[theapportioner]

People need to ask themselves the following questions:

I. Would you allow this procedure if the life of the mother is in risk, and this procedure is the safest one for the mother? The act makes an exception for the life of the mother.

II. Would you allow this procedure if the health of the mother is in risk, and this procedure is the safest one for the mother? The act makes NO exception for the health of the mother.

If you are ok with I., you are making a judgement on the relative worth of the fetus to that of the adult. Basically, the fetus, although perhaps important in some way, is less important than the life of the mother.

If you are okay with I. but not II., you are basically saying the potential life of the fetus is worth more than the health of the mother. IMO you can't just leave it like that--explain to me why you insist this must be the case.

Moreover, the problem with being okay with I. but not II. is that there's often an ambiguity as to whether a condition threatens the health of the mother but not her life. Who should determine this? Would you want your doctor to determine this on an individual case basis, or do you want the federal government to substitute for clinical judgement? Well, do you want the government to tell you if you have cancer, or liver disease, instead of the doctor?

This act handicaps the physician's judgement as to whether a certain condition is potentially life-threatening and compromises the physician-patient relationship. The fact that Ob/Gyn physicians are not permitted to use a procedure that is sometimes the safest one (the alternative procedure, still legal, involves dismembering the fetus while in the uterus, instead of pulling it out intact--ask yourself what's the essential difference here?) puts them in an uncomfortable position where they either must violate the law, or violate the Hippocratic Oath.