(January 31, 2019 at 12:48 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:(January 31, 2019 at 12:46 pm)Drich Wrote: how much more specific do I need to be the article explains it in that a woman can request a baby to be terminated even durning child birth. no issues noted, just does not want baby for whatever reason which is why I pointed out a minor defects and or race because valid reasons under this bill.
No, the article doesn't explain that, nor does the bill allow for that.
Which is a damned shame, lol.
did you read the op? from the story
I posted a debate segment from the woman purposing the bill and a reoublican who oppsing it that says the oppsite:
At a recent committee hearing, Republican state delegate Todd Gilbert asked Tran to clarify exactly how late in a pregnancy doctors would be able to perform abortions. Gilbert asked if a woman who was about to give birth could request an abortion under Tran's proposed bill.
"She has physical signs that she is about to give birth. Would that be a point at which she could still request an abortion if she is so certified? She's dilating," Gilbert said.
"Mr. Chairman, that would be a, you know, a decision that the doctor, the physician and the woman would make at this point," Tran responded.
"I understand that. I'm asking if your bill allows that," Gilbert posed.
"My bill would allow that, yes," she said.
So like with any abortion she simply needs doctor approval, the only guideline in this bill is the term physical or mental distress. which again mental distress could be cause by wrong skin color. there are doctors now undercurrent rules and regs who abort per request for no reasons given. meaning so long as the woman consents and she fits the guidlines they will abort a child. so what happens when the guidlines are expanded?
Don't pretend some magical ethical force will prevent the right woman and the right doctor from finding each other to abort a baby mid birth if she so chooses. So long as the law will allow it people will do it. I'm asking you if this in your world in right?
