ggait wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 3:01 pm
... basically as it stands today, 99% of abortions are performed under the US viability limit. There are a lot of regular people including me that have a problem with 12-16 weeks, because of costs and real world impact -- it will significantly increase costs and the number of sick children.
Fair point JHU. Problem is that most regular people just don't agree with you. And probably never will.
Regular people all agree on allowing abortion during the first trimester and a few weeks into the second trimester. Which is when 95+% of abortions occur anyway. Which is where most of our developed nation peers are.
When faced with the prospect of 6 week Gilead restrictions, it is just really dumb to hold out for the 99%. Take the 95-97% that almost everyone agrees on. Call it a win. And then make sure that access up to the 12-16 week is actual. Because access today, even with Roe's 23 weeks still on the books, is just not there for lots of women in lots of places.
Those women are hoping/praying that CJ Roberts can flip Kav and establish 15 weeks as the limit.
... the real world people are the people (OBGYNs) doing the procedures. The 99% number is irrelevant to my objection or theirs, it is just the state of where we are. I have no problem with reducing the number of abortions by 5% (95-97% range). My objection is what happens when you tie the abortion legal limit to the healthcare system's intervention protocols (at what age you will attempt to save a fetus in distress -- has nothing to do with an abortion) currently those things track each other. It is expensive and success rate is far from 100% for a 16 week fetus and almost guaranteed to leave the "child" if it survives with a life long serious deficiency. If the law is 16 weeks and a patient presents with a fetus in trouble at 17 weeks, how does the law handle the situation?? 50% or more of the time, you will lose that fetus / baby / child / human whatever you call it and you will run up a very very big bill trying to save it. Until these kind of problems are addressed in the law you don't have a law. Who pays? How big of a legal pain in the ass is this for the OBGYN? How big of a legal pain in the ass is this for the mother? These are the real world issues that will be run into.
I don't believe for a second that the abortion is murder crowd has thought about any of this for even a second. I would be surprised if most republiCON state legislatures have given it any thought. They call in an anti-abortion physician, doesn't have to be an OBGYN, and he says it is all ok. Except that it is not!
I hope you understand this concern. It is not an issue of my preference, it is an issue of the real world. The surpremes are not going to address these issues I don't believe a single one of the state bills addresses these kind of issues that they are creating for the healthcare system. The healthcare system will address as best they can but I guarantee the legislatures and the abortion is murder crowd won't be happy because of their expectations and lack of understanding of the medicine / science.
I guarantee a mother and father who want the baby will end up in this situation, a 17 week distressed fetus with a 16 week abortion limit, the OBGYN will pull out all the stops to save the baby, but will lose. The parents who just lost the child will then be hit with a 6 figure medical bill that they didn't authorize and then investigated for have having had an abortion (the OBGYN) as well. Today (21-23 week threshold) this same patient would be informed of the situation and be presented with an option, given a choice to try to save the fetus or let it go.
This happens all the time!