Governor Janet Mills signed a bill into law that allows abortions at any time if deemed "medically necessary" by a doctor. The state's previous law banned abortions after a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (about 24 weeks) but allowed the abortions if the patient's life was at risk. So the standard of when to allow late term abortions has been altered. It has gone from requiring that the woman's life is at risk, to now just being deemed "medically necessary" by a doctor. That might seem like a subtle difference but actually it has some significant differences and implications. Pretty much what this law will do is take doctors off the hook from serious liability if they perform a late term abortion that was not necessary to reduce risk of death. The standard is changed from risk of death to risk to health. "Health" is a much broader category than risk to life. That "health" will also include health of the baby, ironically. So this law will almost certainly end up allowing late term abortion in cases of health issues involving the fetus. That is in fact the specific reason the governor publicly cited for choosing to support this law, after having earlier commented that this proposed law was unnecessary. Maine governor expands access to abortion later in pregnancy, Associated Press, David Sharp, July 19, 2023 It is not all that extremely surprising that the state government of Maine has decided to pass such a law. The nearby states of New York and Massachusetts had recently, three and a half years ago, passed similar sorts of laws expanding abortion, that were even more extreme, and Maine is a progressive Democrat leaning state. (Democrats maintain a majority, though by a much smaller margin than in states like New York or Massachusetts)
These states have banned abortion. Here's what abortion laws will likely be in every state | Fortune Literally no one is more than a day's travel away from access to a safe, legal abortion.
Well let's be clear. No state has entirely "banned abortion". Some states are just much more restrictive than other states. Some states practically ban elective abortions. Other states have practically legalized elective late term abortion. It's a little hard to oversimplify and say some states "ban abortion" and others "allow it", which is not completely true. It's a little more complicated than that. If a state allows elective abortions before 6 weeks gestation, for example, it's not entirely true to say the state has totally banned elective abortion. "Elective abortion" is a terminology of saying that a special justifiable reason for the abortion has not been demonstrated.
That map is a little outdated, not entirely accurate. West Virginia is currently mostly allowing abortions. thread here about the details of that: Abortions will resume in West Virginia West Virginia is an interesting state because they tend to vote for Democrats, yet are more conservative when it comes to many of their social beliefs. It's mostly due to a matter of economics since West Virginia has high levels of white rural poverty. Montana also tends to lean moderately pro-abortion a little bit. And the state of Michigan is definitely going to be pro-abortion now that Democrats have firmly taken the state and have already been pushing through as many social-progressive policies (in other areas) as they can. Alaska in another interesting case as well. It is solidly Republican but at the same time is firmly pro-abortion, although a little more moderate than Democrat states. Part of it may have to do with the Wild West frontier mentality. Alaska even made abortion legal before the Roe v. Wade ruling.
This is absolutely false. First, it's 18 hours by car from Miami to St. Louis - where abortion is still illegal, but is close to Illinoi. Next, there are states that pursue women who get abortions in other states. In fact, there are states with reward programs for those who identify such women. So, even if someone manages to get to a legal abortion state, they could find themselves subject to the law of their home state. In fact, there are even cases of attempting extradition.
You'll need to show examples of attempted extradiction. I can't find any reliable cases. Second the noise about states tracking people going to other states for an abortion is neither true or legal in my opinion. Consider: in the 60's and 70's gambling was illegal in every state but Nevada. States were not tracking people going to Las Vegas and I've never heard of any attempt ever to prosecute anyone for traveling to Las Vegas to gamble. The supreme court would bounce that one very high into the sky, I think. A days travel would include air travel and I'm guessing rather than a total of 36 plus hours driving, a plane ticket would be cheaper and faster. A ticket shouldn't cost more than $350.
OK, I can't find a case of an actual completed extradition, either. It's probably the wrong place to look, too, as states can just wait until the woman comes home. Idaho is one state that has laws against residents helping women to get out of state abortions. Texas allows civil lawsuit against anyone who helps a woman get an abortion somewhere that is legal. So, you get to sue your neighbor for profit, even if they didn't get an abortion! States where abortion is legal are taking defensive measures to block states from subpoenaing medical records, blocking extradition requests, etc. But, that doesn't help someone who drove their sister to the airport, or someone who has no option but to return home. We'll see how it goes as states learn about abortions in other states. Plus, poverty does not allow for $350 dollar plane rides, plus ground transportation at each end, plus a possible overnight stay, plus the cost of the abortion - even if one ignores the legal action to follow.
The same legal issue applies to assisting an abortion that apply to my gambling example. Can you imagine back in the 60's some DA going after United Airlines for offering gambling junket flights to Las Vegas? Figured we'd get the "poor people can't afford travel" thing. It is gross to assume that because someone wants an abortion they can't afford anything. The reality is, these HUMAN BEINGS cannot be put neatly into a category to fit the narrative. They are human beings facing the most horrific decision of their lives and if they need to travel they can find the way to make it work.
- if the people on minimum wage can't do it, it is not a solution. - if those who travel for an abortion, get sued by their friends and neighbors or arrested by the state when they return, that is NOT A SOLUTION. Where the HECK did you get the idea that those are solutions?
Again. Someone suing a neighbor for getting a LEGAL abortion in another state would fail. Ask a lawyer. And minimum wage benchmark? Really?
I notice not a single argument from the pro-choice side so far in this thread making any attempt to argue why Maine needed this change to their law. I guess "More Abortion = good", never mind what the specific issues are.
That's because the answers are obvious and repeatedly pointed out. Besides, do you think Maine made it's law without saying a word in public? What I would recommend is that you learn what the issues are. That way, you can be better at forming cogent argument.
Simple. Why force a woman to bring a fetus to full term when it is determined late in the pregnancy that the fetus is not viable outside the womb, or has died in the womb? Unless Republicans just want to torture the woman, there is no good reason. So yes, there are times when a pregnancy might not be terminal for the mother - but when the fetus is not viable. So decide - torture a mother who knows she is carrying a dead, or soon to be dead fetus - or allow medical personnel to remove the fetus. What you decide here will show the world your level of averse toward women.
The law doesn't just say that. It goes far beyond that. If that's really the sort of situations they had wanted to target, it would have been easy to just say in the new law that abortion can be done after viability if it is believed the fetus will not survive. That's not what the new law says though.
Because it includes a fetus that may be born alive but has NO chance of survivability for a few painful minutes outside the womb. Ain't rocket science.
This has been answered in many ways. The doctor's "belief" is not good enough to stand up in court. Prosecutors search for doctors who cast doubt on the decision. This is standard practice - not just for women's health. These laws open avenues for prosecutors to go after doctors and the women they treat. The result is that doctors can't risk their career by giving women the care they believe is needed. https://www.wired.com/story/states-with-abortion-bans-are-losing-a-generation-of-ob-gyns/ https://dailyiowan.com/2022/11/09/iowa-has-the-fewest-ob-gyn-specialists-per-capita-nationwide https://abcnews.go.com/US/doctors-face-tough-decision-leave-states-abortion-bans
IF a they can afford to get there - in more ways than just cost. If you have a woman in extreme sepsis but the state she is in bans all abortions without exception it is more than possible that she will die before she can be medivaced to another state. Same as “pre-eclampsia/eclampsia” although commonly that occurs post viability and an emergency Caesar is the option of choice there are times when it occurs pre viability.
OK let’s look at Canada - it has no laws in relation to abortion. Are there women waiting until week 39 to have an abortion or is it the same as every other country where the vast majority are within the first 12 weeks? https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/media/2020/07/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf post 21 weeks (22 weeks is the youngest viability) it is 1.29%
That's just not how it works. There are lots of reasons for abortion, including late term abortion. Learning OG/GYN takes years of hard work. Suggesting you can write that into law is startlingly ridiculous. The result is that gynecologists' and OB/GYN WILL go to where they can can practice medicine and save women without losing their entire career. These laws ARE an assault on women's lives.
Then why is the Tennessee AG going after medical records from other states? https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/0...te-abortion-transgender-care-medical-records/
It is flat out UNBELIEVABLE that the right wing thinks the only way to reduce abortion is through laws against doctors and women. We live NEXT DOOR to the proof of how false that idea is.
Well, if it was me that was the father, of course. Beyond that, why is it my responsibility to pay for her decision?
You want to claim that an abortion is only one travel day away.... that presupposes that the travel is either cheap or fast ( it sure as hell itsn't both), that there is some place for these women to put their head at night for the entire time they are away from home, and food to consume. There is a hell of a difference between traveling within a state for your abortion, and traveling two, maybe three states away for your abortion, and you are not so damn stupid as not to know it. I don't like people who minimize the impact of the hardships they imposed on some pretty vulnerable women for ideological or religious reasons. The hardship was intentional and it borders on impossible to overcome in a lot of instances. .
