I think we all agree.Mothra said:Here is the slippery slope in all of this. We all know this will be abused by doctors, whose "good-faith judgment" at times cannot be trusted.90sBear said:whitetrash said:
If you want to open a casino, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to operate a casino.
If you want to kill babies, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to kill babies.
Unlike other suits from abortion rights groups, the Texas suit does not seek to overturn the state bans on abortion. Instead, it asks the court to confirm that Texas law allows physicians to offer abortion if, in their good-faith judgment, the procedure is necessary because the woman has a "physical emergent medical condition" that cannot be treated during pregnancy or that makes continuing the pregnancy unsafe, or the fetus has a condition "where the pregnancy is unlikely to result in the birth of a living child with sustained life."
I recognize the issues this presents, and I am not sure of the answer.
In addition to protecting viable fetuses, should the law be written to protect doctors or patients? My vote would be for patients and then go after the doctors that abuse the law.
Either way, innocents will suffer (babies, moms, doctors).