Just like slavery, the democrats always view human rights in terms of whatever suits them, to the detriment of the voiceless underclass they have convinced themselves are sub-human.
What, so you believe in big government social programs so that means you support the underclass? Leaving aside the failure based on statistics that has been, let’s talk about how often you argue poor people would be better off aborted. Makes sense; Margaret Sanger openly courted the KKK and believed abortion could be used to kill off the poor and blacks.
Bridgette, your position is so ridiculous it’s comical. You can’t actually believe any of the crap you type, and if you actually do, it raises serious questions as to how on earth you managed to obtain a Juris Doctor and pass the bar exam.
Really? I have to have a “fantastical view” to believe that late term abortions are a problem? Your view is astounding for multiple reasons, up to and including the fact that you are not actually refuting the factual claim that the language in the Amendment does in fact allow abortions up to birth based on the intentionally flimsy standard of being in the interest of the mental health of the mother, based upon the “good faith judgment” of the abortionist. However that fact only scratches the surface of your ignorance. Basically, you are saying we don’t need to ban late term abortions because they aren’t happening all that often. Bridget, I don’t give a damn if it’s one. It’s a barbaric atrocity and the law shouldn’t protect the barbarians who are willing to commit such a horrific act. Second, this is basically like saying we don’t need to have laws punishing murder because most people are capable of discerning right and wrong. I suppose the time spent studying criminal law was a waste of time because, well, most people should know not to rape and murder so we don’t need the laws to specifically prohibit those activities.
Third, if this is really your position, why won’t you run on it? Why won’t your side define for us, in terms of weeks, when abortion should not be legal? After all, if nobody is having late term abortions, why should you care, especially if placing an objective limit in the statute would moderate your position? We all know why. The abortion lobby wants abortion up to the moment of birth but won’t run on that position because it’s not popular and frankly, morally despicable. Instead the abortion lobby drafted this amendment to falsely lead voters to believe that “viability” is an objective standard of demarcation, gaslighting Missourians who point out that the excepting language that would allow post-viability abortions if they are determined to be, in the “reasonable judgment” of physicians, to be necessary to protect the “mental health” of the mother.
You keep focusing on this dubious instance where you claim a woman is forced to dangerously carry an abortion to term to the point her health is in jeopardy. Again, I’m calling B.S. on you. Again, you claim you have a law degree. Have you ever read chapter 188? Explain to me, why is it that the statutory language providing exceptions for the health of the mother which are supposedly not sufficient now, were not problematic under other existing Missouri statutes providing similar limitations, including, but not limited to, the ban on abortions after viability (Section 188.030, RSMo), the ban on partial birth abortions, etc.? The answer is, because you’re lying. Women are not, nor have they been, dying on the streets and the trigger law certainly hasn’t increased the risk from what it has been. You run on these outlandish and false claims because you see no value in an unborn child until the moment it emerges from the birth canal. Moreover, we know this is not a problem because we have federal laws on the books that require doctors to perform abortions in such cases and as you know, federal law preempts any state law, even the Missouri constitution. Finally, I ask you this- if you and your fellow abortion lobbyists really believed these things were at issue, why wouldn’t you instead be working with Republicans in the general assembly to fix the deficiencies?
Make all the claims you want about the evil of republicans wanting to control women, or whatever drivel you tell yourself at night, but you know full well that no Republican or democrat in this state wants to put women’s lives at risk (including ones who, as you say, want to keep their babies), or to prevent anyone from getting care in the case of a miscarriage (another outrageous and false claim your side makes). If you thought these were a problem, you would try to correct the deficiencies. Instead you’re playing politics to obfuscate the truth about your positions.
- I am not hiding anything. I would be fine with no gestational limit, but I didn't write the Amendment. The reason I think gestational limits are unnecessary and harmful is that women who don't want to be pregnant want early abortions so gestational limits only end up hurting people who have complications far into wanted pregnancies. THIS HAPPENED TO ME. As explained in the article that I linked, I was under pressure to abort one twin fetus to save the other before 24 weeks, even though how severe the anomaly was could not be known at that point. You can keep calling me a "babykiller" but I was able to save my babies because I'm unusually knowledgeable and privileged, so I could plan to get a later abortion in another state.
-The Missouri statute does not actually have a health exception. It has what is called an "affirmative defense." That means ALL abortion is illegal, but when prosecuted a doctor can argue the abortion was justified. How many doctors are going to take the risk of being prosecuted rather than delaying treatment until there is no fetal heartbeat? Some, but not most. These delays and the harm they cause have been reported repeatedly. You can deny it, but the fact is it is happening and it was completely predictable. Bad miscarriage care is just a worthwhile tradeoff for you if you get to stop women from choosing abortions.
-The legislature has refused to fix anything about the statute. They have been perfectly clear that they don't care whether the so-called medical exception works or not.
No, this is the game the abortion lobby plays. You want to use the extreme cases, which are the minority of cases and then extrapolate to defend all abortions. It’s the same game they have played for 50 years and I have no doubt they will keep playing it. It never ceases to amaze me how the same crowd that rails against tort reform laws suddenly becomes wildly pro-physician when it comes to this issue. You want me to believe that doctors aren’t willing to make these judgments over fear of prosecution, yet this is precisely what they do every single day when making judgment calls based on what they believe the appropriate standard of care is, all of which are facts and circumstances determinations. Even assuming this were true, you honestly think there’s a prosecutor in this state who would bring charges under the circumstances you describe? That’s really realistic to you? Finally, how does a risk averse physician deny an abortion over fear of state prosecution but, at the same time is apparently willing to violate EMTALA (a federal law that preempts all state law)?
The bulk of the legal liability points to delaying care. The MO hospital was already found to have violated EMTALA. They got a warning, I don't think even a fine. It is slap on the wrist administrative something from the feds vs. prison or loss of medical license.
Yes, I absolutely think there are prosecutors who would go after a doctor. Plus, Bailey has concurrent jurisdiction. I think they are on their best behavior because of the A3 vote. Look at Texas.
Were you calling Mylissa Farmer a hired gun? The woman turned away by 2 hospitals while miscarrying?
With a little research, seems your hired gun has filed a lawsuit in the abortion haven of Kansas. What, my friend does that have to do with Missouri and its laws? I have heard her lawsuit against Freeman in Joplin was tossed.
I didn’t ask if they would go after a doctor. I asked, specifically, assuming the facts of that case are true, would a prosecutor go after a doctor? I think that is a stretch.
I ama Catholic who has done a lot of research on Amendment 3. I support keeping abortion legal through the first trimester. I know that late term abortions are extremely rare & for medical reasons. I believe late term abortion decisions should be between the woman & her doctor. So why am I going to vote against Amendment 3?
As currently written, Amendment 3 will not allow the state to put any restrictions on abortions before viability. I believe abortion has remained such a controversial subject for over 50 years because, like it or not, it involves a woman we can see & a child we cannot see and both are entitled to life. The way our country is going, I can envision women & the men in their lives having an abortion because the baby is not the sex they want or because the baby has Downs Syndrome or some other medical issue that will not prevent them from living a happy & productive life. These are the babies who need someone to speak on their behalf.
I am hoping Amendment 3 gets defeated so it's proponents will come back with an Amendment that permits the state to put some restrictions in place during the 2nd trimester which I believe is closer to what most people want.
Barbara, I invite you to reconsider because you have some misunderstandings about both the medical and political situations in Missouri.
First, consider why you have a view of women that makes you believe a cutoff is necessary. Why would you think that women are choosing to have abortions after the first trimester who could have had earlier ones? That is not the reality. People who do not want to be pregnant wish to have abortions as early as possible (this is obvious if you give it a minute of thought, but also documented in studies). Missouri’s abortion ban forces Missourians to have later abortions because they have to travel out of state. Since Dobbs, abortions are happening later in pregnancy because women in ban states like Missouri have to wait for appointments to become available at swamped clinics out-of-state, get time off work for travel, arrange childcare, and raise money for travel and the procedure. Abortion opponents vilify women for having later abortions, but make it impossible to have an early one. (This is why they are trying to make medication abortion unavailable across the country–medication has made it possible to end a pregnancy much earlier than was historically the case.)
If you think only early abortions are acceptable, you should support making early abortions available. In order to do that, you have to have robust protections like Amendment 3’s because our supermajority Republican legislature will continue to do all they can to make abortion unavailable at any stage of pregnancy.
A partial legalization of abortion like you suggest is not going to come from either this legislature or a future citizen-led amendment. Last session, our legislature was unwilling to even consider allowing children under 12 to have abortions. They have refused to clarify when a life-saving abortion is permitted despite the reports and lawsuits of miscarrying women being denied treatment. There is no chance they would allow abortions up to 12 weeks.
Your proposal of some future ballot initiative that would allow more limited access to abortion for those you consider deserving is also not realistic. Getting Amendment 3 on the ballot took a ridiculous amount of work and money from tons of organizations and volunteers, plus success in five lawsuits. It is not the kind of effort you can just repeat.
So it really is an all or nothing choice. You can choose the current regime in which abortion is illegal at 1 day gestation so women and girls either have to carry to term against their will or be punished with later abortions out of state or having to self-manage without local medical support, and women experiencing miscarriages are being sent out of state.
Or you can choose Amendment 3, which should (assuming winning another lawsuit) make early abortion available here and remove the legal risk that is causing hospitals to delay treatment for miscarriages. But don’t pretend there is a third option when there isn’t. You have to choose the ban or Amendment 3.
Admittedly, Amendment 3 prohibits the state from policing the decisions of pregnant women. But, again, why is your view of women so low that you think that policing is necessary? And why do you think the state is positioned to make a better decision than the person experiencing the specifics of the pregnancy? Even if maintaining the state’s ability to pick and choose who is deserving of an abortion is very important to you, is it so important to you that it is worth the ongoing harm to Missourians with pregnancy complications?
Thank you for your respectful response to my post. I understand getting this amendment on the ballot was difficult. I understand I live in a state controlled by vvery conservative Republicans. I don't have a low opinion of women or think they need. policing. I know what the statistics say. Abortion continues to be a contentious issue in this country because it involves 2 lives. Sadly, 1 side thinks only of the infant & the other only of the mother. I have throughly researched the amendment & have to vote how my conscience guides me.
Stop lying. Nobody has been denied miscarriage care.
(1) "Abortion":
(a) The act of using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or any other means or substance with the intent to destroy the life of an embryo or fetus in his or her mother's womb; or
(b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child;
Notice the language, “other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child. So, definitionally, the two things you claim are apparently no longer legal in Missouri (IVF and a D&C following a miscarriage) are specifically excepted from the definition of abortion in the statute. As I have said, this definitions section has been applied almost verbatim since the section was first enacted into law in back in 2007. Your argument (apparently) rests upon the change from “dead or dying unborn child” to “dead unborn child.” Not only is this a stretch, this change went into effect back in 2019, 4 years before the current ban went into effect. So, miscarriages were legal still in 2019 but not in 2022 onward?
For those who do not believe me, feel free to look at the statutory history:
- It is a fact that women are being denied miscarriage care until there is no fetal heartbeat, which is extremely dangerous and has killed people. This is because of how hospitals are interpreting the statute that you pasted, which only allows "removal of a dead unborn child." Mylissa Farmer is suing a Missouri hospital because she was. Doctors have said they are sending miscarrying patients to Kansas and Illinois. Pro Publica has a story today about a woman in Texas who died of sepsis because they delayed treatment until there was no fetal heartbeat. "Dead or dying unborn child" is an extremely meaningful difference. Why did they take out "or dying"?! And of course that was less of a problem when abortion was still legal in Missouri up to viability.
I am well aware of Trudy Busch’s hired gun. At best, the hospital misinterpreted the statute and violated federal law as well. Hence the lawsuit, unless you’re suggesting the hospital interpreted this reasonably. I also noted the change in the law. I agree that the deletion of the phrase is misleading. I wouldn’t have a problem reinstating it. Neither would most people, including general assembly members when presented with actual evidence of deficiency with the statutory language. But that’s not what the other side is lobbying for. Instead you want to use these cases for cheap political points while pushing abortion with no exceptions. I also find it highly ironic to see you arguing that precision of language matters while simultaneously telling us it doesn’t matter when we point out the exact same flaws in A3’s text. So precision matters to Mylissa Farmer but it doesn’t matter at all that “reproductive freedom” is given a non-exclusive definition you want me to believe was a meaningless oversight the armies of lawyers at the ACLU and Planned Parenthood made when they drafted this Amendment. Mm’kay.
- Republicans are suing not to have to comply with that federal law!!! It went all the way to SCOTUS and still isn't resolved. Our Attorney General filed an amicus brief in that case saying that federal law should not override Missouri's!
- You can say your reading of the law is better than that of the lawyers of the hospitals, but it doesn't change the fact that many hospitals are unwilling to take the legal risk, which leads to medical risk. I gather you are not the general counsel of a hospital, but correct me if I'm wrong.
-Yes the precision of language matters! Statutes work differently than constitutional rights.
-Again, I am openly in favor of letting women decide. If your argument is so compelling why do you need it imposed by force of law?
-Who is Trudy Busch's hired gun?
-Why am I engaging with you when you called me a baby killer and obviously will not be swayed by the reality of how Missouri's statute works in practice? (okay, I guess I'll have to answer that one for myself)
You know what, you’re right about that. I shouldn’t have made a personal attack in the heat of passion. I apologize.
The reason EMTALA has been challenged is because it’s broader than what Missouri law allows. I believe that the issue is also on the basis of religious exemption.
I don’t understand your argument regarding consensus. That’s like saying Jim Crow was fine, as long as most people in the south agreed with it.
Again, the point I was originally making was that a lot of these laws have existed for some time. Including the “medical emergency” definition, which applied to things like Missouri’s ban on post-viability abortions. Also again, if the language is not precise, we can fix it. You say the legislature won’t fix it, but what has really been proposed? I haven’t seen the democrats sponsoring any bills in the legislature to correct the language (maybe I’m wrong there).
Thank you for writing this.
Hear hear!
What they aren’t saying is that they support Sharia Law, as long as it’s the ‘Christian’ version
Also - great letter in the local MO paper
Just like slavery, the democrats always view human rights in terms of whatever suits them, to the detriment of the voiceless underclass they have convinced themselves are sub-human.
So you feel like the republicans are better suited to be the voice for the ‘underclass’?
What, so you believe in big government social programs so that means you support the underclass? Leaving aside the failure based on statistics that has been, let’s talk about how often you argue poor people would be better off aborted. Makes sense; Margaret Sanger openly courted the KKK and believed abortion could be used to kill off the poor and blacks.
Bridgette, your position is so ridiculous it’s comical. You can’t actually believe any of the crap you type, and if you actually do, it raises serious questions as to how on earth you managed to obtain a Juris Doctor and pass the bar exam.
Really? I have to have a “fantastical view” to believe that late term abortions are a problem? Your view is astounding for multiple reasons, up to and including the fact that you are not actually refuting the factual claim that the language in the Amendment does in fact allow abortions up to birth based on the intentionally flimsy standard of being in the interest of the mental health of the mother, based upon the “good faith judgment” of the abortionist. However that fact only scratches the surface of your ignorance. Basically, you are saying we don’t need to ban late term abortions because they aren’t happening all that often. Bridget, I don’t give a damn if it’s one. It’s a barbaric atrocity and the law shouldn’t protect the barbarians who are willing to commit such a horrific act. Second, this is basically like saying we don’t need to have laws punishing murder because most people are capable of discerning right and wrong. I suppose the time spent studying criminal law was a waste of time because, well, most people should know not to rape and murder so we don’t need the laws to specifically prohibit those activities.
Third, if this is really your position, why won’t you run on it? Why won’t your side define for us, in terms of weeks, when abortion should not be legal? After all, if nobody is having late term abortions, why should you care, especially if placing an objective limit in the statute would moderate your position? We all know why. The abortion lobby wants abortion up to the moment of birth but won’t run on that position because it’s not popular and frankly, morally despicable. Instead the abortion lobby drafted this amendment to falsely lead voters to believe that “viability” is an objective standard of demarcation, gaslighting Missourians who point out that the excepting language that would allow post-viability abortions if they are determined to be, in the “reasonable judgment” of physicians, to be necessary to protect the “mental health” of the mother.
You keep focusing on this dubious instance where you claim a woman is forced to dangerously carry an abortion to term to the point her health is in jeopardy. Again, I’m calling B.S. on you. Again, you claim you have a law degree. Have you ever read chapter 188? Explain to me, why is it that the statutory language providing exceptions for the health of the mother which are supposedly not sufficient now, were not problematic under other existing Missouri statutes providing similar limitations, including, but not limited to, the ban on abortions after viability (Section 188.030, RSMo), the ban on partial birth abortions, etc.? The answer is, because you’re lying. Women are not, nor have they been, dying on the streets and the trigger law certainly hasn’t increased the risk from what it has been. You run on these outlandish and false claims because you see no value in an unborn child until the moment it emerges from the birth canal. Moreover, we know this is not a problem because we have federal laws on the books that require doctors to perform abortions in such cases and as you know, federal law preempts any state law, even the Missouri constitution. Finally, I ask you this- if you and your fellow abortion lobbyists really believed these things were at issue, why wouldn’t you instead be working with Republicans in the general assembly to fix the deficiencies?
Make all the claims you want about the evil of republicans wanting to control women, or whatever drivel you tell yourself at night, but you know full well that no Republican or democrat in this state wants to put women’s lives at risk (including ones who, as you say, want to keep their babies), or to prevent anyone from getting care in the case of a miscarriage (another outrageous and false claim your side makes). If you thought these were a problem, you would try to correct the deficiencies. Instead you’re playing politics to obfuscate the truth about your positions.
- I am not hiding anything. I would be fine with no gestational limit, but I didn't write the Amendment. The reason I think gestational limits are unnecessary and harmful is that women who don't want to be pregnant want early abortions so gestational limits only end up hurting people who have complications far into wanted pregnancies. THIS HAPPENED TO ME. As explained in the article that I linked, I was under pressure to abort one twin fetus to save the other before 24 weeks, even though how severe the anomaly was could not be known at that point. You can keep calling me a "babykiller" but I was able to save my babies because I'm unusually knowledgeable and privileged, so I could plan to get a later abortion in another state.
-The Missouri statute does not actually have a health exception. It has what is called an "affirmative defense." That means ALL abortion is illegal, but when prosecuted a doctor can argue the abortion was justified. How many doctors are going to take the risk of being prosecuted rather than delaying treatment until there is no fetal heartbeat? Some, but not most. These delays and the harm they cause have been reported repeatedly. You can deny it, but the fact is it is happening and it was completely predictable. Bad miscarriage care is just a worthwhile tradeoff for you if you get to stop women from choosing abortions.
-The legislature has refused to fix anything about the statute. They have been perfectly clear that they don't care whether the so-called medical exception works or not.
No, this is the game the abortion lobby plays. You want to use the extreme cases, which are the minority of cases and then extrapolate to defend all abortions. It’s the same game they have played for 50 years and I have no doubt they will keep playing it. It never ceases to amaze me how the same crowd that rails against tort reform laws suddenly becomes wildly pro-physician when it comes to this issue. You want me to believe that doctors aren’t willing to make these judgments over fear of prosecution, yet this is precisely what they do every single day when making judgment calls based on what they believe the appropriate standard of care is, all of which are facts and circumstances determinations. Even assuming this were true, you honestly think there’s a prosecutor in this state who would bring charges under the circumstances you describe? That’s really realistic to you? Finally, how does a risk averse physician deny an abortion over fear of state prosecution but, at the same time is apparently willing to violate EMTALA (a federal law that preempts all state law)?
The bulk of the legal liability points to delaying care. The MO hospital was already found to have violated EMTALA. They got a warning, I don't think even a fine. It is slap on the wrist administrative something from the feds vs. prison or loss of medical license.
Yes, I absolutely think there are prosecutors who would go after a doctor. Plus, Bailey has concurrent jurisdiction. I think they are on their best behavior because of the A3 vote. Look at Texas.
Were you calling Mylissa Farmer a hired gun? The woman turned away by 2 hospitals while miscarrying?
With a little research, seems your hired gun has filed a lawsuit in the abortion haven of Kansas. What, my friend does that have to do with Missouri and its laws? I have heard her lawsuit against Freeman in Joplin was tossed.
I didn’t ask if they would go after a doctor. I asked, specifically, assuming the facts of that case are true, would a prosecutor go after a doctor? I think that is a stretch.
I ama Catholic who has done a lot of research on Amendment 3. I support keeping abortion legal through the first trimester. I know that late term abortions are extremely rare & for medical reasons. I believe late term abortion decisions should be between the woman & her doctor. So why am I going to vote against Amendment 3?
As currently written, Amendment 3 will not allow the state to put any restrictions on abortions before viability. I believe abortion has remained such a controversial subject for over 50 years because, like it or not, it involves a woman we can see & a child we cannot see and both are entitled to life. The way our country is going, I can envision women & the men in their lives having an abortion because the baby is not the sex they want or because the baby has Downs Syndrome or some other medical issue that will not prevent them from living a happy & productive life. These are the babies who need someone to speak on their behalf.
I am hoping Amendment 3 gets defeated so it's proponents will come back with an Amendment that permits the state to put some restrictions in place during the 2nd trimester which I believe is closer to what most people want.
Barbara, I invite you to reconsider because you have some misunderstandings about both the medical and political situations in Missouri.
First, consider why you have a view of women that makes you believe a cutoff is necessary. Why would you think that women are choosing to have abortions after the first trimester who could have had earlier ones? That is not the reality. People who do not want to be pregnant wish to have abortions as early as possible (this is obvious if you give it a minute of thought, but also documented in studies). Missouri’s abortion ban forces Missourians to have later abortions because they have to travel out of state. Since Dobbs, abortions are happening later in pregnancy because women in ban states like Missouri have to wait for appointments to become available at swamped clinics out-of-state, get time off work for travel, arrange childcare, and raise money for travel and the procedure. Abortion opponents vilify women for having later abortions, but make it impossible to have an early one. (This is why they are trying to make medication abortion unavailable across the country–medication has made it possible to end a pregnancy much earlier than was historically the case.)
If you think only early abortions are acceptable, you should support making early abortions available. In order to do that, you have to have robust protections like Amendment 3’s because our supermajority Republican legislature will continue to do all they can to make abortion unavailable at any stage of pregnancy.
A partial legalization of abortion like you suggest is not going to come from either this legislature or a future citizen-led amendment. Last session, our legislature was unwilling to even consider allowing children under 12 to have abortions. They have refused to clarify when a life-saving abortion is permitted despite the reports and lawsuits of miscarrying women being denied treatment. There is no chance they would allow abortions up to 12 weeks.
Your proposal of some future ballot initiative that would allow more limited access to abortion for those you consider deserving is also not realistic. Getting Amendment 3 on the ballot took a ridiculous amount of work and money from tons of organizations and volunteers, plus success in five lawsuits. It is not the kind of effort you can just repeat.
So it really is an all or nothing choice. You can choose the current regime in which abortion is illegal at 1 day gestation so women and girls either have to carry to term against their will or be punished with later abortions out of state or having to self-manage without local medical support, and women experiencing miscarriages are being sent out of state.
Or you can choose Amendment 3, which should (assuming winning another lawsuit) make early abortion available here and remove the legal risk that is causing hospitals to delay treatment for miscarriages. But don’t pretend there is a third option when there isn’t. You have to choose the ban or Amendment 3.
Admittedly, Amendment 3 prohibits the state from policing the decisions of pregnant women. But, again, why is your view of women so low that you think that policing is necessary? And why do you think the state is positioned to make a better decision than the person experiencing the specifics of the pregnancy? Even if maintaining the state’s ability to pick and choose who is deserving of an abortion is very important to you, is it so important to you that it is worth the ongoing harm to Missourians with pregnancy complications?
Thank you for your respectful response to my post. I understand getting this amendment on the ballot was difficult. I understand I live in a state controlled by vvery conservative Republicans. I don't have a low opinion of women or think they need. policing. I know what the statistics say. Abortion continues to be a contentious issue in this country because it involves 2 lives. Sadly, 1 side thinks only of the infant & the other only of the mother. I have throughly researched the amendment & have to vote how my conscience guides me.
Stop lying. Nobody has been denied miscarriage care.
(1) "Abortion":
(a) The act of using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or any other means or substance with the intent to destroy the life of an embryo or fetus in his or her mother's womb; or
(b) The intentional termination of the pregnancy of a mother by using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or other means or substance with an intention other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child;
Notice the language, “other than to increase the probability of a live birth or to remove a dead unborn child. So, definitionally, the two things you claim are apparently no longer legal in Missouri (IVF and a D&C following a miscarriage) are specifically excepted from the definition of abortion in the statute. As I have said, this definitions section has been applied almost verbatim since the section was first enacted into law in back in 2007. Your argument (apparently) rests upon the change from “dead or dying unborn child” to “dead unborn child.” Not only is this a stretch, this change went into effect back in 2019, 4 years before the current ban went into effect. So, miscarriages were legal still in 2019 but not in 2022 onward?
For those who do not believe me, feel free to look at the statutory history:
https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.015&bid=47547
- It is a fact that women are being denied miscarriage care until there is no fetal heartbeat, which is extremely dangerous and has killed people. This is because of how hospitals are interpreting the statute that you pasted, which only allows "removal of a dead unborn child." Mylissa Farmer is suing a Missouri hospital because she was. Doctors have said they are sending miscarrying patients to Kansas and Illinois. Pro Publica has a story today about a woman in Texas who died of sepsis because they delayed treatment until there was no fetal heartbeat. "Dead or dying unborn child" is an extremely meaningful difference. Why did they take out "or dying"?! And of course that was less of a problem when abortion was still legal in Missouri up to viability.
I am well aware of Trudy Busch’s hired gun. At best, the hospital misinterpreted the statute and violated federal law as well. Hence the lawsuit, unless you’re suggesting the hospital interpreted this reasonably. I also noted the change in the law. I agree that the deletion of the phrase is misleading. I wouldn’t have a problem reinstating it. Neither would most people, including general assembly members when presented with actual evidence of deficiency with the statutory language. But that’s not what the other side is lobbying for. Instead you want to use these cases for cheap political points while pushing abortion with no exceptions. I also find it highly ironic to see you arguing that precision of language matters while simultaneously telling us it doesn’t matter when we point out the exact same flaws in A3’s text. So precision matters to Mylissa Farmer but it doesn’t matter at all that “reproductive freedom” is given a non-exclusive definition you want me to believe was a meaningless oversight the armies of lawyers at the ACLU and Planned Parenthood made when they drafted this Amendment. Mm’kay.
- Republicans are suing not to have to comply with that federal law!!! It went all the way to SCOTUS and still isn't resolved. Our Attorney General filed an amicus brief in that case saying that federal law should not override Missouri's!
- You can say your reading of the law is better than that of the lawyers of the hospitals, but it doesn't change the fact that many hospitals are unwilling to take the legal risk, which leads to medical risk. I gather you are not the general counsel of a hospital, but correct me if I'm wrong.
-Yes the precision of language matters! Statutes work differently than constitutional rights.
-Again, I am openly in favor of letting women decide. If your argument is so compelling why do you need it imposed by force of law?
-Who is Trudy Busch's hired gun?
-Why am I engaging with you when you called me a baby killer and obviously will not be swayed by the reality of how Missouri's statute works in practice? (okay, I guess I'll have to answer that one for myself)
You know what, you’re right about that. I shouldn’t have made a personal attack in the heat of passion. I apologize.
The reason EMTALA has been challenged is because it’s broader than what Missouri law allows. I believe that the issue is also on the basis of religious exemption.
I don’t understand your argument regarding consensus. That’s like saying Jim Crow was fine, as long as most people in the south agreed with it.
Again, the point I was originally making was that a lot of these laws have existed for some time. Including the “medical emergency” definition, which applied to things like Missouri’s ban on post-viability abortions. Also again, if the language is not precise, we can fix it. You say the legislature won’t fix it, but what has really been proposed? I haven’t seen the democrats sponsoring any bills in the legislature to correct the language (maybe I’m wrong there).
Distressing, but certainly not surprising.
I shouldn't be surprised, but I still am! "Lying is bad" was a fundamental concept in my Catholic education.
Yet you somehow managed to miss “thou shalt not kill,” so I’m not sure how Catholic it really could have been.
The only lies I have seen are from the abortion lobby and the complacent media covering their tracks.