The simple part is you can’t abort a fetus that won’t survive the pregnancy - which opens the door to all sorts of complications and suffering. Second, compare the language:
if in their “good faith judgment and in consultation with the pregnant person” it would be medically unsafe for a woman to continue a pregnancy
vs
if in the “reasonable medical judgment” of a doctor a woman faces “risk of death” or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
In the first one, medically unsafe could mean losing minor bodily functions or perhaps needless pain and suffering. In the second, she has to face the risk of death or whatever “substantial” impairment of a “major bodily function” is - and the law doesn’t seem to say.
In the first one it’s a “good faith judgment” and in the second it’s a “reasonable medical judgment.” The first one sounds harder to question after the fact, it’s a lot like when a cop can kill someone and say “I feared for my life,” and it’s an auto get out of jail free card. The doctor can say, “I made a good faith judgment that she faced… etc,” and it’s hard to question. In the second, all you need is a crazy right wing doctor to testify that it wasn’t a “reasonable medical judgment” that the woman faced the “risk of death” and now we’re off to the races. Who gets to say what a reasonable medical judgment is? How imminent does death have to be for the risk of death to be faced? What is a substantial impairment of a major bodily function?
It’s easy to fall into the trap of viewing this all through good faith, reasonable people interpreting it, etc. The reality is the crazy people are going to interpret it in the most extreme anti-abortion way and go after doctors, and the doctors have to fearfully operate in that environment.
They aren’t that different. They may not be different at all.
But they are both vague enough that they still require doctors, etc. to make a judgment call that weighs what is best for the patient against what may be prosecutable.
Yeah this is the issue, and when doctors (or more often the administrators of medical systems) know that there are psychos out there that will sue them/threaten their medical licenses at the drop of a hat, they’re at least going to be very cautious about their own liability.
Is the Texas bounty law still in effect on top of the state’s abortion ban? I wonder if it’s the case that a perfectly legal abortion per Texas law could still result in some rando suing the doctor and anyone involved.
Yes, not only that, even if that particular law goes away, the remaining ban is still enforced by prosecutors, not by doctors. What a doctor says is ultimately of very little importance if the biggest asshole prosecutor in the state says that the abortion wasn’t necessary at that point.
And given current political environment doctors know there sleazy psycho right wing nut job “medical experts” out there who would love to testify to help lock up someone for making a reasonable call
Not to minimize it, but what your describing is more a stress problem and a money problem. There is no way you’re getting 12/12, even in Texas, to convict a physician on any of the types of cases that were testified about.
Yeah, I realize that no one even wants to go through the sweat and that is deterrent enough, but no one is actually going to jail for this.
That take might be so hot as to be threatening to the lives of unborn children. Let’s just say that we haven’t found anyone who’s willing to put your theory to the test.
I agree that none of those people wants to sweat a murder trial either.
I also think that if it comes down to a jury trial, they’re not getting convicted. Yes, that’s easy for me to say. I’d also lay huge odds, which again, is easier for me to do than actually be on trial.
We didn’t miss the point. It’s just that the point is silly.
“Don’t worry, kids, it’s just a simple murder trial. I know my reputation is shot and this is costing us a fortune, but some dude online says I’m guaranteed an acquittal.”
You really need to work on the reading comprehension. I didn’t say “don’t worry”. I pretty much said the opposite of that. I said it would be stressful and that no one would want to sweat it.
Also you’re going to need to show your work on “reputation is shot”. The doc who goes on trial for that is far more likely to be labeled a hero. This is not likely to be motivation enough for anyone to test it. That doesn’t make it untrue.
Maybe some tragic hero who ends up quitting the profession and opening a coffee shop or something. They would be incredibly high profile with their name and family dragged through R wing media and afterwards even people who agreed with them would be like “that was really brave but we don’t want the nut jobs to burn down our clinic so maybe it’s not the best fit”