Decentralization of Abortion Regulations to the County Level

Forgive me, the law hadn’t been clarified thru the courts according to the last time I read about it (a few weeks ago).

However, it seems that these rare exceptions are being addressed:

In Tennessee, the law regarding abortions has been quite restrictive, especially following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. As of my last update, Tennessee has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States, with exceptions that are narrowly defined. Here’s what the current understanding based on available information up to October 25, 2024:

  • General Ban: Tennessee law prohibits abortion at all stages of pregnancy with very limited exceptions.

  • Exceptions:

    • Medical Emergencies: There is an exception for abortions necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” This implies that organ failure or a severe threat to vital organs might qualify, but the law doesn’t explicitly require “organ failure” as a condition. Instead, it focuses on life-threatening conditions or severe health risks.

    • Ectopic and Molar Pregnancies: These are explicitly mentioned as exceptions where abortion or medical intervention is allowed.

  • Recent Legal Developments: There have been court rulings in Tennessee that have provided some clarification or temporary relief regarding the enforcement of these laws, especially concerning medically necessary abortions. A court decision in October 2024 blocked the state from disciplining doctors for performing abortions deemed medically necessary, indicating that in cases where continuing the pregnancy poses a significant health risk or is life-threatening, abortions might be legally performed without the doctor facing legal repercussions.

Given this context:

  • Organ Failure Requirement: There isn’t a specific requirement in Tennessee law stating that a woman must be presenting with organ failure to obtain an abortion. However, the law’s focus on preventing death or irreversible impairment of major bodily functions suggests that situations leading to or closely resembling organ failure might qualify under the medical emergency exception.

  • Practical Implications: The ambiguity in the law’s language has led to hesitation among medical professionals due to fear of legal repercussions, potentially affecting timely interventions even in emergency situations. This ambiguity has been a point of contention and legal challenges, aiming for clearer guidelines or broader exceptions.

  • Public and Legal Sentiment: From X posts and news, there’s clear interest and debate on how these laws impact women’s health, with some arguing for broader interpretations or amendments to include clearer guidelines on what constitutes a medical emergency beyond organ failure.

In summary, while organ failure would likely qualify under Tennessee’s current law for an abortion due to the necessity to prevent death or severe health impairment, the law does not explicitly require organ failure. Instead, it’s about preventing death or irreversible damage to major bodily functions, which could include scenarios leading to or involving organ failure but isn’t strictly limited to it. Always, the evolving nature of legal interpretations and potential legislative changes means this could be subject to change or further clarification through court rulings or new laws.

Again, the characterization of being “too vague” is also a repeated lie coming from the pro-abortion side. It’s just more of a remark/trope, that the pro-abortion side knows would be very difficult for laypeople like us to argue about.

As a doctor, you go by various medical standards, and could be sued for medical malpractice, or violation of federal laws, for endangering women’s lives by withholding care in which you know that she needs to protect her life.

Based on my readings, I believe that the things that make this situation seem “confusing” are actually because of: HOSPITAL policies, widespread misinformation/fearmongering, failures of state medical boards to offer guidance, and the systemic silencing of pro-life doctors.

I just read this recent article about pro-life OB-GYN’s making a declaration, to try to amend these issues. Coalition of medical professionals combats lies with Women’s Healthcare Declaration (liveaction.org)

2 Likes

@AshleyLuna you have a remarkable grasp on this issue. I’d like to see you leading a nationwide charge on clarifying these facts.

Thanks. I wish other people would take the lead though.

We don’t desire to lead, we are asked to.

You keep using this word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

That ultimately led to Civil War when the issue did not naturally go away the way the Founding Fathers thought it would.

You have presented a proposal that is the worst of both worlds that will satisfy nobody. It throws out the idea of ‘leave it to the states’ but in a way that will leave both sides feeling worse off.

Nor does it guarantee serving your idea of “let’s guarantee reasonable abortion access to everyone” since if you have a large cluster of counties together and a woman decides to have an abortion and she lives in the middle of that large cluster she’ll be no better off than if it were decided on a state-by-state basis.

You have already admitted that it is an “Everyone loses” approach. Why on Earth would anyone support this proposal when you yourself have admitted that nobody will like it?

How is abortion a ‘red herring’ and what third point of view are you suggesting exists beyond “it’s a baby and should live” vs “a woman should have a right to choose”?

1 Like

To say that the issue of abortion is far more nuanced than to divide it into two camps of “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. You’ve even accepted the reality that there are medically necessary abortions. Therefore, being an absolutist on either side seems erroneous. So yes, it’s a nuanced issue.

That is a fair point. However, abortion is not the economic driver of half of our country like slavery was. I’d say the stakes for slavery were much, much higher.

I’ve presented a proposal that attempts to address the underlying reality that binary thinking in the abortion debate is unwise and deeply unfounded. I also call attention to the constitutionally mandated sovereignty of states from federal incursion. And I call for an increase in democracy by further distilling the issue down to a more localized solution.

Many states are 500-750 miles wide. We live in a very big country. The argument that “large clusters of counties together and a woman decides to have an abortion and she lives in the middle of that large cluster she’ll be no better off than if it were decided on a state-by-state basis.” is erroneous and unfounded. Is 150-250 miles less than 500-750 miles?

Abortion is naturally a lose-lose situation. The left likes to beat the drum that there are no consequences for elective abortions. Psychological, spiritual, and physical consequences are very real. Increased risk of breast cancer, decreased fertility rates, inherent danger to the woman, and a deep profound loss.

And when it comes to medically necessary abortions, it’s still the loss of innocent life. It’s a tragic loss for everyone involved. There are no winners in abortions, only losers. Much like war.

You should learn how to use the quote function so people don’t get lost trying to figure out which parts of your comment are replying to what.

I’m not where where I did, you’ll have to point me to what you’re talking about.

And even if I had, ‘medically necessary abortions’ are a tiny majority that receive overwhelming attention because the pro-abortionists have to keep banging the drum of extreme examples since it’s the only argument they really have.

Slavery wasn’t just about economics. It was also a matter of the unwarranted bonus representation they received in congress and the racial angle.

And given that abortion is literally a matter of life and death I’m not sure how the stakes for slavery are ‘much, much’ higher.

By knowingly undermining that exact same sovereignty with federal incursion.

You are trying to have it both ways by calling for the federal government to intrude upon the ‘constitutionally mandated state sovereignty’ you claim to be calling attention to.

Which is a lot of nonsense since you’ve stopped at county level when, by the argument you’re trying to present here - directing the issue to the town and city level would be even more democratic.

Where are you getting your 150-250 mile statistic from? Your proposal dictates that the matter be left to the counties. How are you determining what the map will look like when the dust has settled and the counties have decided which will allow abortion and which will prohibit it?

And?

None of that fixes the massive problems with the proposal you’ve presented here.

1 Like

You should learn how to use the quote function so people don’t get lost trying to figure out which parts of your comment are replying to what.

Summary

Ok.

And even if I had, ‘medically necessary abortions’ are a tiny majority that receive overwhelming attention because the pro-abortionists have to keep banging the drum of extreme examples since it’s the only argument they really have.

Summary

So this is a more nuanced issue than pro-life vs. pro-choice?

Slavery wasn’t just about economics. It was also a matter of the unwarranted bonus representation they received in congress and the racial angle.

And given that abortion is literally a matter of life and death I’m not sure how the stakes for slavery are ‘much, much’ higher.

Summary

The representation piece is a fair counterpoint.

If a fetus isn’t viable I find that argument to not be factually correct. Matter of opinion, yours is different, that’s fine.

By knowingly undermining that exact same sovereignty with federal incursion.

You are trying to have it both ways by calling for the federal government to intrude upon the ‘constitutionally mandated state sovereignty’ you claim to be calling attention to.

Summary

My proposal is to encourage states to pass this decision down to the county level via a funding mechanism. You’ve made it abundantly clear you disagree with my policy proposal. Great.

Where are you getting your 150-250 mile statistic from? Your proposal dictates that the matter be left to the counties. How are you determining what the map will look like when the dust has settled and the counties have decided which will allow abortion and which will prohibit it?

Summary

I was playing against your hypothetical of a collective of red counties.

And?

None of that fixes the massive problems with the proposal you’ve presented here.

Summary

My proposal states the following truth: abortion is an incredibly nuanced issue that does not have room for binary thinking, therefore, to adequately address it requires nuanced solutions.

You’ve provided no framework for a response, you’ve only stated your personal issues with my policy proposal. Again, I’m happy to agree to disagree with you. I’ll let you continue the dialogue with yourself from here on out.

Sir, you haven’t learned to use the quote function, and what you’re doing instead is simply annoying.

Huh?

The thing about the “Is it viable” argument is that science and technology is such that in one part of the country - such as a high end city with state-of-the art medical facilities, the baby could be ‘viable’, but the same baby, if in a different part of the country - like the middle of nowhere and the only population centers around are towns that hardly make it on the map - then technically the baby isn’t ‘viable’ outside the womb.

So by basing the argument on ‘viability’ you’re using a standard that magically shifts based on context.

Yes, I disagree with your policy proposal, and I’m debating you on why the policy is bad.

So let’s take a look at the specifics of what you claim are merely ‘encouraging’ states to pass the decision along:

There is nothing - nothing - about your proposal that suggests it’s about ‘encouraging’ participation. ‘Encourage’ implies that States would have the option to keep things as they are rather than go along with the idea of 'let the counties decide.

However, no part of your proposal suggests the the proposal is voluntary and no part of your proposal even hints at the supposed ‘funding mechanism’ that would ‘encourage’ states to pass the decision along.

Furthermore, you outright recognize in your own proposal that the constitutional grounds for the proposal is questionable at best and that your proposal may very well make everyone unhappy.

So ultimately, your proposal fails on every single possible level.

Have you ever actually looked at a county-by-county Presidential election map?

The word ‘nuanced’ is not a magical word that automatically gives something more validity. It doesn’t matter how many times you keep using it, it does squat to make your proposal any more viable or appealing.

If anything, the way you keep trying to fall back on the idea of ‘nuance’ just make this proposal come off as all the worse.

You seem to be entirely reliant on the idea of ‘nuance’ to fuel this idea when you’ve already admitted that your proposal is an idea that nobody will like (which only serves to undermine the idea that this will somehow make anything better).

1 Like

@MKSJ another way to interpret this is that this policy is for the states, not the federal government.

We could absolutely see this as a template for 50 policies and entirely eliminate your concerns.

I can’t say I follow what you’re trying to say.

Instead of being concerned about this being a federal level policy/law trying to cram down regulations each of the 50 states to use counties (violation of federalism principles), we present this policy to each state legislature individually, and get some version of this passed 50 times (once in each state).

I recommend reading More Equal Animals. Dan does a great job arguing for county level laws/etc.

If you’re trying to convince each state to do this individually of their own free will (which frankly I question how you expect to make that happen) without the federal government getting involved, then it’s no longer a federal issue and there’s not much point for us discussing it here.

Yes, that is what I was proposing, is this site for “federal only” policies?

There are a lot of policies I see that are good ideas, but aren’t good ideas for the federal government, or aren’t good ideas to start out at the federal level with.

(Like the discussions on getting rid of property taxes… I think we might want to experiment with that one at the state level before cramming it down on the whole country.)

As for how to do it practically, you get citizen momentum built up, usually through the party system for particular issues, like this one, then pass it either through the legislature or via ballot measures in each state. For example, there are lots of other abortion measures up for voting this election that are doing exactly this.