Ok, I need everybody to read Section III-A of Alito's dissent in the Idaho abortion case. He says - explicitly and specifically - that in cases where the amniotic sac breaks before the 24th week of pregnancy, abortions should be prohibited. HE SPECIFICALLY NOTES THE DANGERS. He points out that...
...total and complete bed rest for the remainder of the pregnancy is required; that up to 37% of women with this condition who don't get an abortion go into septic shock; that serious health problems are almost universal... but since only 1%-5% of women die, abortion should illegal there.
He is joined only by Thomas in this section of his dissent. But they believe - genuinely and enthusiastically - that it is better for women be subjected to certain risk of serious health problems; to being confined to bed rest for months on end; and to up to a 5% chance of death, than to abort.
Two of my friends have had this specific pregnancy complication. It was soul-crushing for them. They desperately wanted to have those babies. But the health risks were far too severe, and they had abortions. Alito and Thomas fully believe they shouldn't have had that option. I'm sickened.
My goddaughter had PPROM at 22 wks; her choice was to continue the pregnancy. She was kept inpatient for 7 weeks while her baby developed to a weight compatible w/life.
It was her choice, it was unbearable & no one should be given power to force an 11th grader into that.
These old men are brutal.
This is exactly it to me. I think there's a very good argument to make either choice and no argument to force someone else to do what you want them to do.
Yep. When people talk about being "pro-choice," this is a perfect example. Either choice is completely understandable; the idea of forcing someone into one or the other is reprehensible.
