A law banning abortion from as early as six weeks into pregnancy has come into effect in the US state of Texas.
It bans abortions after the detection of what anti-abortion campaigners call a foetal heartbeat, something medical authorities say is misleading.
The law, one of the most restrictive in the country, took effect after the Supreme Court did not respond to an emergency appeal by abortion providers.
Doctors and women’s rights groups have heavily criticised the law.
It gives any individual the right to sue doctors who perform an abortion past the six-week point.
The so-called “Heartbeat Act” was signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in May.
Good for the Texas and the Supreme Court for letting this law go forward.
Thank you also to President Trump for the conservatives on the Supreme Court who refused to block the law.
I am not pro-abortion in the sense that I have literally been asked to talk 3 different women out of it and succeeded 2 of the 3 times, but I am against making laws against abortions. And I am certainly against giving “any individual” the right to sue Doctors. If you want to fine or incarcerate Doctors for performing them, I understand it, but allowing suits against the Doctors as a means of prevention? Yea for giving us all a big jump in our insurance coverage when Doctors start charging yet more to cover their increasing liability insurance coverage. Who really got that law passed, the anti-abortionists or the trial lawyers assoc?
I guess this is where fiscal conservative Libertarians separate from the modern day religious conservative and my number one (personal experience) example of why still holds up here. Eptopic pregnancies are commonly diagnosed 6-8 weeks after conception. To date there has been one successful birth from an eptopic pregnancy (in all of history, I believe) and they still had to be removed from the fallopian tube immediately upon discovery. There is zero chance of the mother surviving the pregnancy without the fetus removal. Setting any specific week as a hard line for when to outlaw abortion is the number one reason not to do it. Hard line ‘at conception’ anti-abortionists aren’t going to stay happy with a 6 week rule and I just gave a perfect example of why 6 weeks is not enough. Medicine may someday perfect out of the tube survival of an eptopic fetus, but that day is not here so the Texas law is just wrong, and setting a specific week will continue to move with modern medicine so how can it be done intelligently at this point?
Fiscally speaking it is a bad idea for the country as well and most every Governmental fiscal decision costs lives in some way or another, this one is just a lot more emotional. Fix our national adoptive system to a standardized reasonable rate and we can start talking about what to do with unwanted babies. It is almost beyond my comprehension how so many people want to outlaw abortion and so many people want to adopt, but we cannot reconcile it enough to make a system that works those factors together (and nobody even talks about the 2 problems in the same conversation).
Tuerqas, I actually read the bill and eptopic pregnancies is covered in the law under medical emergencies. Something the media left out.
It does seem strange that outsiders can sue. I’m not sure why they would have standing to bring a lawsuit.
As far as higher insurance rates for doctors going, maybe for abortion providers in Texas but a family practice doctor shouldn’t have to worry about that.
I do feel bad for those who were raped or a victim of invest and I totally understand if they get an abortion. I would hope they wouldn’t get one but if they did, I understand it.
Anybody else having problems accessing Boots and Sabers?
eptopic pregnancy (in all of history, I believe) and they still had to be removed from the fallopian tube immediately upon discovery. There is zero chance of the mother surviving the pregnancy without the fetus removal.
Thanks for saving 2 human beings?
Your discussion of ectopic pregnancy is valid but is a MORAL straw-man. The Catholic Church holds that one must move to save the life of the mother in that case; under the principle of ‘double effect,’ the death of the baby is an effect, but was not the intent. No moral line was crossed.
The Texas court hearing a lawsuit against a doctor remediating an ectopic pregnancy should throw the case out of court.
By the way, when you commit vehicular homicide, your insurance premium goes up. Just sayin’….
MAR: “having trouble….”? Yes. The site is unstable. Has been so for about 5 days.
Yeah, we’re having technical issues. Sorry, folks.
If there are riders in the law that provide for emergencies such as eptopic pregnancies, then I have a lot less issue with the law. I am pro-life as well as pro-freedom, but pro-freedom comes first for me. Then my biggest problem is with the penalty, and there could easily have been things in the actual law that were not mentioned in the article as well. What are the actual penalties to the doctors and patients, did you see that Mar? If jail time and fines are penalties to both Doctors and patient, that is one thing. If the only real penalty was that suits are legal by anyone for a performed abortion, that is pretty sad legislation.
Dad29, sorry, but the Catholic church is not the last word in abortions. There are a large number of churches and other organizations that have ‘Baby gets full rights at conception’ views and those people make up the bulk of the hard-core protestors, not to mention religious-conservative Republicans. That said, I fully approve of that Catholic doctrine, wish more pro-lifers had at least that much give in their beliefs/policies. My argument is perfectly valid for many believers in pro-life, and I am very happy that both Catholics and the Texas law are not in conflict with it. I seem to remember you have condemned that argument before, not agreed with it through The Catholic double effect doctrine, just for being a pro rights at conception person. I may be wrong on that.
When I am in an accident my insurance goes up. When Doctors start getting extra multi-million dollar suits our Doctor bills go up. I think the difference is distinct. Just sayin’…
“If the only real penalty was that suits are legal by anyone for a performed abortion, that is pretty sad legislation.”
That part I agree with. Strange penalty.
Other than that, there are no penalties.
Mar has it. The law does NOT create a criminal penalty for performing an abortion. The law merely allows citizens to sue abortionists for money. Nobody goes to jail, but the doctor’s insurer will have severely burned fingers.
Why? Simple. Roe is still the law of the land, perverted as that is. So Texas decided not to set itself flat-out contravening Roe.
There is legitimate concern that this will inspire bounty hunting, but that’s why there are “courts.”
T, I do not recall ever arguing AGAINST licit application of ‘double effect’.
Dad29, I did not say nor mean to say that you argued against the application of double effect. You have always been a devout Catholic here and have, in my eyes, been pretty spot on talking about their teachings. What I did mean to say was that I THOUGHT I remembered having abortion conversations literally 15 years or so ago on B&S where Catholics as a whole had no exceptions in the double effect rule concerning eptopic pregnancies.
How long has the double effect rule covered eptopic pregnancies in the Catholic faith? I could not find an answer online so you may be the best source I have:). I know the double effect rule started with Thomas Aquinas concerning suicide/homicide or something like that a long time ago. I do know that we have been on fully opposite sides on this blog before, and I have not heard of the double effect applied to E pregnancies before. Had it been in force for decades, it seems you would have brought it up the last times. To be clear, however, no matter the history, I still greatly commend the Catholic church for changing its view no matter how long ago.
Can’t give you a date, but the position of the Church on ectopics has been firm since at LEAST 1980 or so. My suspicion is that the Church followed the science on the matter, whenever that science became clear.
We had the Aquinas moral clarity; it was merely a matter of application to a new ‘problem.’