• TechyDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    9 months ago

    “The doctor’s judgment of non-viable was likely correct, but sometimes you hear that physicians give a horrible report and then it turns out expectedly better, so there’s always that risk,” Olsen said. “The doctor needs to do all he can to preserve the life of both of them.”

    So this politician is second guessing the doctor because “it might have turned out that the doctor was wrong.” In other words, doctors’ expertise and judgement means nothing if someone with no medical training at all is able to say “but maybe everything will be fine.”

    As horrible as it is, I don’t blame the doctors and hospitals for being scared to perform abortions under these laws. They’re tailored to give the appearance of having “life of the mother” exceptions while allowing every case to be second guessed by anyone with zero medical expertise. And if a judge sides with the zero medical expertise individual, then the hospital/doctor could be on the hook for huge fines or even prison time.

    All while women suffer and die because life saving treatment is being denied thanks to “we need to think of the fetus’ potential life more than the woman’s life.”

    • Aviandelight @mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean the US has been fine with letting insurance companies second guess doctor’s decisions forever why not governments too.

      • norb@lem.norbz.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        This is disingenuous at best. While insurance companies may not offer to pay for “unnecessary” services, they also do not actively prevent doctors from doing them. Sure, someone might go bankrupt because of medical debt, but they aren’t dying and no doctors are going to prison for doing what they think is in the best interest of the patient.

        So what the government is doing here is more malicious than what insurance companies routinely do.

        • Aviandelight @mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          9 months ago

          No they just actively decide not to pay for them which in America is basically the same as a denial of treatment. When people have to decide between paying for healthcare, meds, or food and shelter we have a problem.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            9 months ago

            Agreed. I had to get surgery last year that the insurance company initially didn’t want to pay for. Before that got settled, the hospital said it would be $15,000 with half as a down payment.

        • spongebue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Not to “no you” but this take is pretty disingenuous considering the high cost of health care, especially when you remove any negotiated rates that may bring it to a more reasonable number, but granting that there may be some “cash discount” rate as well.

          Regardless, it’s theoretically possible but practically speaking it still blocks treatment for many.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Giving unqualified people unilateral power to inflict violence is the fundamental underpinning of the American conservative movement, but you’ll notice that people are only ever empowered to make a decision the GOP agrees with. Any idiot off the street can declare an abortion to be not medically necessary, but an entire conference room full of doctors isn’t considered enough to delcare one necessary. Anyone can declare a book inappropriate, but if the vote is 99 to 1 in favor of the book being appropriate the 1 wins and the book is banned. Anyone can declare an election illegitimate, and if someone does then no amount of evidence of legitimacy is enough to settle the matter and any “evidence”, no matter matter how spurious the evidence or unreliable the person delivering it, is taken as absolute proof. In this way they can convince their base that they’re fighting for freedom, but they’re really only fighting for their own freedom and if anyone uses that freedom incorrectly they will inflict violence on them.

  • PoopSpiderman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    It displays the sheer ignorance of conservatives. Probably more like unwillingness to learn, or the inability to understand that not every pregnancy is a magical angel from Jesus. It’s difficult to separate science from folklore. It’s the christians. Their evangelism only creates extremism.

      • qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        I would argue the people taking it to the “extreme” are diverting away from religion, or at least what the original intention of the religion is.

        • Merlin404@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          9 months ago

          True, religion as its core is to help people going through something hard. Or my opinion about it is. I’ve never been much of a religious person. And don’t have anything against religion as its core, but so many weaker forces others and take to violence if they dont get what they want. But I agree with you

          • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            It’s about control. Organized religion was created in a time of ancient expanding empires, and not having the resources to police remote areas of their territory, they turned to mass brainwashing instead to keep people in line.

            Often, the main ruler would be second to the religion’s deity(s) and were considered divine themselves. This was to give the rulers legitimacy.

            • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Exactly. As an example, that’s the reason monotheism was made a state religion and the books of the Septuagint were assembled from religious writings and traditions of north and south Judea. (God has multiple titles corresponding to different gods of each region, two creation stories, the flood myth tracing back to Mesopotamia, the anachronistic tales of conquest, and the overall theme of sticking to one religion or else).