I heard it suggested that Project 2025 (The GOPs plan for the next presidency) will require women to register pregnancies. I could not find reference to that but I did find plans on abortion ie banning Mifepristone. https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_CHAPTER-14.pdf it also (screenshot 2) suggests that physicians cannot intervene in partial miscarriage worrying
The abortion insanity of the right wing in America is just flat out off the rails. Here's a case of a Texas woman who needed an abortion for medical reasons. Her application for an emergency abortion reached the state SUPREME COURT. They put a stay on a lower court ruling allowing her abortion, demanding that they would look into it!!! Of course, she left the state. BUT, this is what the right wing is doing to women's rights and personal bodily autonomy in America.
I am concerned about this interference in medical treatment in relation to “partial” abortions or partial miscarriages. Abortion is the correct medical term for miscarriage so when we talk of partial abortions what is meant is an incomplete miscarriage - these are medical emergencies and often bloody dangerous for the woman involved.
In this case, the SCJustices stated (after the application for an "exception" went up the legal chain): “No one disputes that Ms. Cox’s pregnancy has been extremely complicated. Any parents would be devastated to learn of their unborn child’s trisomy 18 diagnosis,” the justices wrote. “Some difficulties in pregnancy, however, even serious ones, do not pose the heightened risks to the mother the exception encompasses.” Why are these justices evaluating the medical risk to this woman? She already has that - from DOCTORS!! These justices are NOT certified OB/GYNs. She has had multiple trips to the ER and has had her medical diagnosis. The Justices say: BUT, the language is all undefined as to what it means if the doctor gets sued, and doctors in Texas are not willing to put their careers at risk. So, in this case they won't move unless they have a court decision or the fetal heart stops beating. Texas allows abortion lawsuits to be brought by any citizen and if they win, they get $20K or so. Doctors can't be fighting for their careers with every citizen who wants to try for some dollars. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/12/11/texas-abortion-lawsuit-kate-cox/ This story includes references to the problem of those who don't have the funds for leaving the state to get an abortion.
Highly unlikely. I can't conceive of conservatives doing that, it does sound pretty authoritarian. However, there might be certain specific women required to register, if it's believed they have committed past abortions. The issue with Mifepristone is that, although it's usually used to abort pregnancies rather early, can also be used to terminate pregnancies rather late (although with a lower rate of effectiveness and more health risk to the woman). I think at the least pro-lifers just want to require Mifepristone only be sold with a prescription. When it has been freely sold over the counter in pharmacies, there have been many cases of boyfriends crushing up the pill and slipping it into the food of their pregnant girlfriends.
Bowerbird, you might read this: DOT HS 510 579 (nhtsa.gov) It might be out of date, but it discusses how EMTALA applies to hospitals. The way I am reading it, if a hospital has the capability to do something and provides that medical treatment to patients (specifically paying patients), then they cannot deny the treatment to non-paying patients. The hospital only has an obligation to "medically stabilize" the patient. That is, deal with their immediate urgent medical needs. It sounds like if the hospital doesn't perform any abortions, they are not obligated to have to perform abortions. Mainly EMTALA seems to be about non-discrimination regarding whether the patient can pay. Depending on interpretation of the law, if a patient has presented to the hospital and it is then discovered that the patient may "need" a medical procedure which the hospital does not provide, the hospital could be under a legal obligation to transfer that patient to another hospital which does perform the procedure. But in some cases, "need" can be a relative and debatable word. (Does a woman actually have an emergency medical condition if, given the medical facts, a large percentage of women would choose not to terminate in those circumstances? Is an abortion needed to "medically stabilize" her?)
There are many cases of criminal acts using medications where the victim is unaware. Requiring a prescription puts it out of reach of many who have full rights to the drug.
So I assume you would like to make typical date-rape drugs available on the shelf too, without a prescription?
If the FDA certifies them as safe and effective, then absolutely. Administration of these drugs can not wait for MAGA to accuse women of lying about being raped.
Look, I wasn't suggesting restricting all drugs that could lead to overdoses. In fact I think it's absurd to be restricting things that are poisonous (though some countries like the U.K. seem to have other ideas about that). But certain drugs have a special potential for abuse. That could fall into the category of drugs that can be very addictive and destructive (like opioids), or it could fall into the category of drugs that can induce an abortion. Yes, sure, the boyfriend of a woman could poison her to her, but it's much more likely he's going to employ a drug that will selectively target the unwanted fetus and not his girlfriend. And obviously it's far less likely a woman is going to turn to ordinary poison to kill her fetus when it's likely to kill her too.
Is it? Every single day somewhere in the world a woman is walking into a stinking filthy squalid hell hole to illegally end a pregnancy. If a woman would take that risk……..
That was what women were walking into when they walked into Kermit Gosnell's abortion clinic. Legal doesn't always make it sparkling clean. Just saying. Some women will take the risk. Not all will. It's not really that surprising. Majority of abortions are done out of convenience. It's often not very convenient to try to find an underground clinic that doesn't advertise.
Considering no one known is actually calling for this in any way shape or form, this thread should probably go under conspiracy theories.
It would appear that the Reps are taking lessons from the Dems gun control efforts. Registration equals control. Of course, banning things like crack, guns, and abortion makes sure no one gets it.
Sorry but did you not see the links to “Project 2025”? You know the policy/plan set forth by the Heritage foundation for the next Republican presidency
Yes it was and that says a lot about desperation and abortion. Gosnell worked outside the legal system which is why he continued for so long. The tragedy is that the system was not overhauled and those responsible for not overnighting correctly held accountable
I did. Registering pregnancy, like registering guns, is for the purpose of control. We already know how banning alcohol turned out. It creates criminal enterprises. Unfortunately, those claiming to value ones right to bodily autonomy change their tune when one wants to protect that right with a firearm, or refuse to consume a pharma product during Covid.
No. I strongly oppose government interference. THose on both sides of this issue are hypocrites. Reps claim to want less government interference in our lives, unless its a pregnant woman. Dems claim to value ones right to bodily autonomy, unless a woman wants to protect that right from a rapist/killer with a firearm or refuse to consume a pharma product. Neither side really gives a damn about you. its about control.
Not abstinence. We'll let you keep that form of birth control don't worry..well I mean as long as you do five hail Mary's and six rebukes of the devil every morning during your stretches.
And “abstinence education works soooooo well! https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-education-failure
Sorry can’t let this pass. Firearms do diddly squat to prevent rape. https://ocrcc.org/2016/03/17/guns-rape-prevention-a-dangerous-myth/ https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-education-failure
