392
Her pregnancy was non-viable and her life was at risk but Oklahoma law prevented an abortion
(www.publicradiotulsa.org)
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
392 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2530 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So this politician is second guessing the doctor because "it might have turned out that the doctor was wrong." In other words, doctors' expertise and judgement means nothing if someone with no medical training at all is able to say "but maybe everything will be fine."
As horrible as it is, I don't blame the doctors and hospitals for being scared to perform abortions under these laws. They're tailored to give the appearance of having "life of the mother" exceptions while allowing every case to be second guessed by anyone with zero medical expertise. And if a judge sides with the zero medical expertise individual, then the hospital/doctor could be on the hook for huge fines or even prison time.
All while women suffer and die because life saving treatment is being denied thanks to "we need to think of the fetus' potential life more than the woman's life."
I mean the US has been fine with letting insurance companies second guess doctor's decisions forever why not governments too.
This is disingenuous at best. While insurance companies may not offer to pay for "unnecessary" services, they also do not actively prevent doctors from doing them. Sure, someone might go bankrupt because of medical debt, but they aren't dying and no doctors are going to prison for doing what they think is in the best interest of the patient.
So what the government is doing here is more malicious than what insurance companies routinely do.
No they just actively decide not to pay for them which in America is basically the same as a denial of treatment. When people have to decide between paying for healthcare, meds, or food and shelter we have a problem.
Agreed. I had to get surgery last year that the insurance company initially didn't want to pay for. Before that got settled, the hospital said it would be $15,000 with half as a down payment.
I don't know... The federal government has a whole page to help with appealing insurance claim denials and if ProPublica has taken an interest in the matter I won't put much faith in the insurance companies (I wouldn't anyways, but ya know)
Not to "no you" but this take is pretty disingenuous considering the high cost of health care, especially when you remove any negotiated rates that may bring it to a more reasonable number, but granting that there may be some "cash discount" rate as well.
Regardless, it's theoretically possible but practically speaking it still blocks treatment for many.
A fetus developing without a skull turning out better than expected is a totally reasonable argument. Just lookt at half the members of the republican party and where they are now. No brains needed!
This is the problem with non-medical personnel making broad strokes medical decisions. Lives can and will be lost.
Giving unqualified people unilateral power to inflict violence is the fundamental underpinning of the American conservative movement, but you'll notice that people are only ever empowered to make a decision the GOP agrees with. Any idiot off the street can declare an abortion to be not medically necessary, but an entire conference room full of doctors isn't considered enough to delcare one necessary. Anyone can declare a book inappropriate, but if the vote is 99 to 1 in favor of the book being appropriate the 1 wins and the book is banned. Anyone can declare an election illegitimate, and if someone does then no amount of evidence of legitimacy is enough to settle the matter and any "evidence", no matter matter how spurious the evidence or unreliable the person delivering it, is taken as absolute proof. In this way they can convince their base that they're fighting for freedom, but they're really only fighting for their own freedom and if anyone uses that freedom incorrectly they will inflict violence on them.