Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Below is today column On a common talking point among Democrats and pundits about how the recent Dobbs decision creates a barrier for women seeking treatment for ectopic pregnancies. This is not only legally and medically incorrect, but dangerous if women actually believe what they hear or read from these figures. There is plenty of ground for pro-choice advocates to disagree with this decision without playing up a risk that doesn’t exist.

Here is the column:

After the court’s decision in Women’s Health Organization Dobbs v. Jackson, A common rallying cry for pro-choice advocates is the endangerment of women with ectopic pregnancies, which are now banned or severely restricted in some states. Representatives of JAudi Cho, Jan SchakowskyAnd others insist that women with such pregnancies are now without support. fornication Alexandria Ocasio Cortez He even used this to justify hunting and harassing judges for eating in public, referring to a recent incident involving Judge Brett Kavanagh in a restaurant with his wife: “Poor thing. He left before his soufflé because he decided that half the country must be in danger of dying if they had an ectopic pregnancy in the wrong conditions. These views are by Academics such as Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe. It’s a great argument, but it happens to be both legally and medically incorrect. Worse, this common claim can put women at physical risk, as they may be legally at risk if they seek such treatment.

Obviously, there are good-faith objections to Dobb’s decisions on substantive constitutional interpretation. However, critics have created Horrible parade which goes beyond this opinion, including arguments that have been expressly rejected by the Court. That includes President Biden, who has repeatedly suggested that contraceptives and travel for women could be restricted under the decision.

The majority expressly and repeatedly rejected the application of this holding to other rights. He emphasized that “intimate sexual relations, contraception and marriage” are not affected by its holding because “abortion is fundamentally different.” The court’s concurrence and Justice Brett Kavanagh return to this point repeatedly: “Nothing in this opinion should be construed to cast doubt on non-abortion precedents.” Only justice Clarence Thomas He suggested that these other cases should also be investigated. However, even Thomas emphasized that this opinion expressly rejects that request.

However, the discussion of ectopic pregnancy is not only false, but also dangerous. These pregnancies can be life-threatening and should be addressed as soon as possible. These interventions are not abortions, and even restrictive governments make this clear.

When a pregnancy is implanted in the fallopian tube, the pregnancy is not viable, but poses a potentially fatal risk to the mother due to rupture of the tube and internal bleeding. Treating such a woman to abort a pregnancy is not acceptable. Indeed, as just pointed out columnThe methods are very different, including the fact that “mifepristone and misoprostol, which are commonly used to provide medical abortions, do not specifically treat ectopic pregnancy.”

This is reflected in some of the most restrictive laws. For example, Oklahoma law It clearly states: “If an act is done with a purpose, it is not an abortion.” . . Eliminate ectopic pregnancy. Texas, Louisiana, and other states have similar express exemptions. However, even if the law remains silent on ectopic pregnancy, it is doubtful that courts will ignore medical and factual classifications to treat emergency procedures as abortions or as life-threatening without medical intervention. risk

However, women do not know this when listening to leaders or reading news reports. Gia Tolentino in The New Yorker explained “Abortion bans hurt, disable, and endanger many people with medical conditions… A woman in Texas was told she would have to drive fifteen hours to New Mexico to have an abortion. “To have from one’s womb – which is by definition intolerable and always dangerous. To the mother – was removed.” In the sense that Based on a story from 2021 Before the Dobbs decision and an abortion hotline report from a doctor refusing to deal with an ectopic pregnancy. It’s not explained how, or even when Face off against Wade It was still good law, such a practice could be rejected under Texas law.

A woman reading such reports may easily conclude that she may be charged with a crime or face other legal penalties if she seeks ectopic pregnancy treatment in restrictive states. These politicians emphasize that time is of the essence and such a loss of time in an ectopic pregnancy can be fatal. However, their false claims can have just that effect.

This makes it not just disinformation, but the deadliest form of disinformation. In fact, this is exactly the kind of misinformation that many of these same leaders have called for censorship. In fact, this year, Rep. Ocasio Cortez He continued to call to censor companies on social media because “misinformation via US-based companies like Facebook … has completely slowed down and outright undermined efforts in areas like the treatment of Covid.” Many have come together for this anti-free speech purpose. In fact, this week, Another medical professor was suspended For simply asking to discuss concerns about the need for a covid vaccine for children.

I continue to oppose the censorship of corporate and government misinformation, including Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s false statements. As with many false claims about the Dobbs decision, these issues can be addressed without curtailing free speech, but that only heightens the importance of countering these false narratives.

President Biden and other Democrats have called for censorship because social media companies “killing people“With misinformed women, if they believe the claims of politicians and pundits about these ectopic pregnancies, this is exactly what can happen.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.