Response to Michael:
You say that my “persistent engagement” in response to your dishonest, ignorant, condescending trolling and contradictory goal-post moving-- is “perplexing” to you? Now you’re just gas-lighting. I also notice that you’re doing the trope of accusing me of doing something that you’re actually doing; you’re the one arguing, except I’m still clueless about why.
You continue to attack my proposal/attempt to save women’s lives (and offer unborn children minimal protections) without citing a single actual concern about it.
Since you are making up this weak claim of my proposal supposedly being merely a “duplicate” of already existing state policies, I’m happy to assure our more sane readers of the truth.
You didn’t even read my proposal before making your first post.
You not only admitted that most of the pro-life states do NOT cover the basic rape and fatal fetal abnormality exception and now, you obviously didn’t read ANY of the myriad of links you just sent, because those links prove exactly what I explained to you already.
All EIGHT of the next screenshots came from YOUR links. Now since you already admitted that most pro-life states do not cover exceptions for rape or fatal abnormalities, I didn’t need these screenshots to prove that. But this also shows that even states with so-called rape exceptions, the exceptions aren’t clear enough and therefore extremely rare for a rape victim seeking abortion to actually get one…
And I do not blame pro-life laws for the deadly and unnecessary healthcare delays imposed by these medical providers. However, these screenshots from your own links show that states are NOT doing enough to protect women from these delays/medical malpractice. There’s not currently any end in sight for those horror stories… If Texas wants to offer a bounty on illegal abortions, or fine a doctor a million dollars for abortion, why not also offer a bounty or charge the million dollars against dangerous medical providers who are refusing to honor the life exception and getting these women killed? That specific idea is not in my proposal, but my point is that no matter which side you want to blame, not enough is being done to counter-act the aggressive misinformation and partial truths coming from the pro-choice side.
Incidentally, I have also heard of cases in which the rape exceptions were TOO broad, that women claiming rape were over-loading abortion clinics. My proposal would articulate that no one with financial ties to elective abortion can certify a medical record of rape, due conflict of interest.
As a reminder, Pages 9-41 of the anti-Texas abortion lawsuit brief details many of these stories of women in crisis because the state did not offer exceptions in their cases, primarily for fatal fetal abnormalities, and the distress and trauma this caused to them: 2023.05.22-Zurawski-v.-Texas-1st-Am.-Ver.-Pet.-FINAL.pdf
I also came across two other articles which showed that even the state does offer an exception for a fetal abnormality, that exception is sometimes not enough to allow women to access it:
Additionally, here is some evidence showing that pro-life OB-GYN’s (like Dr. Skop) have been urging state authorities/medical boards to issue more guidance on the Texas pro-life law. Dr. Skop has been very clear that pro-life laws are not to blame for malpractice, but reading expert opinions and experiences like hers tells me that it would be helpful to air on the side of caution, that pro-life laws could use more clarity. The cost of ignoring this issue is deadly.
An example of adding helpful clarity was in Idaho, abortion activists falsely claimed and fearmongered that the Idaho law doesn’t cover “ectopic” pregnancies. Short story: of course life exception allowed treatment for “ectopic” pregnancies, it just didn’t explicitly say “ectopic” at first. So later on, Idaho officially added in a clarification in their law that it specifically addresses ectopic pregnancies, and other specific conditions. A federal law can pre-emptively and definitively avert such needless controversy/dangerous misinformation. That misinformation is causing doctors to send women to other states because of that, risking their lives.
Finally, having a federal proposal (co-written by doctors and lawyers from both pro-life/choice sides) would provide framework that other states can use for themselves, including states who haven’t enacted pro-life laws yet. If well-implemented, these federal protections would make pro-lifers and moderates alike feel more comfortable passing more restrictions and save them babies, without having to worry about the repercussion of being blamed for hospital malpractice.
In response to your last remark, where you said: “the real issue driving the abortion debate isn’t these rare circumstances but the broader problem of adults engaging in sex without accepting responsibility for the consequences. Let’s not lose sight of that truth.”
Yes and for the third time, the awareness, education, coaching and informed consent clauses, and the many pro-life concessions, of my proposal specifically promotes the value of life and both the responsibility and joys of parenthood, within the political constraints that I’m confined to. It’s not my fault that Trump refused to support any abortion ban. Pro-life leaders have tried to convince him to do so, unsuccessfully. Feel free to take that up with Trump then.
P.S. A child is not a “consequence.”