What is Your Position on Abortion? A confidential poll. (1 Viewer)

[ekbeats]

Pretty simple poll that gets to the heart of when abortions should be allowed (if ever) and under what circumstances should there be exceptions.

Unfortunately I can't define what constitutes a minor or major physical or mental deformity.  What I'm thinking is that a minor deformity would be something like a missing limb. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

You say it was a simple poll, but I struggled with question 2.   Good poll, but not a simple one.   

 

[ekbeats]

Even though the poll is private, I will share my answers - mostly because my position seems to be so misunderstood in here.

1. When do you think abortions should be legal?  Up until viability (24 weeks), after that only if health of mother and/or fetus is at risk

2. When it comes to "health of the mother", how do you think this should be defined?  Only a physical ailment that poses a minor risk of death (>5%) to the mother.

3. When it comes to "health of the fetus", how do you think this should be defined?  Only a physical ailment that poses an almost certain risk of death (>95%) to the fetus. No allowance for physical or mental deformities.

Question 3 was the toughest for me.  I'd give consideration for an exception regarding a major physical deformity.  There's a slippery slope here that could approach a eugenics type situation.

 

[FBG26]

Good poll. For #1, I went "until viability (24 weeks), after that only if health of mother and/or fetus is at risk". Almost selected 10 weeks but I'd rather it be closer to 15-18 so I errored on the side of longer. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Even though the poll is private, I will share my answers - mostly because my position seems to be so misunderstood in here.

1. When do you think abortions should be legal?  Up until viability (24 weeks), after that only if health of mother and/or fetus is at risk

2. When it comes to "health of the mother", how do you think this should be defined?  Only a physical ailment that poses a minor risk of death (>5%) to the mother.

3. When it comes to "health of the fetus", how do you think this should be defined?  Only a physical ailment that poses an almost certain risk of death (>95%) to the fetus. No allowance for physical or mental deformities.

The only one we differ on is the health of the mother one.   Hard to answer, as I was trying to think of things that I would include under "mental" and wanted that to be a little part of it.   I would answer that I would want a lower threshold for chance of physical death (5%), but way higher threshold for mental ailments (75% wtf that means), so I answered with 30% for both.   

ETA:  my impulse was to say not at all for both, but I have found some of your examples of how that can be abused at the state level and thought an attempt at defining it was better.  

 

[ekbeats]

Good poll. For #1, I went "until viability (24 weeks), after that only if health of mother and/or fetus is at risk". Almost selected 10 weeks but I'd rather it be closer to 15-18 so I errored on the side of longer. 

Well then you fit squarely in the highest percentage bucket in the country.  I honestly think this position will evolve over time in most states.

 

[timschochet]

On the initial question I voted always. But that answer is not quite correct. As a general rule I disapprove of late term abortions in which the health of the mother or the fetus is not at issue- I suspect, though I don’t know, that such cases are rare. 

But my problem is I don’t want a law in which the state is involved in investigating private decisions between doctors and their patients- or worse in which a doctor and/or woman would have to go to court and “prove” to a judge what a life threatening situation is. To me that is an unwarranted intrusion of privacy. Therefore I am forced to vote for “always” because there is no legal restraint that I think can be acceptably enforced in a civil society. 

 

[rockaction]

To me that is an unwarranted intrusion of privacy. Therefore I am forced to vote for “always” because there is no legal restraint that I think can be acceptably enforced in a civil society. 

Tim, it already has been restrained. Late-term pregnancies are extraordinarily difficult to get, and I'm pretty sure it's state law that is the reason for that. You're calling a situation that already exists untenable. 

 

[timschochet]

Tim, it already has been restrained. Late-term pregnancies are extraordinarily difficult to get, and I'm pretty sure it's state law that is the reason for that. You're calling a situation that already exists untenable. 

I know that. I didn’t mean it was untenable in a practical sense; I meant that for me it’s a morally untenable situation. 

 

[rockaction]

I meant that for me it’s a morally untenable situation

I knew what you meant. I didn't know you found current abortion laws in the U.S. too restrictive. Very few people feel that way. 

 

[timschochet]

I knew what you meant. I didn't know you found current abortion laws in the U.S. too restrictive. Very few people feel that way. 

Yes, I know. 

 

[BladeRunner]

You say it was a simple poll, but I struggled with question 2.   Good poll, but not a simple one.   

I struggled as well with all of them.  I've changed my mind to allow abortions up until 12 weeks, possibly 15.  The "health" issue I was torn because there would be real abuse of the system if we just kept it between the two.  There has to be some some standard or accountability, IMO.  

 

[timschochet]

My views on the issue of late term abortion have  evolved over the years based on a variety of factors, but one of the most influential for me was a wonderful novel by Richard North Patterson, Protect and Defend. It’s from 2000, but still highly relevant. 

 

[ekbeats]

I struggled as well with all of them.  I've changed my mind to allow abortions up until 12 weeks, possibly 15.  The "health" issue I was torn because there would be real abuse of the system if we just kept it between the two.  There has to be some some standard or accountability, IMO.  

When I originally constructed the poll I had additional options that the health of the mother or fetus had to be validated by some type of medical review board.  I get what @timschochetis saying about this.  I don’t think anyone likes the idea of the state weighing in on medical decisions.  But we are talking about something pretty serious - the late term abortion of a viable human being.  We regulate every damn thing in this country.  I think the killing of an innocent baby should at least have a check and balance.

I also don’t like the idea of mother’s health including mental health.  That is rife for abuse.  And in the third trimester the mom’s emotional well being is secondary to the life of the baby.

 

[ekbeats]

My views on the issue of late term abortion have  evolved over the years based on a variety of factors, but one of the most influential for me was a wonderful novel by Richard North Patterson, Protect and Defend. It’s from 2000, but still highly relevant. 

You should see Unplanned - the story of Abby Johnson who used to run Planned Parenthood.  Very compelling and very sad.

 

[BladeRunner]

When I originally constructed the poll I had additional options that the health of the mother or fetus had to be validated by some type of medical review board.  I get what @timschochetis saying about this.  I don’t think anyone likes the idea of the state weighing in on medical decisions.  But we are talking about something pretty serious - the late term abortion of a viable human being.  We regulate every damn thing in this country.  I think the killing of an innocent baby should at least have a check and balance.

I also don’t like the idea of mother’s health including mental health.  That is rife for abuse.  And in the third trimester the mom’s emotional well being is secondary to the life of the baby.

Yep, well said.  If we had a check and balance then I would be on board with it even more so.

I mean, when we put people to death in the Electric chair we have a panel of people weighing in on it (the jury).  If your going to put to death a living human in the womb they should at least get the same "courtesy".

 

[Nugget]

When I originally constructed the poll I had additional options that the health of the mother or fetus had to be validated by some type of medical review board.  I get what @timschochetis saying about this.  I don’t think anyone likes the idea of the state weighing in on medical decisions.  But we are talking about something pretty serious - the late term abortion of a viable human being.  We regulate every damn thing in this country.  I think the killing of an innocent baby should at least have a check and balance.

I also don’t like the idea of mother’s health including mental health.  That is rife for abuse.  And in the third trimester the mom’s emotional well being is secondary to the life of the baby.

Thank you for including the option of considering mental health.  I struggled between that, just the physical condition of the woman, and keeping it between the doctor and patient.  Good poll, I think we’ll find more common ground which is good. 

 

[Snotbubbles]

I'm already on record for 10 weeks with exceptions to health of mother/baby.  Most abortions occur at or before 13 weeks (I think it was like 93% in a 2019 study) so anything after 13 weeks doesn't make much difference in most cases.

 

[moleculo]

I voted for private decision between mother & doctor (for both cases) but could be talked into a medical review board requirement... As long as the government or insurance companies aren't represented that board.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I struggled as well with all of them.  I've changed my mind to allow abortions up until 12 weeks, possibly 15.  The "health" issue I was torn because there would be real abuse of the system if we just kept it between the two.  There has to be some some standard or accountability, IMO.  

I’m in the same general ballpark as you.  Ultimately I don’t want the govt involved in making this decision — or any decision — as a general rule.  So I defer to medical doctors.  (Which is also clearly an imperfect approach)

 

[dkp993]

Good poll. For #1, I went "until viability (24 weeks), after that only if health of mother and/or fetus is at risk". Almost selected 10 weeks but I'd rather it be closer to 15-18 so I errored on the side of longer. 

This is exactly where I’m at.  

 

[Joe Mammy]

I struggled with the questions and didn't vote. I asked my wife what she thought? She said she'd need more time to think about such time frames and percentages.

All I know is that I always found this Monte Python gem funny and can quote it from heart:

"Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great!

If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate!"

I had a vasectomy a long time ago. So simple. God didn't say much.

 

[John123]

10 weeks is too soon, 24 is too late.  Sorry, can't vote in your poll.  Should have used ranges or something.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Pretty simple poll that gets to the heart of when abortions should be allowed (if ever) and under what circumstances should there be exceptions.

Love ya, GB, but you always want to brand things as "simple" when, as is often the case with abortion, they are far more complex than they might appear. That said, I still think this was a very good poll, because it made me think through some things in a way I hadn't previously.

On a personal level, I've never had to deal with my partner or anyone close to me deciding on an abortion (although I know lots of women who had abortions before I knew them, and I'm sure plenty of others who had them while I knew them but never told me; I feel zero judgment toward any of those women). My wife and I have two sons and aren't planning on having any more kids, so I would hope I'll never have to be involved in making that decision. But let's imagine a hypothetical where I do. I think I would be profoundly uncomfortable no matter what I decided, but ultimately would be OK with terminating a pregnancy pre-viability, and after that point, I can't imagine any reason we would want to do it beyond a profound health threat to the mother and/or fetus.*

Legally speaking, what your poll drove home was how completely inappropriate it feels for the government to be making these distinctions. It's OK if there's a 30% risk of death but not if it's 27%? Do you go before some government review board that determines if your risk is high enough to warrant your abortion? And of course, all of this assumes enforcement is an exact science. No idea if this is true, but I read a piece this weekend that claimed pregnant Polish women with cancer have been denied chemo because doctors worried that if it harmed the fetus, they could be charged under the country's anti-abortion laws.  I worry about ER doctors who have to make split-second decisions hesitating to order what they would otherwise consider a necessary treatment. I worry about women dealing with the profound loss of a miscarriage being aggressively questioned about how they or their doctor handled it.

I get that government frequently has to make these sorts of crass calculations (side note: did you know that the reason there are no seatbelts in school buses is because governments have determined that annual deaths are low enough that the financial costs those deaths impose on society are less than the cost of installing seatbelts across the entire fleet?) And maybe in that spirit, it does ultimately make sense to draw some sort of boundaries. But my visceral response is that I want the government as far away from those decisions as possible.

* Just remembered the story of a friend who was going through a rough patch in her marriage when she found out she was pregnant with twins. At some point during the pregnancy (no idea how many weeks), her husband told her he was leaving her for another woman. There was nothing physically wrong with her, but she was a complete wreck and felt thoroughly unequipped to raise children. Can I honestly say I would be in favor of a law that prevented her from terminating the pregnancy? Man, I don't know.

 

[ekbeats]

Legally speaking, what your poll drove home was how completely inappropriate it feels for the government to be making these distinctions. It's OK if there's a 30% risk of death but not if it's 27%? Do you go before some government review board that determines if your risk is high enough to warrant your abortion? And of course, all of this assumes enforcement is an exact science.

The introduction of a medical review board certainly clouds things.  And I can imagine some horrific scenarios and battles.  But if we are to terminate a viable fetus, maybe we should be having these difficult discussions.  Maybe the decisions should be difficult, with more than one person making it, and with some degree of consistency from case to case.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

The introduction of a medical review board certainly clouds things.  And I can imagine some horrific scenarios and battles.  But if we are to terminate a viable fetus, maybe we should be having these difficult discussions.  Maybe the decisions should be difficult, with more than one person making it, and with some degree of consistency from case to case.

Yeah, I can totally imagine the counter to my argument. And from a completely rational point of view, I get that it's going to be a difficult decision no matter who makes it, and if we're going to acknowledge that a fetus has some level of rights before birth, then that needs to be taken into account in some fashion. I was just giving you my visceral reaction, which honestly surprised myself at how strong it was.

 

[moleculo]

...

I get that government frequently has to make these sorts of crass calculations (side note: did you know that the reason there are no seatbelts in school buses is because governments have determined that annual deaths are low enough that the financial costs those deaths impose on society are less than the cost of installing seatbelts across the entire fleet?) 

...

FYI, the number of school bus fatalities is typically less than 10. And for those few fatalities, I wonder of belts would have made a difference.

Statistically, busses are safer than passenger vehicles.

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/school-bus/

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

FYI, the number of school bus fatalities is typically less than 10. And for those few fatalities, I wonder of belts would have made a difference.

Statistically, busses are safer than passenger vehicles.

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/school-bus/

Makes a ton of sense. But still, someone has to make those calculations. What if went up to 20? 100? 500? It's perfectly rational to calculate where to draw the line. But it feels incredibly ghoulish.

 

[ekbeats]

Interesting poll that relates to this topic.   Surprisingly, there is an overwhelming consensus around this issue, similar to what we are seeing in our poll here.  86% of Americans believe a fetus becomes a person at viability.  At some point the Supreme Court is going to have to address this personhood issue, and when it does, the 14th Amendment will prohibit the abortion of that person.  Hopefully this SC doesn't get wacky and rule that personhood begins at inception.

 

[FairWarning]

I voted for private decision between mother & doctor (for both cases) but could be talked into a medical review board requirement... As long as the government or insurance companies aren't represented that board.

I would stick to mother/Dr.  

 

[Uwe Blab]

My iron womb invention can’t come soon enough. Viable at 6 weeks. Talk about a game changer.

(in all seriousness, could you imagine any other controversial subject which could change on a dime quicker with a well timed S͛͛͛C͛͛͛I͛͛͛E͛͛͛N͛͛͛C͛͛͛E͛͛͛ invention than this one)

 

[Biff84]

10 weeks is too soon, 24 is too late.  Sorry, can't vote in your poll.  Should have used ranges or something.

I voted 24 but I agree, something like 16 or 18 weeks. 

 

[ekbeats]

My iron womb invention can’t come soon enough. Viable at 6 weeks. Talk about a game changer.

(in all seriousness, could you imagine any other controversial subject which could change on a dime quicker with a well timed S͛͛͛C͛͛͛I͛͛͛E͛͛͛N͛͛͛C͛͛͛E͛͛͛ invention than this one)

I think about that same thing Uwe.  A lot of my positions on abortion were shaped by the biggest event in my life - my wife finding out she couldn't have a child naturally, and our subsequent battle through the invitro fertilization (IVF) process.  At the time IVF wasn't covered by insurance, and we had very little money.  We basically put our life savings into it, knowing that if we didn't succeed we probably wouldn't be able to do it again for a few years.  It was such an amazing process.  I got to see through a microscope the three embryos that were implanted.  One of them turned out to be my son.  So I always have that connection right back to him as an embryo.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The introduction of a medical review board certainly clouds things.  And I can imagine some horrific scenarios and battles.  But if we are to terminate a viable fetus, maybe we should be having these difficult discussions.  Maybe the decisions should be difficult, with more than one person making it, and with some degree of consistency from case to case.

Why are we wasting time trying to solve problems that largely do not exist?  Why are we are torturing those people more by dragging them before medical review boards that have already been tortured by the circumstances they find themselves in having to terminate a pregnancy that they wanted on the off chance that they are "faking it"?   This is a horrible idea that fixes nothing.

 

[The General]

The idea of a medical review board seems really bad to me and also implausible. 

 

[ekbeats]

Why are we wasting time trying to solve problems that largely do not exist?  Why are we are torturing those people more by dragging them before medical review boards that have already been tortured by the circumstances they find themselves in having to terminate a pregnancy that they wanted on the off chance that they are "faking it"?   This is a horrible idea that fixes nothing.

I'm only thinking about a medical review board, or perhaps just a second Doctor's opinion, for late term abortions where the fetus would be viable outside the womb.  For me that fetus is a person that deserves to have rights as outlined in the 14th Amendment.  BTW - 86% of Americans agree with me that a fetus is a person after the date of viability.  If we are going to terminate that person due to the health of the mother or the fetus, I think it's perfectly reasonable that we institute some form of regulation to insure that the health of the mother or the fetus truly is at risk.  Think about all the things we regulate and validate in this country.  Oregon's assisted suicide process requires a second physician review the case and sign off on the first doctor's diagnosis.  In California there's a pending Bill that would require a second physician to sign off on patient recertifications for hospice, and mandate that providers undergo an inspection by the California Department of Public Health every three years.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm only thinking about a medical review board, or perhaps just a second Doctor's opinion, for late term abortions where the fetus would be viable outside the womb.  For me that fetus is a person that deserves to have rights as outlined in the 14th Amendment.  BTW - 86% of Americans agree with me that a fetus is a person after the date of viability.  If we are going to terminate that person due to the health of the mother or the fetus, I think it's perfectly reasonable that we institute some form of regulation to insure that the health of the mother or the fetus truly is at risk.  Think about all the things we regulate and validate in this country.  Oregon's assisted suicide process requires a second physician review the case and sign off on the first doctor's diagnosis.  In California there's a pending Bill that would require a second physician to sign off on patient recertifications for hospice, and mandate that providers undergo an inspection by the California Department of Public Health every three years.

But abortions after the point the fetus is viable happening for reasons other than the health of the mother or the fetus happen very rarely.  To prevent this event that almost never happens we are going to second guess, to throw suspicion on those facing some of the toughest times imaginable.  This is solution in search of a problem that simply does much more harm than it does good.  As far as the fetus being person at this point, how is this terrible decision any different than the [thankfully rare] decision of parents needing to have on cojoin twin die to keep either alive?  No one doubts that this is a person, nor do we doubt the decisions of the parents and doctors.  Sure there are layers of doctors here, but there are usually going to be layers of doctors in the abortion also. So again I think this is solving a problem that doesn't exist at much too high of a cost.

 

[MAC_32]

I'd need convinced why government should be involved in this process. Between now and then my answer is n/a for 1 because of my answers for 2 and 3 - it's between a private citizen and their dr. It's none of my damn business.

 

[ekbeats]

But abortions after the point the fetus is viable happening for reasons other than the health of the mother or the fetus happen very rarely.  To prevent this event that almost never happens we are going to second guess, to throw suspicion on those facing some of the toughest times imaginable.  This is solution in search of a problem that simply does much more harm than it does good.  As far as the fetus being person at this point, how is this terrible decision any different than the [thankfully rare] decision of parents needing to have on cojoin twin die to keep either alive?  No one doubts that this is a person, nor do we doubt the decisions of the parents and doctors.  Sure there are layers of doctors here, but there are usually going to be layers of doctors in the abortion also. So again I think this is solving a problem that doesn't exist at much too high of a cost.

Well this is where I disagree with you.  I see some pretty compelling evidence that elective late term abortions do happen.  If you're interested you can look up my posts from yesterday on the subject.  It's hard to get a good read on how often these happen, which is terrible.  Question though - if elective abortions happen so infrequently why not just ban them entirely?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Well this is where I disagree with you.  I see some pretty compelling evidence that elective late term abortions do happen.  If you're interested you can look up my posts from yesterday on the subject.  It's hard to get a good read on how often these happen, which is terrible.  Question though - if elective abortions happen so infrequently why not just ban them entirely?

I didn't say there are none.  Your post shows that it is statistically close to zero, not zero.  But "just banning them entirely" brings unnecessary pain in your discussed enforcement measure on those forced into considering non elective late term abortions.    Unless you put a lot of weight on otherwise pointless morality statements, this provides close to no benefit at a high human cost.  Can it be done - sure.  Should it done - nope!

 

[Manster]

I couldn't answer question one.

I think the only reasons to do an abortion would be rape, incest, and if significant health risk is imminent for the mother to be, period.  If you get pregnant on accident from consentual sex, too bad, no abortion.

As for who determines the health risk threat, leave that up to the mother-to-be's OB

 

[ekbeats]

I didn't say there are none.  Your post shows that it is statistically close to zero, not zero.  But "just banning them entirely" brings unnecessary pain in your discussed enforcement measure on those forced into considering non elective late term abortions.    Unless you put a lot of weight on otherwise pointless morality statements, this provides close to no benefit at a high human cost.  Can it be done - sure.  Should it done - nope!

It's not statistically close to zero, nor did I suggest that.  Based on all my research, if I had to make an educated guess as to the number of elective late term abortions performed each year in the US, I'd put it at around 500.  That's actually much lower than what some of the anti-abortion watchdog groups put it at.  Why don't you research it and find out for yourself?  Aren't you at all concerned and curious about the extent to which late term abortions are being done on a purely elective basis (ie - where the lives of the mother or fetus aren't in danger)?

Question 2 - Did you use the same cost/benefit analysis with regard to unarmed blacks being shot and killed by cops?  Because in the Gorge Floyd year of 2020, when cities burned and protests went on all summer, the total number of unarmed blacks shot and killed by cops was 18 (per The Washington Post Police Shootings Database).  And I'm not criticizing those protests or minimizing that issue - just pointing out a bit of hypocrisy on the Left.  You are now the third Liberal in here to come at me and emphatically assert there are little to no elective late term abortions, without any evidence or proof.  One guy actually insisted there were none, and that wasn't hyperbole.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Said viability/24 weeks, unless a risk to mom and/or fetus. Let her and the doctor decide what that means.

Also, you may believe medicine is a far more exact science than reality.

 

[lazyike]

No option for rape or incest?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It's not statistically close to zero, nor did I suggest that.  Based on all my research, if I had to make an educated guess as to the number of elective late term abortions performed each year in the US, I'd put it at around 500.  That's actually much lower than what some of the anti-abortion watchdog groups put it at.  Why don't you research it and find out for yourself?

I'm "coming at you" using your own numbers.  500 divided by more than 6,000,000 pregnancies.  5/60,000.  Less than 1 in 12,000.  That is statistically close to zero.  And I trust that this number is too high with lots of judgmental second guessing of doctors and mothers going on.  All pregnancies are a threat to the mother's health.   And in order to figure out which of the 500  (or based on whatever the state knows better than the doctors criteria maybe 1000) out of roughly 6000 there is a suggestion that these 6000 families, most of which in terrible pain and their doctors be subjected to going to hearings to be seconded guessed on behalf of the state.   The cost is too high.  There is zero meaningful benefit to society.

Question 2 - Did you use the same cost/benefit analysis with regard to unarmed blacks being shot and killed by cops?

Of course the current policy (or lack thereof) is too costly to continue.   Do you think that the cost to society for these policies is merely a dozen and a half or so black lives?    Or that there is a benefit that is worth the cost?  

But yes, ultimately everything should be a cost-benefit analysis.  I get that people value things differently and thus can reasonably arrive at different results.  And I get that I can stumble at times and be hypocritical.  Example I think animal cruelty laws should exist but I need to stretch like a pretzel to find the costs and benefits.  Abortion is not that way though.  The analysis for abortion is  pretty easy.  Banning abortion creates terrible costs that are not supported by any tangible benefits.  To have abortion bans be a benefit you have give exaggerated  (to me at least) weight to intangible things.  I don't think that society "washing its hands of abortion" is worth the cost.  I don't think society asserting its morality is worth the cost.   And I think suggesting a medical review board to torture tortured families to find the occasional exception that you dis approve of demonstrates exactly what I mean.  

And I am done.  If you don't understand my perspective by now you won't.

 

[The Commish]

I took a pass on this poll primarily because I'd need to know how information would be processed in questions 2 and 3.  I simply don't see a way of doing this without an infringement on current HIPAA laws and/or doctor/patient confidentiality laws, so I'd want to see how those were altered before answering.  That's going to be a tough hurdle to overcome.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

Also, you may believe medicine is a far more exact science than reality.

Over in the Bill Maher thread there was a digression into Andrew Sullivan, another heterodox, tough-to-categorize thinker who I've had a back-and-forth relationship with over the years. Anyway, one of the best things he ever did back in his daily blogging days was run a series of letters under the header "It's So Personal" with first-hand testimonials from couples who had had to face difficult late-term pregnancy complications. I would encourage everyone here to click on the link and read those letters, regardless of your views on abortion. I'm not saying it should convince you one way or another, but I hope it forces you to reckon with just how complicated these issues can get. There's a natural human desire to want to view things as neater and tidier than they actually are, and we need to force ourselves to push back against that.

As I've said, my visceral reaction to these scenarios is to rouse my inner libertarian and want the government as far away from these decisions as possible. Others may approach it more rationally and say that, as difficult as the situation may be, it is imperative on us to draw lines somewhere. And others may have a visceral reaction in the other direction, where preserving life is the highest priority, and everything has to flow from that. But ultimately, if we're not reckoning with the inherent complexity and messiness, we're dodging the issue. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I took a pass on this poll primarily because I'd need to know how information would be processed in questions 2 and 3.  I simply don't see a way of doing this without an infringement on current HIPAA laws and/or doctor/patient confidentiality laws, so I'd want to see how those were altered before answering.  That's going to be a tough hurdle to overcome.

HIPAA wouldn't be a problem.  You are allowed to share confidential information with the state.  

I get your point however, and I would add how do you deal with question 2 and 3 and maintain a presumption of innocence?   Do you give that up simply because you need a rare medical procedure which is occasionally abused?  Having (or scheduling) the procedure is probably cause?

 

[The Commish]

HIPAA wouldn't be a problem.  You are allowed to share confidential information with the state.  

I get your point however, and I would add how do you deal with question 2 and 3 and maintain a presumption of innocence?   Do you give that up simply because you need a rare medical procedure which is occasionally abused?  Having (or scheduling) the procedure is probably cause?

I question, stringently question, if the states are equipped to abide by the HIPAA regulations they'd need to honestly.  I'm not saying within those rules there is something preventing them from sharing information.  

 

[belljr]

Im somewhere in the 15 to 20 week window fwiw.

any later should be for emergency only