• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Doctors in red states put in impossible position to care properly for their pregnant patients

Jack2aTee

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Doctors in red states are complaining that abortion laws dealing with emergency situations that put a woman's life in harm's way are so vaguely written as to be unintelligible. Many states have only one sentence in making reference to a woman's life being danger such as

"...to prevent “death or substantial risk of death,” or “permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ”; and Idaho permits abortion “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” On Thursday, Oklahoma legislators approved a bill that would ban nearly all abortions starting from fertilization, with an exception to save the life of the mother “in a medical emergency.”

Such language is meaningless to physicians when thousands of different situations, some life-threatening in the immediacy, some in the near-term and others further down the road. Physicians are terrified of innocently running afoul of such vague and meaningless phraseology and ending up losing their medical license and worse being prosecuted for murder.

“The emergency is preventing that now. But such a decision won’t be legally recognized in Texas", says Nichelle Haynes, a perinatal psychiatrist from the Reproductive Psychiatry Clinic of Austin.

Typical situation that could arise. Bear in mind there are literally thousands of such situations facing caregivers:

"A pharmacy recently refused to fill a prescription for methotrexate, which treats an ectopic pregnancy by stopping the growth of the fertilized egg.

The pregnancy would never have resulted in the birth of a child, but was a serious risk to the mother. The embryo had attached in the patient’s fallopian tube which, if left untreated, would rupture and cause extensive internal bleeding. Emergency surgery could save the woman’s life if she were able to get to an emergency room fast enough but, if not, she would die from the blood loss.

“We told [the pharmacist] it’s a life-of-the-mother situation,” said Crawford. But they believed their employer wouldn’t permit the prescription. “They felt they would get in trouble.”


 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
59,125
Reaction score
40,195
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It’s ok. Ohio just denied a ten year old rape victim abortion as well. She has to travel to Indiana.

 
Last edited:

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
50,968
Reaction score
34,548
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Doctors in red states are complaining that abortion laws dealing with emergency situations that put a woman's life in harm's way are so vaguely written as to be unintelligible. Many states have only one sentence in making reference to a woman's life being danger such as

"...to prevent “death or substantial risk of death,” or “permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ”; and Idaho permits abortion “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” On Thursday, Oklahoma legislators approved a bill that would ban nearly all abortions starting from fertilization, with an exception to save the life of the mother “in a medical emergency.”

Such language is meaningless to physicians when thousands of different situations, some life-threatening in the immediacy, some in the near-term and others further down the road. Physicians are terrified of innocently running afoul of such vague and meaningless phraseology and ending up losing their medical license and worse being prosecuted for murder.

“The emergency is preventing that now. But such a decision won’t be legally recognized in Texas", says Nichelle Haynes, a perinatal psychiatrist from the Reproductive Psychiatry Clinic of Austin.

Typical situation that could arise. Bear in mind there are literally thousands of such situations facing caregivers:

"A pharmacy recently refused to fill a prescription for methotrexate, which treats an ectopic pregnancy by stopping the growth of the fertilized egg.

The pregnancy would never have resulted in the birth of a child, but was a serious risk to the mother. The embryo had attached in the patient’s fallopian tube which, if left untreated, would rupture and cause extensive internal bleeding. Emergency surgery could save the woman’s life if she were able to get to an emergency room fast enough but, if not, she would die from the blood loss.

“We told [the pharmacist] it’s a life-of-the-mother situation,” said Crawford. But they believed their employer wouldn’t permit the prescription. “They felt they would get in trouble.”



This is what happens when clueless righties try to legislate women's and girls' bodies.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,521
Reaction score
24,543
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Doctors in red states are complaining that abortion laws dealing with emergency situations that put a woman's life in harm's way are so vaguely written as to be unintelligible. Many states have only one sentence in making reference to a woman's life being danger such as

"...to prevent “death or substantial risk of death,” or “permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ”; and Idaho permits abortion “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” On Thursday, Oklahoma legislators approved a bill that would ban nearly all abortions starting from fertilization, with an exception to save the life of the mother “in a medical emergency.”

Such language is meaningless to physicians when thousands of different situations, some life-threatening in the immediacy, some in the near-term and others further down the road. Physicians are terrified of innocently running afoul of such vague and meaningless phraseology and ending up losing their medical license and worse being prosecuted for murder.

“The emergency is preventing that now. But such a decision won’t be legally recognized in Texas", says Nichelle Haynes, a perinatal psychiatrist from the Reproductive Psychiatry Clinic of Austin.

Typical situation that could arise. Bear in mind there are literally thousands of such situations facing caregivers:

"A pharmacy recently refused to fill a prescription for methotrexate, which treats an ectopic pregnancy by stopping the growth of the fertilized egg.

The pregnancy would never have resulted in the birth of a child, but was a serious risk to the mother. The embryo had attached in the patient’s fallopian tube which, if left untreated, would rupture and cause extensive internal bleeding. Emergency surgery could save the woman’s life if she were able to get to an emergency room fast enough but, if not, she would die from the blood loss.

“We told [the pharmacist] it’s a life-of-the-mother situation,” said Crawford. But they believed their employer wouldn’t permit the prescription. “They felt they would get in trouble.”



Well, as the SCOTUS decisions states, it is the responsibility of Legislatures to make laws.

In each of these situations, there are several things one can do:

1. Organize a political action group, and try to elect state legislators and Governors who will change the laws.

2. Go to a pharmacy that will accept and fill the physician's prescription. Often you can simply fill it at the pharmacy inside the hospital the physician works in.

3. Mail order.

4. Take a road trip and get the drugs from a "free state."

5. Don't have unprotected sex.

6. Order "morning after" medication and use it.

7. MOVE to a "free state."

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that there are options, and maybe it's time people take actual ACTION and make the changes they think others should be doing for them.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
59,125
Reaction score
40,195
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well, as the SCOTUS decisions states, it is the responsibility of Legislatures to make laws.

In each of these situations, there are several things one can do:

1. Organize a political action group, and try to elect state legislators and Governors who will change the laws.

2. Go to a pharmacy that will accept and fill the physician's prescription. Often you can simply fill it at the pharmacy inside the hospital the physician works in.

3. Mail order.

4. Take a road trip and get the drugs from a "free state."

5. Don't have unprotected sex.

6. Order "morning after" medication and use it.

7. MOVE to a "free state."

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that there are options, and maybe it's time people take actual ACTION and make the changes they think others should be doing for them.
Yeah the lady in the emergency room (who may have wanted that pregnancy but something went wrong anyway) should have just taken a road trip!
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
59,125
Reaction score
40,195
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
If she is in an "emergency room," and it is truly an "emergency," then it is up to the treating physicians to deal with the issue.
And the doctors can’t due to vague laws… which was the topic in the OP
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
14,033
Reaction score
3,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Doctors in red states are complaining that abortion laws dealing with emergency situations that put a woman's life in harm's way are so vaguely written as to be unintelligible. Many states have only one sentence in making reference to a woman's life being danger such as

"...to prevent “death or substantial risk of death,” or “permanent impairment of a life-sustaining organ”; and Idaho permits abortion “to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” On Thursday, Oklahoma legislators approved a bill that would ban nearly all abortions starting from fertilization, with an exception to save the life of the mother “in a medical emergency.”

Such language is meaningless to physicians when thousands of different situations, some life-threatening in the immediacy, some in the near-term and others further down the road. Physicians are terrified of innocently running afoul of such vague and meaningless phraseology and ending up losing their medical license and worse being prosecuted for murder.

“The emergency is preventing that now. But such a decision won’t be legally recognized in Texas", says Nichelle Haynes, a perinatal psychiatrist from the Reproductive Psychiatry Clinic of Austin.

Typical situation that could arise. Bear in mind there are literally thousands of such situations facing caregivers:

"A pharmacy recently refused to fill a prescription for methotrexate, which treats an ectopic pregnancy by stopping the growth of the fertilized egg.

The pregnancy would never have resulted in the birth of a child, but was a serious risk to the mother. The embryo had attached in the patient’s fallopian tube which, if left untreated, would rupture and cause extensive internal bleeding. Emergency surgery could save the woman’s life if she were able to get to an emergency room fast enough but, if not, she would die from the blood loss.

“We told [the pharmacist] it’s a life-of-the-mother situation,” said Crawford. But they believed their employer wouldn’t permit the prescription. “They felt they would get in trouble.”


:Gasp:

[breathless voice]Doctors will have to defend their medical decisions. What is the world coming to? [/breathless voice]
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,521
Reaction score
24,543
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And the doctors can’t due to vague laws… which was the topic in the OP

(Sigh) If the law states only in a medical emergency, then it is typically up to the treating physician to determine that.

There are any number of medical complications that can classify as such an emergency:

Research is your friend:

"Ectopic pregnancies—during which a fertilized egg implants itself outside of the uterus (mainly in one of the fallopian tubes)—are another example of medical emergencies. Ectopic pregnancies only occur in 1%-2% of pregnancies, but make up about 2.7% of all pregnancy-related deaths. A fetus cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy, which, left untreated for too long, can be harmful or fatal for the pregnant person.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, other life-threatening conditions for the pregnant person include: severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer that needs treatment right away, and an intrauterine infection known as chorioamnionitis following a premature rupture of the amniotic sac. A placental abruption, in which the placenta separates from the uterine lining, may also be considered a medical emergency in some cases of extensive bleeding.

These fetal abnormalities—which may only be detected on a 20-week fetal anatomy scan—include anencephaly (an underdeveloped brain and incomplete skull), renal agenesis (absence of one or both kidneys), and hydrops fetalis (extensive fluid build-up and swelling)." https://www.health.com/news/abortion-medically-necessary

Now I am also certain there may be legal issues raised in certain "hard States." That's when you take it back to the Courts.

Meanwhile, once again, if you wish to effect change, do it at the ballot box.
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
50,968
Reaction score
34,548
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
(Sigh) If the law states only in a medical emergency, then it is typically up to the treating physician to determine that.

There are any number of medical complications that can classify as such an emergency:

Research is your friend:

"Ectopic pregnancies—during which a fertilized egg implants itself outside of the uterus (mainly in one of the fallopian tubes)—are another example of medical emergencies. Ectopic pregnancies only occur in 1%-2% of pregnancies, but make up about 2.7% of all pregnancy-related deaths. A fetus cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy, which, left untreated for too long, can be harmful or fatal for the pregnant person.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, other life-threatening conditions for the pregnant person include: severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer that needs treatment right away, and an intrauterine infection known as chorioamnionitis following a premature rupture of the amniotic sac. A placental abruption, in which the placenta separates from the uterine lining, may also be considered a medical emergency in some cases of extensive bleeding.

These fetal abnormalities—which may only be detected on a 20-week fetal anatomy scan—include anencephaly (an underdeveloped brain and incomplete skull), renal agenesis (absence of one or both kidneys), and hydrops fetalis (extensive fluid build-up and swelling)." https://www.health.com/news/abortion-medically-necessary

Now I am also certain there may be legal issues raised in certain "hard States." That's when you take it back to the Courts.

Meanwhile, once again, if you wish to effect change, do it at the ballot box.

So you believe that the legality of lifesaving procedures should be up to state legislatures. Just like the founders intended. /s
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
59,125
Reaction score
40,195
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
(Sigh) If the law states only in a medical emergency, then it is typically up to the treating physician to determine that.

There are any number of medical complications that can classify as such an emergency:

Research is your friend:

"Ectopic pregnancies—during which a fertilized egg implants itself outside of the uterus (mainly in one of the fallopian tubes)—are another example of medical emergencies. Ectopic pregnancies only occur in 1%-2% of pregnancies, but make up about 2.7% of all pregnancy-related deaths. A fetus cannot survive an ectopic pregnancy, which, left untreated for too long, can be harmful or fatal for the pregnant person.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, other life-threatening conditions for the pregnant person include: severe preeclampsia, newly diagnosed cancer that needs treatment right away, and an intrauterine infection known as chorioamnionitis following a premature rupture of the amniotic sac. A placental abruption, in which the placenta separates from the uterine lining, may also be considered a medical emergency in some cases of extensive bleeding.

These fetal abnormalities—which may only be detected on a 20-week fetal anatomy scan—include anencephaly (an underdeveloped brain and incomplete skull), renal agenesis (absence of one or both kidneys), and hydrops fetalis (extensive fluid build-up and swelling)." https://www.health.com/news/abortion-medically-necessary

Now I am also certain there may be legal issues raised in certain "hard States." That's when you take it back to the Courts.

Meanwhile, once again, if you wish to effect change, do it at the ballot box.
So you’re more of an expert than the actual doctors then? Perhaps you could offer consulting to hospitals.
 

Greenbeard

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
17,097
Reaction score
16,385
Location
Cambridge, MA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Meanwhile, once again, if you wish to effect change, do it at the ballot box.

Turns out the SCOTUS doesn’t feel the will of voters matters in choosing legislatures.



In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts — and that those courts can't judge if extreme gerrymandering violates the Constitution.
 

Court Jester

Proud Systemic Anti-Wokist Paleocon Jedi Master
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Messages
11,731
Reaction score
5,169
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah the lady in the emergency room (who may have wanted that pregnancy but something went wrong anyway) should have just taken a road trip!
This is simply false news. Any hospital lifesaving emergency procedure that is sufficiently documented and witnesses, could never be criminalized short of any wilful negligence. Then after that there are courts, both criminal and civil to remedy any claims, and juries to decide. The problem here is partly due to the misuse of the definition of "emergency" and "threatening to the health of the mother" to also include all abortions on demand.

This is nothing but FUD.... fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
 

Jack2aTee

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, as the SCOTUS decisions states, it is the responsibility of Legislatures to make laws.

In each of these situations, there are several things one can do:

1. Organize a political action group, and try to elect state legislators and Governors who will change the laws.

2. Go to a pharmacy that will accept and fill the physician's prescription. Often you can simply fill it at the pharmacy inside the hospital the physician works in.

3. Mail order.

4. Take a road trip and get the drugs from a "free state."

5. Don't have unprotected sex.

6. Order "morning after" medication and use it.

7. MOVE to a "free state."

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that there are options, and maybe it's time people take actual ACTION and make the changes they think others should be doing for them.
Legislators in red states are working to close up as many loopholes as they can--things like trying to prevent a person in their state from going to another state to get an abortion. Lawmakers in red states will try to bring lawsuits against doctors that perform the abortions in pro-choice states and if push comes to shove they will likely start threatening women and girls who travel to those states for an abortion with prosecution for murder, scaring them into not going. Imagine a mother with 3 children and unable to afford a 4th being terrified of terminating the pregnancy for fear of going to prison and having her children taken from her. Five clueless ignorant justices have thrown an entire nation of 330 million people into chaos with their selfish religiously biased decision.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,521
Reaction score
24,543
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So you’re more of an expert than the actual doctors then? Perhaps you could offer consulting to hospitals.

Do you understand a clear response or are you being intentionally "dense?" :unsure:

You asked a question; I provided a valid response.

I am on record as stating the SCOTUS decision was the correct one.

I have defended that point in other threads on the subject.

I have provided reasoned and valid responses in THIS thread.

If you choose to "misunderstand," then that is your problem, not mine. :coffee:
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
59,125
Reaction score
40,195
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Do you understand a clear response or are you being intentionally "dense?" :unsure:

You asked a question; I provided a valid response.

I am on record as stating the SCOTUS decision was the correct one.

I have defended that point in other threads on the subject.

I have provided reasoned and valid responses in THIS thread.

If you choose to "misunderstand," then that is your problem, not mine. :coffee:
I made a sarcastic statement, I did not ask a question.

You will notice a question ends with a ?

At the end of the day if doctors are afraid to do their job and are not performing to the best of their ability due to being hampered by law, who benefits?

Now that is a question.
 

Linuxcooldude

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
6,175
Reaction score
2,779
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's not as if the hundreds of other medical laws don't address similar issues. Best the hospitols/doctors hire the appropriate lawyers to figure such stuff out for them. Which I'm sure they already do.
 

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
7,603
Reaction score
3,013
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I surmise that there exists a type of person -- male -- who finds pleasure in wielding power over others. This can take the form of forcing others to do something which has negative consequences that cannot affect him.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
 

NuffSaid

Not Conceding!
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
4,829
Reaction score
6,280
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
The right view women as meat sacks, so doctors need to understand that the meat sack is disposable and should be sacrificed at all costs to save a small gaggle of cells.
 

Jack2aTee

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2018
Messages
1,544
Reaction score
916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I surmise that there exists a type of person -- male -- who finds pleasure in wielding power over others. This can take the form of forcing others to do something which has negative consequences that cannot affect him.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n remember the Big 5.
I have a suspicion overturning Roe was intended to boost white population regardless of whether or not it is going to mainly affect women of color. House Rep Mary Miller who is supported by Trump accidentally let slip "white life" at a rally. Freudian slip.

 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,521
Reaction score
24,543
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have a suspicion overturning Roe was intended to boost white population regardless of whether or not it is going to mainly affect women of color.

I suspect that this is your personal confirmation bias talking.

Why? Because the data shows that the vast majority of those seeking abortions are "people of color."

As I pointed out here:

"So while I support a womans right to choose up to the early part of the second trimester, I wonder why so many (38%) were Black women, and 66% were non-white females including Black women per this 2019 CDC report in Pew Research.

"In the District of Columbia and 29 states that reported racial and ethnic data on abortion to the CDC, 38% of all women who had abortions in 2019 were non-Hispanic Black, while 33% were non-Hispanic White, 21% were Hispanic, and 7% were of other races or ethnicities." https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/24/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/


House Rep Mary Miller who is supported by Trump accidentally let slip "white life" at a rally. Freudian slip.

IMO? Misreading of the prepared speech.

She needs to both review and practice a speech instead of just reading it.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
18,415
Reaction score
15,882
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other

Torus34

DP Veteran
Joined
May 5, 2019
Messages
7,603
Reaction score
3,013
Location
Staten Island, NY USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I have a suspicion overturning Roe was intended to boost white population regardless of whether or not it is going to mainly affect women of color. House Rep Mary Miller who is supported by Trump accidentally let slip "white life" at a rally. Freudian slip.



Hi, Jack2aTee.

There's no reason to believe, a priori, that politicians differ from the normal population of h. sapiens. * We, as a species, are capable of acting logically and rationally in the everyday matters of living. When we depart from that and enter the realm of abstract thinking, we often abandon rationality and instead accept authoritarian sources, rely on emotion ['gut feeling',] and give credence to 'common sense'.

And so it goes . . . [A tip-o'-the-hat to the late Mr. Kurt Vonnegut.]

Regards, enjoy the holiday.

* They do have one characteristic in common: the ability to get elected and, often, re-elected to public office.
 
Top Bottom