More than a license is at stake. Your freedom is in play.
“if she exists and if this horrible thing actually happened to her”
wow
Shocker the Indiana ag made things up
“Rep. Jim Jordan, a Republican of Ohio, called the story a “lie” in a now-deleted Tweet.”
Gee, Gym is denying rape happened? Who coulda seen that coming?
5 Likes
All’s going well in the land of the free, Texas
The association, which declined to comment, does not identify any hospital by name in the letter, but it cites several examples.
Related:What’s the status of Texas abortion law? What to know post-Roe v. Wade
One in Central Texas allegedly told a physician not to treat an ectopic pregnancy until it ruptured, which puts patient health at serious risk, according to the letter. An ectopic pregnancy, when a fertilized egg attaches outside of the uterus, is not viable.
“Delayed or prevented care in this scenario creates a substantial risk for the patient’s future reproductive ability and poses serious risk to the patient’s immediate physical wellbeing,” the letter said.
Two other hospitals may be directing doctors to send pregnant patients home to “expel the fetus” when their water breaks too early, instead of treating them at the hospital, the letter said.
In those situations, physicians have said that patients are at risk of infection.
So here’s another “fun” little legal issue
Missouri law states that a petition for divorce must provide eight pieces of information, things like the residence of each party, the date of separation, and, notably, “whether the wife is pregnant.” If the answer is yes, Drake says, “What that practically does is put your case on hold.”
There is a lot of disagreement online about whether pregnant Missouri women can get divorced. The RFT spoke to multiple lawyers who handle divorce proceedings and they all agreed that in Missouri a divorce can’t be finalized if either the petitioner (the person who files for divorce) or the respondent (the other party in the divorce) is pregnant.
She says that the whole basis for Missouri putting the pause on a divorce proceeding until a child is born is because Missouri divorce law “does not see fetuses as humans.”
“You can’t have a court order that dictates visitation and child support for a child that doesn’t exist,” she says. “I have no mechanism as a lawyer to get that support going. There’s nothing there because that’s not a real person.”
Maybe I missed it, but did Dobbs somehow grant fetuses personhood? I didn’t think that was part of it. I feel like in a lot of spots I’m seeing people (not necessarily lawyers) making some sort of jump from Dobbs to claiming that a fetus is a person for all intents and purposes.
Also, how do other states generally handle custody issues regarding an unborn child?
Dobbs did not grant it explicitly. I think the reason you’re now hearing so much talk about fetal personhood is some combination of the fact that (a) the decision does seem to implicity accept that the fetus has rights from the moment of conception (while Roe talked more about the point of viability), (b) following the decision there has been a lot of rhetoric about fetal personhood both from people who would like that to be the new legal standard and people who are pointing out how it is not the standard in many parts of the law as a means of arguing that the implicit assumption used in Dobbs was wrong.
I think a few other states also prohibit finalizing divorces during pregnancy, but in most states the judge can finalize the divorce and then additional custody proceedings would typically occur if/when the child is born.
no, it seems they were actually careful to avoid this overtly, and let states push the envelope
A woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy sought emergency care at the University of Michigan Hospital after a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new restrictions on abortion.
At one Kansas City, Mo., hospital, administrators temporarily required “pharmacist approval” before dispensing medications used to stop postpartum hemorrhages, because they can also be also used for abortions.
And in Wisconsin, a woman bled for more than 10 days from an incomplete miscarriage after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue amid a confusing legal landscape that has roiled obstetric care.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/16/abortion-miscarriage-ectopic-pregnancy-care/
1 Like
working exactly as they planned
Thanks.
With regard to bolded, I don’t think Missouri’s approach is a terrible as “Pregnant women can’t get divorced” makes it sound, given the potential custody issues. However, I do think dealing with the divorce and then dealing with custody after is better.
1 Like
my reading (I am not a lawyer) is that they avoid talking about fetal rights altogether and just deny that this particular decision is something the parent has any right to decide.
given the overt reasoning in the decision (which, of course, is a lol thing to do since this court doesn’t actually care about rationality), I don’t see any reason that a state couldn’t outlaw pregnancy for certain groups and force any member of that group to get an abortion.
none of the deplorable justices seem to have any interest in giving any more rights to anyone, at least until they explicitly get rid of the idea of “all people are created equal” so they can overtly discriminate who they’re giving those rights to. gonna be wild when they eviscerate the 14th amendment they way they’ve done everything else that’s in their way.
I agree with this. Until they explicitly grant fetal personhood (which would make the reasoning of the entire ruling different), then there is really no difference between the forbidding abortion and forcing abortion.
The rub in your plan is the bolded. Equal protection still applies. In the case of forbidding abortion, it applies to everyone. Once you start talking about “certain groups” that’s a whole new ball game. Creative legislators could work around (not that easy) that or the SC could just Calvinball that part.
1 Like
I think you’re right in that they do not frame it in terms of “fetal rights”. My read is both the recent decision and even Roe implicitly conceptualize the fetus as an entity that is at least somewhat independent from the pregnant person. For example, Roe talks about the existance of a state interest in protecting prenatal life. So, the cases kinda accept that the fetus is a thing while not directly defining exactly what that thing is or wrestling with the impact that certain definitions could possibly have on other aspects of the law.
1 Like
Fucking snowflake.
https://twitter.com/asymmetricinfo/status/1548347221355024387?s=21&t=UUI3361PwNwb4Bie3liA8A
Ratio is at ~50:1 right now, never seen that big of a ratio before.
I hit that once on one of my tweets arguing with gun nuts.
1 Like