Roe v Wade is on deck

[Lion IRC]

The case hinges on the "is she sick enough" test applied to justify the elective abortion - irrespective of how healthy the unborn baby is.

Clearly showing that you do not understand. We aren't talking about elective abortions!

Are you saying there's a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

The statute doesn't say that.
It it only compels hospitals to offer.

What they are saying is when the life of the mother is in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment.

No, the imminent danger to the mother need not be the direct result of a medical condition caused by the pregnancy or 'maldevelopment' of the fetus..

Rosenbaum...told reporters last week. “It is a sad but true fact that you can have a medical emergency that may have nothing to do with pregnancy..."

Whether it was caused by the pregnancy or not is irrelevant.

Thats what I just said, and its why I quoted Rosenbaum.

The question is whether the pregnancy poses a danger, not how that danger came to be

Jimmy Higgins said "...in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment."

Let's consider one of my wife's relatives. The pregnancy itself was fine, the problem was elsewhere. Abort/expect major fetal damage/go blind. What should she have done?

I assume you're pro-choice.
Choice means choosing - electing.
Many women choose to procede with their pregnancy despite potential risks.

(And note that her case would be considered an "elective" abortion. The word doesn't mean what you think it means.)

Elective means elective.

...Who in the fuck do these assholes think they are to make these fucking morally and legally bankrupt arguments? They are supposed to be the best Judges in the country.

In what universe do you think highly qualified senior judges are all supposed to unanimously agree on every possible philosophical/legal argument about the interpretation of a statute?

The only reason this even reached SCOTUS is the Heritage Foundation has severely corrupted our Judiciary.

You think it's unfair that both sides of the abortion debate have access to the constitutional legal appeal system?

Simply apply the normal self-defense laws, I believe in all 50 states the law now is the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense in order to get a conviction. And others can always step into your shoes in self defense (although some states restrict what others.) Legally that puts them in exactly the same position you were--if it would have been legal for you to take the action then it's legal for them, also.

I (already) hold the view that if there's no medical care that can save both the mother and the unborn baby then saving one at the expense of the other is morally neutral.

It's a simple trolley dilemma where you aren't given an option to save two lives - so saving one life is better than saving neither.

 

[Jarhyn]

Are you saying there's a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

No there is a natural compulsion: not aborting the baby will kill the mother. She shouldn't have to have been brought to the precipice before recognizing the journey leads to a precipice.

All things considered, if I have a cancer, I am going to be compelled to remove it long before it becomes metastatic.

I am more compelled to seek treatment, in fact: when caught early, both forms of unwanted malignant growth can be dealt with much more easily.

People who are under some form of compulsion still have choices.

I could be legally compelled to testify and then give whoever is telling me to the finger, and take the contempt charge. It is still compulsion. Likewise, this natural compulsion can also be ignored; being able to turn oneself against an act of compulsion is still always an available choice, after all, even if that compulsion is natural.

That said, people whose lives are threatened by pregnancy are compelled by the value of their own lives to abort.

 

[ZiprHead]

I've had to delete several posts advocating political violence. Not only is it against the rules, it could get the board in trouble. Nuff said.

 

[Rhea]

Lion appears to think that “elective abortion” means the same as “elective” and “abortion”.

It does not.

It is used in arguments to convey a situation where a person decides to terminate a preganancy because they do not want to be pregnant, and does NOT mean that they are terminating due to physical condition of themselves or the fetus.

Hopefully that helps Lion understand the conversation that has been going on for more than 50 years and the accurate vocabulary for it.

And since Lion has made a choice to ignore all posts from me, perhaps someone else can help him with his confusion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lion has to make disingenuous arguments, much like the far right conservatives on the Supreme Court to support the dehumanization of women and their right to access health care, even in cases of emergency. The psychopaths and misogynists in the Republican party have the audacity to suggest the doctors are protected, yet, we've seen Attorneys Generals, in multiple states (Indiana, Texas) getting involved in multiple abortions, one involving a failed pregnancy and one involving a raped child.

To make matters worse, what I find abhorrent is this vilification of women who need emergency abortions, as if they wanted a failed pregnancy or to lose their future child. These women are going through enough psychological and physical trauma, they don't need any more dropped on them. And then the people casting this traumatic judgment, actually having the balls to say they are looking out for the health of the women they are vilifying and attacking.

 

[Lion IRC]

Are you saying there's a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

No there is a natural compulsion:

So you agree with me? Its not legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?
Many women DO choose to procede with their pregnancy despite potential risks.

...not aborting the baby will kill the mother.

Maybe you missed where I said if there's no medical care that can save both the mother and the unborn baby then saving one at the expense of the other is morally neutral...that it's a simple trolley dilemma where you aren't given an option to save two lives - so saving one life is better than saving neither.

She shouldn't have to have been brought to the precipice before recognizing the journey leads to a precipice.

The possible death of the mother has to be weighed against the deliberate and potentially unnecessary taking of the life of the unborn.

All things considered, if I have a cancer, I am going to be compelled to remove it long before it becomes metastatic.

Are you currently pregnant?

I am more compelled to seek treatment, in fact: when caught early, both forms of unwanted malignant growth can be dealt with much more easily.

Yes, but are you currently pregnant?
Because you CAN be treated for cancer without necessarily causing the death of an unborn baby.

This is your analogy right? That a healthy pregnancy MUST be terminated... 'because cancer.'

People who are under some form of compulsion still have choices.

Yes. That's right.

I could be legally compelled to testify and then give whoever is telling me to the finger, and take the contempt charge. It is still compulsion. Likewise, this natural compulsion can also be ignored; being able to turn oneself against an act of compulsion is still always an available choice, after all, even if that compulsion is natural.

I don't understand the what or the why of this paragraph, sorry.

That said, people whose lives are threatened by pregnancy are compelled by the value of their own lives to abort.

I think you should broaden your horizons and consider that all over the world there are billions upon billions of women who value their lives, and who proceed with pregnancy despite its natural risks, and in the full knowledge that many women die as the result of pregnancy.

 

[Lion IRC]

...since Lion has made a choice to ignore all posts from me

I don't want to engage in conversation with someone who has accused me of being an apologist for rape.

...and you shouldn't want to engage in conversation with someone you think is an apologist for rape.

 

[Jarhyn]

...since Lion has made a choice to ignore all posts from me

I don't want to engage in conversation with someone who has accused me of being an apologist for rape.

...and you shouldn't want to engage in conversation with someone you think is an apologist for rape.

I have know Rhea a pretty long time. I have a lot of respect for her regardless of how much she does or doesn't respect me at this point.

I have a very strong feeling that when she discusses this, as I hope she will, the reality will look far different from your delusions about her conduct.

 

[Lion IRC]

...since Lion has made a choice to ignore all posts from me

I don't want to engage in conversation with someone who has accused me of being an apologist for rape.

...and you shouldn't want to engage in conversation with someone you think is an apologist for rape.

I have know Rhea a pretty long time.

That's nice.

I have a lot of respect for her regardless of how much she does or doesn't respect me at this point.

That's nice.

I have a very strong feeling...

That's wonderful. 

...the reality will look far different from your delusions strong feelings about her conduct.

Fixed your post

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Justice Thomas misses Supreme Court session Monday with no explanation

The 75-year-old also is not participating remotely in arguments, as justices sometimes do when they are ill or otherwise can’t be there in person.

apnews.com

It’d be a shame if something happened to that avaricious fuck.

Yeah, him and Ginni don't exactly look like they're big into salads. For life expectancy, he's on borrowed time now.

Actually that's a misnomer. Life longevity is greatest for those slightly overweight.

Is that actually accurate, or is illness a confounder?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The case hinges on the "is she sick enough" test applied to justify the elective abortion - irrespective of how healthy the unborn baby is.

Clearly showing that you do not understand. We aren't talking about elective abortions!

Are you saying there's a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

Again, you don't understand. In the medical world anything that's scheduled is "elective."

The statute doesn't say that.
It it only compels hospitals to offer.

You're twisting things.

What they are saying is when the life of the mother is in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment.

No, the imminent danger to the mother need not be the direct result of a medical condition caused by the pregnancy or 'maldevelopment' of the fetus..

Rosenbaum...told reporters last week. “It is a sad but true fact that you can have a medical emergency that may have nothing to do with pregnancy..."

Whether it was caused by the pregnancy or not is irrelevant.

Thats what I just said, and its why I quoted Rosenbaum.

Then what's the point?

The question is whether the pregnancy poses a danger, not how that danger came to be

Jimmy Higgins said "...in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment."

That's one scenario, not all of them.

Let's consider one of my wife's relatives. The pregnancy itself was fine, the problem was elsewhere. Abort/expect major fetal damage/go blind. What should she have done?

I assume you're pro-choice.
Choice means choosing - electing.
Many women choose to procede with their pregnancy despite potential risks.

First, whether someone is willing to take the risk doesn't mean they should be compelled to. Second, in her case it wasn't a risk, it was basically a given. No treatment = blind, treatment = messed up fetus.

(And note that her case would be considered an "elective" abortion. The word doesn't mean what you think it means.)

Elective means elective.

<Throws Lion IRC out of an airplane>
Pulling your chute is elective.

...Who in the fuck do these assholes think they are to make these fucking morally and legally bankrupt arguments? They are supposed to be the best Judges in the country.

In what universe do you think highly qualified senior judges are all supposed to unanimously agree on every possible philosophical/legal argument about the interpretation of a statute?

The only reason this even reached SCOTUS is the Heritage Foundation has severely corrupted our Judiciary.

You think it's unfair that both sides of the abortion debate have access to the constitutional legal appeal system?

It should have been shot down by the first court to see it.

Simply apply the normal self-defense laws, I believe in all 50 states the law now is the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense in order to get a conviction. And others can always step into your shoes in self defense (although some states restrict what others.) Legally that puts them in exactly the same position you were--if it would have been legal for you to take the action then it's legal for them, also.

I (already) hold the view that if there's no medical care that can save both the mother and the unborn baby then saving one at the expense of the other is morally neutral.

It's a simple trolley dilemma where you aren't given an option to save two lives - so saving one life is better than saving neither.

And you fail to understand that in most cases the options are woman lives or everybody dies.

Water breaks before viability, that's it. There are three possible outcomes: miscarriage/abortion/everyone dies. Note that in no scenario does the fetus survive, it's death is inevitable. This is the sort of garbage you seem to favor:

Why Idaho's hospitals are having pregnant patients airlifted out of state

A Supreme Court case heard this week pits the state’s abortion ban against a federal law that requires immediate treatment.

www.nbcnews.com

They are airlifting women out (could end up with a $100k bill that insurance won't cover) because the law doesn't let them intervene even in hopeless cases unless the woman is about to die. The state is mandating actions which are clearly malpractice.

 

[Rhea]

...since Lion has made a choice to ignore all posts from me

I don't want to engage in conversation with someone who has accused me of being an apologist for rape.

...and you shouldn't want to engage in conversation with someone you think is an apologist for rape.

I have know Rhea a pretty long time. I have a lot of respect for her regardless of how much she does or doesn't respect me at this point.

I have a very strong feeling that when she discusses this, as I hope she will, the reality will look far different from your delusions about her conduct.

I do not actually recall the issue, it was years ago. Lion is welcome to his reactions. His feelings are his and a person’s reactions are real.

I suspect it was something along the lines of clergy cover up and my opinions about maintaing membership in an institution that has a history of protecting rapists.

As for who I am willing to engage with on a message board, I engage in conversations with a lot of people here. I enjoy the discussions with the broad group, and I learn a lot about myself and others through the debates, even with people who hold positions that I disagree with or even abhor. I also find that with most people, if I disagree with them on something, I am almost guaranteed to actually agree with them on something else, and they can sometimes ask some insightful questions that are good to be brought up. C’est la vie.

 

[Lion IRC]

The case hinges on the "is she sick enough" test applied to justify the elective abortion - irrespective of how healthy the unborn baby is.

Clearly showing that you do not understand. We aren't talking about elective abortions!

Are you saying there's a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

Again, you don't understand.

Whats the answer to the question?
Is there a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

In the medical world anything that's scheduled is "elective."

Obviously.
If the patient didn't choose to proceed they wouldn't be scheduling the procedure the patient elected to have.

The statute doesn't say that.
It it only compels hospitals to offer.

You're twisting things.

Im just repeating what I read - that hospitals are compelled to offer the procedure in certain cases. They can't refuse to perform an abortion in those cases.

What they are saying is when the life of the mother is in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment.

No, the imminent danger to the mother need not be the direct result of a medical condition caused by the pregnancy or 'maldevelopment' of the fetus..

Rosenbaum...told reporters last week. “It is a sad but true fact that you can have a medical emergency that may have nothing to do with pregnancy..."

Whether it was caused by the pregnancy or not is irrelevant.

Thats what I just said, and its why I quoted Rosenbaum.

Then what's the point?

The point was to correct Jimmy's mistaken belief that imminent threat to life caused by fetal maldevelopment was the only relevant threshold test.

A perfectly healthy unborn baby might be a stakeholder in such cases.

The question is whether the pregnancy poses a danger, not how that danger came to be

Jimmy Higgins said "...in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment."

That's one scenario, not all of them.

Tell that to Jimmy Higgins who said these prospective abortions were only being contemplated because of fetal abnormality posing a threat to the mother's life.

Let's consider one of my wife's relatives. The pregnancy itself was fine, the problem was elsewhere. Abort/expect major fetal damage/go blind. What should she have done?

I assume you're pro-choice.
Choice means choosing - electing.
Many women choose to procede with their pregnancy despite potential risks.

First, whether someone is willing to take the risk doesn't mean they should be compelled to.

Obviously.
If there is an unavoidable threat to the mothers life equal to or greater than a parallel threat to the baby's life and its a case of saving one or neither, then its morally neutral.

Second, in her case it wasn't a risk, it was basically a given. No treatment = blind, treatment = messed up fetus.

"Messed up" ???
Is that a medical term?

(And note that her case would be considered an "elective" abortion. The word doesn't mean what you think it means.)

Elective means elective.

<Throws Lion IRC out of an airplane>
Pulling your chute is elective.

We've already agreed that if you can't save both lives it's not a dilemma. If I pull the chute my baby dies. If I don't pull the chute we both die. You aren't committing murder. You are deciding to save one life rather than zero lives.

FWIW - many mothers elect to die when then learn that it's a choice between them or their baby.

...Who in the fuck do these assholes think they are to make these fucking morally and legally bankrupt arguments? They are supposed to be the best Judges in the country.

In what universe do you think highly qualified senior judges are all supposed to unanimously agree on every possible philosophical/legal argument about the interpretation of a statute?

The only reason this even reached SCOTUS is the Heritage Foundation has severely corrupted our Judiciary.

You think it's unfair that both sides of the abortion debate have access to the constitutional legal appeal system?

It should have been shot down by the first court to see it.

What? Roe V Wade?

Simply apply the normal self-defense laws, I believe in all 50 states the law now is the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense in order to get a conviction. And others can always step into your shoes in self defense (although some states restrict what others.) Legally that puts them in exactly the same position you were--if it would have been legal for you to take the action then it's legal for them, also.

I (already) hold the view that if there's no medical care that can save both the mother and the unborn baby then saving one at the expense of the other is morally neutral.

It's a simple trolley dilemma where you aren't given an option to save two lives - so saving one life is better than saving neither.

And you fail to understand that in most cases the options are woman lives or everybody dies.

I'm not arguing over how many cases there are numerically or as a percentage.

Water breaks before viability, that's it. There are three possible outcomes: miscarriage/abortion/everyone dies. Note that in no scenario does the fetus survive, it's death is inevitable. This is the sort of garbage you seem to favor:

How many times do I need to repeat my view that if there is an unavoidable threat to the mothers life equal and its a case of saving one or neither, then its morally neutral.

Find another strawman to argue with. I don't hold the view you're attacking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The case hinges on the "is she sick enough" test applied to justify the elective abortion - irrespective of how healthy the unborn baby is.

Clearly showing that you do not understand. We aren't talking about elective abortions!

Are you saying there's a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

Again, you don't understand.

Whats the answer to the question?
Is there a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

You still do not understand "elective".

In the medical world anything that's scheduled is "elective."

Obviously.
If the patient didn't choose to proceed they wouldn't be scheduling the procedure the patient elected to have.

The thing is "elective" does not mean "not required to sustain life."

The statute doesn't say that.
It it only compels hospitals to offer.

You're twisting things.

Im just repeating what I read - that hospitals are compelled to offer the procedure in certain cases. They can't refuse to perform an abortion in those cases.

Except what we are seeing is waiting until the situation is dire.

What they are saying is when the life of the mother is in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment.

No, the imminent danger to the mother need not be the direct result of a medical condition caused by the pregnancy or 'maldevelopment' of the fetus..

Rosenbaum...told reporters last week. “It is a sad but true fact that you can have a medical emergency that may have nothing to do with pregnancy..."

Whether it was caused by the pregnancy or not is irrelevant.

Thats what I just said, and its why I quoted Rosenbaum.

Then what's the point?

The point was to correct Jimmy's mistaken belief that imminent threat to life caused by fetal maldevelopment was the only relevant threshold test.

A perfectly healthy unborn baby might be a stakeholder in such cases.

No, it's not possible. If delivery is a viable option that's what they'll do. Thus the case of a perfectly healthy baby isn't an option.

The question is whether the pregnancy poses a danger, not how that danger came to be

Jimmy Higgins said "...in grave danger due to fetal maldevelopment."

That's one scenario, not all of them.

Tell that to Jimmy Higgins who said these prospective abortions were only being contemplated because of fetal abnormality posing a threat to the mother's life.

He wasn't saying that all such abortions are. Rather, he was discussing one path by which things can go badly wrong.

Let's consider one of my wife's relatives. The pregnancy itself was fine, the problem was elsewhere. Abort/expect major fetal damage/go blind. What should she have done?

I assume you're pro-choice.
Choice means choosing - electing.
Many women choose to procede with their pregnancy despite potential risks.

First, whether someone is willing to take the risk doesn't mean they should be compelled to.

Obviously.
If there is an unavoidable threat to the mothers life equal to or greater than a parallel threat to the baby's life and its a case of saving one or neither, then its morally neutral.

And the only cases where that is even a possibility are where there's some other medical issue that's a threat if not treated. The relative I mentioned for example.

Second, in her case it wasn't a risk, it was basically a given. No treatment = blind, treatment = messed up fetus.

"Messed up" ???
Is that a medical term?

Understand that this is third hand with a language barrier--I do not know exactly what would have happened. And the doctors very well might not have, either--consider the grand daddy of pregnancy class X drugs: thalidomide. There's no way of predicting exactly what will happen, just that very bad things are likely.

(And note that her case would be considered an "elective" abortion. The word doesn't mean what you think it means.)

Elective means elective.

<Throws Lion IRC out of an airplane>
Pulling your chute is elective.

We've already agreed that if you can't save both lives it's not a dilemma. If I pull the chute my baby dies. If I don't pull the chute we both die. You aren't committing murder. You are deciding to save one life rather than zero lives.

But you are arguing about cases where that's the correct model--yet the states are trying to force delaying pulling the chute.

FWIW - many mothers elect to die when then learn that it's a choice between them or their baby.

It's not a likely scenario in the first place. It's not "many" that make that choice outside religious fiction.

...Who in the fuck do these assholes think they are to make these fucking morally and legally bankrupt arguments? They are supposed to be the best Judges in the country.

In what universe do you think highly qualified senior judges are all supposed to unanimously agree on every possible philosophical/legal argument about the interpretation of a statute?

The only reason this even reached SCOTUS is the Heritage Foundation has severely corrupted our Judiciary.

You think it's unfair that both sides of the abortion debate have access to the constitutional legal appeal system?

It should have been shot down by the first court to see it.

What? Roe V Wade?

No, the case we are talking about now, whether the federal government can force the states to allow abortions to save the woman's health.

Note that we already have a case out of Texas where the delays from an inevitable abortion took her fertility.

Simply apply the normal self-defense laws, I believe in all 50 states the law now is the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense in order to get a conviction. And others can always step into your shoes in self defense (although some states restrict what others.) Legally that puts them in exactly the same position you were--if it would have been legal for you to take the action then it's legal for them, also.

I (already) hold the view that if there's no medical care that can save both the mother and the unborn baby then saving one at the expense of the other is morally neutral.

It's a simple trolley dilemma where you aren't given an option to save two lives - so saving one life is better than saving neither.

And you fail to understand that in most cases the options are woman lives or everybody dies.

I'm not arguing over how many cases there are numerically or as a percentage.

Apparently you don't understand that the emtala case is about these cases you are saying are acceptable. Baby killer!!

Water breaks before viability, that's it. There are three possible outcomes: miscarriage/abortion/everyone dies. Note that in no scenario does the fetus survive, it's death is inevitable. This is the sort of garbage you seem to favor:

How many times do I need to repeat my view that if there is an unavoidable threat to the mothers life equal and its a case of saving one or neither, then its morally neutral.

Find another strawman to argue with. I don't hold the view you're attacking.

I now realize you don't know what you're actually supporting.

 

[Elixir]

I suspect it was something along the lines of clergy cover up and my opinions about maintaing membership in an institution that has a history of protecting rapists.

I suspect it was none of those things, but rather the fact that Lion identifies with such an institution. It is understandable that a person so affiliated might take offense at your observation, but whatever hurt is involved, is the result of their own choices, not your observation.

 

[Rhea]

Two points for Lion.

Well, Lion had posted in other threads 20+ times since I issued the challenge to him.
Looks like the question was too difficult.

Just to recall, the question was, essentially:
“Which is more important to you? Fighting against sex or fighting against abortions?”

More specifically, If you could stop abortions by handing out and promoting condoms, would you do it? Or is controlling sex so important that you’d actually rather let abortions happen instead of appearing to give up the fight against sex?


ANd it looks like Lion is not interested in revealing his position on this question with his words, just with his actions. Which also gives an answer, but may be one that he’s not entirely comfortable owning.

I can understand why he would wish to avoid answering this. I have not yet met an anti-abortionist who will answer - which of course reveals the answer.

Lion appears to think that “elective abortion” means the same as “elective” and “abortion”.

It does not.

It is used in arguments to convey a situation where a person decides to terminate a preganancy because they do not want to be pregnant, and does NOT mean that they are terminating due to physical condition of themselves or the fetus.

Hopefully that helps Lion understand the conversation that has been going on for more than 50 years and the accurate vocabulary for it.

And since Lion has made a choice to ignore all posts from me, perhaps someone else can help him with his confusion.

This is an error of fact that he needs to understand to be a part of this discussion intelligently. It’s not opinion. It is a fact that this is how the term is used. HIs mis-use of the term leaves him unable to navigate the discussion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lion appears to think that “elective abortion” means the same as “elective” and “abortion”.

It does not.

It is used in arguments to convey a situation where a person decides to terminate a preganancy because they do not want to be pregnant, and does NOT mean that they are terminating due to physical condition of themselves or the fetus.

Hopefully that helps Lion understand the conversation that has been going on for more than 50 years and the accurate vocabulary for it.

And since Lion has made a choice to ignore all posts from me, perhaps someone else can help him with his confusion.

This is an error of fact that he needs to understand to be a part of this discussion intelligently. It’s not opinion. It is a fact that this is how the term is used. HIs mis-use of the term leaves him unable to navigate the discussion.

This has been a long time deception by the "pro-life" community, it's quite understandable that he didn't realize it.

 

[robnisch]

MSN

Not a done deal yet, but Gov said will sign it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Texas man seeks to have ex-partner investigated for out-of-state abortion

Collin Davis asks court to green light investigation as experts call case a ‘coordinated fear campaign’

www.theguardian.com

As soon as the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade two years ago, anti-abortion activists started debating if and how they could limit Americans’ ability to cross state lines for legal abortions. Now, a Texas man has asked a court to greenlight an investigation into the abortion his former partner allegedly received in a state where the procedure remains legal.
The man, Collin Davis, said in court records that when he learned his former partner planned to get an abortion in February 2024, he hired an attorney who would “pursue wrongful-death claims against anyone involved in the killing of his unborn child”. According to the records, the woman proceeded to get an abortion in Colorado, a state that has become an abortion haven as laws banning the procedure have taken effect across much of the US midwest and south.

Davis’s petition, filed in March and first reported by the Washington Post last week, seeks to use a Texas law that allows people to request legal depositions before potentially filing a lawsuit, in order to ascertain who may have “aided or abetted” the woman’s abortion. Davis argues that, if the investigation uncovers wrongdoing, he can sue under Texas’s wrongful-death statute or under a state law that permits private individuals to sue one another on suspicion of “aiding or abetting” an abortion past six weeks of pregnancy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The case hinges on the "is she sick enough" test applied to justify the elective abortion - irrespective of how healthy the unborn baby is.

Clearly showing that you do not understand. We aren't talking about elective abortions!

Are you saying there's a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

Again, you don't understand.

Whats the answer to the question?
Is there a legally enforced compulsion to abort the baby?

In the medical world anything that's scheduled is "elective."

Obviously.
If the patient didn't choose to proceed they wouldn't be scheduling the procedure the patient elected to have.

The statute doesn't say that.
It it only compels hospitals to offer.

You're twisting things.

Im just repeating what I read - that hospitals are compelled to offer the procedure in certain cases. They can't refuse to perform an abortion in those cases.

That is Trump-speak... "people are saying". Far right wing states are saying nothing is stopping the hospitals, but we saw exactly the opposite in Texas where a woman with a non-viable pregnancy was prevented by the Attorney General and Texas State Supreme Court from being able to get an abortion in the case of a non-viable pregnancy.

In Indiana an abortion for a raped Ohio minor (not even a teen), led to the Indiana Attorney General getting involved and saying they would look into the paperwork.

These cases are nothing short of Government intimidation of doctors. This intimidation has had chilling effects in hospitals where doctors who can be held criminally responsible, based on whether they get the wrong judge, and needing to appeal (timely, costly, and likely while their doctor's license is suspended).

So the far-right wing can say whatever they want, the impact is being felt by women that the far-right wing is letting suffer the consequences, regardless the women's health condition.

Water breaks before viability, that's it. There are three possible outcomes: miscarriage/abortion/everyone dies. Note that in no scenario does the fetus survive, it's death is inevitable. This is the sort of garbage you seem to favor:

How many times do I need to repeat my view that if there is an unavoidable threat to the mothers life equal and its a case of saving one or neither, then its morally neutral.

That alleged position is irrelevant. You are already on the record for handwaving the evidence of issues with the existing laws because the far right-wing legislatures are saying it is okay.