The ruling sought to clarify the medical exceptions in the state’s bans, and was in a response to a lawsuit from women who were denied abortions despite medical emergencies.

  • vettnerk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    106
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Who holds the burden of proof, though? Will the doctor have to prove that his choice was done in good faith to claim that his procedure was lawful, or will a prosecution have to prove bad fath? It might seem like semantics, but I bet a lot of doctors will be risk averse if they hold the burden of proof.

    • echutaa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      Regardless this seems like it will just be used by the state/wealthy organizations to drag doctors through court until they’re out of money. If I were a doctor in Texas I still wouldn’t even consider an abortion for fear of losing everything.

    • Chetzemoka@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it’s not just the doctors. Hospitals are businesses that are not interested in taking on financial and legal risk. Even if a doctor is willing, they won’t be able to, if they don’t have a hospital facility that will allow it

      • HuddaBudda@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There would be the need to set up liability insurance and the procedures and premiums would just be too expensive compared to other states that won’t have those issues or hindrances.

        It would be like telling you had to spend $300 on a fast food burger, when the other states only charge $10 - $15.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      The current Texas law puts the burden on doctors; they have to PROVE that an abortion to save life of the mother was the ONLY option. Doctors do not want to risk jail time and a trial over this, so many necessary abortions were held back, endangering the mother. The court notes this which is why the ruling was issued. Texas AG is denying this reality and claiming the women are being hysterical.

  • Drinvictus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m finishing my residency training soon and even though I am not an ob provider I would never ever work in Texas, Florida or anywhere that has laws against routine medical practices

    • jayrhacker@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously, it’s a shame there isn’t a large powerful association of medical professionals that could push back against government interference in medical care

  • demonquark
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a classic “rules for thee, but not for me” law. Good Faith judgment means the rich an powerful get access to while the poor and minorities do not.

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    And then the state decides otherwise every single time and every abortion provider is locked up. Good faith judgement isn’t guaranteed immunity in court. It’s a trap.