Medical Organizations Representing 30,000 Doctors: “Abortion is Never Medically Necessary to Save a Mother’s Life”

It's a federal ban. It trumps any state law.
Now overturning RvW may change all of that.

If you mean S.4132.

The act recently voted on in the Senate did not prohibit state limitations on late term abortions except in the case of the life or health of the mother. Other limitations based on "in general", sex selection, it's Tuesday, etc. would still be allowed under the law.

WW
 
If only Republicans cared about living children as much as they do about fetus'

Sadly they don't
 
If you're not prepared to love and raise a child take personal responsibility before. It's just that simple
 
If you mean S.4132.

The act recently voted on in the Senate did not prohibit state limitations on late term abortions except in the case of the life or health of the mother. Other limitations based on "in general", sex selection, it's Tuesday, etc. would still be allowed under the law.

WW

"Health" of the mother must mean for any reason per the Doe v Bolton ruling.
 
If that Bill had passed it would be legal today to murder a child as it was born.
Fact.

And it had a zero percent chance of passing and I've already told you I condemned what they did but with your addled mind you still can't seem to comprehend that.
 
If that Bill had passed it would be legal today to murder a child as it was born.
Fact.

No not a fact.

What the bill said was "(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health."

State could still limit later term abortions (as most already do), but must provide exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

That is not carte blanche for any and all later term abortions.

WW
 
You dismissed it out of hand, by doing so you implied it was fine with you.

I stated a simple fact. You read into that what you wanted to.

It's quite common (and sad) that many see people supporting a fact simply for noting that fact.
 
No not a fact.

What the bill said was "(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health."

State could still limit later term abortions (as most already do), but must provide exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

That is not carte blanche for any and all later term abortions.

WW

Doe v Bolton states that where there is a "health" exemption, "health" must be all encompassing. "I do not want to be a mother" would be a viable reason for mental health reasons.
 
Doe v Bolton states that where there is a "health" exemption, "health" must be all encompassing. "I do not want to be a mother" would be a viable reason for mental health reasons.

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother she should use personal responsibility... same with men.

It's not hard to understand
 
"Health" of the mother must mean for any reason per the Doe v Bolton ruling.

I disagree, the law specifically state it has to be about "health" based on the assessment of the treating physician, not "after viability for any reasons".

If Roe is overturned this month, it would return defining such limits to the states as long as there are exceptions for life and health. "Life" is pretty straight forward, "health" is I admit a little more ambiguous so that would be years worth of litigation.

WW
 

Forum List

Back
Top