Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet if you're a couple of child-bearing age, do you want to live anywhere where laws might actually restrict a physician's willingness or even ability to discuss abortion options, perhaps to save a mother's life, let alone to perform those procedures?
This article says Ohio permits abortions to save the mother's life.
Furthermore, Ohio's attorney general said the same thing in an interview and added the 10-year-old girl recently in the news didn't have to go to Indiana for an abortion. I've never heard of any law or anyone's personal position that a pregnant woman should go down with the ship, so to speak.
Even if I were young enough to have any skin in the game, abortion laws wouldn't figure into where I chose to live.
Furthermore, Ohio's attorney general said the same thing in an interview and added the 10-year-old girl recently in the news didn't have to go to Indiana for an abortion. I've never heard of any law or anyone's personal position that a pregnant woman should go down with the ship, so to speak.
Even if I were young enough to have any skin in the game, abortion laws wouldn't figure into where I chose to live.
Right, and the article also says: <<What constitutes a medical emergency is not clear and left to "the physician's reasonable medical judgment.">>
If the Republicans want to give the physician full discretion to make this determination, why not remove the "reasonable medical judgment" provision and replace it with "sole judgement and determination of the physician?"
What OB-GYN wants to run the risk that some ideologue prosecutor, perhaps encouraged by a spouse or boyfriend, will challenge the physician's determination, perhaps threatening the loss of the physician's license or worse?
Most disturbingly, the law says, according to the article, that "There are no exceptions for cases of rape and incest or fatal fetal anomalies."
So the mother is being forced to carry a child to term, with the always present danger to the mother's health and MENTAL WELL-BEING, even if the conception of the child was under traumatic circumstances, or if the baby will be severely deformed and/or result in a financial and physical burden that will subsequently impact the mother's health and mental well-being.
Many OB-GYNs will not want to practice in a state with Big Brother looking over their shoulder compromising the level of care that they have been trained to provide to women, so a consequent resulting shortage of OB-GYNs may compromise the health of all women in Ohio.
As for Attorney General Dave Yost and whether a young girl is entitled to an abortion in Ohio, see this thread, especially post 2.
If Yost and Republicans believe that a child of any given age should always be entitled to an abortion, why not amend Ohio's abortion laws to explicitly state the exception for children of a certain age or younger?
Ohio physicians believe that Yost misrepresents the provisions of Ohio's abortion laws regarding the right of a minor to an abortion.
<< Docs dispute AG’s claim that Ohio law allows 10-year-olds to get abortions
One instance under which the law says abortions are allowed after six weeks is if there’s a “medically diagnosed condition that so complicates the pregnancy of the woman as to directly or indirectly cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
That sheds little light on how old mothers have to be under the law to face such risks, said Jason Sayat, a Columbus OB-GYN.
“It states specifically ‘medically diagnosed condition’ and as far as I can tell, adolescent pregnancy is not a medically diagnosed condition that’s listed,” he said.
Maria Phillis, a Northeast Ohio OB-GYN who is also a council chair with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, explained that the law makes two types of exceptions for the health of the mother.
One is an emergency: an imminent threat of death or severe, lasting health problems for the mother. Phillis said such a situation could include “somebody who’s imminently bleeding out on the table, or having a stroke or cardiac arrest — things that are like, imminently if I don’t do something right now, somebody’s going to suffer death or severe consequences.”
The other exception is if there’s a medically diagnosed condition that can “cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
Both Phillis and Sayat said such a situation can arise with very young mothers — and with a lot older ones, too.
“Pregnancy itself overall is a risk for anyone who enters it,” Phillis said. “It completely alters the broad physiology of the body. It alters the heart function… It alters kidney function. It alters a number of different body systems and folks that have preexisting disease or complications are at a higher risk of bad outcomes.”
The youngest mothers are at higher risk for early births, restricted fetal growth, and a condition known as preeclampsia. They’re also at higher risk for postpartum depression — although the Ohio law expressly says it “does not include (an exception for) a condition related to the woman’s mental health.” [emphasis added]>>
The reality is that any pregnancy can "cause the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function," such as a women's subsequent ability to bear children. So are all abortions legal by this standard?
Ohio's current abortion law clearly was drafted by men who are ideologues and/or partisan politicians lacking in medical expertise. These legislators also have a transparent lack of concern about a woman's, let alone a pregnant child's, mental well-being with all of the physical risks associated with an impaired mental well-being, not only to the mother, but also to the mother's children.
The Ohio law totally disregards financial well-being, and impaired financial well-being can result in negative physical consequences during and after pregnancy.
Ohio's Republicans are pitting themselves against Ohio physicians as well as women of child-bearing age who don't share their ideology.
<<Over 1,100 doctors have joined together to form a new organization, Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, dedicated to championing the reproductive freedom of their patients....
“It has become painfully clear that women are now losing bodily autonomy, basic human rights, and access to life saving medical care,” the letter states, calling the ban a violation of “the sanctity and privacy of the patient-physician relationship.” [emphasis added]>>
Nobody cares where you choose to live. The concern is where well-educated, intelligent women of child-bearing age who don't believe in the anti-abortion ideology are willing to live. It's hard to comprehend why they would choose to live in Ohio under its current regime unless it was a choice of last resort. Without these women, and their spouses and children, Ohio will become a lesser, more unpleasant society, with an impaired economy.
<<As a group of conservative states enacted severe abortion restrictions last year, Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois sent letters to a handful of corporate executives with close ties to Texas.
Mr. Pritzker, a Democrat, urged executives to rethink basing their companies in “a state that strips its residents of their dignity.” Most workers, he wrote, did not want to live under a rigid abortion ban....
And a Supreme Court decision that abolished the right to an abortion is now threatening to reshape the lines of economic competition between conservative and liberal states.
For companies anchored in economically vibrant conservative states like Texas, Tennessee and Georgia, the rollback of women’s rights is no longer a hypothetical scenario but an immediate challenge. It represents a potential disruption to the calculus that has made Republican-led Sun Belt states a draw for big companies, which have tended to embrace the reduced taxes and regulations while treating local social policy as something of a sideshow.>>
When I think of the women professionals who have been and are integral to my well-being, and to Ohio's social and economic well-being, my contempt is manifest for politicians and their supporters who have turned Ohio into a hostile and threatening environment for these women and women in general.
E.g., Ohio already has a shortage of nurses, with serious ramifications. IF young, women nurses view Ohio as an unfriendly environment, resolving this nurse shortage may be much more difficult.
<<Today, University Hospitals has more unfilled caregiver positions than at any time in its156-year history. There are currently more than 3,000 job openings system-wide including about 900 bedside nurses....
While UH can absorb employees at other facilities and distance to other hospitals is less than ten miles, that is not the case in many areas of Ohio where hospital care is dwindling.>>
Furthermore, Ohio's attorney general said the same thing in an interview and added the 10-year-old girl recently in the news didn't have to go to Indiana for an abortion. I've never heard of any law or anyone's personal position that a pregnant woman should go down with the ship, so to speak.
Even if I were young enough to have any skin in the game, abortion laws wouldn't figure into where I chose to live.
Anticipating the objection to a lengthy, in-depth, documented discussion of Ohio's anti-abortion laws, here's a response for simpletons.
Gerrymandered Republican legislators with the encouragement of Gov. Mike DeWine and Attorney General Dave Yost have enacted anti-abortion restrictions abhorrent to a large minority, if not the majority of Ohioans. Expressing a holier-than-thou mentality, these Republicans have imposed their ideology on non-believers, depriving women of the right to control their bodies and of couples of the right to make unencumbered reproduction decisions.
Even pregnant minors are denied abortion rights, despite the often illegal, traumatic circumstances of their pregnancies, and the inherent physical and mental risks of any pregnancy, worsened by the youth and immaturity of pregnant minors.
Especially many well-educated, intelligent women of child-bearing age and young couples will choose not to live under the authority of such politicians whom they perceive as jackasses, to the detriment of Ohio society and its economic well-being.
Especially many well-educated, intelligent women of child-bearing age ...
Well, that was me not too long ago. Wouldn't have made a difference in my move to Indiana, which was mostly driven by economic considerations and cemented by the state's comparatively sane actions over the past few years. If it's a decision between choice on abortion vs. choice on everything else, I'll take choice on everything else.
Well, that was me not too long ago. Wouldn't have made a difference in my move to Indiana, which was mostly driven by economic considerations and cemented by the state's comparatively sane actions over the past few years. If it's a decision between choice on abortion vs. choice on everything else, I'll take choice on everything else.
Unfortunately for Ohio, it's unlikely that the majority of intelligent, well-educated young women share yor priorities.
BTW, what are examples of "choice on everything else" that are so excellent in Indiana relative to Ohio or other states?
Unfortunately for Ohio, it's unlikely that the majority of intelligent, well-educated young women share yor priorities.
I've yet to hear anyone here on CD or IRL mention abortion when choosing a place to live. People typically move where the work or family is or for good schools or other quality of life issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative
BTW, what are examples of "choice on everything else" that are so excellent in Indiana relative to Ohio or other states?
I'm part of an online group where we take responsibility for our health. To that end, we need lab tests, all of which you can order yourself here in freewheeling Indiana. But some members--particularly in New York and New England--have to go to other states to get them if their doctor refuses to order them, which is common. If I were still of reproductive age, going out of state for lab tests a few times a year (or spending months or years searching for an enlightened doctor) would be far more burdensome than the possibility of having to travel for what would hopefully be a once-in-a-lifetime need for an abortion.
I'd say the same about Democrats. They're all about as evil as you can get. If you're going to use a blanket statement at least do it accurately.
Wrong...we Dems are trying to make a better country for all. Not trying to impose tyranny on women and their bodies, or force LGBT Americans back in the closet, or continuing to ruin our planet by ignoring climate change.
[QUOTE=sheerbliss;63815506]I've yet to hear anyone here on CD or IRL mention abortion when choosing a place to live. People typically move where the work or family is or for good schools or other quality of life issues.
I'm part of an online group where we take responsibility for our health. To that end, we need lab tests, all of which you can order yourself here in freewheeling Indiana. But some members--particularly in New York and New England--have to go to other states to get them if their doctor refuses to order them, which is common. If I were still of reproductive age, going out of state for lab tests a few times a year (or spending months or years searching for an enlightened doctor) would be far more burdensome than the possibility of having to travel for what would hopefully be a once-in-a-lifetime need for an abortion.
The Institute for Justice ranks Indiana as having some of the least burdensome regulations in the License to Work report.[/quote]
The reason for that was abortion was protected nationwide until this activist rogue court overturned 50+ years of precedence protecting a woman's right to decide the best way to take care of her own reproductive health. I guarantee it will become more of an issue in the coming years.
Wrong...we Dems are trying to make a better country for all. Not trying to impose tyranny on women and their bodies, or force LGBT Americans back in the closet, or continuing to ruin our planet by ignoring climate change.
Your statement is far too broad. I'm not standing up for all the decisions Republicans have made but there's a wide variety (spectrum, belief wise) of democrats out there. To say they all have America's best interests in mind is a bit short sighted. I don't want the government forcing me to take a vaccine I don't want in my body so I can understand women who don't want their healthcare decisions being usurped by the government. At the same time there are other decisions the democrats would gladly make for climate change that would impact the average American in a significant detrimental way. The dem's like to tote the idea of bodily autonomy... but then also support "big government" and making people reliant on the government. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to be reliant on the government then sooner or later they will make your healthcare decisions for you.
OK. Abortion ban aside, let's discuss how Republican politicians have been going against voters' demands for the better part of a year now, continually refusing to create a congressional map that isn't gerrymandered heavily in their favor. Why hasn't the state Supreme Court held them in contempt by now? https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/...ry/9359835002/
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
