Roe vs. Wade, American abortion rights

[Dr. Ken]

That's how I took it. An abortion that saves the life of the mother somehow isn't an abortion because....gobbledygook. They can't admit that it's still a "fertilized egg" bc that would confuse the masses.

A pregnancy that ends with nonviable products of conception is an abortion. It may be a spontaneous abortion, it may be a therapeutic abortion, but it's an abortion !PERIOD!

I'm completely baffled. They're out and out lying now

[Dr. Ken]

[Shizzle Popped]

Republican AG says he'll investigate Indiana doctor who provided care to 10-year-old rape victim

Myah Ward
Thu, July 14, 2022 at 4:58 AM

Indiana’s Republican attorney general said on Wednesday that his office planned to investigate the Indiana doctor who helped a 10-year-old rape victim who crossed state lines to have an abortion.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-a ... 55686.html

Moving from Washington state to Indiana has been like stepping back in time 40 years in many respects. We moved back 4 years ago to help our elderly parents and we feel like we're surrounded by narrow minded bigots, because we are. I'm really starting to hate this place. We'll move somewhere else when we're no longer needed here.

Todd Rokita is a real Class A pile of shit. His only interest is gaining favor with the far right wingnuts in this state and making a name for himself so he can run for some higher office. It'll probably work.

[sugar magnolia]

I'm all for the fuckwit republicans investigating all sorts of silly shit like this. It just shows the rest of the world how batshit they are.

[much ado]

I'm all for the fuckwit republicans investigating all sorts of silly shit like this. It just shows the rest of the world how batshit they are.

Yep, true.

[pipistrelle]

That woman is an attorney.

Her Twitter photo makes her look normal and much, much younger and happier.

[much ado]

Information about the abortion performed on the Ohio ten-year-old in Indiana and the physician who performed it legally, it appears, under existing Indiana law...

Abortion report confirms Indiana doctor followed law after AG vowed investigation

INDIANAPOLIS — After Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita threatened to go after the license of an Indiana physician who provided an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio, documents obtained by FOX59 through a public record request proved the physician not only filed a terminated pregnancy report but filed the report within the required timeframe.

The terminated pregnancy report, obtained by FOX59’s Angela Ganote, shows that Caitlin Bernard, an Indiana obstetrician-gynecologist, reported the abortion on July 2, two days after the abortion was performed and within the three days required for terminations to be reported to the Department of Child Service and the Indiana Department of Health.

Bernard publically shared the story of the 10-year-old rape victim’s abortion in an interview with the Indianapolis Star earlier this month. The 10-year-old girl had been impregnated when she was raped by a 27-year-old in Ohio and traveled to Indiana to get an abortion due to Ohio banning abortions after six weeks following the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.

ETA:

Bernard’s attorney sent the following statement:

“My client, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician. She followed all relevant policies, procedures, and regulations in this case, just as she does every day to provide the best possible care for her patients. She has not violated any law, including patient privacy laws, and she has not been disciplined by her employer. We are considering legal action against those who have smeared my client, including Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, and know that the facts will all come out in due time.”

Kathleen DeLaney of Delaney & DeLaney LLC

[Kriselda Gray]

I need some context here...

Is the witness trying to propose that operations to remove ectopic 'conditions' shouldnt be considered an abortion thus putting lifesaving procedures back in the medical kit bagout of reach of the barbarians?

Is the questioner attempting to deny that little sliver of common sense?

What?

Who are these people?

The witness is an anti-abortionist who seems to put certain types of pregnancy-terminating procedures in a special "that's not an abortion" category if it's too ethically messy to say that the abortion bans would prevent those procedures. There's another clip (which I don't have the URL for, sorry!) where she's asked about the 10-year old girl who needed an abortion because she was raped, and she claims that in that case, terminating the pregnancy would not be an abortion and therefore it wouldn't be banned. I never heard a clear explanation from her as to WHY that wouldn't be an abortion since it's the termination of a pregnancy, but according to her, it apparently just isn't an abortion, so there's nothing to see here.

As for this clip, I've not seen anything more of their exchange, but it appears to me that the questioner is trying to get it through the witnesses head that ending a pregnancy - viable or not - is an abortion, and thus even terminating a non-viable ectopic pregnancy would be banned because it IS an abortion, whether the witness wants to use that term for it or not.

[Dr. Ken]

Ugh nytimes trying to both sides the 10 year old rape story

[June bug]

WAPO is even worse. Glen Kessler’s (“Fact Checker”) “update” is full of self-justification and still arguing that nothing should have been published without a second source.

On my iPhone and can’t copy it but will try to do it later from my laptop.

[neeneko]

WAPO is even worse. Glen Kessler’s (“Fact Checker”) “update” is full of self-justification and still arguing that nothing should have been published without a second source.

I can not help but notice that all their assertions were published without doing any fact checking...

[TheNewSaint]

"[we] know that the facts will all come out in due time.”

I know this is a standard thing lawyers say. But it's a poor choice of words when they're saying their client complied with medical privacy laws that explicitly PREVENT facts from coming out.

[Jim]

"[we] know that the facts will all come out in due time.”

I know this is a standard thing lawyers say. But it's a poor choice of words when they're saying their client complied with medical privacy laws that explicitly PREVENT facts from coming out.

I believe the girl's family can waive them...and screw the pubs in the process.

[Kriselda Gray]

"[we] know that the facts will all come out in due time.”

I know this is a standard thing lawyers say. But it's a poor choice of words when they're saying their client complied with medical privacy laws that explicitly PREVENT facts from coming out.

I believe the girl's family can waive them...and screw the pubs in the process.

Perhaps, but would it be in her best interest to have her info out there? I'm all for screwing the pubs, but not at her expense.

[Dave from down under]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-07-16/ ... /101188994

Why is America so divided on abortion? Because a key conservative player planned it that way

More at the article

[Dr. Ken]

[Shizzle Popped]

Indiana Senate Republicans propose abortion ban with exceptions for rape, life of mother

Indiana Senate Republican leadership proposed a bill Wednesday that would ban all abortions except in cases of rape, incest or where the life of the mother is in danger, a proposal that if passed would make Indiana one of the states with the greatest restrictions against abortion.

The proposal of a near-total ban on abortion was a surprise for many, conservatives and progressives alike. Speculation had been that lawmakers would introduce less severe restrictions, such as a ban set at 6, 12 or 15 weeks, when they convene for a special session on July 25.

If the ban passes, Indiana will be one of eight states with an abortion ban at zero weeks, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Unlike Indiana's proposal, however, most others do not allow for exemptions for rape.

Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray, R-Martinsville, said Wednesday as he announced the proposal that abortion was "arguably the most difficult, polarizing issue that we've faced in a generation." He said his caucus spent considerable time debating where to land on the restrictions and proposed exemptions and considered the perspectives of constituents on the "two sides" of the issue.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/pol ... 377589007/

[raison de arizona]

Kamala Harris is in Indiana today, fighting against this new evil. Anyway, something good. Ish.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA10URqm

Decisive Vote Protecting Abortion Rights In Kansas Confirmed In Recount

A decisive statewide vote in favor of abortion rights in traditionally conservative Kansas was confirmed with a partial hand recount, with fewer than 100 votes changing after the last county reported results Sunday.

Nine of the state’s 105 counties recounted their votes at the request of Melissa Leavitt, who has pushed for tighter election laws. A longtime anti-abortion activist, Mark Gietzen, is covering most of the costs. Gietzen acknowledged in an interview that it was unlikely to change the outcome.

A no vote in the referendum signaled a desire to keep existing abortion protections and a yes vote was for allowing the Legislature to tighten restrictions or ban abortion. After the recounts, “no” votes lost 87 votes and “yes” gained 6 votes.

Eight of the counties reported their results by the state’s Saturday deadline, but Sedgwick County delayed releasing its final count until Sunday because spokeswoman Nicole Gibbs said some of the ballots weren’t separated into the correct precincts during the initial recount and had to be resorted Saturday. She said the number of votes cast overall didn’t change.

I like those recount results!

[AndyinPA]

[Danraft]

So, it moved more in favor of more restrictions, but not enough?

[Slim Cognito]

Sorry I don't have the link but read an article this morning that the guy who mostly funded the partial recount is pissed and now wants a full state recount and he's apparently willing to pay for that, too.

The problem in Sedgwick County convinced him the entire recount was (also too) fraudulent.

[AndyinPA]

This is why we should heavily tax the rich. Too much money allows people to cause too much trouble.

[pipistrelle]

This is why we should heavily tax the rich. Too much money allows people to cause too much trouble.

I see it as one unelected rich person trying to impose policy for millions.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

So, it moved more in favor of more restrictions, but not enough?

Yes.