(06-26-2022, 06:42 PM)jj82284 Wrote:

(06-26-2022, 05:53 PM)mikesez Wrote: No one ever really explains how an exception for rape would work.  Would the woman have to file a police report first?  Would women simply lie, and tell their doctors they were raped?  Would the doctor have to have a reasonable belief that she wasn't lying?  Women get very upset about these discussions because the implication is that not all rape accusations are true.  Even if I agree that it is usually very rare for women to lie about being raped, wouldn't you have to agree that this type of exception to abortion law incentivizes false reports? It seems very messy.  And I think that will play out as states work these things out as laboratories of democracy.

If u play it out to its natural conclusion, surgical abortion has nothing to do with rape.  In reality ur talking about plan b @ the time of the incident.  I've gamed out the scenario several times.  In reality this has been the most effective talking point for the pro abortion crowd, but it's actually a red herring.

I just don't know how common it is for women to be raped while also being unable to take trips to the store.  I know that there is such a thing as being raped and kidnapped at the same time, and I suppose surgical or medication abortion is a more ethical choice in that case, but those cases are rare enough that they become their own episodes on 48 hours.

And there is a lot of noise in the signal because certain unscientific and fanatical people insist that plan b is abortion when it's not.

Another thing no one wants to talk about is the impact of changes to technology and medical science.  You don't find much commentary about abortion at the time of adoption of the 14th amendment because it was so hazardous to try to remove a baby before its time that any attempt was clearly criminal.  It wasn't until 1957 that Chinese scientists invented a reliable and safe device and method.  Roe was a reaction to that innovation.  And so is Dobbs.  But in the meantime medication abortion now exists and women in any of these states can obtain the pills relatively easily by mail.  How can a ban on these pills be enforced at the state level? 

Imagine an emergency room in Louisiana or Missouri.  Two women come in with identical symptoms.  They are both bleeding and both have deceased fetuses in their wombs.  One of them has intentionally acquired and injested abortion pills, but the other one did not.  She is just unlucky.  State law might say one should be punished and the other left alone.  But which is which? Should both be investigated? Neither?

Say we solve the above scenario by saying women should never be punished for abortion, only doctors should be punished.  This is what most "trigger law" states have done.  Imagine the same two women now in the same hospital.  The doctor treating them could conceivably be accused of assisting in an intentional abortion if he has reason to believe that either woman has taken the abortion pill.  Does that affect the quality of care that the women get?

---