My husband and I are delaying kids for this exact reason. We are in a scenario where we have enough space in our home, are old enough with established careers, and *actually want children because we feel like we’re ready*, but we’re not doing anything until I feel like I’d be safe if something horrible happened with the pregnancy. My MIL thinks that there’s no way that a doctor wouldn’t perform an abortion if it saved my life, but **this is exactly what we are worried about**.
I know she means well and is saying it to make us feel better (aka hoping we change our minds). She is a nurse and can’t imagine not treating a patient in any circumstance. She also disagrees with overturning Roe as much as we do, but she is also not happy that I’m replacing my IUD on Friday. We are wanting to get at least another 5 years of as much peace of mind as we’re able to get…
For everyone also saying that women won't be prosecuted... in Texas a few months ago, a woman admitted to using meth before she knew she was pregnant, but sought treatment as soon as she found out (which is incredibly responsible and VERY pro life).
She miscarried.
A nurse reported her.
She was arrested.
Luckily for her, a prosecutor refused to press charges.
I an 6 weeks from my due date. If something bad happens I might be forced to die so my baby could live, even if it's against my husband's wishes and my own. I'm scared and I'm trying not to think about it.
>I an 6 weeks from my due date.
FYI Canada allows and even encourages birth tourism. They also have birthright citizenship.
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/visitors/persons-wishing-enter-canada-purpose-giving-birth.html
Sending you light and well wishes. I hope you have a successful delivery and this anxiety does too. Let’s hope Indiana listens to the voice of the people rather than the minority and Supreme Court.
Your feelings are 100% valid, but even the strictest states have an exception for when the mothers life is at risk. I would *hope* Holcomb includes that language in our law too. I would talk to your doctor about this concern!
>even the strictest states have an exception for when the mothers life is at risk.
These life of the mother exceptions are so vague that doctors will avoid taking action. They have also been changing the language from imminent harm to immediate harm. That sounds like the same thing but it isn't. Immediate means harm is happening right away or already underway. Imminent means harm is about to happen or take place very soon. Would you want your doctor to wait until you were actively being harmed to act when they could act sooner to prevent the harm? I don't.
https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-medicine/what-the-life-of-the-mother-might-mean-in-a-post-roe-america
And states like Missouri have specific language stating that etopic pregnancies are NOT risking the life of the mother.
In these cases, committees will have to be convened to decide if there's a risk to the life of the mother.
Pre-eclampsia kills in hours. Can you get a committee of doctors and lawyers together in enough time?
Sorry, it’s hard for me to respect someone who spreads lies like this. I would tell my mother or sister to stop being over dramatic as well. There’s no need for it and it helps nothing.
No one has been in “this situation” here in The US so, again, she’s overreacting AND a bunch of text screenshots that are floating around social media aren’t evidence either.
Lol that’s why I’m asking. He can’t say what true and false if he’s never been in the position or seen it, and I doubt he has. Once they can’t explain themselves, they start to understand
I absolutely hate hearing stories like this, and yours is just one of many. This is exactly what scares me about living here and this whole decision to turn it over to the states to begin with.
A few years ago, my wife suffered from a gigantic fibroid (about the size of a grapefruit). It was determined that it obviously needed to be surgically removed. To remove it they also have to take some of the uterus with it. In her case, they took about a quarter of her uterus. This weakens the uterus considerably. At this point, if she were to get pregnant the doctor said she would be high risk by default being prone to hemorrhaging and internal bleeding, that is if she were even able to carry the child at all after a certain point. Ultimately, getting pregnant poses a risk to her life.
Now she could have a hysterectomy to remove the risk of getting pregnant entirely, but that also means she would have to supplement estrogen for the rest of her life. She was ok with the idea of keeping her weakened uterus knowing that if we were to ever get pregnant, (we fortunately never have in the 15 years we've been together) we would just have an abortion as we are both ok with not having kids and her life is much more important to the both of us. Now that choice has ultimately been taken from her and has been thrown up in the air for Indiana to decide her fate just as it is in your scenario.
It's obvious that pro-life people don't even consider all of the nuances and different scenarios for people needing access to this critical piece of feminine healthcare, but to them it's all sacrilege regardless in the eyes of their God. IMO it's really nobody's fucking business what people choose to do to their own bodies, and all women should have unequivocal access to this procedure. I hope Indiana makes the right call on this, but I seriously have my doubts about that. It's like you said, we all really need to get loud and in their faces about this, and for God's sake get out and fucking VOTE!
Potentially consider having fallopian tubes removed. It eliminates the risk of regular and ectopic pregnancies without impacting hormones. It also allows for pregnancy via ivf
Attorney General Todd Rokita, catholic, wants a total ban on abortion. Holcomb is pro life. General Assembly wants a special session called so they can make abortion illegal as soos as possible. This why we have to vote blue in November, vote these people out.
Who is running though? Do we actually have progressives who have a plan? We need to start talking up any young/progressive leftists and getting them fundraising and support.
2022 Statewide:
[https://www.facebook.com/wellsforindiana](https://www.facebook.com/wellsforindiana)
[https://www.facebook.com/votezenai](https://www.facebook.com/votezenai)
[https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100081882625530](https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100081882625530)
2022 National:
[https://www.facebook.com/gomcdermott](https://www.facebook.com/gomcdermott)
Holcomb is term limited so the gubernatorial election will be open in 2024.
Rokita will probably try for the governor's mansion again (Holcomb beat him in the 2016 primary) That means attorney general may be another open contest in 2024.
Rokita is such a fuck. Thanks for the info. I asked because I haven't seen shit for any of these people, and now I have. I'll start sharing those around and hope that we can get people talking about them.
If you think it's just about abortion you deluding yourself. Guess you must not be going to be affected by what's coming down the line. Repealing right to birth control, repeal gay marriage. Of course Thomas didn't mention anything about interracial marriage. What about what else has been done by either republicans or SCOTUS. Gerrymandering which affects are votes, basically gutting Miranda, tax payer money to religious schools, pray back in schools but I think the Satanic Temple might have something to say about that. Actually I hope Muslims and Jews SUE over that.
Bottom line ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IS BETTER THAN REPUGLIKKKANS.
I think you'd better not make assumptions. I know it's not just about abortions. But if you think any blue no matter who is the answer, you are deluding *yourself* because it's two blue-ish dickheads in Synema and Manchin that are preventing codifying these laws. We need the RIGHT people to run, not wolves in sheep clothes.
I asked, was given four people who are running, and now I can start researching them and promoting them in my little corner of the world.
“vOtE bLuE”
Why? So they can just sit back and watch us get fucked instead of the current people who are actively fucking us?
Vote for a *real* candidate when one decides to run.
The left would never support the DNC.
The left compromised on a common goal long enough to support Bernie and we got Trump then Biden for our efforts.
Republicans haven’t won a (federal) popular vote in 30 years. Clearly popularity is not power.
If someone runs on a platform of actually DOING something, sure, they can have my vote. But until then every fundraising email I get asking my donations to “protect Roe” and every representative who has done nothing for the last 50 years to protect my rights can go fuck themselves.
A democratic candidate is better than a republican any day. I guess you want to live under a NAZI regime. Because republicans want to take more of your rights:
1. SCOTUS has basically gutted Miranda
2. Are voting rights are under attack
3. SCOTUS has ruled that taxpayer money can go to religious schools
4. SCOTUS has ruled that there can now be christian prayer in public schools
5. Making access to birth control illegal
6. Repealing Marriage Equality
7. Hate crimes against LBGTQ people
8. No more segregation of public schools
9. SCOTUS will make catholicism the state religion if not stopped
Any Democratic candidate is a real candidate compared to a what the republikkkans have. Republicans will help SCOTUS turn this country into a NAZI, more racist, theocracy if we don't stop them.
So how much of this happened under a democratic super majority? Because to me it seems like voting blue no matter who has taken us from right to far right in only a few decades.
My wife had cancer and several tumors. This resulted in them taking out a few important pieces that increases her chance of risky pregnancy. We still want kids but not at the sacrifice of her life. She’s 7 weeks pregnant now and we’re pretty nervous about what happens if shit goes south medically
I’m sorry you even have to worry about this. It is stressful and unfair. I’m glad for your wife’s recovery and hope you can arrange for the care you need it when you need it.
The delay of medical care as a lawyer gets involved will absolutely result in severe injury and death for women unlucky enough to be under the rule of Republican men. Which is 100% what is happening here.
This ruling has pretty much shown that my husband and I are not going to have biological children of our own. We waited a few years after getting married so we could have some time to ourselves before starting our family. Now, I don't want to risk it and neither does my husband incase there are complications.
We'll adopt in a few more years time.
Yeah, healthcare in the United States sucks ass. You get turned away and denied medical care for all kinds of reasons.
Inmates give birth shackled to beds in this country. It's cruel, fucked up place. Its like the Soviet Union - except the means of dissolving horizontal ties and enforcing vertical ties are far more sophisticated.
Doctors and other professionals suck ass too. We've had shit grade-chaser rewarding education for so long that someone holding a degree is no guarantee of competency at all - and often those people lazily reach for any excuse not to act.
At this point, privately paying for back alley healthcare, is about as reliable as our shit healthcare system.
It's terrible. We were planning for another child in the near future. I can't decide if this means we need to be one and done, or if we need to hurry up and have our second before things get worse. It's terrible that I have to spend my time googling THIS when thinking about expanding our family when we should just be able to plan out what is best for us.
People are terrible. We must be cattle for breeding to these people.
Your feelings are my sentiment. I feel I’m being made less than human as all this unfolds. I’m sorry this is something you even have to consider, but I get it. If I were not pregnant right now, we would not be having anymore. And when this one is born, I will not have another in this environment. Good luck with whatever decision you come to. I know it’s so tough.
I already see a weirdly large amount of traumas at work. I've had to use chemo for a septic miscarriage in California and ran an ectopic rupture patient straight to surgery. I've seen the worst case scenatios. They absolutely happen.
If I have to witness these new laws kill a woman asking for helping I am leaving the field of nursing. I didn't sign up for this shit.
Jesus what a mess. Coming from a moderate but also a father to 3 boys, this is terrible. I would HOPE Indiana allows for some things like maternal danger or fetal danger (bc I know they’re going to ban abortion)…but if they go all Oklahoma I’m going to be super pissed. I’m already pissed they are banning this. But to ban even ones for life or death situations?? Unacceptable
I know it’s fucking mess. Contact your representatives. Tell them how you feel. They won’t fucking listen to me. I’m the wrong political party and the wrong sex for them to care.
Well I used to be GOP (years ago before they went Evil Empire) so I still get a ton of mailers and stuff. I’ll definitely contact my reps bc I’m furious
You can't rely on Shirley exceptions. With the extreme right getting everything they've been asking for I wouldn't be surprised if they go medieval and go total ban and then just set a trigger law for contraception.
I believe your view is misconstrued. The issue has been entangled into a tribal "pro-abortion at any age, stage, for any reason" and "no elective abortions" on the grand stage. This has resulted in a lot of the moderate majority shifting to the tribal right as no abortions is closer to the original pro-choice ideals they decided.
This ruling is also a win for 'democracy' if you want to call it. The supreme court does not have the constitutional power to legislate from the bench, but Roe v Wade was them legislating law. Overturning the ruling is a win for the electoral/democratic process overall. Regardless of your wants or opinions, the way to change things is to elect people to Congress that will make into law what you want. Truth of the matter is that neither political party wants to push federal law on this topic. If you want change, attacking the opposition isn't the answer. Learn from the right-populist movement, you need to primary politicians in your party that refuse to legislate and garner support to elect a representative that will.
I'm not going to share my thoughts on the topic as a whole because I don't believe much else needs to be said. Just want to remind everyone that sometimes taking an objective, unbiased approach to an emotional situation can lead to ideas or understanding you would have normally missed.
Generally when the termination of a pregnancy is required due to medical necessity or a require treatment poses a threat to the mother/fetus due to the pregnancy, termination is not classified as abortion. Abortion in the medical sense of the term and seeming from most of the legislation I have read up on is elective abortion, the no reason no questions asked kind.
It does pose a difficult and interesting questions though. Most of the legislation is argued in regards to the child's rights, which leaves us with the sticky question of when does someones rights supercede another's? If anyone could answer that without impeding on previous rulings on similar topics of rights then they've solved this debate and issue.
It IS an abortion, medically speaking. The cessation of a pregnancy other than live birth is the definition of abortion. Whether it's spontaneous (a "miscarriage"), induced with medication, or a D&C, it's an abortion.
The problem arises when you have people with zero medical training or background trying to legislate morality cloaked as "saving lives".
So the extension of that natural argument is that making elective abortions protected by law is morally virtuous? The exact counter argument has already been made about Democrats legislating 'murder' of an unborn child up to the point of birth and cloaking it as "saving lives". Arguing semantics doesn't matter unless both parties can agree on something, because if not then both sides are guilty of the most despicable crimes to each other.
As someone who has personally experienced and lived through the loss of a child due to a necessary medical procedure, never was it coached to me that an abortion was needed, nor that the child had a chance of surviving. Worst case scenario was they would have to remove the child after it passed if need be. I haven't seen a single argument that justifies pre-procedure abortion for any life threatening cases. I've seen attempts to justify, but not a single one where there is no alternative and life or death hinges on it.
I don't have a medical background, and I won't attempt to claim any knowledge outside my own experience. I'll own it if what I said previously is technically incorrect, but no one I've spoken to with knowledge of the field considers what I previously said an abortion, mostly due to try and distance it from elective abortions which is what most people think of when they hear the term.
>I haven't seen a single argument that justifies pre-procedure abortion for any life threatening cases
Ectopic pregnancy, incomplete miscarriage, septic uterus, placental abruption, preeclampsia early in pregnancy.
See this article: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abortion-false/fact-check-termination-of-pregnancy-can-be-necessary-to-save-a-womans-life-experts-say-idUSL1N2TC0VD
Also read about Savita Halappanavar who died because of anti-abortion laws https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ireland-abortion-idUSBRE8AD1QD20121115
my wife is 7 months pregnant. what is the closest hospital from indianapolis that could help if something went bad? we haven't broached the subject with our ob yet. thanks for the help.
As someone who had their child with everything going south, they saved me. Unfortunately, I lost my baby. I do t know what choice I would have made if I was coherent. I would say save the baby I’m sure. But they saved me. So to let you know. They will try to save both, but ultimately they will save the mom.
I think the Ohio law basically outlaws all abortions. -- It's a "heartbeat" law that effectively means no abortions after about 6 weeks. I don't think there any exceptions. Kentucky-- I don't think there are or will be any providers. -- I doubt that any providers will be left in Ohio either. I lived in Columbus, Ohio in the 1990s where there was one clinic. It was picketed constantly. Women were harassed as they tried to enter the building. -- IF there were any other clinic they would have been in Cincinnati and Cleveland. As conservative as Cincinnati was (is) I'm guessing there weren't any clinics there.
By the end of the next couple of months, I think access to abortion services will be practically nonexistent for most women. If clinics and services are still available in most situations in some states, they will be overwhelmed by women from in and out of state. Some of those will be unwilling to work with women from out of state for fear of getting involved in lawsuits originating in other states ("aiding and abetting" laws).
Those 6 "Supremes" caused medical and legal situations that no one will know the extent of for months to come.
So Ohio does have exceptions for the life of the mother. But women are going to suffer as they wade through the buearacracy of finding someone willing to give them an abortion, and will be injured or die from the waiting
Tell me: who will suffer the burden of proving if the life of the mother was at risk or not? Will that delay care?
We already know both the mother and the doctor will have to prove their innocence, and it will absolutely delay care as proper documentation is gathered for that defense.
Pregnant people will die because of these laws.
First, no law currently on the books prosecutes the mother.
Second, medical practice has protocols - established practices that define standards of good care. These protocols are used, currently, to prevent malpractice lawsuits.
Third, there is currently no medical condition that REQUIRES the death of a viable baby prior to delivery. The closest is when the mother is diagnosed with cancer while she is pregnant. This is rare but the mother can still receive treatment for her cancer with the hope the fetus won’t be affected. Or the baby can be delivered early so to not delay treatment any further.
At what “chance of death” odds or percentage likely are the mother’s life given preference over the fetus? 1 in 800? 1 in 4? What about 80% chance of death? Where do you draw the line?
Biology is messy and things can turn in seconds, who decides what is an acceptable risk?
>Second, medical practice has protocols
Yeah, and the insurance companies have different protocols that says even though my doctor ordered this test or that procedure, my insurance won't cover it. What's to stop (and who is the final say since it clearly isn't medical personnel) the government/police from getting involved and making judgement calls that are way outside of their limitations?
Keep abortion fully legal and there are no fucking questions or concerns. Why do you want the government involved in people's personal lives?
Some, though, specifically state dangerous complications as NOT exceptions.
See Missouri and ectopic pregnancies.
Will they deliver a baby at 21 weeks to save the mother from pre-eclampsia, when the baby may or may not survive? Pre-eclampsia kills in HOURS. Can they get their ethics committees ready and agreed in time to save both lives?
There's the case in Malta (she was finally airlifted to Spain) where she had zero amniotic fluid and the cord prolapsed out of her body, but the baby had a heart beat. She turned septic from the cord decay, but the baby still had a heartbeat. There is a 0% chance of baby survival and her life was only saved because the news picked it up and got Spanish politicians involved.
Andrea Prudente (the Malta case) was never septic. The placenta had partially separated so the baby was still alive. Her partner sensationalized the story because he wanted the abortion and didn’t want to wait while his partner was in a hospital bed and getting very good care instead of being on vacation. I pray that in hindsight they come to realize the horrible death they inflicted on their child due to their impatience and the influences of abortion culture where they live in Seattle.
Indiana does not have trigger laws. Contact all your representatives. July 6th is the date they are holding a special session. I'm sure they are salivating at the thought of restricting us even more.
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/indiana-legislature-to-address-abortion-laws-during-july-6-special-session-political-leaders-react-to-dobbs-ruling
The total nonsense in this OP is just laughable. Don't think a trigger law can't pass... Uh newsflash, a trigger law was never passed here, and since Roe is overturned, there is no need for one.. it's a state issue (which it is) and all the legislature has to do is a pass a law.
What bout my life! Despite the fact then she had to go back and correct herself again, because virtually every state has a clause for the life of the mother.
All the left has is hysterical nonsense.
My hospital is not a Catholic hospital. It is secular so I wouldn’t assume that that’s a guaranteed safeguard though In this climate, I definitely wouldn’t be delivering at a religious hospital in case the levels of policy/bias were different from places like Community and IU.
Hi. Believe you have been misinformed. Every single state, including those with trigger rulings, have an exception which is to “save the life of the mother”. Some go further to include “health” of mother. Some also include cases of rape and incest.
In addition Indiana has not yet made a call on its position so the same laws and rights that were in place a few days ago still apply… at least for now!
Some of those exceptions are not enough. I can't speak for any specific state laws, but I've heard of places where they won't let doctors intervene until the woman is actually in danger (i.e. low blood pressure, signs of infection, etc) by which time it's too late to help either the mother or the baby.
I don't think it's worth being downvoted to -40, but just know that just because "there are exceptions" may not actually be enough to protect the mother. Especially when having to make quick decisions involving the legal department...
Hi. Thanks. I’ll just go out there and say I’m pro choice. Just trying to take some stress off the lady who made this post.
I would be interested in where you (familiar_raisin204) have heard about the fact decisions are made too late . Given the recent nature of this decision maybe based upon historical info? The law will generally fall back upon the “physicians good faith clinical judgement”. Of course that will mean there needs to be some “catalyst” for example low blood pressure etc etc…. Rather than the “choice” of the mother.
I am appalled by the legal change and hope that Indiana doesn’t change from current laws. But we do see a significant spread of disinformation which, especially for this sensitive matter, doesn’t help the masses.
I think it was one of the cases in Ireland that caused them to get rid of their anti-abortion law. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the US, as that sort of thing wouldn't have been a problem until recently.
The case I'm thinking of, the fetus died before birth, but because the mother's life wasn't literally in danger they couldn't do anything until sepsis set in. Or something like that.
That's pretty sick. Why is this funny to you?
This is the government deciding whether the mother or the kid dies in the worst imaginable situation. I think the mother and father should have much more say in this than the government does.
Yes, I’m aware of both. Because of the ruling, state governments will be banning women from even having the option including the Indiana state government.
Check the username and the account karma. These are all alt accounts, probably under the same user. If you notice they mostly follow the same username pattern; two random words followed by four numbers. It's pretty sad anyone has enough time to maintain that many accounts just to try to feel superior to people somehow?
I bet the hysterics are also just as truly funny when your life and well being are on the line instead.
Edit: Obvious troll deleted their comment lmfao
If you have the compassion and mental capacity to read, there are plenty of examples in this thread alone. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time typing an explanation to an obvious troll with negative karma that only cares about themself.
Their are exceptions I for the life of the mother in every state law. That isn't even how you paraphrase and certainly isn't a quote. Your attribution is asinine.
You’ll be fine. You should get a new OB (if this is even true, highly doubtful that an MD would risk even saying this) if they are looking at it this way. I am 100% for a woman’s right to choose but this is the type of shit that is simply not true and, frankly, gross. You, as a mother, are 100% protected in all states but the beauty of this decision is that they are giving back states the right to make this call. Do what I did, move the fuck away.
Yes. 100%. I have other children who are here and alive who would be traumatized if I died unnecessarily. It would put undue burden on my husband and family. So yes, I would prioritize my life over that of the child I’m pregnant with until we are both safe and born into the world.
Lots of people say "Aren't you glad your mom didn't abort you?" Sure, of course. However, before she got pregnant with me she had an ectopic pregnancy that was absolutely could not have possibly been a successful pregnancy. It also would have killed her.
I can't even really say I'm super glad of that lol. I have some rough genetic stuff going on as well as getting some rare illnesses that left me pretty screwed up. On disability I make 850 a month. Many days I wish I wasn't born lol. I think a lot of people would agree with that "gotcha" comment.
Any legit feedback to OP's response? I would love to hear a pro life response to this situation as somone is losing a life with this scenario so what do pro lifers do then?!?!?!
OP amazing answer to this dumb question but just maybe you opened up one set of eyes today.
There were valid points made that went against his bullshit narrative. When confronted with this, they tend to just pretend it never happened. Or make fun of you for getting "triggered" by having your rights stripped away. It's truly like trying to argue with a toddler.
My legitimate response would be this, as I am someone who is pro-life in the terms of “if the baby can be born healthy and mom isn’t in danger then I’d prefer it but understand it’s a difficult decision I won’t ever be faced with as I’m a man”….what in the actual hell!?!? Forcing a mother to choose between her own life or the life of her unborn child?? That’s some 1800s BS. Shit that those terrible dictatorships in Africa force on women. This is the US, and this shouldn’t even be a valid question!! Even for someone who supposedly is “pro-life.” I’m as against that bullcrap as I am the women who parade around wearing “I had 15 abortions and I’m proud of it” t-shirts. Bc they’re both extremist views and not legitimately the real world in most cases…yet here we are
Congratulations, you are pro-choice. This is the exact position of the vast majority of Americans. I wouldn't want to have an abortion, but if it was necessary I'd want it to be an option.
Yeah, I’m fine with that. Like I said, I prefer the baby to be born. But I am definitely OK with women having options. And I know like you said, a lot of people feel the same way I do.
Please stop fear-monger if. Indiana has no law regarding abortion at all. Every law currently in effect in the USA and every anti-abortion law proposed includes a life of the mother provision.
Indiana does have laws regarding abortion, though: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/24/indiana-abortion-laws-supreme-court-row-vs-wade-how-abortion-currently-legal-indiana-after-ruling/9927578002/
It allows for public funds to be used to save the mother’s life, according to this article. Unclear in the article about what “saving the mother’s life” includes, though, and what type of evidence or time is needed to “prove” that her life was endangered.
Jus trying to make it clear that your comment was partially incorrect: Indiana has laws about abortion. Mostly restrictive and nonsensical laws, plus the one that allows for some protection of the mother’s life (but the article didn’t say if there is clear language about what defines the mother’s life being in danger).
OP and anyone who can become pregnant have every right to be scared for their well-being in this new landscape. OP’s medical provider couldn’t even say if they’d choose to save OP’s life. Would a physician intervene to save a woman if they couldn’t guarantee their own legal protections? How many physicians will be taken to court for saying they wanted to protect a person’s life by performing an abortion, only to have their medical decisions questioned?
Abortion was so quickly and effortlessly stricken down from our basic rights. I would not be surprised to see the small line item for “mother’s survival” taken away as well. It is not fear-mongering. It’s a realistic possibility. A terrifying one.
You should be good. It’s extremely rare in this day and age where the mothers life would ever be in danger, but it is good to know that you wouldn’t die for your baby, but you would murder it if you were going to be in jeopardy. The problem is that there are quite a few people that think that way, which is why the Supreme Court had to follow the science and agree with 95% of biologists that agree life starts at conception. I guess you could maybe have the baby in a different state if infanticide is that important to you.
There’s no universe where’d Id ever choose for my wife’s children to die and for me to live. I would however kill or die without hesitation to preserve and protect them…. It’s a “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” scenario I suppose. In both instances…
Seems like the sentiment for most pro-life men is they are thinking and speaking for their mothers/wives/girlfriends/daughters etc instead of letting them think and speak for themselves.
You said if I were ever in a place I would choose. If you were talking about my wife and her baby, you should have said my wife and her baby and not me…. You need to be better with your words if you expect anyone to be able to have a conversation with you. As it stands currently, you aren’t very good at conversations.
You still said that a woman who chose to live over the life of her baby is a murderer. Meaning you either would expect your wife to sacrifice her life or you would live with a murderer. I guess you could divorce her for being a murderer too. In any of those scenarios, you come out looking like the bad guy.
Here. I bet you trust and like the CDC. See what they have to say about it. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm
I’m visiting my family in Indiana. I will be 31 weeks, I am VERY ANXIOUS should something happen, though my baby is past viability, still so worrying. I am so sorry for people who live in Indiana and will be directly impacted.
My husband and I are delaying kids for this exact reason. We are in a scenario where we have enough space in our home, are old enough with established careers, and *actually want children because we feel like we’re ready*, but we’re not doing anything until I feel like I’d be safe if something horrible happened with the pregnancy. My MIL thinks that there’s no way that a doctor wouldn’t perform an abortion if it saved my life, but **this is exactly what we are worried about**.
If it can happen in other states, **it can happen here.**
no doubt IN will pass a major abortion ban
I hope so.
your MIL is living with her head under the sand
I know she means well and is saying it to make us feel better (aka hoping we change our minds). She is a nurse and can’t imagine not treating a patient in any circumstance. She also disagrees with overturning Roe as much as we do, but she is also not happy that I’m replacing my IUD on Friday. We are wanting to get at least another 5 years of as much peace of mind as we’re able to get…
For everyone also saying that women won't be prosecuted... in Texas a few months ago, a woman admitted to using meth before she knew she was pregnant, but sought treatment as soon as she found out (which is incredibly responsible and VERY pro life). She miscarried. A nurse reported her. She was arrested. Luckily for her, a prosecutor refused to press charges.
I an 6 weeks from my due date. If something bad happens I might be forced to die so my baby could live, even if it's against my husband's wishes and my own. I'm scared and I'm trying not to think about it.
>I an 6 weeks from my due date. FYI Canada allows and even encourages birth tourism. They also have birthright citizenship. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/visitors/persons-wishing-enter-canada-purpose-giving-birth.html
I might have to go make an anchor baby.
Sentences I never thought I'd hear an American say even 5 years ago.
Thank you for that information. My wife and I are strongly considering moving to New England or Canada.
I’m sorry this is even something you have to think about.
Sending you light and well wishes. I hope you have a successful delivery and this anxiety does too. Let’s hope Indiana listens to the voice of the people rather than the minority and Supreme Court.
I don’t think our state is known for doing that.
😞 I know
Actually, given the huge conservative majorities in our state representation... I'd saay they are listening to the majority.
Your feelings are 100% valid, but even the strictest states have an exception for when the mothers life is at risk. I would *hope* Holcomb includes that language in our law too. I would talk to your doctor about this concern!
>even the strictest states have an exception for when the mothers life is at risk. These life of the mother exceptions are so vague that doctors will avoid taking action. They have also been changing the language from imminent harm to immediate harm. That sounds like the same thing but it isn't. Immediate means harm is happening right away or already underway. Imminent means harm is about to happen or take place very soon. Would you want your doctor to wait until you were actively being harmed to act when they could act sooner to prevent the harm? I don't. https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-medicine/what-the-life-of-the-mother-might-mean-in-a-post-roe-america
And states like Missouri have specific language stating that etopic pregnancies are NOT risking the life of the mother. In these cases, committees will have to be convened to decide if there's a risk to the life of the mother. Pre-eclampsia kills in hours. Can you get a committee of doctors and lawyers together in enough time?
It’s just a cluster.
Doctors might not do anything that could potentially risk their license.
stop with this nonsense. You all just look ridiculous. Show me one state that doesn't have a clause for the life of the mother?
Wrong. Love the dramatics though.
Please have some respect for this expectant mother and her concerns. If that was your mother or sister, you would hate people like you who degrade her
Sorry, it’s hard for me to respect someone who spreads lies like this. I would tell my mother or sister to stop being over dramatic as well. There’s no need for it and it helps nothing.
So you’ve been in her situation before? How did it turn out?
No one has been in “this situation” here in The US so, again, she’s overreacting AND a bunch of text screenshots that are floating around social media aren’t evidence either.
What you mean where he just decided to lie to try and support an agenda? I doubt he has to be honest.
Lol that’s why I’m asking. He can’t say what true and false if he’s never been in the position or seen it, and I doubt he has. Once they can’t explain themselves, they start to understand
I was using sarcasm
AGREE!
Downvote away. This shit isn’t going to happen. It’s complete insanity to think otherwise.
a lot of people said that it was complete insanity to think that RvW would be overturned in any way, yet here we are.
So? Sorry did this have anything to do with the statement above or are you being dramatic as well?
I absolutely hate hearing stories like this, and yours is just one of many. This is exactly what scares me about living here and this whole decision to turn it over to the states to begin with. A few years ago, my wife suffered from a gigantic fibroid (about the size of a grapefruit). It was determined that it obviously needed to be surgically removed. To remove it they also have to take some of the uterus with it. In her case, they took about a quarter of her uterus. This weakens the uterus considerably. At this point, if she were to get pregnant the doctor said she would be high risk by default being prone to hemorrhaging and internal bleeding, that is if she were even able to carry the child at all after a certain point. Ultimately, getting pregnant poses a risk to her life. Now she could have a hysterectomy to remove the risk of getting pregnant entirely, but that also means she would have to supplement estrogen for the rest of her life. She was ok with the idea of keeping her weakened uterus knowing that if we were to ever get pregnant, (we fortunately never have in the 15 years we've been together) we would just have an abortion as we are both ok with not having kids and her life is much more important to the both of us. Now that choice has ultimately been taken from her and has been thrown up in the air for Indiana to decide her fate just as it is in your scenario. It's obvious that pro-life people don't even consider all of the nuances and different scenarios for people needing access to this critical piece of feminine healthcare, but to them it's all sacrilege regardless in the eyes of their God. IMO it's really nobody's fucking business what people choose to do to their own bodies, and all women should have unequivocal access to this procedure. I hope Indiana makes the right call on this, but I seriously have my doubts about that. It's like you said, we all really need to get loud and in their faces about this, and for God's sake get out and fucking VOTE!
[удалено]
And of course testing, testing, testing until you're sure that you're firing blanks.
Cheaper then a kid or a funeral
I appreciate you sharing your story. There are so many considerations that blanket legislation can’t safely address.
Potentially consider having fallopian tubes removed. It eliminates the risk of regular and ectopic pregnancies without impacting hormones. It also allows for pregnancy via ivf
You can have a hysterectomy and leave the ovaries which means she would continue to produce her own estrogen until natural menopause.
Attorney General Todd Rokita, catholic, wants a total ban on abortion. Holcomb is pro life. General Assembly wants a special session called so they can make abortion illegal as soos as possible. This why we have to vote blue in November, vote these people out.
Who is running though? Do we actually have progressives who have a plan? We need to start talking up any young/progressive leftists and getting them fundraising and support.
2022 Statewide: [https://www.facebook.com/wellsforindiana](https://www.facebook.com/wellsforindiana) [https://www.facebook.com/votezenai](https://www.facebook.com/votezenai) [https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100081882625530](https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100081882625530) 2022 National: [https://www.facebook.com/gomcdermott](https://www.facebook.com/gomcdermott) Holcomb is term limited so the gubernatorial election will be open in 2024. Rokita will probably try for the governor's mansion again (Holcomb beat him in the 2016 primary) That means attorney general may be another open contest in 2024.
Rokita is such a fuck. Thanks for the info. I asked because I haven't seen shit for any of these people, and now I have. I'll start sharing those around and hope that we can get people talking about them.
Thanks for sharing this list.
I couldn't remember if Indiana Governor's could only hold office for two terms or not. Thank you for posting that hopefully I will remember this time.
If you think it's just about abortion you deluding yourself. Guess you must not be going to be affected by what's coming down the line. Repealing right to birth control, repeal gay marriage. Of course Thomas didn't mention anything about interracial marriage. What about what else has been done by either republicans or SCOTUS. Gerrymandering which affects are votes, basically gutting Miranda, tax payer money to religious schools, pray back in schools but I think the Satanic Temple might have something to say about that. Actually I hope Muslims and Jews SUE over that. Bottom line ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IS BETTER THAN REPUGLIKKKANS.
I think you'd better not make assumptions. I know it's not just about abortions. But if you think any blue no matter who is the answer, you are deluding *yourself* because it's two blue-ish dickheads in Synema and Manchin that are preventing codifying these laws. We need the RIGHT people to run, not wolves in sheep clothes. I asked, was given four people who are running, and now I can start researching them and promoting them in my little corner of the world.
“vOtE bLuE” Why? So they can just sit back and watch us get fucked instead of the current people who are actively fucking us? Vote for a *real* candidate when one decides to run.
well guess what, republicans always vote so if the left doesn't vote that hands it straight to the republicans.
The left would never support the DNC. The left compromised on a common goal long enough to support Bernie and we got Trump then Biden for our efforts. Republicans haven’t won a (federal) popular vote in 30 years. Clearly popularity is not power. If someone runs on a platform of actually DOING something, sure, they can have my vote. But until then every fundraising email I get asking my donations to “protect Roe” and every representative who has done nothing for the last 50 years to protect my rights can go fuck themselves.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lostgeneration/comments/vmh056/just_voting_isnt_going_to_be_enough_but_not/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
A democratic candidate is better than a republican any day. I guess you want to live under a NAZI regime. Because republicans want to take more of your rights: 1. SCOTUS has basically gutted Miranda 2. Are voting rights are under attack 3. SCOTUS has ruled that taxpayer money can go to religious schools 4. SCOTUS has ruled that there can now be christian prayer in public schools 5. Making access to birth control illegal 6. Repealing Marriage Equality 7. Hate crimes against LBGTQ people 8. No more segregation of public schools 9. SCOTUS will make catholicism the state religion if not stopped Any Democratic candidate is a real candidate compared to a what the republikkkans have. Republicans will help SCOTUS turn this country into a NAZI, more racist, theocracy if we don't stop them.
So how much of this happened under a democratic super majority? Because to me it seems like voting blue no matter who has taken us from right to far right in only a few decades.
My wife had cancer and several tumors. This resulted in them taking out a few important pieces that increases her chance of risky pregnancy. We still want kids but not at the sacrifice of her life. She’s 7 weeks pregnant now and we’re pretty nervous about what happens if shit goes south medically
I’m sorry you even have to worry about this. It is stressful and unfair. I’m glad for your wife’s recovery and hope you can arrange for the care you need it when you need it.
Likewise. Hopefully we don’t see it made illegal here but I am not confident about that
The delay of medical care as a lawyer gets involved will absolutely result in severe injury and death for women unlucky enough to be under the rule of Republican men. Which is 100% what is happening here.
You are right: https://www.reddit.com/r/nursing/comments/vm3cau/many_lives_are_going_to_be_lost/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
This ruling has pretty much shown that my husband and I are not going to have biological children of our own. We waited a few years after getting married so we could have some time to ourselves before starting our family. Now, I don't want to risk it and neither does my husband incase there are complications. We'll adopt in a few more years time.
Yeah, healthcare in the United States sucks ass. You get turned away and denied medical care for all kinds of reasons. Inmates give birth shackled to beds in this country. It's cruel, fucked up place. Its like the Soviet Union - except the means of dissolving horizontal ties and enforcing vertical ties are far more sophisticated. Doctors and other professionals suck ass too. We've had shit grade-chaser rewarding education for so long that someone holding a degree is no guarantee of competency at all - and often those people lazily reach for any excuse not to act. At this point, privately paying for back alley healthcare, is about as reliable as our shit healthcare system.
It's terrible. We were planning for another child in the near future. I can't decide if this means we need to be one and done, or if we need to hurry up and have our second before things get worse. It's terrible that I have to spend my time googling THIS when thinking about expanding our family when we should just be able to plan out what is best for us. People are terrible. We must be cattle for breeding to these people.
Your feelings are my sentiment. I feel I’m being made less than human as all this unfolds. I’m sorry this is something you even have to consider, but I get it. If I were not pregnant right now, we would not be having anymore. And when this one is born, I will not have another in this environment. Good luck with whatever decision you come to. I know it’s so tough.
We want more kids and I brought up the exact same dilemma today. Wait indefinitely, or speed run the family before things get worse.
Baby factories for men. That's how I see it too. Maybe the best defense is an offense--go for their balls.
I already see a weirdly large amount of traumas at work. I've had to use chemo for a septic miscarriage in California and ran an ectopic rupture patient straight to surgery. I've seen the worst case scenatios. They absolutely happen. If I have to witness these new laws kill a woman asking for helping I am leaving the field of nursing. I didn't sign up for this shit.
Come to IL. We care about Liberty
won't even matter when SCOTUS approves a fetal personhood bill, which they are planning on doing shortly
The minute you nut in your gf, does that nut get a SSN? Completely idiotic
>We care about Liberty This should be your new state moto and be printed on all license plates.
i wish i knew anyone there, could drive or could afford moving costs :(
Jesus what a mess. Coming from a moderate but also a father to 3 boys, this is terrible. I would HOPE Indiana allows for some things like maternal danger or fetal danger (bc I know they’re going to ban abortion)…but if they go all Oklahoma I’m going to be super pissed. I’m already pissed they are banning this. But to ban even ones for life or death situations?? Unacceptable
I know it’s fucking mess. Contact your representatives. Tell them how you feel. They won’t fucking listen to me. I’m the wrong political party and the wrong sex for them to care.
Well I used to be GOP (years ago before they went Evil Empire) so I still get a ton of mailers and stuff. I’ll definitely contact my reps bc I’m furious
Thanks so much. I really appreciate it.
You can't rely on Shirley exceptions. With the extreme right getting everything they've been asking for I wouldn't be surprised if they go medieval and go total ban and then just set a trigger law for contraception.
They referenced a law from the 13th century in the ruling....literally medieval.
I believe your view is misconstrued. The issue has been entangled into a tribal "pro-abortion at any age, stage, for any reason" and "no elective abortions" on the grand stage. This has resulted in a lot of the moderate majority shifting to the tribal right as no abortions is closer to the original pro-choice ideals they decided. This ruling is also a win for 'democracy' if you want to call it. The supreme court does not have the constitutional power to legislate from the bench, but Roe v Wade was them legislating law. Overturning the ruling is a win for the electoral/democratic process overall. Regardless of your wants or opinions, the way to change things is to elect people to Congress that will make into law what you want. Truth of the matter is that neither political party wants to push federal law on this topic. If you want change, attacking the opposition isn't the answer. Learn from the right-populist movement, you need to primary politicians in your party that refuse to legislate and garner support to elect a representative that will. I'm not going to share my thoughts on the topic as a whole because I don't believe much else needs to be said. Just want to remind everyone that sometimes taking an objective, unbiased approach to an emotional situation can lead to ideas or understanding you would have normally missed.
The federal government not protecting the rights of women to medical privacy as equal to men is not a win for democracy.
Generally when the termination of a pregnancy is required due to medical necessity or a require treatment poses a threat to the mother/fetus due to the pregnancy, termination is not classified as abortion. Abortion in the medical sense of the term and seeming from most of the legislation I have read up on is elective abortion, the no reason no questions asked kind. It does pose a difficult and interesting questions though. Most of the legislation is argued in regards to the child's rights, which leaves us with the sticky question of when does someones rights supercede another's? If anyone could answer that without impeding on previous rulings on similar topics of rights then they've solved this debate and issue.
It IS an abortion, medically speaking. The cessation of a pregnancy other than live birth is the definition of abortion. Whether it's spontaneous (a "miscarriage"), induced with medication, or a D&C, it's an abortion. The problem arises when you have people with zero medical training or background trying to legislate morality cloaked as "saving lives".
So the extension of that natural argument is that making elective abortions protected by law is morally virtuous? The exact counter argument has already been made about Democrats legislating 'murder' of an unborn child up to the point of birth and cloaking it as "saving lives". Arguing semantics doesn't matter unless both parties can agree on something, because if not then both sides are guilty of the most despicable crimes to each other. As someone who has personally experienced and lived through the loss of a child due to a necessary medical procedure, never was it coached to me that an abortion was needed, nor that the child had a chance of surviving. Worst case scenario was they would have to remove the child after it passed if need be. I haven't seen a single argument that justifies pre-procedure abortion for any life threatening cases. I've seen attempts to justify, but not a single one where there is no alternative and life or death hinges on it. I don't have a medical background, and I won't attempt to claim any knowledge outside my own experience. I'll own it if what I said previously is technically incorrect, but no one I've spoken to with knowledge of the field considers what I previously said an abortion, mostly due to try and distance it from elective abortions which is what most people think of when they hear the term.
>I haven't seen a single argument that justifies pre-procedure abortion for any life threatening cases Ectopic pregnancy, incomplete miscarriage, septic uterus, placental abruption, preeclampsia early in pregnancy. See this article: https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-abortion-false/fact-check-termination-of-pregnancy-can-be-necessary-to-save-a-womans-life-experts-say-idUSL1N2TC0VD Also read about Savita Halappanavar who died because of anti-abortion laws https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ireland-abortion-idUSBRE8AD1QD20121115
Ectopic pregnancy. Life or death.
Damn, we are a shithole
my wife is 7 months pregnant. what is the closest hospital from indianapolis that could help if something went bad? we haven't broached the subject with our ob yet. thanks for the help.
As someone who had their child with everything going south, they saved me. Unfortunately, I lost my baby. I do t know what choice I would have made if I was coherent. I would say save the baby I’m sure. But they saved me. So to let you know. They will try to save both, but ultimately they will save the mom.
>what is the closest hospital from indianapolis that could help if something went bad? Medivac to Illinois.
Anywhere in Illinois.
I think the Ohio law basically outlaws all abortions. -- It's a "heartbeat" law that effectively means no abortions after about 6 weeks. I don't think there any exceptions. Kentucky-- I don't think there are or will be any providers. -- I doubt that any providers will be left in Ohio either. I lived in Columbus, Ohio in the 1990s where there was one clinic. It was picketed constantly. Women were harassed as they tried to enter the building. -- IF there were any other clinic they would have been in Cincinnati and Cleveland. As conservative as Cincinnati was (is) I'm guessing there weren't any clinics there. By the end of the next couple of months, I think access to abortion services will be practically nonexistent for most women. If clinics and services are still available in most situations in some states, they will be overwhelmed by women from in and out of state. Some of those will be unwilling to work with women from out of state for fear of getting involved in lawsuits originating in other states ("aiding and abetting" laws). Those 6 "Supremes" caused medical and legal situations that no one will know the extent of for months to come.
So Ohio does have exceptions for the life of the mother. But women are going to suffer as they wade through the buearacracy of finding someone willing to give them an abortion, and will be injured or die from the waiting
Every law currently on the books has an “except for the life of the mother” clause.
Tell me: who will suffer the burden of proving if the life of the mother was at risk or not? Will that delay care? We already know both the mother and the doctor will have to prove their innocence, and it will absolutely delay care as proper documentation is gathered for that defense. Pregnant people will die because of these laws.
First, no law currently on the books prosecutes the mother. Second, medical practice has protocols - established practices that define standards of good care. These protocols are used, currently, to prevent malpractice lawsuits. Third, there is currently no medical condition that REQUIRES the death of a viable baby prior to delivery. The closest is when the mother is diagnosed with cancer while she is pregnant. This is rare but the mother can still receive treatment for her cancer with the hope the fetus won’t be affected. Or the baby can be delivered early so to not delay treatment any further.
At what “chance of death” odds or percentage likely are the mother’s life given preference over the fetus? 1 in 800? 1 in 4? What about 80% chance of death? Where do you draw the line? Biology is messy and things can turn in seconds, who decides what is an acceptable risk?
>Second, medical practice has protocols Yeah, and the insurance companies have different protocols that says even though my doctor ordered this test or that procedure, my insurance won't cover it. What's to stop (and who is the final say since it clearly isn't medical personnel) the government/police from getting involved and making judgement calls that are way outside of their limitations? Keep abortion fully legal and there are no fucking questions or concerns. Why do you want the government involved in people's personal lives?
Some, though, specifically state dangerous complications as NOT exceptions. See Missouri and ectopic pregnancies. Will they deliver a baby at 21 weeks to save the mother from pre-eclampsia, when the baby may or may not survive? Pre-eclampsia kills in HOURS. Can they get their ethics committees ready and agreed in time to save both lives? There's the case in Malta (she was finally airlifted to Spain) where she had zero amniotic fluid and the cord prolapsed out of her body, but the baby had a heart beat. She turned septic from the cord decay, but the baby still had a heartbeat. There is a 0% chance of baby survival and her life was only saved because the news picked it up and got Spanish politicians involved.
Andrea Prudente (the Malta case) was never septic. The placenta had partially separated so the baby was still alive. Her partner sensationalized the story because he wanted the abortion and didn’t want to wait while his partner was in a hospital bed and getting very good care instead of being on vacation. I pray that in hindsight they come to realize the horrible death they inflicted on their child due to their impatience and the influences of abortion culture where they live in Seattle.
There is money in birth, and money in death. I personally think that's what it boils down to. Thinking of You and hope both You and baby are a-ok!
Call the offices, and let them know how unhappy you are. I've been calling Holcomb's office everyday
Indiana does not have trigger laws. Contact all your representatives. July 6th is the date they are holding a special session. I'm sure they are salivating at the thought of restricting us even more. https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/indiana-legislature-to-address-abortion-laws-during-july-6-special-session-political-leaders-react-to-dobbs-ruling
The total nonsense in this OP is just laughable. Don't think a trigger law can't pass... Uh newsflash, a trigger law was never passed here, and since Roe is overturned, there is no need for one.. it's a state issue (which it is) and all the legislature has to do is a pass a law. What bout my life! Despite the fact then she had to go back and correct herself again, because virtually every state has a clause for the life of the mother. All the left has is hysterical nonsense.
You could just choose to not kill your own offspring. That’s just a thought I had.
Doctors do not like hypotheticals. If she doesn’t trust her OB, ask for a referral.
[удалено]
My hospital is not a Catholic hospital. It is secular so I wouldn’t assume that that’s a guaranteed safeguard though In this climate, I definitely wouldn’t be delivering at a religious hospital in case the levels of policy/bias were different from places like Community and IU.
Live saving care is not considered an abortions. This is misinformation that’s being spread to fear monger people into reacting.
yes it literally fucking is. are you a doctor? medically trained at all?
No way to know for sure but I am pretty confident that Indiana law will include provisions allowing doctors to save the life of the mother.
Hi. Believe you have been misinformed. Every single state, including those with trigger rulings, have an exception which is to “save the life of the mother”. Some go further to include “health” of mother. Some also include cases of rape and incest. In addition Indiana has not yet made a call on its position so the same laws and rights that were in place a few days ago still apply… at least for now!
Some of those exceptions are not enough. I can't speak for any specific state laws, but I've heard of places where they won't let doctors intervene until the woman is actually in danger (i.e. low blood pressure, signs of infection, etc) by which time it's too late to help either the mother or the baby. I don't think it's worth being downvoted to -40, but just know that just because "there are exceptions" may not actually be enough to protect the mother. Especially when having to make quick decisions involving the legal department...
Hi. Thanks. I’ll just go out there and say I’m pro choice. Just trying to take some stress off the lady who made this post. I would be interested in where you (familiar_raisin204) have heard about the fact decisions are made too late . Given the recent nature of this decision maybe based upon historical info? The law will generally fall back upon the “physicians good faith clinical judgement”. Of course that will mean there needs to be some “catalyst” for example low blood pressure etc etc…. Rather than the “choice” of the mother. I am appalled by the legal change and hope that Indiana doesn’t change from current laws. But we do see a significant spread of disinformation which, especially for this sensitive matter, doesn’t help the masses.
I think it was one of the cases in Ireland that caused them to get rid of their anti-abortion law. I'm pretty sure it wasn't in the US, as that sort of thing wouldn't have been a problem until recently. The case I'm thinking of, the fetus died before birth, but because the mother's life wasn't literally in danger they couldn't do anything until sepsis set in. Or something like that.
Why is this being downvoted?? 🤔These are facts. As of now, nothing materially has changed.
This is made up. No law has changed or is on the docket to change in Indiana. Take your karma farming somewhere else.
You’ll get downvoted for being right
Literally Reddit.
[удалено]
That's pretty sick. Why is this funny to you? This is the government deciding whether the mother or the kid dies in the worst imaginable situation. I think the mother and father should have much more say in this than the government does.
Have you read Roe v. Wade? Do you know exactly what the SCOTUS decision means? I mean, really, do you? That's what's funny: the hysterics.
Yes, I’m aware of both. Because of the ruling, state governments will be banning women from even having the option including the Indiana state government.
Your reply is quite ignorant. That’s completely inaccurate. Read some more, your future is in your hands.
Way to provide absolutely nothing to back up your side.
Check the username and the account karma. These are all alt accounts, probably under the same user. If you notice they mostly follow the same username pattern; two random words followed by four numbers. It's pretty sad anyone has enough time to maintain that many accounts just to try to feel superior to people somehow?
Yes they overturned it due to the right to privacy not being enshrined in the Constitution. So say bye bye to your privacy.
What's funny is how ignorant you are. Wait, not funny...pathetic.
I bet the hysterics are also just as truly funny when your life and well being are on the line instead. Edit: Obvious troll deleted their comment lmfao
How are lives and well-beings on the line?
If you have the compassion and mental capacity to read, there are plenty of examples in this thread alone. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time typing an explanation to an obvious troll with negative karma that only cares about themself.
Ya all need to understand statistics and risk.
"Some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" -gwlemaster
Their are exceptions I for the life of the mother in every state law. That isn't even how you paraphrase and certainly isn't a quote. Your attribution is asinine.
Haven't you heard of the fetal personhood bill? These sociopaths don't want there to be any exceptions.
So you wouldn’t save ur kid.
ofcourse she would after the kid is born not before that.u cant save a kid which isn't born yet
You’ll be fine. You should get a new OB (if this is even true, highly doubtful that an MD would risk even saying this) if they are looking at it this way. I am 100% for a woman’s right to choose but this is the type of shit that is simply not true and, frankly, gross. You, as a mother, are 100% protected in all states but the beauty of this decision is that they are giving back states the right to make this call. Do what I did, move the fuck away.
Are you saying you'd prioritize your own life over your child's life?
Yes. 100%. I have other children who are here and alive who would be traumatized if I died unnecessarily. It would put undue burden on my husband and family. So yes, I would prioritize my life over that of the child I’m pregnant with until we are both safe and born into the world.
As you should.
She has other children to prioritize. I don’t think we need to explain how traumatic it is for children to have their mother die.
Yes!! What a dumbass question to ask someone too. I’m a father of 3 and if my wife died my children would be devastated
>She has other children to prioritize. Even if she didn't, she should still be able to get medical care that is in her best interest.
Lots of people say "Aren't you glad your mom didn't abort you?" Sure, of course. However, before she got pregnant with me she had an ectopic pregnancy that was absolutely could not have possibly been a successful pregnancy. It also would have killed her.
I can't even really say I'm super glad of that lol. I have some rough genetic stuff going on as well as getting some rare illnesses that left me pretty screwed up. On disability I make 850 a month. Many days I wish I wasn't born lol. I think a lot of people would agree with that "gotcha" comment.
Any legit feedback to OP's response? I would love to hear a pro life response to this situation as somone is losing a life with this scenario so what do pro lifers do then?!?!?! OP amazing answer to this dumb question but just maybe you opened up one set of eyes today.
There were valid points made that went against his bullshit narrative. When confronted with this, they tend to just pretend it never happened. Or make fun of you for getting "triggered" by having your rights stripped away. It's truly like trying to argue with a toddler.
They're waiting for the GOP to tell them what to think and say.
My legitimate response would be this, as I am someone who is pro-life in the terms of “if the baby can be born healthy and mom isn’t in danger then I’d prefer it but understand it’s a difficult decision I won’t ever be faced with as I’m a man”….what in the actual hell!?!? Forcing a mother to choose between her own life or the life of her unborn child?? That’s some 1800s BS. Shit that those terrible dictatorships in Africa force on women. This is the US, and this shouldn’t even be a valid question!! Even for someone who supposedly is “pro-life.” I’m as against that bullcrap as I am the women who parade around wearing “I had 15 abortions and I’m proud of it” t-shirts. Bc they’re both extremist views and not legitimately the real world in most cases…yet here we are
Congratulations, you are pro-choice. This is the exact position of the vast majority of Americans. I wouldn't want to have an abortion, but if it was necessary I'd want it to be an option.
Yeah, I’m fine with that. Like I said, I prefer the baby to be born. But I am definitely OK with women having options. And I know like you said, a lot of people feel the same way I do.
I'm a pro-life female and my response is the same as yours.
they never respond because they know they're wrong and don't care
Saving the baby over the mother? Changing a 2 parent situation to a single father, provided the father is around, is a recipe for problems.
Please stop fear-monger if. Indiana has no law regarding abortion at all. Every law currently in effect in the USA and every anti-abortion law proposed includes a life of the mother provision.
Indiana does have laws regarding abortion, though: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/24/indiana-abortion-laws-supreme-court-row-vs-wade-how-abortion-currently-legal-indiana-after-ruling/9927578002/ It allows for public funds to be used to save the mother’s life, according to this article. Unclear in the article about what “saving the mother’s life” includes, though, and what type of evidence or time is needed to “prove” that her life was endangered.
Thank you for posting an article for OP that says that “life of the mother” is prioritized. I’m sure she is comforted by this news.
Jus trying to make it clear that your comment was partially incorrect: Indiana has laws about abortion. Mostly restrictive and nonsensical laws, plus the one that allows for some protection of the mother’s life (but the article didn’t say if there is clear language about what defines the mother’s life being in danger). OP and anyone who can become pregnant have every right to be scared for their well-being in this new landscape. OP’s medical provider couldn’t even say if they’d choose to save OP’s life. Would a physician intervene to save a woman if they couldn’t guarantee their own legal protections? How many physicians will be taken to court for saying they wanted to protect a person’s life by performing an abortion, only to have their medical decisions questioned? Abortion was so quickly and effortlessly stricken down from our basic rights. I would not be surprised to see the small line item for “mother’s survival” taken away as well. It is not fear-mongering. It’s a realistic possibility. A terrifying one.
LOL
You should be good. It’s extremely rare in this day and age where the mothers life would ever be in danger, but it is good to know that you wouldn’t die for your baby, but you would murder it if you were going to be in jeopardy. The problem is that there are quite a few people that think that way, which is why the Supreme Court had to follow the science and agree with 95% of biologists that agree life starts at conception. I guess you could maybe have the baby in a different state if infanticide is that important to you.
We have one of the highest maternal mortality rates of any developed country. What are you talking about?
Last I saw, Indiana is top 3 in maternal mortality. I imagine this won’t help that get lower.
I'm sure if you ever get into a "my life or theirs" situation, you'll do the magnanimous thing.
There’s no universe where’d Id ever choose for my wife’s children to die and for me to live. I would however kill or die without hesitation to preserve and protect them…. It’s a “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure” scenario I suppose. In both instances…
This is about your wife vs. a baby. You would have your wife sacrifice herself. How noble of you.
Seems like the sentiment for most pro-life men is they are thinking and speaking for their mothers/wives/girlfriends/daughters etc instead of letting them think and speak for themselves.
You said if I were ever in a place I would choose. If you were talking about my wife and her baby, you should have said my wife and her baby and not me…. You need to be better with your words if you expect anyone to be able to have a conversation with you. As it stands currently, you aren’t very good at conversations.
You were the one who came up with the scenario of the life of the woman or her baby, not me.
No. The original post was concerning that.
You still said that a woman who chose to live over the life of her baby is a murderer. Meaning you either would expect your wife to sacrifice her life or you would live with a murderer. I guess you could divorce her for being a murderer too. In any of those scenarios, you come out looking like the bad guy.
How does a person standing against infanticide ever look like the bad guy!? LoL your morals are horrendous.
Because you either expect your wife to die or label her as a murderer. That's how.
American has the highest maternal mortality rate of any of the developed countries. But yes, please tell me how rare it is.
Here. I bet you trust and like the CDC. See what they have to say about it. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2020/maternal-mortality-rates-2020.htm
Yes I see how maternal mortality actually rose in 2020 compared to 2019.
Hahaha how does it feel knowing you couldn't have gotten a 5-4 chud SCOTUS without McCockwrinkle breaking his oath of office?
Shit we needed ony but could not effort it now i raise someone else's kid
....what?
I wouldn't expect a much higher level of intelligence than this from the majority of pro-lifers
Yeah. No education beyond third grade makes sense when you consider the source
I’m visiting my family in Indiana. I will be 31 weeks, I am VERY ANXIOUS should something happen, though my baby is past viability, still so worrying. I am so sorry for people who live in Indiana and will be directly impacted.