Doctors, hospitals face confusion about abortions

20 thoughts on “Doctors, hospitals face confusion about abortions”

1. As a seventh generation Hoosier, raised a Methodist (and Quaker), from a long line of religious women, let us leave these decisions to those best positioned to do so themselves: women, in consultation with their medical providers. It is obscene and morally reprehensible for the state to substitute its judgment.

   Log in to Reply

   1. How are the unborn child and the child’s father to be represented in that “consultation,” alexander m? There are three distinctly different human beings involved at that point, only one of which is the woman carrying the child. DNA science has proven that the unborn child’s DNA is distinctively different from that of the mother, so it is not “part of her body.” That’s not a Biblical or philosophical conclusion, it is a scientific fact.

      If you were raised a Methodist and a Quaker, chances are pretty good you’ve not been exposed to many Biblical truths.

   2. Bob, do you remember why the movement to legalize abortion took place?

   3. Bob, you intentionally misrepresent the case by using the term “unborn child” to bias opinion. The development of the fertilized egg is a continuum and an objective person must accept that “unborn child” does not apply to the entirety of that continuum. The debate needs to be about the balancing of competing rights, not an absolute declaration of a right by one or the other entity in the equation. In that way, both extremes of absolutism have it wrong, or more likely that both ends of the spectrum simply engage in bad faith argument.

   4. Tim D, the notion that an unborn child isn’t an objective person is as ludicrous as the notion that Jesus lived with the dinosaurs on an earth that is just 3,000 years old. A fertilized egg is a human in its earliest stages, just as a 105-year-old is a human in its final stage. When a person kills a pregnant woman, it is deemed a double homicide, even if no one (including the woman herself) knew she was pregnant.

      Both extremes of absolutism do indeed have it wrong, which is why many of us in the center lauded the Bill Clinton adage of “safe, legal and rare”. With “rare” being struck from the current activism (“abortion is healthcare!”) you will inevitably get an equivalent inverse reaction among the holy rollers on the right. In many states (less likely Indiana or Ohio than the deep south) the holy rollers outnumber the pro-choicers significantly, leading to these inevitably legislative outcomes.

      There needs to be an active voice for women. And there is.

      There needs to be an active voice for the unborn. Since they themselves lack a voice, it comes from pro-lifers.

      What continues to rankle the pro-choicers is that, even as women have equal political power to men and greater political involvement than they did in 1970 (when 9 MEN conferred the right of abortion to women), the pro-life movement in about 30-35 states has grown organized and often outstrips that of the pro-choice. Bearing this in mind, the pro-choicers cannot continue to assert that women are persecuted, when an enormous and politically active subset of women disagree and feel it is the unborn who are persecuted.

      Far better to come from the angle of bodily autonomy and to work that as a point compromise, which is how we got “safe legal and rare” in the first place. Since that no longer seems to work, the only option is to let the states work through their democratically elected representatives, and hopefully the legislatures will carve out compromises that will differ widely among the 50 laboratories of democracy. Otherwise, use the courts to make your arguments. But if we keep thumping away at the “women are oppressed” canard, don’t expect it to work any better than it has been working the last 15-20 years. Time to try something new.

   5. Yes, we are about to get something new. The “pro-life” crowd will prove how they’re not really all that pro-life, they’re just anti-abortion, and they will remind us of the past we forgot.

      Because there will be more stories about women dying in back alley abortions, like there were back in the 50’s/60’s/70’s which is why abortion was legalized in the first place. More stories about women dying in childbirth for a kid they didn’t really want but their state banned access to contraception, because the Pharisees in their state believe a woman’s role in life is to be a baby carrier. More child rape victims who give Jim Bopp the opportunity to say something stupid to change people’s minds.

      Then enough people will get together at the federal level and pass a law and there will be access to abortion and it will look very much like the status quo from 1973 to 2021. Because the anti-abortion extremists blew it and thought banning abortion was the answer, when they should have taken the tact of reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.

      It’ll be a repeat of Prohibition, or what’s happened in Ireland. Funny how we don’t learn lessons in America.

   6. Lauren, the double homicide argument isn’t an analogue. In that case, the death of the fetus is outside the control of and against the will of the mother and thus the third party causing the homicide is held accountable.

      It is precisely this distinction in the termination of the fetus that has allowed us (most of us, at least) to always understand that abortion post-Roe, while morally wrong by some codes, hasn’t been considered homicide by all but the most extreme idealogues.

      The bodily autonomy argument doesn’t work when those who scream to demand it when asked to roll up their sleeves to take a shot move the goalposts when a woman in poverty with a long-gone sperm donor asks for the same consideration but is told she shall carry the child to term, her wishes be damned. Despite the fact that there certainly are anti-abortion women, the outcome for women collectively will be inferior to that of men collectively, unless the states that take abortion off the table via legislation also use the law to place constraints on the fathers of those to be born children.

      I’m a pro-Clinton position on abortion and I believe that is where most of us fall. I believe we will determine that most of us, while not necessarily pro-abortion are indeed pro-Roe. And most lack the imagination to understand the second order consequences headed our way.

2. Quote: Indeed, the legislation unveiled on Wednesday includes those exceptions, said Sen. Sue Glick, R-LaGrange. She noted the bill would not affect treatment of miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies; in-vitro fertilization procedures; or prohibit ending a pregnancy when the unborn child would not be able to survive due to a fatal fetal anomaly.

   Jody Madeira, professor of law at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law in Bloomington, and co-director of its Center for Law, Society and Culture, added that legislation should contain a “safe harbor” clause that would protect doctors who treat women in good faith, so they would not be prosecuted or face licensure investigations.

   So what’s the problem, all you fear-mongers?

   Log in to Reply

   1. The intent of the drafters has to make it on the paper. Witness those in Ohio who proclaimed that “oh, that 10 year old could have gotten an abortion.” That’s not what their law actually says.

      And when you’ve got the head of the Indiana Right to Life running around proclaiming he’s disappointed in the bill because it has rape and incest provisions and doesn’t have enough enforcement provisions, who knows what the final bill is going to look like?

      Reminder, these are Republicans who are ignoring the will of the voters. Reports are they’re sitting on a poll that shows support for abortion in the first trimester.

   2. Wrong, Joe. The 10-YO could have received an abortion in Ohio according to certain specific provisions of their law. Take off your Hate-All-Conservatives-and-Christians-and-Pro-Lifers blinders because you deem them intellectually inferior to you for a moment and do some intelligent research into what Ohio’s law actually says.

3. Joe B – is that poll a national poll, or an Indiana poll? And even if a state one, such a result is likely because noone under Medicare age is old enough to know a country that that didn’t allow abortion. People typically prefer things they know vs the unknown; would expect those number to shift once there is a new reality, if implimented competently; like you say, has to make it on the paper.

   Part of political leadership is to lead the people, and stake their elected office on doing what they believe is the right thing and convincing others through words and action that it is. Wish elected officials (especially the federal ones) did more of that.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Scott – here’s what I am referring to.

      “Recent Indiana abortion surveys are few and far in between — with big changes in support and opposition based on wording and level of detail — so Indiana Republicans commissioned their own poll, as they draw up abortion-restricting proposals for a special session this month.

      The House and Senate GOP campaign committees conducted a poll on abortion shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on June 24. The polling firm is reliably Republican, but the results were shocking to some conservative members of the caucuses.

      Multiple GOP insiders spoke to the Indiana Capital Chronicle anonymously because the poll is being heavily guarded. Requests about the survey to House Speaker Todd Huston as well as both the House Republican Campaign Committee and Senate Majority Campaign Committee were ignored.

      What is clear, according to the insiders, is that Hoosiers don’t want a near-virtual ban on abortion. Instead, they support exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. And many are supportive of allowing abortion up to 15 weeks of gestation.”

      https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2022/07/19/abortion-gop-poll-shows-little-hoosier-support-for-total-ban/

   2. Joe and Scott–

      I certainly intend to vote against the most extreme and teeth-gnashing GOPers who support a complete ban.

      The only problem is, given what much of the the Democratic party has become, in much of the country (certainly central Indiana) the alternative far too often is an obese purple-haired 45-year-old cat lady who wants abortion up until the woman is going through contractions. Hopefully I’m wrong, but what if I’m not?

      We shouldn’t be forced to make these choices, but many of us who want abortion “safe legal and rare” will get stuck holding our noses and opting for the Bible-beaters. And if the Bible beater ends up winning election as a result, a sane DNC will see this as a cue to try again so they can clock-out that Bible beater with a more moderate challenger. Will that happen?

      The two parties aren’t supposed to embody two blocs that work in lock-step opposition to one another and complete concordance within their party. They should ideally represent two opposing points of view, both of which can realistically capture 45-55% of the population. We’re losing that structure: the center won’t hold.

   3. Can you find me the Indiana Democrats who are campaigning on a platform of legalizing third trimester abortions that are not being recommended by a medical professional to save the life of the mother? Heck, I can’t find a Democrat who wants to change the current 22 week status quo in Indiana. They may exist. I can’t find them.

      So to spite cat owners, you’re going to side with the folks who introduced a zero week ban and are grumbling about the rape/incest provisos being too liberal … over the folks who just want to maintain the status quo. To be blunt, you’re part of the problem. Your actions would be condoning the actions you claim to not like, and you would not be affecting the change you desire.

      Voting out Republicans over the zero week nonsense is the only option if you’re not happy with what Republicans are proposing. The moment Democrats go too far, the only option is to vote the Democrats out. But you’re creating your own bogeyman to justify your actions. That doesn’t take much courage.

      That Indiana Republicans have introduced a zero week ban tells you where the majority of Senators are at. If they actually introduced a bill without the support of 26 senators after all that time in caucus, they should fire Bray from his role. Barring some major curveball, this bill will pass out of the Senate this week.

4. Would you be upset if you ordered eggs at a restaurant and received a chicken breast instead? I know I would be, because I don’t think of eggs as a living chicken.

   If you think eggs are living beings, wouldn’t IVF disgust you? Who would think it’s okay to freeze a “baby”? The “pro-life” crowd is a joke.

   Log in to Reply

   1. You don’t understand science. Like, at all.

   2. Then like, please explain it to me.

   3. Don’t think God made chickens in the image of himself like he did man!

      Apple and orange analogy.

5. The Dr goes in and squeezes the live placenta and pulls it out. If the pregnant mom is far enough along. The Dr. has to pull the baby out in sections. On a monitor, you can see the baby trying to get away and screaming in pain. The mother sometimes has complications because body parts get left inside her. And she has emotional problems whether she believes the fetus was alive or not.
   I never understood why anyone thought it was ok (especially Doctors) to KILL babies in the first place!

   Log in to Reply

6. A good and precise summary, Peggy A.

   Log in to Reply