Pretty sure you want to include location as a variable in this kind of statistic.
Do you think there is anywhere on earth where it's more dangerous to give birth now than a hundred years ago?
I'm all for choice, but I'm also for absolute clarity in such statements, and absolutely against any phrasing, for any issue, that is crafted to cause misunderstanding, and an even worse interpretation of the facts.
Do you have any case law to support this being a valid concern?
The particular issue is that currently it's an actual legal minefield for doctors in a number of those states due to vague definitions, over zealous prosecutors, and relatively tight time limits.
This article:
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-revie...
appears to give a good overview of the state of affairs.
For now at least the real danger is doctors being unwilling to risk their licence and making borderline calls in many situations with a ticking clock.
> at least be able to provide a reference to a controversial prosecution.
Why? This is all relatively recent changes, there are doctors on record saying they've been unwilling to perform abortions for a variety of reasons and at risk of the mothers health.
That doesn't at all imply the necessity for the existence of a prosecution - but it does woman's health is suffering due to fear of prosecution.
As far as I know there have been zero controversial prosecutions resulting from this change, so all you’ve managed to provide is somebody’s speculation that it might turn into a legal hazard at some time in the future. Given how massively politicised this issue is, I think it would be pretty stupid to just accept people’s baseless speculations as fact.
The claim is made in the brief linked. I am not one of the authors of the brief linked.
> As far as I know there have been zero controversial prosecutions resulting from this change
Which proves nothing with respect to the matter of Doctors stating they've been unwilling to risk prosecution.
Hyperbole is what this paper likely is engaging in. It's certainly presenting a "worst case scenario" examination. And even if not, it's only presenting possible issues.
Issues which may or may not come up, and all of these states have differing legislation.
> only later to say "Well, actually, I meant this single, one paper claims that."
I certainly referred to that paper. I did not make the claim that you're asserting via paraphrasing my comment.
> Hyperbole is what this paper likely is engaging in.
In your opinion. An opinion you seem uncertain about. By my reading it presents as measured and as quoting the actual concerns of actual people.
> Issues which may or may not come up,
All the issues raised do indeed come up in real life - medical cases can get messy and mother | child health issues are not always as neat, well packaged, and clear cut as some seem to think.
There are always edge cases in any given state in any given month.
Don't take my word for it, go and ask several practicsing OBGYN's.
Do try and avoid the likes of Dr. Christina Francis & Co. who appear comfortable dodging and outright misleading the US Senate: https://youtu.be/T-5Gym8Mq1Y?t=104 & t=168
Further: https://www.murray.senate.gov/senator-murrays-opening-remark...
> She discovered the issue and had the procedure scheduled before I even arrived at the hospital.
> Because this is a routine medical procedure in every country that has any sort of healthcare system.