removed.” That is based on a story from 2021 before the Dobbs decision and an account from an abortion hotline of a doctor refusing to deal with an ectopic pregnancy. It is not explained how, even when Roe v. Wade was still good law, such a procedure could be denied under Texas law.
A woman reading such accounts might easily conclude that she could be charged with a crime or face other legal penalties if she sought treatment for an ectopic pregnancy in restrictive states. These politicians stress that time is of the essence and that such a loss of time in an ectopic pregnancy could prove lethal. Yet, their false claims could have precisely that effect.
That makes this not just disinformation but the most lethal form of disinformation. Indeed, it is precisely the type of disinformation that many of these same leaders have called to be censored. Indeed, this year, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez continued her call for corporate censorship on social media because “disinformation through U.S.-founded companies like Facebook … have absolutely slowed and frankly sabotaged” efforts in areas like Covid treatment. Many have rallied to this anti-free speech cause. Indeed, this week, another medical professor was suspended for simply calling for a discussion of concerns over the need for Covid vaccines of children.
I remain opposed to government and corporate censorship of disinformation, including the false statements made by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. Like many of the false claims surrounding the Dobbs decision, these issues can be addressed without curtailing free speech, but that only increases the importance of countering these false narratives.
President Biden and other Democratic members have called for censorship because social media companies are “killing people” with disinformation. That is precisely what could occur if women believe the claims of politicians and pundits on these ectopic pregnancies.
I agree with the article’s points about ectopic pregnancies.
Where I am less confident is in the doctrinal basis for dismissing concerns about the cases constitutionalising gay marriage, gay conduct and contraceptives. If you apply the exclusive substantive due process standards the Court took from Glucksberg — deeply rooted in historical tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (whatever that oxymoron might mean) — the first two would certainly not survive and the third might not either. So preserving these depends on challenges not being brought, or being denied cert, or being rejected on the basis of the five-factor test for the application of stare decisis to wrong decisions set out in Dobbs.
I think there is in fact little risk of these cases being overturned, but simply saying that that’s because killing a fetus is different is not a sound basis for reaching that conclusion.
The pursuit of health is a symptom of unhealth. When this pursuit js no longer a personal yearning but part of state ideology, healthism for short, it becomes a symptom of political sickness….In the weak version of healthism, as encountered in Western democracies, the state goes beyond education and information on matters of health and uses propaganda and various forms of coercion…
Dr Petr Skrabanek, MD
“The Death of Humane Medicine”, 1994
Sadly the US Federal Govt can not be trusted when it comes to the health of Americans.
NB: ectopic pregnancy is medically treated with a one time injection with methotrexate.
Ectopic Pregnancy: Diagnosis and Management
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2020/0515/p599.html
And they wanted to create a Ministry of Truth. Nothing they do surprises me anymore.
Everything you say is spin, Turley. According to a spokesman from Morton’s, Kavanaugh was unaware of the protesters outside the restaurant until he was informed about them and Morton’s staff suggested he exit via the back door. NO ONE was “harassing” him during dinner. He didn’t even know they were there. It’s just like claiming the guy on a nearby street who possessed weapons and thought about going after Kavanaugh, changed his mind and called the police for help. He wasn’t even on the right street, much less close to Kavanaugh’s home. You spun that as “attempted murder”, knowing full well that someone has to make a substantial step towards commission of the offense for it to constitute an “attempt”.
Secondly, I’ve not seen the stupid “pro-life” laws enacted by Republican legislatures, but I have seen several interviews of OB-GYN physicians who say that the language of some of these laws forbid ending an ectopic pregnancy until it actually endangers the woman’s life. Some of these states define life as the “moment of conception”. Without studing each state’s laws on this point, I tend to believe the physicians. I don’t believe you, Turley, because you, at minimum, exaggerate the facts to make a point, omit key facts, or just plain spin facts to fit the narrative. That’s why I find it exceedingly hypocritical for you, Turley, to accuse anyone of spreading misinformation.
Your points are well-taken —- and then let me ask you what your thoughts are on the story circulating this past week of the “10-year old from Ohio” — you know, the girl who was impregnated and due to Ohio law, had to travel to Indiana to have the fetus aborted? As recently as yesterday, the story is unraveling as more factual information appears to be coming out. Your thoughts?
You were a lot more entertaining 3 years ago when you posted as Peter Shill. Your comments, no matter the sock puppet, have become unbearably maudlin.
Pro-tip: before employing multiple sock puppet accounts to troll for your handlers, enroll in a Creative Writing course at UCLA.
https://www.uclaextension.edu/writing-journalism/creative-writing
😉
You’ve never been entertaining, including when your homophobia is at the fore.
“Kavanaugh was unaware of the protesters outside the restaurant until he was informed about them and Morton’s staff suggested he exit via the back door.
(…)
He didn’t even know they were there. It’s just like claiming the guy on a nearby street who possessed weapons and thought about going after Kavanaugh, changed his mind and called the police for help. He wasn’t even on the right street …”
****************************
You don’t judge a crime by the skill of the perpetrator. It’s about actions and intent and the potential for harm in the context of the elements of the crime.
For there to be an “attempted” any crime, “substantial steps” toward the commission of the offense must have been taken. If the plan is abandoned, this usually defeats an “attempted” _____whatever prosecution. This man stopped and asked the police for help. He abandoned his intention to harm Kavanaugh. He is not guilty of attempted murder as a matter of law.
Allhysteria O’crazio Corkheads et al.
v
The American Founders and Framers
______________________________
DISCORDANT INTERMIXTURE
________________________
“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom? If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”
– Thomas Jefferson
________________
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations of resolve within the year of adoption of the Constitution)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
Your own hysteria is on display here daily.
Brilliant! Simply brilliant!
The “hysteria” of the Founders and Framers.
Interestingly, that is precisely the view of the interlopers, that the American Founders and Framers where “hysterical,” awful, and pernicious – how ’bout that – why’d they come if they so despised them?
Answer: “Free Stuff”
And the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) give it to them by the truck load!
Why must Americans endure indefinite, heterogeneous illegitimacy and invalidity?
However did a “white man’s burden” evolve?
Someone should beseech Rudyard to transpose his “burden” whence “the sun don’t shine”.
The sky is falling!
“Approximately 1%–2% of pregnancies in the United States are ectopic (1,2); however, these pregnancies account for 3%–4% of pregnancy-related deaths (3). The ectopic pregnancy mortality ratio in the United States decreased from 1.15 deaths per 100,000 live births in 1980–1984 to 0.50 in 2003–2007”
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6106a2.htm#:~:text=Approximately%201%25%E2%80%932%25%20of,2003%E2%80%932007%20(4).
It’s the need for deception that marks the differences in our political environment.
Which is the whole reason for the increased involvement of the public.
What is an ectopic pregnancy?
You don’t know enough to offer an opinion.
mespo:
https://www.vincentianspca.org/mespo.html
Why would Democrats feel the need to use talking points?
NEW POLL: 64% of Democrats Don’t Want Biden to Run in 2024
Sixty-four percent of Democrats don’t want President Joe Biden to run for re-election in 2024, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll.
https://www.mediaite.com/biden/new-pol-64-of-democrats-dont-want-biden-to-run-in-2024/
This is very surprising considering Joe Biden has removed the top clamps from his bicycle after humiliating himself last month when he fell off his stopped bicycle.
A mother cannot murder her baby.
A baby cannot murder his mother.
A baby has never murdered her mother.
“Has an ugly, radical, extremist Feminazi ever found affirmative action, welfare, WIC, and unfair, illicit, biased and favorable divorce laws to be critical, nay, essential in her life, compared to the comfortable lot of a beautiful woman?”
– Rush Limbaugh
El Rush-bo did have a way with words, didn’t he. He began referring to the ‘low information voter’ as far back as the late 80’s, when no one, or nearly no one else, was doing so. He would have had a field day were he still with us today, looking at the women in those photographs and videos who have been protesting the Dobbs decision — fat and ugly, unlikely to ever get or be pregnant, man haters most of them….
Professor Turley,
You focus on the extremes on the left but fail to review the nuances of the laws you cite. For example, the full quote from the Oklahoma law is “An act is not an abortion if the act is performed with the purpose to . . remove an ectopic pregnancy.” There are several issues with this construction. First, “ectopic” is not defined. That is terrible drafting, as you should recognize because it will then cause medical providers, insurance companies (and pharmacies — note that selling the prescription is defined as an abortion) to proceed with caution.
This will also require patients to wait until insurance providers deem the pregnancy to be “ectopic” before the procedure can be legally performed. This will increase the health risk to the patient receiving the procedure.
Do you really think the slopping drafting was accidental?
The Texas law defines “ectopic pregnancy” but adds a “intent” requirement. What if the intent of the patient was to violate the law and receive an illegal procedure because the patient did not know the procedure was technically ectopic? Should Texas be able to prosecute that patient? That means that technically you are incorrect when you imply that Texas has an “express exemption” for all ectopic pregnancies. That fails to recognize the mens rea limitation.
If you are going to cite certain state statutes, please do a more thorough review rather than advance a slanted interpretation of state laws that are already on the books.
Thanks,
A Concerned Reader
Ectopic pregnancy already has a medical definition: any time that an embryo implants outside the main cavity of the uterus, most often in a fallopian tube.
Where did you get that definition?
Certainly, not from the MO or OK statutes. They don’t define it. Also your definition may exclude a fetus from ever being an ectopic pregnancy. A quick search of the Cleveland Clinic suggests that ectopic pregnancy should include the termination of a fetus, but arguably the TX definition also exclude the termination of an ectopic fetus. A fetus is no longer just an embryo… Why leave it undefined if it is so obvious? Because the ambiguity is chilling. Drafting is key, especially if drafters cared about patient health.
but arguably the TX definition also exclude the termination of an ectopic fetus.
There is no language construction that would prevent the termination of an ectopic pregnancy.
Directly from the TX Statute: (4-a) “Ectopic pregnancy” means the implantation of a fertilized egg or embryo outside of the uterus.
Does “fertilized egg or embryo” include a fetus? They are different. Therefore, the definition of ectopic pregnancy excludes ectopic fetuses. I can’t make it any clearer than that.
Apparently you don’t understand that implantation occurs in the embryonic stage, not the fetal stage.
Yes, I understand. What happens when it develops into a fetus though? Is the termination of a fetus outside the uterus covered by the statute? It is not. That is my entire point.
It almost never develops into a fetus. It almost always either dies, or it’s terminated in the embryonic stage, or it kills the woman.
In addition, the statute still applies because a fetus in an ectopic pregnancy has developed from “the implantation of a fertilized egg or embryo outside of the uterus.”
You quote the definition of an ectopic pregnancy but you added “developed from” which is not the text of the statute. Please be honest.
If “abortion” is banned except for “ectopic pregnancies” and an ectopic pregnancy does not include a fetus, then termination of an ectopic fetus is abortion by definition.
You may not agree with that distinction personally but please separate your personal beliefs from the plain language of the statute.
That it is rare is irrelevant. You do acknowledge that an ectopic fetus occurs, and therefore, there can be women who LOSE THEIR life because a doctor or pharmacist doesn’t want to go to jail. That is a problem. Full stop.
Ignorance prevails.
Again: there’s a medical definition for “ectopic pregnancy,” and you can find it in any relevant medical text.
Your comments suggest that you do not understand what “ectopic” means. You say things like “your definition may exclude a fetus from ever being an ectopic pregnancy,” but a fetus is never a pregnancy, so your claim makes no sense. Did you mean that a fetus never develops in an ectopic pregnancy? If so, that’s because a woman will die if an ectopic pregnancy continues into the fetal stage.
You say “A quick search of the Cleveland Clinic suggests that ectopic pregnancy should include the termination of a fetus,” which again makes no sense. Did you mean that they suggest that an ectopic pregnancy should be terminated? Yes. In the embryonic stage, because the longer an ectopic pregnancy continues, the greater the risk to the woman’s life. Don’t wait for the fetal stage. If you quote whatever you were referring to, it would be clearer than your attempted paraphrase.
“A fetus is no longer just an embryo”
Duh. They are different stages. The first 8 weeks, it’s an embryo; after that, it’s a fetus.
“Why leave it undefined if it is so obvious?”
It’s not undefined. It has a medical definition, which is what matters.
Please see above regarding the TX statute. Your “duh” comment is proving my point that the legislative intent of “ectopic pregnancy” is not clear unless the definition of the term is included in the statute. Statutes need defined terms to reduce ambiguity. We all know what a “physician” is, but a statute that doesn’t define the term when discussing requirements for physician licensure would be terribly drafted. Just because a medical text may have a definition does NOT mean the statute is clear. Further, those definitions may evolve over time, which would change the meaning of the statute.
I don’t understand what you mean by “a fetus is never a pregnancy.” The point above was meant to distinguish fetus from embryo, which you agreed with. Again, see the TX statute comment above. If a statute limits the term to embryos, an ectopic fetus would NOT be covered. This is the plain language of the TX statute. Otherwise, the drafters would have included “fetus” in the definition. Do you agree?
I don’t agree, as a fetus cannot exist ectopically unless it developed from an embryo that implanted ectopically.
But neither of our opinions matter legally. The issue will be resolved in court, should the issue arise where a woman seeks the termination of an ectopic pregnancy during the fetal stage.
First, if it has to be settled in court, then it was poorly drafted. So thanks for making my point. if you draft legislation that requires a court decision to clarify, then the state has not done a good drafting job.
Second, you are missing the point. If the embryo has become a fetus, then the statute’s exception no longer applies. Abortion laws should not apply to birthed children just because they were once fetuses! By your logic, that is the exact same situation. They developed from a fetus. That’s a pretty novel argument. Do you see the point here? When it is an embryo the statute would cover the procedure. When it develops into a fetus, it no longer applies.
Karen calls all of this a lie below but fails to cite any statutory language to support that claim. Have I misquoted the statute? If so, where? What is my false accusation?
I am not making a policy argument. I am just reading the statute.
If you believe that “if it has to be settled in court, then it was poorly drafted,” do you believe the Constitution was poorly drafted, since many constitutional matters are settled in court?
I don’t share your opinion that “if it has to be settled in court, then it was poorly drafted.” I think lots of times, court cases involve clear statutory text, and the issue isn’t whether the text is clear, but whether the person actually carried out the act in the text (e.g., did person X actually murder person Y?).
And as I said before, I don’t share your opinion that “If the embryo has become a fetus, then the statute’s exception no longer applies.”
“Abortion laws should not apply to birthed children just because they were once fetuses! By your logic, that is the exact same situation.”
That garbage isn’t my logic. A pregnancy ends when the child is born. A pregnancy does not end simply because of a shift from the embryonic to the fetal stage, which is what I was discussing.
Ectopic pregnancy is in unambiguous term with a clear medical definition. It cannot be confused with anything else. You are being coy. Is the law required to define every noun?
An ectopic pregnancy dies when it is removed.
The ploy is to fabricate a false accusation that will garner sympathy and generate votes on false pretenses. In this case, the lie that ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages cannot be treated immediately. People think, how terrible, they’d better vote Democrat. None of it is true, but it doesn’t matter. You can show activists the law, bring them a medical textbook, but they will just keep repeating the lie.
This is not an honest mistake.
“This is not an honest mistake.”
Is a person who makes a not honest mistake a liar? There can be only one answer. That person, anonymous, is a liar.
What have I lied about? The statutory language? Please be specific.
Karen says “the lie that ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages cannot be treated immediately.” Where have I said that? I have not once made that claim.
I have only stated that abortion laws that exclude procedures for ectopic pregnancies are riddled with drafting issues, which will affect some women with ectopic pregnancies.
One mentioned above is the termination of ectopic fetuses, which by definition in TX would be a banned abortion. This is discussed above. Have I misquoted the statue? No. No lie here.
Another issue involves the intent requirement in the TX statute. If you click on Turley’s link you can verify this claim. No lie there either. No one has responded to this claim directly by the way. Be my guest if you disagree with my interpretation of the word “intent” in plain language in the TX statute. I’d love to hear that argument.
So where’s the lie?
“The ploy is to fabricate a false accusation that will garner sympathy and generate votes on false pretenses.”
That is what you are doing. No more need be said. You are a liar.
Karen, doctors don’t agree with you: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109557947/some-abortions-are-necessary-to-save-the-life-of-a-patient
Is your mistake an honest one?
You are doing exactly what Karen said. Your arguments are mostly contrived. All states have a clause ~ to save the life of the mother. If that is not clear, then stop with the lying and advocate for better wording. If you think things are unclear and the mother decides she wants a treatment that would end the life of the child, then things are not imminent, and there is plenty of time to travel to another state.
You wish to encourage doctors to stretch or push the envelope so that we create doctors incentivized to make a living through pretension. That is not the way civilized people are supposed to act. You are disingenuous and not worth listening to.
So now you want to a separate vague and poorly defined exception regarding patient health to be used? It suffers from the same problem? Would a woman need to wait until she’s nearing death to use that exception or would the existence of a fetus outside the uterus suffice? If you can’t tell from the statute, then it will have a chilling effect on procedures.
I’m not sure why you are claiming I have said anything about encouraging doctors to “push the envelope.” What is that in reference to? You wouldn’t – gasp – be doing the L-word you like to throw around so freely would ya?
Medicine is not exact. 2+2 doesn’t equal 4. Doctors frequently make decisions questioned by other doctors. Often there is no specific established way of dealing with medical problems. We accept a physician’s judgment unless it is contrary to established knowledge, or in many circumstances we note the same physician pushing the same envelope.
The woman doesn’t have to wait because in life-threatening conditions the physician has an additional rationale for difficult decisions. If you are complaining about the law, then change the law, but we don’t need you around creating contrived outlier arguments where you scream to drown out common sense and the intention of the law. These outlier arguments don’t all end up in one physician’s hands, so it doesn’t present the problems you proclaim.
Of course, we know your intent, to create abortionists living within complex law. We don’t need your type of nonsense. Why? Because it is Stupid, ATS.
Why not call it ectopic non-Pregnancy..
“These interventions are not abortions and even restrictive states expressly state so.”
It’s false that these are not abortions, and in some “restrictive states,” the laws do NOT expressly say so.
Maybe Turley should read what Ob-Gyns say about it:
“Abortion bans threaten to impede ectopic pregnancy treatment.”
https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-ectopic-pregnancy
“When a pregnancy implants in the fallopian tube, it is not a viable pregnancy but it creates a potentially fatal risk for the mother from tubal rupture and internal bleeding. Treating such woman is not an abortion of a viable pregnancy.”
Correct, but it is STILL an abortion, and some states outlawing abortion do not provide an exception for “non-viable” pregnancies, and in some of these states, the doctor must wait until there is an actual emergency endangering the woman’s life before performing the abortion, even if it’s known that the pregnancy will never be viable and that it will eventually pose a risk to the woman’s life.
Consider the text of the MO statute, for example, which states in part: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency.” There is no exception for ectopic pregnancies. But you wouldn’t know that from reading Turley’s column.
Abortion: Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
ectopic pregnancy: the development of a fertilized ovum outside the uterus, as in a Fallopian tube.
This idiocy of not using common definitions of words, is a game for idiots. And boy do they ever self identify.
The have to lie and play word games, because reality proves them wrong at every turn.
From ACOG:
Abortion bans threaten to impede ectopic pregnancy treatment. For example …
* Legislation that bans abortion care for those with an ectopic pregnancy or mandates how clinicians treat ectopic pregnancies does not reflect the clinical reality of ectopic pregnancy management and could result in delays or even denials of care.
* Abortion bans—even those with exceptions for ectopic pregnancy—can generate confusion for patients and health care professionals and can result in delays to treatment. Health care professionals should never have to navigate vague legal or statutory language to determine whether the law allows them to exercise their professional judgment and provide evidence-based care.
* Any application of an abortion ban that affects those in need of treatment for ectopic pregnancy is inappropriate and will certainly cost lives.
Sounds political.
Anonymous leftists are dangerous to your health.
Why is precision a game for idiots? Have you ever read Frigaliment Importing Co. v. B.N.S. Int’l Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116 (S.D.N.Y. 1960)?
in law school, this is the case we are taught to understand the importance of defining terms in statutes. The entire case arose because two parties could not agree on what a chicken was. The takeaway here is that a law is poorly drafted when an essential term like ectopic pregnancy is not defined. There is no obligation in the statute to rely on a certain medical journal’s definition. And that definition could change in the future, which may affect the meaning of the statute. Piss poor drafting.
What have I lied about? Where is the word play?
What makes you think the leftists at the ACOG are any less crazy than you?
Again, The dog that didn’t bark.
The left is flailing because they have no constitutional argument. The lefts dissent in Dobbs was absent any constitutional frame work, supporting Roe.
That is the driving force in all the lies they tell. It is all they got. 10 year old rape victim, ring any bells? Sure…we all have heard it repeated, Biden ever read it from the teleprompter. The story just lacks a single fact. The ultimate urban legend.
Since the overwhelming majority of Americans support the right to choose, are we all “the left”? The Constitution contains specific protection for “security in your person” and the “right to liberty”, both of which were interpreted, up until the fat one stole the election and nominated politicans to the SCOTUS, as the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy prior to the age of fetal viability. Those provisions also protected the right to contraception, to marriage equality and to sex acts between consenting adults. Clarence Thomas specifically pointed out that each of these latter rights relied on the same provisions of the Constitution as Roe, so they should be “reconsidered”. Alito, knowing the firestorm that was coming, tried to downplay this fact and to distinguish Roe from Griswold, Obergefell and Lawrence. But the only distinction between abortion, marriage equality, contraception and consensual sex between adults is that abortion allegedly involves a “potential life”. Whether a fertilized egg or undeveloped fetus constitutes a “life” subject to government protection that is superior to a woman’s choice to abort prior to the age of fetal viability is a matter of religious belief that is not shared by the majority of Americans. However, thanks to the SCOTUS, this belief is being forced on non-believers.
Where’s the proof that the widely-reported story about the 10-year-old rape victim is a “lie”? Tucker and Hannity don’t count.
The Constitution contains specific protection for “security in your person” and the “right to liberty”,
Up to the point of killing a baby. .
Life is the debate, not abortion. But It’s impossible to argue against life….so you pretend its a mass of cells. Ignoring reality must be the lefts super power.
Life isn’t the debate.
No one can take your blood without your consent in order to save an actual person’s life.
You could be in the middle of donating blood and withdraw consent.
The state has no more right to demand that a woman donate the use of her uterus to save an embryo, which isn’t even a person, than they have to demand that you donate blood to save an actual person.
Continuous repetition reveals a lack of critical thinking skills.
Is that why you’re so repetitive?
Who can tell who is talking to whom? Anonymous the Stupid must be involved, and I bet ATS is the one above and the third above as well. It is not hard to figure out because we hear what he says over and over. BORING.
Where’s the proof that the widely-reported story about the 10-year-old rape victim is a “lie”?
Always demanding someone prove a negative.
Cant prove the story false. oOnly tell you, no evidence exists to support any element of the fiction claiming to be news.
“Cant prove the story false”
You could if it were false.
You may want to look at the Roe and Casey majority opinions if you are not satisfied with the Dobbs dissent. The constitutional and opinion framework is the substantive due process case law interpreting the 14th amendment that started with Griswold (1965) and then Eisenstadt (1969).
Haven’t you noticed yet, that all the left does is LIE?? They cheat and they lie.
I’ve noticed that you lie a lot about people on the left.
“These interventions are not abortions and even restrictive states expressly state so.”
In fact, even Planned Parenthood says they are not abortions. Do you really have to keep running blog posts that illustrate how terrible the Democratic women in Congress are?
He does because that is how the Big Lie works. Outrageous lies if left unchallenged become accepted as true.
Sadly all the official media fact checkers died in a fire and none have been hired yet.
I was visiting with friends this weekend and the topic of the Supreme Court decision came up.
As an aside, my friends obviously “listen” to mainstream media outlets because the very first outrage they expressed was how the Justices were setting up a scenario where woman will die due to the refusal of conservative states to allow treatment for ectopic pregnancies.
They informed us that two young female relatives, living in Austin, expressed their oversized fears on this very detail. These young woman informed our friends they’d likely have to move out of Texas (Austin) due to the draconian policies which will be put in place endangering woman in that state.
My gut told me this was a false narrative being ginned up to obscure the reality of the ruling. All thanks to the dastardly MSM which continues to stoke fear and outrage rather than report accurate information to the public.
JT, you’re assuming that the way red states law rolls out will be with all players having a surgical-precision understanding of what is still legal, and act on it accordingly.
But, that’s unrealistic. There are plenty of militants who will gladly make life miserable for any M.D. who so much as looks the wrong way at an embryo….even the ectopic one. They have forsaken common-sense for orthodoxy long ago.
There are hyper-cautious hospital administrators and their lawyers who may just decide to stop offering abortion services, even where the law allows exceptions. Individual ObGyns might decide to adapt their practices to avoid controversy.
And, ectopic pregnancy is a difficult to diagnose condition without these new complications. I agree that ectopic pregnancy, and partial miscarriages will not be handled the same way in red states as before Roe. Patients will run into new obstacles. They will have a harder time receiving timely care. Some will suffer excruciating pain for a longer duration. And some dozens of cases will fail to be addressed in a timely manner leading to avoidable death. Even if this number is in the dozens per year, each case will be laid at the feet of pro-life legislators. They interfered in ObGyn medical care to the advantage of fetuses, to the disadvantage of patients.
“It is not only legally and medically false but it is dangerous if women actually believe what they are hearing or reading from these figures.”
*************************
The Left – lying when the truth would help them. It’s a way of life for them.