Who has the craziest abortion laws?

[ponderingturtle]

Between Ohio and Pennsylvania we have a true contest in the craziest abortion laws being passed.

First in Ohio we are mandating a mythical medical procedure where ectopic pregnancies are being implanted in uterus. This procedure does not exist but is a legal requirement to avoid murder by abortion charges for the ectopic pregnancy.

https://time.com/5742053/ectopic-pre...abortion-bill/

Then in pennsylvania we have legal requirements to name and get a death certificate for many womens periods. If they had sex they might have a fertilized embroy in there and that requires a death certificate and grave. Who is going to be checking all the menstral blood to find out if it needs a grave or not?

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/1...abortions.html

So who wins the crazy off?

[theprestige]

Mu.

The poll needs a Planet X option.

Neither of these things are laws, so neither answer is correct. The poll is fatally flawed.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Neither of these things are laws, so neither answer is correct. The poll is fatally flawed.

Not really. If it bothers you, just mentally swap the word "law" for "bill".

[Stacyhs]

We need an "equally crazy" option. It's like trying to determine which serial killer is the most evil.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

We need an "equally crazy" option. It's like trying to determine which serial killer is the most evil.

You can use and talk about what your decisions are.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You can use and talk about what your decisions are.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

I chose Ohio because its proposal fly's in the face of reason and reality, while pensylvania merely requires a police state to monitor women's periods and inspect their menses for fertilized blastocycsts and the like.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I chose Ohio because its proposal fly's in the face of reason and reality, while pensylvania merely requires a police state to monitor women's periods and inspect their menses for fertilized blastocycsts and the like.

Ah, I see. But PA's also flies in the face of reason and reality. Neither is possible. They are equally crazy in that respect.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Ah, I see. But PA's also flies in the face of reason and reality. Neither is possible. They are equally crazy in that respect.

But the Ohio one is keeping it straight with catholic doctrine so it is already endorsed by 14.5% of hospitals. They already refuse to perform an abortion for mere things like ectopic pregnancies or anything else. They use hysterectomies instead.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

But the Ohio one is keeping it straight with catholic doctrine so it is already endorsed by 14.5% of hospitals.
They already refuse to perform an abortion for mere things like ectopic pregnancies or anything else. They use hysterectomies instead.

That isn't strictly true.

https://www.chausa.org/docs/default-...f.pdf?sfvrsn=0

My SIL had an ectopic pregnancy surgically removed at a Catholic Hospital 25 years ago.

I think you're confusing a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) with a salpingectomy (removal of fallopian tube(s).

I highly doubt Catholic hospitals have endorsed an impossible surgical procedure.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

That isn't strictly true.

https://www.chausa.org/docs/default-...f.pdf?sfvrsn=0

My SIL had an ectopic pregnancy surgically removed at a Catholic Hospital 25 years ago.

I think you're confusing a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) with a salpingectomy (removal of fallopian tube(s).

Which of course damnaged her fertility unnessacarily but that is good enough for a catholic. See the abortion is only allowed when you do extra unnessacary damage to the womans reproductive organs so you can say that the abortion was a side effect of the real procedure, but the procedure was totally not an abortion.

Don't you know anything about proper catholic medicine?

Here is a good catholic defense of unnessacarily damaging procedures instead of using medicine to resolve the problem and not surgery.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschi...opic-pregnancy

So it is entirely likely your sister in law received unnecessarily damaging treatment for her ectopic pregnancy because abortion by itself is never an option at a catholic hospital and you need to damage the woman on top of it to be morally acceptable. Yes the hysterectomy comment for ectopic pregnancy was mildly hyperbolic but catholic logic is that an abortion can never be done so they need to do some surgery that damages the woman and has a side effect of an abortion.

[Silly Green Monkey]

My mother had her right uterine tube removed when her first pregnancy was ectopic, she maintains that it was not an abortion. My sister and I were both born through the left uterine tube.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Which of course damnaged her fertility unnessacarily but that is good enough for a catholic. See the abortion is only allowed when you do extra unnessacary damage to the womans reproductive organs so you can say that the abortion was a side effect of the real procedure, but the procedure was totally not an abortion.

You're making assumptions not based on knowledge; you have no idea what method was used to end her ectopic pregnancy. Additionally, it did not damage her fertility and she did not have her fallopian tube removed. She also got pregnant with my niece the first month her doctor said she could try again.

Quote:

Don't you know anything about proper catholic medicine?

The link I provided is from The Catholic Health Association of America. I think the have a faint inkling of 'proper Catholic medicine'.

Quote:

Here is a good catholic defense of unnessacarily damaging procedures instead of using medicine to resolve the problem and not surgery.

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschi...opic-pregnancy

From you own link:

Quote:

Is it morally acceptable to use the drug Methotrexate to end an ectopic pregnancy?

Methotrexate is sometimes used to address the problem of a fallopian tube ectopic pregnancy. The Magisterium has not taken a position on the use of methotrexate by name for the condition of the fallopian tube ectopic pregnancy. It has only affirmed that direct abortion is never permissible, while the indirect taking of a life may be tolerated when all the requirements of the principle of double effect are satisfied. The matter of methotrexate therefore remains a question for individual conscience to resolve, until such time that there is an authoritative teaching on the question.

Methotrexate is the least invasive, safest, and least damaging method used to end an ectopic pregnancy.

Quote:

So it is entirely likely your sister in law received unnecessarily damaging treatment for her ectopic pregnancy

Again you are assuming to know about my SIL's procedure, which you don't.

Quote:

because abortion by itself is never an option at a catholic hospital and you need to damage the woman on top of it to be morally acceptable. Yes the hysterectomy comment for ectopic pregnancy was mildly hyperbolic but catholic logic is that an abortion can never be done so they need to do some surgery that damages the woman and has a side effect of an abortion.

I suggest you read the quote above again.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Not really. If it bothers you, just mentally swap the word "law" for "bill".

I'll swap if the thread starter changes the thread title.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

My mother had her right uterine tube removed when her first pregnancy was ectopic, she maintains that it was not an abortion. My sister and I were both born through the left uterine tube.

When the pregnancy has advanced too far for methotrexate to be used (after 6 weeks gestation), there is no other option but to do surgery. More advanced ectopic pregnancies do damage to the tube requiring removal.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'll swap if the thread starter changes the thread title.

It’s too hard to interpret based on context? Ah, well. I guess the thread will have to do without your participation.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

When the pregnancy has advanced too far for methotrexate to be used (after 6 weeks gestation), there is no other option but to do surgery. More advanced ectopic pregnancies do damage to the tube requiring removal.

And at catholic hospitals that is of course the only available option, as methotrexate is banned by the ruling bishops.

There are reasons why no woman who is having pregnancy complications should go to a catholic hospital if they have a choice.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And at catholic hospitals that is of course the only available option, as methotrexate is banned by the ruling bishops.

There are reasons why no woman who is having pregnancy complications should go to a catholic hospital if they have a choice.

Again, you are incorrect. I've already provided evidence from the Catholic Health Association of America clearly stating so. Apparently, you need further evidence:

Quote:

The Directives require interpretation based on medical advances. To say, as CFC does, that treatment for ectopic pregnancies would not be provided, is untrue. A careful read of the Catholic ethics literature in CHA publications themselves would make clear that a Catholic hospital can even use methotrexate (a drug that can cause an abortion once pregnancy has been established in the uterus) could be used to treat an ecotopic pregnancy where its mode of action is different and indirect. It has been determined that Methotrexate attacks the DNA in the trophoblastic tissue, not the embryo. Thus its use in ectopic pregnancies is not a direct abortion and is therefore permissible.

http://religiondispatches.org/cathol...not-the-enemy/

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Again, you are incorrect. I've already provided evidence from the Catholic Health Association of America clearly stating so. Apparently, you need further evidence:


http://religiondispatches.org/cathol...not-the-enemy/

Yea right, if that was so much the case then a nun wouldn't have been excommunicated and damned to eternal torture for allowing a catholic hospital to conduct a life saving abortion.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=126985072

But by your story she shouldn't even have had a job in the first place as it is the doctors who make the calls not hospital admin like her. So how did she get fired and excommunicated from a position that clearly doesn't exist, for a decision no one in a position like hers could make?

Edit to add

"According to the Bishops' directives, doctors have to demonstrate that a woman's health or life is at risk to get a hospital ethics committee to approve treatment with drugs or surgery, Stulberg says. This means that at some Catholic hospitals, doctors can't treat the miscarriage unless the woman develops signs of infection, like a fever or an elevated heartbeat, or suffers excessive blood loss."

https://www.scpr.org/blogs/health/20...nt-for-pregna/

"A survey of more than 1,000 OB-GYNs who work in religious hospitals finds that more than one-third report they’ve had a conflict regarding religion-based policy and patient care. At Catholic hospitals, the figure was 52 percent"

https://khn.org/news/when-religious-...ealth-collide/

So it seems that some catholic hospitals might be ok with treating patients with the standard of care, but it is certainly not universal. Best investigate the ethics committee decisions before one goes there with a medical emergency.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey

My mother had her right uterine tube removed when her first pregnancy was ectopic, she maintains that it was not an abortion. My sister and I were both born through the left uterine tube.

That's the Devil's uterine tube!

[RecoveringYuppy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Again, you are incorrect. I've already provided evidence from the Catholic Health Association of America clearly stating so. Apparently, you need further evidence:

http://religiondispatches.org/cathol...not-the-enemy/

It doesn't appear that that organization has complete authority and it seems many Catholic hospitals don't agree with their "careful reading".

One example, there are others:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353977


ETA: I see the thread has moved since I last read.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yea right, if that was so much the case then a nun wouldn't have been excommunicated and damned to eternal torture for allowing a catholic hospital to conduct a life saving abortion.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...ryId=126985072

But by your story she shouldn't even have had a job in the first place as it is the doctors who make the calls not hospital admin like her. So how did she get fired and excommunicated from a position that clearly doesn't exist, for a decision no one in a position like hers could make?

The situation you linked had nothing to do with using methotrexate which is the topic of our discussion. The woman involved did not have an ectopic pregnancy. She had a normal pregnancy and suffered from a heart condition from which she would have died if she continued the pregnancy. By the way, the excommunication of Sister McBride was reversed and she is now in good standing with the Catholic Church and continues in her job at the Catholic hospital.

I've presented two quotes from Catholic health sites stating that methotrexate can be used. However, there is disagreement among different Catholic agencies about whether the drug directly causes a direct abortion (not allowed) or indirectly (allowed) due to how the drug works. Those Catholics who hold that it does not attack the embryo itself, but the trophoblastic cells, argue that it is, therefore, not a direct abortion.

Quote:

This paper has presented a solidly probable argument for the use of
MTX treatment in the case of a tubal pregnancy. This argument is based
on the fact that MTX attacks the destructive activity of the trophoblastic
ce lls directly, and a foreseen but unintended side effect is that the
trophoblast and the embryo wi ll die as a result of this treatment. Since the
revised 1994 Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services
are ambiguous on whether they would allow for this medica l procedure,
and since a solidly probable argument, supported both by intrinsic and
extrinsic opinions, upholds this proced ure as morally licit, I believe it
would be morally justifiable to advise Judy to use MTX as a licit procedure
for the management of her tubal pregnancy. Her use of MTX is grounded
in the Catholic moral tradition and is supported not only by the three-font
principle and the principle of double effect. but also by the principle of
probabilism. However, due to the moral ambiguity surrounding this
medical treatment, dialogue and debate should continue among medical and
ethical professionals until the Holy See makes a judgment on this specific
medical procedure.

https://epublications.marquette.edu/...11&context=lnq

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy

It doesn't appear that that organization has complete authority and it seems many Catholic hospitals don't agree with their "careful reading".

One example, there are others:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21353977


ETA: I see the thread has moved since I last read.

Yes. See my post just above. As of now, the use of methotrexate seems to be a matter not settled by the Catholic Church but the Directives do not prohibit it explicity. However, due to how those Directives are interpreted by various Catholic doctors and hospitals, it may not be offered as a procedure. But Ponderingturtle's statement that no Catholic hospital is allowed to use it is not accurate.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

The situation you linked had nothing to do with using methotrexate which is the topic of our discussion. The woman involved did not have an ectopic pregnancy. She had a normal pregnancy and suffered from a heart condition from which she would have died if she continued the pregnancy. By the way, the excommunication of Sister McBride was reversed and she is now in good standing with the Catholic Church and continues in her job at the Catholic hospital.

I've presented two quotes from Catholic health sites stating that methotrexate can be used. However, there is disagreement among different Catholic agencies about whether the drug directly causes a direct abortion (not allowed) or indirectly (allowed) due to how the drug works. Those Catholics who hold that it does not attack the embryo itself, but the trophoblastic cells, argue that it is, therefore, not a direct abortion.


https://epublications.marquette.edu/...11&context=lnq

If that is your only issue with catholic health care and not letting women die like they proudly did with Savita Halappanavar in Ireland, why did you cut out the links that address that directly? Some permit its use some ban it, and there is the favorite bann it and ship the patients off to a non catholic hospital for real health care. Hopefully the delay in care doesn't kill them but if it does no skin off their noses.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yes. See my post just above. As of now, the use of methotrexate seems to be a matter not settled by the Catholic Church but the Directives do not prohibit it explicity. However, due to how those Directives are interpreted by various Catholic doctors and hospitals, it may not be offered as a procedure. But Ponderingturtle's statement that no Catholic hospital is allowed to use it is not accurate.

Yes and you prefer their comforting lies about how they let the doctors decide treatment, when over 50% of doctors at catholic hospitals get over ruled by the church.

It can't be an abortion so they always have to go further to make the procedure actually done not be just an abortion. Or they ship the patient off to a real hospital.

[Planigale]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Between Ohio and Pennsylvania we have a true contest in the craziest abortion laws being passed.

First in Ohio we are mandating a mythical medical procedure where ectopic pregnancies are being implanted in uterus. This procedure does not exist but is a legal requirement to avoid murder by abortion charges for the ectopic pregnancy.

https://time.com/5742053/ectopic-pre...abortion-bill/

Then in pennsylvania we have legal requirements to name and get a death certificate for many womens periods. If they had sex they might have a fertilized embroy in there and that requires a death certificate and grave. Who is going to be checking all the menstral blood to find out if it needs a grave or not?

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/1...abortions.html

So who wins the crazy off?

Clearly Ohio.

The Pennsylvania bill is not mad. It is requirement only of health care providers not of women. It just requires them to notify the woman that if they wish they can arrange burial / cremation of fetal remains. This can be included in the consent for e.g. TOP or ectopics just asking how the mother wishes the products of conception to be disposed of. There are certainly some women who have late miscarriages who would wish some sort of funeral option and not disposal as medical waste.

Ohio potentially includes the death penalty for abortion providers and life imprisonment for the woman who has an abortion. Even when abortion was illegal the penalties weren't so draconian. Not to mention the mythical re-implantation operation which even if it did exist would mandate a medical procedure without consent.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yes and you prefer their comforting lies about how they let the doctors decide treatment, when over 50% of doctors at catholic hospitals get over ruled by the church.

1. I need no 'comforting lies'. I am not Catholic; I'm an atheist. I have no horse in this race. It's not what I 'prefer'; it's what the Catholic Health Assoc. has stated, what Religious Dispatches has stated, and what a paper from a Catholic university has published.

You contradict your own position with the highlighted part. If the statistic was 100%, you'd have a point. I also see no evidence that your statistic is based on fact. Citation?

Quote:

It can't be an abortion so they always have to go further to make the procedure actually done not be just an abortion. Or they ship the patient off to a real hospital.

I agree that the Church does try and get around the 'no direct abortion' rule with some strange logic. For example, if the procedure directly kills the embryo/fetus then it's forbidden, but if the procedure only kills it indirectly even though that's the inevitable outcome, then it's allowable. I find that illogical but, then again, I find most religion illogical.

Frankly, I don't care what the Catholic stance on abortion is. I am only presenting the views as held by the authorities I've cited. If you choose not to accept them, that's your choice.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

1. I need no 'comforting lies'. I am not Catholic; I'm an atheist. I have no horse in this race. It's not what I 'prefer'; it's what the Catholic Health Assoc. has stated, what Religious Dispatches has stated, and what a paper from a Catholic university has published.

You contradict your own position with the highlighted part. If the statistic was 100%, you'd have a point. I also see no evidence that your statistic is based on fact. Citation?

Linked above in the ones you ignored.

"A survey of more than 1,000 OB-GYNs who work in religious hospitals finds that more than one-third report they’ve had a conflict regarding religion-based policy and patient care. At Catholic hospitals, the figure was 52 percent."

https://khn.org/news/when-religious-...ealth-collide/

Though it does seem to be less an issue with ectopic pregnancy that I thought.

"Only 2.9 percent of the OB-GYNs who responded to the survey said the policies of their institution limited their treatment options for dealing with an ectopic pregnancy. For those who practiced in Catholic hospitals, the number was higher but still low — 5.5 percent."

Though how much that is the doctors buying into the BS about what is and isn't and abortion and letting it shape their practice is an open question.

Quote:

I agree that the Church does try and get around the 'no direct abortion' rule with some strange logic. For example, if the procedure directly kills the embryo/fetus then it's forbidden, but if the procedure only kills it indirectly even though that's the inevitable outcome, then it's allowable. I find that illogical but, then again, I find most religion illogical.

Frankly, I don't care what the Catholic stance on abortion is. I am only presenting the views as held by the authorities I've cited. If you choose not to accept them, that's your choice.

And in that it shows that some catholic hospitals allow methotrexate others ban it and refuse to treat miscarriages until they develop into serious life threatening complications, because that is good medical practice if you are catholic.

With out knowing the exact policies of the hospital I would still advise all women who might have a pregnancy related complication to stay the hell away from catholic hospitals.

[rockysmith76]

Generic answer: The one which that thumps the Bible to deny victims of abuse and rape while at the same time letting privileged dilettantes erase an "oops" when they should have kept their legs shut if they didn't know how to use contraception.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Linked above in the ones you ignored.

"A survey of more than 1,000 OB-GYNs who work in religious hospitals finds that more than one-third report they’ve had a conflict regarding religion-based policy and patient care. At Catholic hospitals, the figure was 52 percent."

https://khn.org/news/when-religious-...ealth-collide/

"Had a conflict" does not mean they were "overruled by the Church" as you claimed. A conflict can be resolved in favor of either side. Just as the nun you brought up being excommunicated had that finally resolved with her reinstatement and her approval of the procedure held to be correct.

Quote:

Though it does seem to be less an issue with ectopic pregnancy that I thought.

"Only 2.9 percent of the OB-GYNs who responded to the survey said the policies of their institution limited their treatment options for dealing with an ectopic pregnancy. For those who practiced in Catholic hospitals, the number was higher but still low — 5.5 percent."

Though how much that is the doctors buying into the BS about what is and isn't and abortion and letting it shape their practice is an open question.


And in that it shows that some catholic hospitals allow methotrexate others ban it and refuse to treat miscarriages until they develop into serious life threatening complications, because that is good medical practice if you are catholic.

With out knowing the exact policies of the hospital I would still advise all women who might have a pregnancy related complication to stay the hell away from catholic hospitals.

So you are now agreeing that your original statement the "they refuse to perform an abortion for mere things like ectopic pregnancies or anything else" is incorrect?

Catholic hospitals do not uniformly "refuse to treat miscarriages until they develop into serious life threatening complications". Again, you are making a broad statement that is not entirely true. As with the use of methotrexate, there is a difference of opinion in the interpretation of Directive 47. Granted, most uterine evacuations during a miscarriage are refused by the ethics committee if there is a fetal heartbeat, but it is not without exceptions. Whether it is granted or not is often dependent on how the doctor phrases the situation when presenting to the ethics committee.

Quote:

Contradictory interpretations of Directive 47 in the Catholic health literature and in practice indicate that ethics committees are either uncertain or in disagreement about how to manage miscarriage when fetal heart tones are present and what exact circumstances allow for termination of pregnancy in Catholic-owned hospitals. In cases in which physicians judge their patients’ health or comfort to become compromised by delay, they may, like Dr J, obtain safer and more-expeditious patient care by emphasizing to the ethics committee the inevitability of fetal death and the risk of maternal complications. When physicians are unable to persuade the committee to approve pregnancy termination in emergency cases, however, it appears tha tpatients may receive treatment that is riskier and less comfortable than the care provided in non-Catholic medical settings.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...8/#__sec2title

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

So you are now agreeing that your original statement the "they refuse to perform an abortion for mere things like ectopic pregnancies or anything else" is incorrect?

THat is entirely correct, they just tie themselves into knots about how it isn't really an abortion if they do x y or z. Even you own sources are not saying they would even think about suggesting an abortion for ectopic pregnancies they are just debating if methotrexate qualifies as an abortion.

Quote:

Catholic hospitals do not uniformly "refuse to treat miscarriages until they develop into serious life threatening complications".

So why risk it? Going to catholic hospitals is foolish for women who might be having pregnancy related complications. Who knows what they decide is an abortion and hence not allowed? How do you know that before you go to them in the ambulance?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

THat is entirely correct, they just tie themselves into knots about how it isn't really an abortion if they do x y or z. Even you own sources are not saying they would even think about suggesting an abortion for ectopic pregnancies they are just debating if methotrexate qualifies as an abortion.

On this we agree; they do go to great lengths to justify why it's not an abortion.

Quote:

So why risk it? Going to catholic hospitals is foolish for women who might be having pregnancy related complications. Who knows what they decide is an abortion and hence not allowed? How do you know that before you go to them in the ambulance?

Again, I agree that women who would not strictly abide by the Catholic Church's teachings on pregnancy avoid Catholic Hospitals.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

It’s too hard to interpret based on context? Ah, well. I guess the thread will have to do without your participation.

It's cherry picking. Craziest law? Look up the actual laws. Craziest-idea-somebody-ever-proposed-that-isn't-a-law? Two isn't a good sample.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's cherry picking. Craziest law? Look up the actual laws. Craziest-idea-somebody-ever-proposed-that-isn't-a-law? Two isn't a good sample.

Again, context and reading comprehension are your friends. The OP makes it clear what is being discussed.

[BobTheCoward]

The US has the craziest law because of Roe V Wade.

Nothing in the Constitution could lead someone to conclude there is a trimester criteria there.