- 13,905
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Time to secede, I guess.
Abortion
- Thread starter Danoff
- 2,611 comments
- 139,004 views
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It's even worse.
Missouri Bill Seeks to Make Abortions for Ectopic Pregnancies Illegal in Restrictive Legislation
House Bill No. 2810 seeks to criminalize the production, sale, purchase or use of medical devices or drugs used for abortions
Missouri HB2810 | 2022 | Regular Session
Bill Text (2022-05-09) Modifies provisions relating to abortion, including the importation and distribution of drugs used to induce abortions [Placed on the Informal Perfection Calendar (H)]
These rat ****ers aren't just misogynists; they're ****ing sadists.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,026
- Mile High City
Yea, ectopic is a medical emergency. I believe it often results in a lost fallopian tube (presuming that the medical treatment to save the woman occurs).It's even worse.
In addition to Missouri House Bill 2012 seeking to penalize those who assist women in acquiring abortions out-of-state, Missouri House Bill 2810--introduced by state representative Brian Seitz (R-Branson)--proposes a change to the state code making it a Class A felony, subject to minimum 10 years in prison with a potential life sentence, to traffic in abortion-inducing devices or drugs if the abortion was performed or induced or was attempted to be performed or induced on a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy.Missouri Bill Seeks to Make Abortions for Ectopic Pregnancies Illegal in Restrictive Legislation
House Bill No. 2810 seeks to criminalize the production, sale, purchase or use of medical devices or drugs used for abortionspeople.com
An ectopic or extrauterine pregnancy is when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus and not only is the pregnancy not viable in such circumstances because the host body is incapable of delivering blood, but it causes tremendous pain and may damage nearby organs and cause life-threatening blood loss.Missouri HB2810 | 2022 | Regular Session
Bill Text (2022-05-09) Modifies provisions relating to abortion, including the importation and distribution of drugs used to induce abortions [Placed on the Informal Perfection Calendar (H)]legiscan.com
These rat ****ers aren't just misogynists; they're ****ing sadists.
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
According to the Mayo Clinic, the condition affects women undergoing fertility treatments at a much higher rate; approximately 1 in 100 compared to approximately 1 in 30,000. So this proposal to restrict abortions disproportionately punishes those going to greater lengths to have children. It's ****ing insane.
Last edited:
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
You and me both.
The reality is that even in the fairly likely event that the Court does away with Roe v. Wade, this is going to remain an arrow in the rat ****ers' quiver; it's proven to be an effective means to bypass the Constitution. They've obviously gotten away with it in Texas, they're poised to try in Idaho and it's definitely on the table in Missouri. And that's just for abortion. A measure treating speech in a similar manner is headed to DeSantis's desk in Florida--the "Stop W.O.K.E. Act" has been passed in the state legislature.
I don't know how long, but it's just a matter of time until blue states attempt this. I don't recall the details, but I seem to recall Newsom in California floated something regarding firearms.
I hate it. It's disgusting political gamesmanship and it demonstrates contempt for the Constitution.
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
We do, but I don't want that to be the reason. It's wrong no matter which way it cuts.
There's also no guarantee that a case coming out of a blue state (against a similar private cause of action regarding firearm possession/distribution), even one that results in the law getting struck down, will result in the tactic getting struck down. I'm pretty sure that Roberts would have it, but his opinions carry no more weight than those of the Associate Justices.
Edit: I think I can see laws subjecting speech and firearm..."offenses"...to civil suits getting struck down because of existing specific protections, but even if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is successfully prohibited in red states, I can see laws subjecting those who assist women in acquiring abortions out-of-state to civil suits remaining in effect. I don't think the current Court is above that regardless of what Roberts wants.
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Suppose this law is passed, what happens if a doctor went against it and treated someone? Would they realistically be facing a prison sentence?
I can't imagine they would deny a patient with an ectopic pregnancy aid as it falls foul of the most important principle in medical ethics, primum non nocere, since as you say there is no benefit to continuing the pregnancy and only increased risk (although there are case reports of viable pregnancies but these are extremely rare).
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I call ********. If you "never meant" for such a prohibition, you propose a blanket
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
I'm betting they didn't know the reality of what an ectopic pregnancy is which is, frankly, terrifying.
Brett
Premium
- 8,632
- Oklahoma
Why would they actually know what an ectopic pregnancy is? And even if they did know, that would not fit the playbook of pandering.
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
I'm saying that they should know if they are creating legislature on the subject.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,026
- Mile High City
Didn't stop the Texas governor from claiming that women have 6 weeks to decide if they want an abortion despite the fact that the reality of his law is about 1 week. A lack of understanding of how pregnancy gets counted prior to conception didn't stop him from signing legislation on the SAME subject...
I would honestly not be surprised if they were just thinking "ectopic pregnancy is a kind of pregnancy, that's all I need to know".
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Exactly. If they're going to make laws, they should know the medical consequences of said laws at the very least. I don't think they met that (basic) criteria in this case. I could be wrong and they willfully ignored the reality, which would be even worse than ignorance IMO.
- 11,883
- Marin County
Has anyone yet been successfully sued by one of these constitution end-runs?
I still have a hard time believing the suits can be enforced considering that the underlying action isn't actually illegal.
I still have a hard time believing the suits can be enforced considering that the underlying action isn't actually illegal.
Last edited:
- 5,639
- Alabamistan
Yeah how could it be any different to other scenarios where you cross the state line to do something that is legal in that other state? Buy marijuana, casino gambling, legalized prostitution, etc.
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Not in the manner intended by legislators who draft these laws, to my knowledge.
It's illegal because there's a law prohibiting it. What makes the private right of action route pernicious is it preempts constitutional challenges by virtue of the Bill of Rights constraining state actors. That's why these rat ****ers are so deserving of scorn. It's going to take special circumstances for federal courts to take up the constitutionality question.
It's no less enforceable than any civil judgement.
- 11,883
- Marin County
But it still doesn't make it illegal. Where I keep getting hung up on is ultimate enforcement. Say a doctor gets sued for performing an abortion, which is still legal in TX as far as I can tell. The court cites the law and orders the defendant to pay up. What if he refuses? There is no original crime, so is the court toothless to enforce the not-law?
I think the whole thing is a bluff, basically.
Last edited:
- 29,981
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
It isn't illegal to cut a tree limb without taking into consideration the presence of a property line fence, and yet there exists a private right of action when you cut said limb and damage said fence.
Collecting on civil judgements is potentially more of a hassle than litigating a civil case--winning that case doesn't mean you get to walk out of the courthouse with cash burning a hole in your wallet--but methods exist.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,026
- Mile High City
If the doctor refuses then it becomes a crime - failure to comply with a court order. The burden of proof for civil liability is different from criminal liability, so it is relatively easy to be required to pay a civil suit while not being convicted of the underlying crime.
The first doctor was sued last September.
Last edited:
- 11,883
- Marin County
There's at least a there, there. One person was damaged by another. That's pretty simple. But this...it's so abstract and there's nothing fundamentally at it's core. You might as well have a law where anyone can sue anyone for breathing or eating cheese, I don't see a difference. If there is no damage, there is no grounds for a suit. If there is no inherent criminal activity, then there can be no enforcement. That's my take and how I would opine if I was a Supreme Court Justice.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,026
- Mile High City
Fair enough. Let's look at it this way, abortions (in the state) fell off a cliff after the law passed, and not because the law is a bluff. I actually know an abortion provider in Texas, and he complied with the law immediately. He couldn't be sued by some crazy right-wingers because he didn't risk his practice over it.
Abortions in Texas dropped by 60% in month after ban took effect
There were 5,404 clinic abortions conducted in August. The number fell dramatically in September to 2,197.
www.axios.com
Last edited:
Similar threads
