The article references the new law, but the reality of the situation is that the mother would be in the same predicament under the law as it stood a year ago or two years ago.
Her baby has a deadly diagnosis. Her Florida doctors refused an abortion.
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
The old law banned abortions at 24 weeks. She was 23 weeks before doctors discovered the baby’s condition. And it was the day before the 4-day Thanksgiving weekend. If the hospital is this skittish about the new law then I find it difficult to believe they would have had time to perform the surgery before the 24-week limit.
It's 15 weeks with exceptions. The exceptions are were legal issues come into play. This isn't difficult.
PLEASE READ AGAIN:
Neither Dorbert’s obstetrician nor the maternal fetal medicine specialist she consulted responded to multiple requests for comment.
A spokesman for Lakeland Regional Health, the hospital system the doctors are affiliated with, declined to discuss Dorbert’s case or how it is interpreting the new law. In an emailed statement, Tim Boynton, the spokesman, said, “Lakeland Regional Health complies with all laws in the state of Florida.”
The combination of a narrow exception to the law and harsh penalties for violating it terrifies physicians, according to Autumn Katz, interim director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, who has been tracking the implementation of abortion bans across the country.
Florida physicians who violate the new law face penalties including the possibility of losing their licenses, steep fines and up to five years in prison. As a result, Katz said, they “are likely to err on the side of questioning whether the conditions are fully met.”
Deborah Dorbert, right, and her husband, Lee, have dinner with their son, Kaiden, at their home in Lakeland, Fla. (Thomas Simonetti for The Washington Post)
I feel like you’re not paying attention here. It’s not like they discovered this condition at 9 weeks. She was already up against the previous limit and would have faced tight restrictions even under the old law.
That's not what the article implies. Edit: You can provide a link of the previous restrictions as I never saw them mentioned in the OP.
You're a clown.
As I said, best case scenario was aborting the fetus when the diagnosis was rendered.
Knowing that you won't accept that truth I will simply reference this and then allow you to do your TJ thing.
So why do you think they chose not to terminate the pregnancy? What was their motivation?
Holy shit, you are one obstinate dumbass.
Maybe this will be simple enough for you to comprehend - what is the longest amount of time this baby could live outside the womb?
How the heck would any of us know that? The prognosis per the article is not long, but that’s hardly a guarantee.
Lol. Do you even know what the word ‘tangent’ means?
The article stated that the baby’s fate is a medical certainty. Based on the baby’s inescapable destiny, I surmised that the circumstances clearly qualify for an exception to the 15-week ban.
Riley then countered that the baby’s fate is a matter of opinion. So I asked him what is the longest the baby could possibly live.
But Riley is being Extra Riley and refuses to answer the question.
Yep. Not defending Riley on this one. You still can't grasp the exception part yet.
What am I failing to grasp? Was it easier to get an exception for a non-viable pregnancy two years ago?
We all die. Technically you have a fatal disease called life. See what I can argue under the ridiculous vagueness of this law. It's what plaques all these republican abortion and trans laws. Vague language. It's intentional. Win here for the cons by creating hesitation on the part of doctors doing their job.
Seriously. The previous restrictions weren't in the article. Can you please provide me a link? Also, was there the current amount of legal pressure on physicians/systems under the previous restrictions?
My guess, 100 years. Who knows, maybe 200 years with new technology. It's completely unknown for certain. That's why they won't perform the procedure expediently.
You are a dumbass. That question is OPEN TO OPINION. JFC.
Both articles posted on this board - one by Ciggy and one by Flick - make it quite clear that it’s a medical fact the baby cannot live more than a few hours outside the womb.
And yet here you are, insisting it’s a matter of opinion and speculating that the baby could live a hundred years or more.
Something doesn’t jibe here.
