How medical professionals’ lives have changed after the Roe reversal

[Patriotic Voter]

We have partially covered people refusing to attend college or practice medicine in states where abortion is illegal because of the ban. That is discussed in this article as well. But something that has not been discussed yet is how doctors have to deal with the patients who needed to travel to get abortions because of their home state laws.

Several patients that (Dr. Patima) Gupta sees are going through not only the hurdles of bypassing their home state laws, but also having to figure out travel and post-care plans.

Trying to help patients deal with the uncertainty of care and helping them navigate a flurry of laws and restrictions has left some clinic workers exhausted, she said.

Gupta told CNN that patients are scared about their data being monitored when they return to their home state.

“Now, we have people who are worried about their medical records being subpoenaed or anybody having access to their electronic medical record too… So it’s, you know, kind of created this culture of fear as well,” she added.

Medical professionals describe a world of uncertainty a year after the Roe v. Wade reversal

It is not just obstetricians either. One of the three personal stories in this article is told by a radiologist whose job includes tackling ectopic pregnancies, a reminder you don't need an obstetrics/gynecology degree to be involved in pregnancy care.

So let's all look at the big picture instead of just the most widely-reported aspects of how medical professionals are affected by inhumane abortion bans.

 

[Ginger Ale]

The damage from Roe, even if reversed today has put women's healthcare back 50 years or more. It's set a chain of events we will suffer from. What a shame.

 

[Gordy327]

The damage from Roe, even if reversed today has put women's healthcare back 50 years or more. It's set a chain of events we will suffer from. What a shame.

Anti-abortionists are to blame.

 

[Individual]

IMO this issue needs to be resolved by an amendment to our Constitution, which should, also IMO, recognize the natural Right to procreate or not belonging solely to an individual Woman involving only limited government regulations until both the Woman and her Doctor have agreed to record the birth of a new citizen endowed with Rights equal to all.
States would be allowed to become involved in a limited way ONLY post birth throughout our Nation.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

We don't need a constitutional amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prevents all unborn humans from having the right to life. Although everyone knows that is not the intent, the word "born" has only one definition, so it could not be more clear. If the baby is not born yet, it is not a person, and therefore cannot have the rights to "life, liberty, and property" that all people enjoy.

 

[Chillfolks]

We don't need a constitutional amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prevents all unborn humans from having the right to life. Although everyone knows that is not the intent, the word "born" has only one definition, so it could not be more clear. If the baby is not born yet, it is not a person, and therefore cannot have the rights to "life, liberty, and property" that all people enjoy.

That been proven wrong to you before. Are you incapable of learning or do you just enjoy being ignorant and spreading it around

 

[Gordy327]

That been proven wrong to you before. Are you incapable of learning or do you just enjoy being ignorant and spreading it around

What is PV wrong about? Neither the Constitution or federal law recognize the unborn as persons with rights.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

What is PV wrong about? Neither the Constitution nor federal law recognize the unborn as persons with rights.

That was a blatant lie for the sole purpose of trolling me. I was never proven wrong and in fact have proven him wrong before.

 

[Napoleon]

So let's all look at the big picture instead of just the most widely-reported aspects of how medical professionals are affected by inhumane abortion bans.

I’m not sure the article helps you do that. According to the article - CNN did a survey and they’ve chosen to publish three responses to that survey. Presumably cherry-picked to support whatever point the author of the article is trying to make. So whom did they choose?

They’ve got a Katie A. in Michigan who has no medical license and won’t complete her residency for another four years. Katie A. says that she doesn’t know where she wants to practice in the future. Maybe Idaho, maybe somewhere else. In either case it’s not a decision she needs to make for years to come.

Next up is a Dr. Robert A. who practices interventional radiology in Washington. CNN acknowledges there is a nation-wide shortage of doctors in this field. So what Dr. Robert A. essentially tells us is that he’s staying put, i.e. he’s not going to deepen the problem in Washington by going anywhere in the southeast, but he is going to punish his own kids by refusing to pay their tuition if they choose a college in a State with an abortion ban. Lulz, ok?

Last we have a Dr. Pratima Gupta who runs an abortion clinic in California. Her gripe is that people come to her clinic for out-of-state abortions and protestors exist. Waaah.

 

[Chillfolks]

What is PV wrong about? Neither the Constitution or federal law recognize the unborn as persons with rights.

Not true, the 14th Amendment does also cover unborn children that’s a key part of the recent Roe ruling.

 

[Chillfolks]

That was a blatant lie for the sole purpose of trolling me. I was never proven wrong and in fact have proven him wrong before.

Only in your warped mind. You are proven wrong regularly on these boards. Truing to keep you honest is not trolling you

 

[Gordy327]

Not true, the 14th Amendment does also cover unborn children that’s a key part of the recent Roe ruling.

The 14th Amendment refers to born individuals, as does federal law. Neither federal or state laws recognize rights for the unborn either.

 

[choiceone]

Not true, the 14th Amendment does also cover unborn children that’s a key part of the recent Roe ruling.

The 14th Amendment refers to born individuals, as does federal law. Neither federal or state laws recognize rights for the unborn either.

@Gordy327 is basically correct.

@Chillfolks is wrong, period.

In Dobbs v Jackson, the basic argument is as follows. The 14th Amendment had a narrow focus of securing the rights of freed slaves. This doesn't mean that women weren't persons, but it is ambiguous about their rights. Because the amendment was made after a considerable number of states had anti-abortion laws that made abortion illegal across most/all of pregnancy, an originalist interpretation would be that the amendment was not made to treat this abortion issue.

Dobbs claimed abortion is unique because it ends what RvW called a potential human life and what the state represented by Dobbs called an actual human being. Hence, the right to an abortion is not upheld by the 14th A, and though women have other rights as persons that states have to uphold, RvW is overturned and states can ban abortion.

The problem fpr @Chillfolks here is that the SC never said fetuses were persons. Moreover, the Rhode Island SCdecided against the claim of two pregnant women and the organization supporting them that the women's fetuses were persons, those women took the case to the federal courts and eventually appealed for the USSC to decide, but the USSC refused to hear the case.

The USSC justices did that because they already knew that fetuses weren't persons. Fetuses were never counted in the Census because they can't be actually enumerated, and the entire RvW court, including the dissenting justices, agreed that fetuses weren't persons. Even in issues of inheritance, it is contingent on being a born-alive person.

Neither a fetal human life nor a born person's life has or ever had rights because life doesn't have rights. Rather, persons have rights to life, liberty, and property.

So, @Chillfolks, if you want a fetus or an embryo or whatever to have those rights without being born alive, you have to pass a fetal personhood amendment. So far, they have all failed, even in the most anti-abortion states.

 

[Chillfolks]

@Gordy327 is basically correct.

@Chillfolks is wrong, period.

In Dobbs v Jackson, the basic argument is as follows. The 14th Amendment had a narrow focus of securing the rights of freed slaves. This doesn't mean that women weren't persons, but it is ambiguous about their rights. Because the amendment was made after a considerable number of states had anti-abortion laws that made abortion illegal across most/all of pregnancy, an originalist interpretation would be that the amendment was not made to treat this abortion issue.

Dobbs claimed abortion is unique because it ends what RvW called a potential human life and what the state represented by Dobbs called an actual human being. Hence, the right to an abortion is not upheld by the 14th A, and though women have other rights as persons that states have to uphold, RvW is overturned and states can ban abortion.

The problem fpr @Chillfolks here is that the SC never said fetuses were persons. Moreover, the Rhode Island SCdecided against the claim of two pregnant women and the organization supporting them that the women's fetuses were persons, those women took the case to the federal courts and eventually appealed for the USSC to decide, but the USSC refused to hear the case.

The USSC justices did that because they already knew that fetuses weren't persons. Fetuses were never counted in the Census because they can't be actually enumerated, and the entire RvW court, including the dissenting justices, agreed that fetuses weren't persons. Even in issues of inheritance, it is contingent on being a born-alive person.

Neither a fetal human life nor a born person's life has or ever had rights because life doesn't have rights. Rather, persons have rights to life, liberty, and property.

So, @Chillfolks, if you want a fetus or an embryo or whatever to have those rights without being born alive, you have to pass a fetal personhood amendment. So far, they have all failed, even in the most anti-abortion states.

There is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that recognizes the rights of the unborn fetus when it comes to federal crimes. So yeah they are protected

 

[Individual]

We don't need a constitutional amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly prevents all unborn humans from having the right to life. Although everyone knows that is not the intent, the word "born" has only one definition, so it could not be more clear. If the baby is not born yet, it is not a person, and therefore cannot have the rights to "life, liberty, and property" that all people enjoy.

1. We shouldn't need a Constitutional amendment, but the reality is we DO, if we are to put this issue to rest.

2. The 14th amendment only applies the word born in recognition of gaining citizenship. Jus soli vs jus sanguinis.

3. Nowhere in our Constitution is the word person explicitly defined, and all that can be explicitly garnered from the 14th amendment is that the unborn are not yet recognized as citizens while in no way denying rights to non-citizens.

4. In the 14th amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.", is where we find the basis of interpretive disagreement.

 

[Gordy327]

There is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that recognizes the rights of the unborn fetus when it comes to federal crimes. So yeah they are protected

Wrong! The UVVA does not recognize or enumerate unborn rights. It only pertains to harm inflicted against the pregnant woman and by extension the unborn due to a violent crime or related circumstance. It also does not apply to a woman who has an abortion. Neither does the federal government or any state recognize unborn personhood or rights, nor does either criminalize a woman having an abortion, only towards those who provide them.

 

[choiceone]

There is the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that recognizes the rights of the unborn fetus when it comes to federal crimes. So yeah they are protected

The UVVA does not recognize rights of the unborn fetus. It recognizes rights of the pregnant woman and the harm to the unborn is contingent on harm to the pregnant woman. This has nothing to do with a woman's reproductive rights and a doctor's providing a voluntary abortion to a woman.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The 14th amendment only applies the word born in recognition of gaining citizenship.

Maybe you need to learn something about American history. The 14th Amendment obviously also was written for other reasons, but repealed the Supreme Court's stupid decision not to accept the fact an American-born black man was a person. So the origin of the citizenship clause was to get rid of the 3/5 compromise. The word "born" can therefore be used to rule out any chance of unborn humans being given the right to life that all people in America enjoy.

You also need to explain how any zygote, blastocyst, or embryo can have the right to life because a human's existence is unknown before Week 6 at the earliest.

 

[Individual]

Maybe you need to learn something about American history. The 14th Amendment obviously also was written for other reasons, but repealed the Supreme Court's stupid decision not to accept the fact an American-born black man was a person. So the origin of the citizenship clause was to get rid of the 3/5 compromise. The word "born" can therefore be used to rule out any chance of unborn humans being given the right to life that all people in America enjoy.

You also need to explain how any zygote, blastocyst, or embryo can have the right to life because their existence is unknown before Week 6 at the earliest.

Yes, I'm quite aware of why the 14th amendment was created.
The 14th amendment neither extends nor denies recognition of rights in any form to the unborn.
IMO, the rights of the unborn at any/all stages prior to birth are solely what the individual Woman chooses to recognize, if any.