nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

I'm telling you for sure, if republicans continue to oppose the exceptions to a******n, we are not going to win in November. There must be exceptions for rape, incest and risk to the mother. To even oppose life saving procedures as in ectopic pregnancy is just plain stupid radicalism. To force a mother to forgo cancer treatment when she is carrying a first trimester fetus is just wrong. If she chooses to do that, fine, but forcing her to go 6-7 months with cancer left untreated is wrong.

Yes, these people can go to other states for their a******ns but that isn't going to be what v**ers see. They will only see radical republicans and v**e, once again, for i***ts who will ruin the country even more than is has been since Biden took over.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

I absolutely agree with you 110%!!... Ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage is NOT the same as a******n!!

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

People will know people who are doing time for miscarrying

The women who can afford to travel out of state could be changed, possibly the out of state doctor as well.

Good intentions causing irreparable damage to the social fabric of America

Gatsby

Many Republicans are ready to compromise, Democrats all or nothing policy is the only problem,

politically, any compromise robs Democrats of a hot button topic campaign issue.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

ONCE again, miscarriage is NOT the same as a******n on demand!!🙄🙄

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Can you show me an actual law and state that opposes life saving procedures such as in ectopic pregnancy or forces a mother to forgo cancer treatment when she is carrying a first trimester fetus? Or are you just making statements to stir controversy?

Samael

There was an article on the Dallas morning news here in the state of Texas the hospitals are refusing to allow the life-saving procedures they’re saying it’s because of the new laws on a******n that they could end up getting sued

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

Hospitals refusing and the law banning are two different things. Hospitals carry insurance for just such possibilities and, regardless, can be sued for refusing to do a legal procedure just as easily. The premise doesn't hold water so there likely is another motivation.

"Can I get a******n in Texas if I have a life-threatening pregnancy?
Yes. Texas’ ban on a******n makes exceptions for cases in which an a******n would save the pregnant patient’s life or prevent “substantial impairment of major bodily function.”

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/24/texas-a******n-law-answers/

DASHY

How will the forced-birth laws tell the difference between a miscarriage and an induced miscarriage?

DASHY

Every pregnant woman experiences "impairment of major bodily function." The impairment comes with every pregnancy. It is really up to the woman and her healthcare provider to determine if is "substantial." A court of law is not the place for making pregnancy decisions.

RascalRiley Loc: Somewhere south of Detroit

Old men lawmakers get to indulge in locker room fantasies of womb control.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Less than 1% of all a******ns are performed because of rape or incest, and 85% of the women who conceive under such circumstances choose to have their baby. Many have said they fell in love with their baby when it began reacting to external stimulus, such as mom's voice, music, light, touch and movement.

Princeton University, A******n Fact #8
It is an extremely rare case when a******n is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, a******n for the mother’s life and a******n for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue.

Since every a******n k**ls an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand “convenience” a******ns.

While he was United States Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop stated publicly that in his thirty-eight years as a pediatric surgeon, he was never aware of a single situation in which a freeborn child’s life had to be taken in order to save the life of the mother. He said the use of this argument to justify a******n in general was a “smoke screen.”

Due to significant medical advances, the danger of pregnancy to the mother has declined considerably since 1967. Yet even at that time Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledged:

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, a******n would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life."

To repeat, the person making the quote is Dr Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood.

So, yes, Faye Wattleton, the President of Planned Parenthood, says that a******n k**ls, and now, just for the record again, we have Dr. Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood acknowledging that it is an extremely rare case that a******n is necessary to save the mother’s life (and he even goes so far as to say that a******n would be unlikely to prolong the mother’s life even in these every extreme cases).

Dr. Landrum Shettles says,

"Less than 1 percent of all a******ns are performed to save the mother’s life."

When two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life.

If the mother has a fast-spreading uterine cancer, the surgery to remove the cancer may result in the loss of the child’s life. In an ectopic pregnancy the child is developing outside the uterus. He has no hope of survival, and may have to be removed to save his mother’s life.

These are tragic situations, but even if one life must be lost, the life that can be saved should be. More often than not, that life is the mother’s, not the child’s. There are rare cases in later stages of pregnancy when the mother can’t be saved, but the baby can.

Again, one life saved is better than two lost.


A******n for the mother’s life and a******n for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue.

The mother’s life and the mother’s health are usually two distinct considerations. A woman with toxemia will have adverse health reactions and considerable inconvenience, including probably needing to lie down for much of her pregnancy. This is a difficulty, but not normally a threat to her life. Hence, an a******n for the sake of “health” would not be lifesaving, but life-taking, since her life is not in jeopardy in the first place.

There are other situations where an expectant mother has a serious or even terminal medical condition. Her pregnancy may cause complications, but will not cause her death. If she is receiving radiation therapy, she may be told that the child could have handicaps as a result. It may be possible to postpone or reduce such treatment, but if it is essential to continue the treatment to save the mother’s life, this is preferable to allowing her death or k*****g the child.

Efforts can and should be made that value the lives of both mother and child.

A******n to save the mother’s life was legal before convenience a******n was legalized and would continue to be if a******n were made illegal again.

Even under restrictive a******n laws, the mother’s right to life is never disregarded. Contrary to what some pro-choice advocates have said, there is no danger whatsoever that women whose lives are in jeopardy will be unable to get treatment, even if such treatment tragically results in the death of an unborn child.

Even pro-choice USA Today acknowledges:

"he National Right to Life Committee consistently has maintained that while a******n should be banned, there should be exceptions if an a******n is needed to save a woman’s life."

The vast majority of a******ns are elective.

Are there rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother? Yes. As mentioned above, these rare cases occur less than 1% of the time. In fact, even if you lump in all NON life threatening health issues that are cited by mothers as a reason for a******n then the total number only increases to 2.8%. [4]

Are the overwhelming majority of a******ns performed on an elective basis? Yes. The most common reasons for having an a******n provided directly by women are all financial and convenience related. [5]

When the mother’s life is at stake then the Doctors should do all they can to save both the life of the baby and the life of the mother. If they can only save one life, then they should save that life.

Since every a******n k**ls an innocent human being then it is is grossly misleading and morally abhorrent to say that because there are some rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother that therefore a******n on demand for any reason whatsoever should be legal.

It is an extremely rare case when a******n is required to save the mother’s life. Of course, when two lives are threatened and only one can be saved, doctors must always save that life. However, a******n for the mother’s life and a******n for the mother’s health are usually not the same issue. Since every a******n k**ls an innocent human being, it is morally abhorrent to use the rare cases when a******n is necessary to save the life of the mother as justification for the millions of on demand “convenience” a******ns.

Wonttakeitanymore

Not the biggest issue! Exceptions are reasonable

Wonttakeitanymore

And is not classified as such! Another spin by l*****ts liars

Wonttakeitanymore

Spin it zombie!