Now Cannot Abort Disabled Fetus In Indiana.

[TheMastersNemesis]

Now a woman cannot abort a disabled fetus in Indiana. So even a severely disabled fetus must be carried to term and the child would have to be supported medically no matter how costly or how limited the life would be. And GOP does NOT support helping the family with medical financial burden.

A couple would not be able to make such a decision even if they would be financially bankrupted.

[Iris]

1. "even if they would be financially bankrupt" which means hospitals

would be stuck with the expenses, which would likely mean all healthcare would cost more.

[FarPoint]

2. Medicaid would need to be established for the children.

What a sad state of leadership....

[Ilsa]

3. I wonder if families will start abandoning

The newborns to the state because they are unable to care for the child. Making physical therapy appointments, even at home, usually means the mother ends up abandoning her job or career. And there are long term consequences for that, too.

[meow2u3]

5. That's the whole point

Repunks want women to abandon their jobs or careers to perform the thankless task of caring for a disabled child because it'll enslave a woman to the home.

I wish male domination of women were a felony punishable by life imprisonment.

[Vinca]

4. Drop all the Zika babies off at Mike Pence's house.

Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 01:44 PM - Edit history (1)

[dembotoz]

12. small brains would fit right in

[sufrommich]

6. The "Right to Life" cult specializes in cruelty. nt

[B Calm]

7. Pence gives new meaning to life behind the Hoosier Iron Curtain!

[Raissa]

8. It's horrific

that anyone could think forcing a parent or a family to endure more tragedy is the best path.

Even without discussion of the rights they're trampling, this is just heartless.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

9. AP story clarifies:

http://www.pressreader.com/usa/pittsburgh-post-gazette/20160325/281595239660444/textview

It is unclear what impact, if any, the restrictions will actually have on abortions, as women could cite other reasons — or not give any — for seeking an abortion.

[TheMastersNemesis]

10. Reasons Don't Matter. If There Is Disability In The Fetus State Could Charge Couple With Murder.

This law is just a way to open a couple to being charged with murder or infanticide. There is a method to this madness. And it also indirectly ID's the fetus as a person. There is a lot more to this law than what is on its face. The term disabled also implies the fetus if a person if you think about it. And idea being disabled more or less claims that a deformed fetus is disabled. It is a catch 22 in such a situation.

Even if a couple crosses state lines to have an abortion of a disabled or deformed fetus the state of Indiana could use the law and its courts to arrest and jail a couple for ending the pregnancy.

Plus the Indiana law follows the Catholic Church's dogma on such matters. No matter how deformed a fetus is the Church dictates that that child is a "new soul" that must be delivered regardless of cost. That such suffering is noble and God's will. So in reality Indiana is following a religious belief to the letter of the moral law.

[maxrandb]

15. You make an excellent point

I mean aren't all fetuses, by definition, "disabled" until birth?

Can they survive outside the womb?

Can they survive without the placenta?

It's just another attempt to roll-back a women's right to what goes on with her own body.

Funny how they never seem to give a shit about the "child" once it's brought into the world, but GAWD! Said that women would be punished for her wickedness by bearing the "burden" of childbirth.

Oh well, guess she should have gripped a Bible firmly between her knees and she wouldn't be in this "trouble"

Makes me wish that GAWD! had stuck with the original plan and just made new people out of the ribs of men.

[KamaAina]

11. I HATE it when anti's use people with disabilities as political pawns!!

[jwirr]

13. This is very hard for me to say because as many of you know

I have a beloved child (adult now) who is severely disabled. But I think that law stinks. I spent 45 years taking care of her and now live in poverty due to the fact that I did. And I would not wish that on any family if they do not want to do it. It has to be up to the family.

But for a law to place the responsibility of care back onto the backs of the families is to move us back to the 50s. They are a bunch of fools. What happened in the 50s was families lived in total poverty and often lost everything due to bankruptcy. Also families ended up getting a divorce due to the pressure of money needs. And this was then - there was less that could be done for the child.

Many families just plain abandoned the child to the state and the state became the supporter without any in put from the family. Our institutions were expensive and full.

[Takket]

14. Well, i was gonig to ask if the new law included unlimited

lifetime medical care on the State' dime, but you already addressed that.