Story at a glance The American Medical Association is expanding its policies in a rebuttal to states that have enacted strict abortion bans. The leading medical association will expand legal …
thehill.com
The American Medical Association announced it was implementing a new policy that would provide legal protections for patients and doctors against governments attempting to criminalize reproductive health services.
It looks like the doctors have made their stance known.
The basic premise of RvW was that states may no longer deny women a much safer medical procedure. (Much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth). Previously posted, apologies for length:
If abortion is morally wrong, why did the courts recognize a woman's right to have one?
It's a decision that came about once a medical procedure was proven safer than giving birth. Once abortion was a safer procedure, there was no longer any foundation for banning it electively, in the guise of 'protecting women.' The decision was not about protecting the unborn. And they were unequivocal about that. (court decision quotes available on request)
The state can regulate medical procedures. What legal basis does it have to deny a much safer medical procedure to women? The unborn has no legal status the state/fed is obligated to protect. It is obligated to protect women and our Const. rights.
--and--
Why would there need to be a right to abortion?
Because it was needed **to protect women** To enable them to choose something much safer than pregnancy/childbirth...there would be no need to protect women's right to bodily autonomy, medical privacy (health decisions), and due process if some states were not denying women those protections recognized under federal law (the Const). The RvW decision clarified women are entitled to those protections. States may not supersede that.
RvW specifically decided that states may not ban the safer medical procedure of elective abortion. The procedure was safer than pregnancy/childbirth and so they decided that women had the right to choose the safer procedure. They also referred to the 9th in the RvW decision. It's no different than a right to have consensual sex, a right to reproduce, or a right to travel from state to state. It's accorded to the people unless there are reasons to restrict or ban it. (hint: so no one 'invented it'...they just protect it unless there are reasons not to)
RvW decided that the states may not deny women a safe medical procedure if they choose it. It is much much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.
Why should women not be allowed the safer medical procedure if they choose it? The unborn have no legal standing to affect that. The govt is obligated to protect women, and to protect our Const rights.
