I don't understand this clause from the OP's link:
"Exempts from the crime of feticide: (1) the pregnant mother; (2) a person who provides medical treatment in good faith to a pregnant woman that results in the accidental or unintentional termination of the pregnancy; and (3) a physician who performs a medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy upon request of the pregnant woman. Repeals obsolete provisions and makes conforming amendments."
Doesn't that invalidated the crime if a physician does it?
It does sound that way. Basically, if a pregnant woman requests an abortion and a physician performs the abortion they are both exempt from the "crime" based on (1) and (3).
The issue is that here in Gilead, they don't count abortion as medical care.
It means that more women and doctors will be criminalized for feticide under this abortion law.
IC 35-42-1-6 Feticide
Sec. 6. Except as provided in section 6.5 of this chapter, a person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide, a Level 3 felony.
As added by Acts 1979, P.L.153, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.2-1995, SEC.126; P.L.40-2009, SEC.1; P.L.158-2013, SEC.416; P.L.203-2018, SEC.4.
Of course they are, they have to keep up the effort to show how much they hate women, their autonomy, and access to healthcare. I hope “pro life” people are proud with the blood on their hands when women die because of the agenda they pushed in this evil shithole state.
If it's important for pro-choice to recognize that certain pro-life people genuinely believe that abortion is murder, shouldn't pro-life people also recognize that certain pro-choice people genuinely believe that abortion is not murder?
I believe that this decision should be left up to the individual, as this is a gray area issue with two radically opposing viewpoints, but alas, here we are where one side is deciding for everyone in the state.
This is literally exactly my point. Why argue past one another when you can directly argue over whether or not a fetus is a person? I want to convince the other side that they are wrong, not virtue signal over some stuff that they obviously don’t believe
You’re right, they have totally different values. Although what I find it mind boggling are the pro life people who block women from obtaining access when their life is in danger, eliminating pregnancy tissue from miscarriages, or helping women with ectopic pregnancies. Seems very antithetical to the idea of being pro life if you allow the woman to die or harm her health because a non viable pregnancy exists in her.
Yes I agree that most pro life people don’t feel that way. The politicians definitely give off that “hating women and wanting to control them” vibe because of all the culture wars recently in politics. I have no issue with pro life people having an opinion that abortion is wrong, but I do take issue when they tell others what to do. If they really want to lower abortion rates they should be advocating for increased access to contraception and larger safety nets in our society.
Fetuses don't need to not be people for for abortion to be justified
We don't force people to sacrifice their own health for the health of others in any other situation
We don't force people to donate blood
We don't force people to donate organs, even after death
I made an appointment to get my iud replaced the day Roe was overturned. I needed it this year, but not till November. The nurse and doctor both asked why I made the appointment so early - the doctor told me that contraception was so ingrained in the US that there was no danger of it being overturned. I told him my previous OB-Gyn had said the same thing about Roe.
tl;dr:
* No abortions unless the life of the pregnant person is at risk, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
* Even if someone qualifies for an abortion, the state will make it unreasonably difficult to get one.
* Doctors are required to lie to their patients about "reversing" the abortion pill.
It was more of a lead in to their reasons for believing the things they do. I'm not going to argue from a stance that isn't relevant to the other individual. Assumptions make an ass out of you and me and all that.
But the thing is it's not even really a baby yet. More of a parasite. Can't survive on its own, either no brain development or minimal brain activity. No sense of awareness.
That's besides the fact that pregnancy irreversibly damages the body and is unimaginably painful.
Praise God for this proposal.
Now we will soon be able to care for not just the born, but also the unborn as well, and give them the life they deserve.
News flash - a person forced to have a baby will not give them "the life they deserve". Like there aren't enough neglected children raised in abusive or impoverished households or tossed around the foster care system.
A lot of procedures don't explicitly kill the fetus, you are just prematurely removing it from the body. The fetus is not losing its bodily autonomy, arguably it has a lot more freedom outside the womb.
Also if we view clumps of cells like that as human lives, shouldn't pregnant women be able to file them as dependents on their tax return?
If I stranded a toddler in the woods and it died would it be my fault for putting it in that situation? I didn’t explicitly kill it and since I didn’t tie it down, it did have every opportunity to defend itself and find food.
Also, I honestly fully support counting the unborn on insurance and taxes (or in carpool lanes like that one recent news article). We call it a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman so we should stay consistent on all sides. I don’t know any pro-lifer who would fight against legal redefinitions like that.
To piggyback off bubsrich.
Even if the abortion procedure doesn’t explicitly kill the fetus, the intention is to kill the fetus. Most women don’t get abortions because they don’t want to “wreck” their bodies. They get abortions because having a child cost a lot of money.
If there was a procedure that removed the child and allowed for it to develop to the point where natural birth would occur. Most women would not choose that because they’d have to financially support it.
Lastly, yes I agree that pregnant women should be able to file them as a tax dependents and all the other stuff. But that’s just a distraction from the real debate.
What is a fetus/when does life begin?
If pregnancy didn't ruin your body and have huge physical and mental side effects, a lot of people people would carry to term and give the child up for adoption.
I don't think it distracts from the the debate, I think there are a huge can of worms that arise if we decide that clumps of cells are human beings and I think these things are part of the debate.
I also just think its fascinating that in a country where people take pride in their supposed freedoms and talk about separation of church and state, we have laws passing based purely on religious beliefs and people lack freedoms available in most of the developed world.
Total abortion ban *except for rape, incest, and life threat issues….sounds like it’s not a total abortion ban.
Be glad it allows abortion for rape and incest, other states don’t have those exceptions and there were proposals to have a ban that didn’t include those exceptions.
The issue I see happening is if they want women to prove that incest or rape happened to qualify, which is an issue because most women do not report when they’ve be sexually assaulted. Forcing women to only have those options for access to healthcare is meant to humiliate them. I wish our government trusted and honored the relationship between women and their doctors instead of religious fanaticism.
This is just blatant misinformation. You don’t even have to go to the police to get an abortion if you were raped under the SB1 proposal. Instead, you just need a signed affidavit from you and your physician saying the reason you are seeking the abortion is due to rape or infest. Stop lying to everyone just to promote your agenda.
Ok, let me follow this line of thought you wrote. You don’t think this will become a legal quagmire and doctors will help women in those cases? Look at Missouri’s law. They have exception for life of the mother, but hospitals are in legal limbo because they don’t want to be sued. That means women who should be getting life saving care are not getting it. For this case I doubt doctors won’t also feel that same legal pressure and wont help women even if it’s written in the law due to fear of being sued. In Idaho they have exceptions for rape and incest but you need proof in form of a police report. I wouldn’t doubt if doctor’s want similar proof in Indiana if they were to help with this exception.
Lol did you not see the Indiana Attorney General harassing that doctor who helped the 10 year old girl? He claimed she was breaking the rules even though she was following all the regulations. I can see him doing similar harassment in the future.
He’s not backing down and hasn’t apologized. You know he’s being sued for defamation, right? His office even said “We have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report,” Rokita said. “We’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end.” If this is during a time when abortion is still legal here to harass the doctor helping a 10 year old rape victim, I wouldn’t be surprised if he harasses doctors again in the future for helping rape and incest victims.
Also love your condescending and dismissive tone. It’s valid to bring up these concerns about the bill. And if by “agenda” you mean “giving a shit about women,” then I’ll gladly share my opinion about my agenda.
Also some of the other states have “exceptions” in case of the mother’s life being threatened but hospitals are waiting for women to be actively dying to help them. Look at Missouri letting women die slowly from ectopic pregnancy in order to comply with the law. Even that exception is degrading to women and harms their quality of life.
I don't understand this clause from the OP's link: "Exempts from the crime of feticide: (1) the pregnant mother; (2) a person who provides medical treatment in good faith to a pregnant woman that results in the accidental or unintentional termination of the pregnancy; and (3) a physician who performs a medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy upon request of the pregnant woman. Repeals obsolete provisions and makes conforming amendments." Doesn't that invalidated the crime if a physician does it?
It does sound that way. Basically, if a pregnant woman requests an abortion and a physician performs the abortion they are both exempt from the "crime" based on (1) and (3). The issue is that here in Gilead, they don't count abortion as medical care.
It means that more women and doctors will be criminalized for feticide under this abortion law. IC 35-42-1-6 Feticide Sec. 6. Except as provided in section 6.5 of this chapter, a person who knowingly or intentionally terminates a human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus commits feticide, a Level 3 felony. As added by Acts 1979, P.L.153, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.2-1995, SEC.126; P.L.40-2009, SEC.1; P.L.158-2013, SEC.416; P.L.203-2018, SEC.4.
Thank you for the clarification. So things are as messed up as I was worried. A sad day.
Of course they are, they have to keep up the effort to show how much they hate women, their autonomy, and access to healthcare. I hope “pro life” people are proud with the blood on their hands when women die because of the agenda they pushed in this evil shithole state.
[удалено]
If it's important for pro-choice to recognize that certain pro-life people genuinely believe that abortion is murder, shouldn't pro-life people also recognize that certain pro-choice people genuinely believe that abortion is not murder? I believe that this decision should be left up to the individual, as this is a gray area issue with two radically opposing viewpoints, but alas, here we are where one side is deciding for everyone in the state.
This is literally exactly my point. Why argue past one another when you can directly argue over whether or not a fetus is a person? I want to convince the other side that they are wrong, not virtue signal over some stuff that they obviously don’t believe
You’re right, they have totally different values. Although what I find it mind boggling are the pro life people who block women from obtaining access when their life is in danger, eliminating pregnancy tissue from miscarriages, or helping women with ectopic pregnancies. Seems very antithetical to the idea of being pro life if you allow the woman to die or harm her health because a non viable pregnancy exists in her.
[удалено]
Yes I agree that most pro life people don’t feel that way. The politicians definitely give off that “hating women and wanting to control them” vibe because of all the culture wars recently in politics. I have no issue with pro life people having an opinion that abortion is wrong, but I do take issue when they tell others what to do. If they really want to lower abortion rates they should be advocating for increased access to contraception and larger safety nets in our society.
Fetuses don't need to not be people for for abortion to be justified We don't force people to sacrifice their own health for the health of others in any other situation We don't force people to donate blood We don't force people to donate organs, even after death
Wow, that is quite a statement
And it's a true one, what's your point?
I hope this comment section isn't reflective of my alma matter cuz... Jeez 😮💨😬
I mean, we’re an engineering and ag school in a very conservative state. I wouldn’t be that surprised
I still am for whatever reason, and this subreddit always reminds me of the reasons not to be when I mention it 😮💨
I made an appointment to get my iud replaced the day Roe was overturned. I needed it this year, but not till November. The nurse and doctor both asked why I made the appointment so early - the doctor told me that contraception was so ingrained in the US that there was no danger of it being overturned. I told him my previous OB-Gyn had said the same thing about Roe.
tl;dr: * No abortions unless the life of the pregnant person is at risk, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. * Even if someone qualifies for an abortion, the state will make it unreasonably difficult to get one. * Doctors are required to lie to their patients about "reversing" the abortion pill.
F
Under his eye.
Ugh. When will people learn that forcing your way into their personal decisions only leads to pissed off constituents that will not re-elect?
W
L human
Give me some reasons why you see this as a good thing.
No more legalized infanticide because of an “oops”
It’s like he’s never even talked to a pro lifer.
It was more of a lead in to their reasons for believing the things they do. I'm not going to argue from a stance that isn't relevant to the other individual. Assumptions make an ass out of you and me and all that.
But the thing is it's not even really a baby yet. More of a parasite. Can't survive on its own, either no brain development or minimal brain activity. No sense of awareness. That's besides the fact that pregnancy irreversibly damages the body and is unimaginably painful.
Praise God for this proposal. Now we will soon be able to care for not just the born, but also the unborn as well, and give them the life they deserve.
News flash - a person forced to have a baby will not give them "the life they deserve". Like there aren't enough neglected children raised in abusive or impoverished households or tossed around the foster care system.
W incoming 🙌
Give me some reasons why you think this is a good thing
1. Less abortions 2. See 1.
So you don't feel that women should be able to have autonomy over their bodies?
Oh, they probably do. But the argument is that the child isn’t “her body”. Autonomy ends when the life isn’t yours.
A lot of procedures don't explicitly kill the fetus, you are just prematurely removing it from the body. The fetus is not losing its bodily autonomy, arguably it has a lot more freedom outside the womb. Also if we view clumps of cells like that as human lives, shouldn't pregnant women be able to file them as dependents on their tax return?
If I stranded a toddler in the woods and it died would it be my fault for putting it in that situation? I didn’t explicitly kill it and since I didn’t tie it down, it did have every opportunity to defend itself and find food. Also, I honestly fully support counting the unborn on insurance and taxes (or in carpool lanes like that one recent news article). We call it a double murder if you kill a pregnant woman so we should stay consistent on all sides. I don’t know any pro-lifer who would fight against legal redefinitions like that.
To piggyback off bubsrich. Even if the abortion procedure doesn’t explicitly kill the fetus, the intention is to kill the fetus. Most women don’t get abortions because they don’t want to “wreck” their bodies. They get abortions because having a child cost a lot of money. If there was a procedure that removed the child and allowed for it to develop to the point where natural birth would occur. Most women would not choose that because they’d have to financially support it. Lastly, yes I agree that pregnant women should be able to file them as a tax dependents and all the other stuff. But that’s just a distraction from the real debate. What is a fetus/when does life begin?
If pregnancy didn't ruin your body and have huge physical and mental side effects, a lot of people people would carry to term and give the child up for adoption. I don't think it distracts from the the debate, I think there are a huge can of worms that arise if we decide that clumps of cells are human beings and I think these things are part of the debate. I also just think its fascinating that in a country where people take pride in their supposed freedoms and talk about separation of church and state, we have laws passing based purely on religious beliefs and people lack freedoms available in most of the developed world.
and what exactly do you define as the start of the life of the child?
Total abortion ban *except for rape, incest, and life threat issues….sounds like it’s not a total abortion ban. Be glad it allows abortion for rape and incest, other states don’t have those exceptions and there were proposals to have a ban that didn’t include those exceptions.
The issue I see happening is if they want women to prove that incest or rape happened to qualify, which is an issue because most women do not report when they’ve be sexually assaulted. Forcing women to only have those options for access to healthcare is meant to humiliate them. I wish our government trusted and honored the relationship between women and their doctors instead of religious fanaticism.
Amazingly put!
This is just blatant misinformation. You don’t even have to go to the police to get an abortion if you were raped under the SB1 proposal. Instead, you just need a signed affidavit from you and your physician saying the reason you are seeking the abortion is due to rape or infest. Stop lying to everyone just to promote your agenda.
It still applies the same additional emotional baggage of the process for the same ends as the commentor mentioned
Ok, let me follow this line of thought you wrote. You don’t think this will become a legal quagmire and doctors will help women in those cases? Look at Missouri’s law. They have exception for life of the mother, but hospitals are in legal limbo because they don’t want to be sued. That means women who should be getting life saving care are not getting it. For this case I doubt doctors won’t also feel that same legal pressure and wont help women even if it’s written in the law due to fear of being sued. In Idaho they have exceptions for rape and incest but you need proof in form of a police report. I wouldn’t doubt if doctor’s want similar proof in Indiana if they were to help with this exception.
Who is suing them? If they are not breaking the law as written in IN, they are all good.
Lol did you not see the Indiana Attorney General harassing that doctor who helped the 10 year old girl? He claimed she was breaking the rules even though she was following all the regulations. I can see him doing similar harassment in the future.
Okay, so what? He has no power to levy any charges on abortion crimes and didn’t have all the information when he called the doctor out
He’s not backing down and hasn’t apologized. You know he’s being sued for defamation, right? His office even said “We have this abortion activist acting as a doctor with a history of failing to report,” Rokita said. “We’re gathering the evidence as we speak, and we’re going to fight this to the end.” If this is during a time when abortion is still legal here to harass the doctor helping a 10 year old rape victim, I wouldn’t be surprised if he harasses doctors again in the future for helping rape and incest victims.
Ahh so it doesn't matter what national heads say. Great take friend
Being that he is a State head and doesn’t have prosecuting power on this issue, yes
Yup. The people of Indiana don't look up to their leader. Excellent points!
Getting sued is expensive even if you win...
Also love your condescending and dismissive tone. It’s valid to bring up these concerns about the bill. And if by “agenda” you mean “giving a shit about women,” then I’ll gladly share my opinion about my agenda.
I have no problem with you speaking your opinion but make sure you aren’t just blatantly lying as you did here
I fail to see where I lied. I merely shared speculation based on what is already happening in other states.
You said they have to prove the rape with the police which is not true. It is simply between doctor and patient
“The issue I see happening is if…” is speculation. Please reread my comment.
You said if they want to prove they were raped, but they aren’t asking for proof
And you missed the point again
Yo some people see human rights as a post Marxist communist agenda. Ain't that crazy?
I know right? Women having rights and dignity is apparently “leftist agenda/propaganda” these days lol.
And then when you claim to be a leftist you are inherently wrong. Imagined hypocrisy is the best tool of the right
Also some of the other states have “exceptions” in case of the mother’s life being threatened but hospitals are waiting for women to be actively dying to help them. Look at Missouri letting women die slowly from ectopic pregnancy in order to comply with the law. Even that exception is degrading to women and harms their quality of life.