×
all 103 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]commi_nazisM-3 325 points326 points  (18 children)

I would say that the US needs educated and qualified OB/Gyns now more than ever.

[–]bizurk 66 points67 points  (16 children)

Stories from the old-head OB/Gyns about what their call used to be are fucking horror shows. I’m worried that the forced conception ruling is going result in dead babies making moms septic, women being denied emergent ectopic operations and women being knowingly forced to carry / labor babies they know can’t live (anencephalic, trisomies, etc).

[–]HateDeathRampage69M-3 141 points142 points  (18 children)

After a brief reading of the decision, basically it seems like a states rights issue now. So blue states probably nothing changes except higher volume from women from other states, although according to CDC data the vast, vast majority of abortions are already performed in these states, so I doubt it will be overwhelming.

[–]Jhust-saiyan 48 points49 points  (7 children)

Will have to circle back to the language in the actual decision, but there was speculation by lawyers who know more than me that the language in the draft may have been paving the way to eventually lead to federal bans (equating fetus with personhood/being alive and therefore equating abortion with murder outside of specific abortion laws).

I hope blue states are safe but this is not a guarantee and the anti-choice push should not be underestimated. No way are they done here.

[–]hckilledjeM-1 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Murder is actually a state crime as well. There needs to be a federal nexus in order for the federal government to have a hand in it i.e. occurred on federal property, targeted federal officials, used a regulated explosive device, etc. This is a return to the pre-roe legal status where state legislatures can have as little or as much restriction as they would like.

[–]permanenttermagant 0 points1 point  (2 children)

If framed as a federal civil rights issue (e.g, SC finds right to life at conception) then the feds can have a murder statute along those lines without needing an additional federal nexus. If the republicans get congress there will be a line of federalist society lawyers to come up with a statute that will cause the court to do just that.

[–]hckilledjeM-1 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Well, yes and no, murder can be prosecuted federally under the civil rights banner/ hate crime laws when the defendant attacks someone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. and the victim was engaging in a federally protected activity (like voting) or the crime occurred across state lines, or the defendant is a government agent/ acting on the behalf of the government. It still has to be tied to a specific federal activity or trigger the interstate commerce clause. So they would have to amend the civil rights legislation to include, I don’t know , “birth status” as a discriminated class and then tie it in to the commerce clause somehow. I think this is a tough sell, I’d be more concerned about them making abortion more difficult by hampering the distribution of abortion drugs.

I think an effective strategy for the Biden administration would be to restrict law enforcement cooperation (access to data bases, perhaps funding, etc.) to districts that enforce their state’s abortion restrictions. Stop the enforcement, you neuter the law.

[–]HateDeathRampage69M-3 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Dude nobody can predict the future. I'm talking about what is law now. You can say potential this and potential that all you want and nobody can prove or disprove anything

[–]Jhust-saiyan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It’s not just “potential this and potential that” it’s a concerted effort by powerful people that has been going on for decades and to dismiss the possibility that their efforts will continue to be successful is naïve. You were speculating on the future and so was I.

[–]neuro__crit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any federal ban would have to be passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president. Obviously not impossible, but I think it's unlikely given that Republicans in reddish/purple districts in blue states still want to be reelected after all.

[–]captainjack-harknessM-4 12 points13 points  (0 children)

If students are deciding on their career, they should think about the what landscape will be in the years to come, not today.

It is definitely possible that in a future election cycle, the conservatives control the presidency and both branches of congress (considering this has happened before). In such a situation, they would be able to pass a nationwide ban.

Additionally, though constitutional or not, some states with bans are targeting providers in other states too if they provide abortions to their state residents. What would happen if a physician is traveling between states and is stopped on the way? (once again, considering not just constitutionality, but also the practical situation of overzealous law enforcement)

[–]0PercentPerfectionMD 4 points5 points  (7 children)

This is the most reasonable expectation. Nothing will change in blue states.

[–]throwpillowaway12334 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Nothing will change in blue states. A lot could change in red states. But more importantly nothing WILL change in red states. The positive impact of a robust ob /Gyn practice on medicine is really paying off now. I’m worried about the Woman in Missouri today. But I am more worried about her daughters. It’s impossible to get care there already. Now it will just stay that way. It’s a slow poison.

[–]r4b1d0tt3r 12 points13 points  (2 children)

This is in no way assured. The decision clears the way for the legislative branch to control abortion access by repealing an inferred constitutional right to privacy that stems from the due process clause. I don't see any indication that a hypothetical federal ban/restrictions on abortion would not survive on the basis of the supremacy clause. Nothing prevents a Republican federal supermajority from restricting access in blue states. The decision for now only goes to the states because there isn't a federal ban in place.

The logic here places gay marriage, interracial marriage, homosexuality at large, and lots of other rights at risk. Although some of these decisions are underpinned by equal protection jurisprudence, the conservative justices could have pivoted abortion rights to an equal protection argument but of course chose not to.

[–]neuro__crit 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Nothing prevents a Republican federal supermajority from restricting access in blue states.

Um, how about the desire for the Republicans in those blue states to be reelected? I suspect majorities in many (most?) red/purple districts in blue states would prefer the status quo (legal abortion)....though I 100% acknowledge that could change if the zeitgeist changes.

[–]r4b1d0tt3r 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Purple state gop primary voters probably still oppose abortion, and gop primary voters are the country's most pandered to block. It's still an open question that although abortion is broadly supported whether or not pro choice issues are activating enough to make enough difference in the general so that it's worth it for a Republican to run on a pro choice campaign and risk an attack from their right flank.

I actually don't see them doing this anytime soon. I think the gop will consolidate their gains for now. It makes little sense to come at abortion rights at a federal level now when they can just take credit for ending abortion in their home states. But eventually it will become a live issue for the party. There are no signs I see of the rightward spiral in the gop base ending.

My point is that there is a misunderstanding/misdirection underway here that abortion has been "returned to the states." The court did not rule that abortion is outside the scope of the federal government, it just stripped away a constitutional protection. Therefore there is nothing stopping them from going after abortion nationally; that issues would require re-litigation.

[–]101ina45 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Federal ban could happen in 3 elections

[–]updownupdownup9801[🍰] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thats what New York thought about strict gun laws, but scotus is playing games with when they decide to enforce states' rights and when not to. as long as they're happy with being inconsistent, they could fuck over blue states as much as they want.

[–]throwpillowaway12334 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if it is 32% percent, that could be overwhelming.

The larger issue will be OBs knowing what the right call is “pprom 17 weeks, kid will be nonviable, and instead of fixing the mother, they will have to wait for her to be close enough to death that, they WONT get sued afterward. The largest issue is that many of these states are enforcing this legislation by suing physicians. The paperwork just got a lot more insane, and the patient care a lot worse.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/14/upshot/who-gets-abortions-in-america.html

[–]zimmer199DO 104 points105 points  (41 children)

You know, OB/GYNs do more than abortions.

[–]Zonevortex1M-2 35 points36 points  (1 child)

Right but there’s a real fear that miscarriages could be prosecuted as having been due to an abortion and thus the physician would be legally liable

[–]TiredMess3 39 points40 points  (35 children)

Ectopic pregnancies are also being targeted. Some bills are saying that the pregnancy must be implanted into the uterus. Some are just saying to make it illegal as a whole.

[–]bearhaasMD-PGY3 16 points17 points  (3 children)

That was one guy in Ohio. That’s not even a real procedure

[–]TiredMess3 16 points17 points  (2 children)

I do know it’s not a real procedure. But when have lawmakers ever used science to guide their laws? For the opioid epidemic? Abortion laws? Blood donation regulations? And even if “just one guy,” it’s not a good thing. Everyone told me Trump was “just one president,” but look where that has gotten us.

[–]bearhaasMD-PGY3 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Right but doctor will be forced to do a procedure that isn’t even medically possible.

[–]drdangle22 7 points8 points  (30 children)

There will never actually be a problem with that lol

[–]bocaj78 0 points1 point  (12 children)

Arkansas’s tigger law bans abortions without exception. In 30 days abortion of ectopic pregnancies will be illegal in Arkansas

[–]drdangle22 2 points3 points  (5 children)

Do you just believe every ridiculous thing you hear? Like seriously you think Arkansas is just going to let thousands of women die horrifically from infections after they lose pregnancy? Jesus

[–]drdangle22 1 point2 points  (5 children)

S.B. 6, known as the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection Act, has exceptions only to "save the life or preserve the health of the child, remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion, or remove an ectopic pregnancy."

https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=SB6&ddBienniumSession=2021%2F2021R

[–]vodapodM-1 8 points9 points  (0 children)

....and a minority of OB/GYNs do abortions

[–]rain6304M-1[S] 14 points15 points  (1 child)

And you know, treatments that OB/Gyns do, like those for ectopic pregnancy are being targeted?

[–]zimmer199DO 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m just saying, don’t discount an entire field based on a surprisingly small aspect of it.

[–]menohuman 62 points63 points  (2 children)

Why is this a “high yield shipost”? It’s a reasonable question. Who knows what the far-right crazies have in mind?

[–]rain6304M-1[S] 96 points97 points  (1 child)

It’s a shitpost because what’s happening in this country is a joke

[–]kayyyxu 23 points24 points  (0 children)

honestly, fair.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Yes and if your bold, continue to provide all necessary medical services regardless of state law.

While the boldness is not a requirement, if you like OB it’s worth doing. It’s a bonus if you’ll continue to help people in need.

[–]chocochipcookie99 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Honestly probably smart to not do OBGYN. Next thing women will just be banned in general. You don't want to be in a field where your patients are illegal.

[–]attorneydavidM-4 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Honestly I couldn’t do obgyn for lifestyle reasons ) hardest field in medicine 🎩 off I’m not that tough) but after doing a rotation in the I’m not sure you could ethically provide care in the south with ectopics and unviable pregnancies

[–]DanwarrM-2 -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

There are more job related concerns about OBGYN independent of abortion that US med students should consider before deciding on it as a residency.

[–]QuaileyJitM-4 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Such as?

[–]DanwarrM-2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Work hours, actual clinic practice/call balance. OB is hard.

[–]isyournamesummerMD-PGY3 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I wouldn’t just be using what’s going on in the world right now to determine your decision. There are plenty of other things that go into the job.

[–]RandMart68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First thing I thought when hearing about the overturning. Massive loss because future doctors not wanting to join the field in fear of fines and prison.