Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[biobook]

Being that PROM it isn't necessarily an immediate medical emergency, a woman close to the viability line may be given the following guidance under the careful care of a doctor. In some cases I suspect Jewish ethics would advise to follow these guidelines just to avoid having to outright kill the baby, and have it die naturally. I am not certain about this, are you?

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000512.htm
BEFORE 34 WEEKS

..... The baby will do better if its lungs have more time to grow before being born.

Read the NYT article again.  No babies are going to be born there.  The pregnancies and miscarriages are WAY  before 34 weeks, in the 15-22 week range, I think.

[imayid2]

Read the NYT article again.  No babies are going to be born there.  The pregnancies and miscarriages are WAY  before 34 weeks, in the 15-22 week range, I think.

Once you hit 20-22 weeks I’d think we may want to try to push towards the viability line, no? And you haven’t addressed

Being that PROM it isn't necessarily an immediate medical emergency, a woman close to the viability line may be given the following guidance under the careful care of a doctor. In some cases I suspect Jewish ethics would advise to follow these guidelines just to avoid having to outright kill the baby, and have it die naturally. I am not certain about this, are you?

[biobook]

Once you hit 20-22 weeks I’d think we may want to try to push towards the viability line, no? And you haven’t addressed

What does this mean?

[imayid2]

What does this mean?

Get the baby far enough along so it can survive outside her body.

[biobook]

Get the baby far enough along so it can survive outside her body.

Read the NYT article again.  No babies are going to be born there.  The pregnancies and miscarriages are WAY  before 34 weeks, in the 15-22 week range, I think.

I can't tell if you didn't read the NYT article, or if you read it and didn't understand it.   Here's the description I gave earlier of the situation described in the article:

One issue of concern is the situation I mentioned earlier of the woman on vacation in Malta:

You may have heard about the case a week ago, when an American woman, 4 months pregnant, went on vacation to Malta where she had a life-threatening emergency.  She was refused an abortion procedure (D&C) because Malta bans abortions, with a penalty of 3 years in prison for the woman and the doctor, so she arranged for medical evacuation to England.  But the doctors feared she wouldn't survive the 3 hour flight, so she couldn't go there.  She was finally able to reach Spain/Mallorca, where she had the procedure.

She had had an incomplete miscarriage, in which the waters broke and perhaps membranes around the fetus were torn, but the fetus didn't die.  In cases like this, the fetus may remain alive for up to a month, but not more.  The mother's life is not necessarily in actual immediate danger at this point, but it is in potential danger.  The uterus in this situation is prone to infection, and when an infection begins there it may progress to sepsis, which may be rapidly fatal.

When this used to happen in America, doctors would discuss with the woman what the best choice is for her - to wait and see if the fetus is either naturally expelled, or if it dies, after which a D&C removes the tissue from the uterus.  Or to not wait, and do an abortion (D&C) immediately, to decrease the chance of infection and sepsis.  The American tourist wanted the abortion, but the Maltese hospital would not allow that last choice, since there was still a fetal heartbeat.  She didn't want to wait for infection to set in, so she traveled elsewhere for the abortion.

Same thing happened about 10 years ago in Ireland, which had a very strict no-abortion policy, with a life sentence for the doctor how performs one.  In that case, the woman also had a partial miscarriage and doctors sent her home because there was still a fetal heartbeat.  She was in the medical field (a dentist) and aware of the danger she was in, so tried to arrange for an abortion in England.  Meanwhile, her fever spiked and the Irish doctors agreed to do the abortion, but it was too late and she died.  A few years later, Ireland held a referendum on the abortion issue and the country voted to repeal the law, with many of them saying it was this story that changed their minds.  A similar case in Poland led to the death of a woman last year.  "No abortion" laws are promoted with joyful images of cute, smiling babies, but it evokes a different feeling when the same law is tied to images of dead women. 

You're probably thinking, the states must be aware of this possibility and wrote the laws in such a way that a woman could have an abortion to avoid this dangerous possibility of sepsis.  Wrong!  In fact, this exact scenario is now playing out here.  The earliest report we have is from Texas, where women were not given the option of an immediate abortion, but forced to wait until either the fetal heart stopped or infection began:  "In a study published this month in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, doctors at two Texas hospitals cited the cases of 28 women less than 23 weeks pregnant who were treated for dangerous pregnancies. The doctors noted that all of the women had recommended abortions delayed by nine days because fetal heart activity was detected. Of those, nearly 60% developed severe complications — nearly double the number of complications experienced by patients in other states who had immediate therapeutic abortions.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-science-health-medication-lupus-e4042947e4cc0c45e38837d394199033

One of those women had to have her uterus removed, so she not only lost that pregnancy but won't be having any more either.  Not clear if this was due to the required wait time or not.

scientific article:
https://www.ajog.org/action/showPdf?pii=S0002-9378%2822%2900536-1

Again, I suspect that halachically the abortion would be approved early on because of the eventual risk of infection, but the Texas law requires an immediate risk of death before allowing it.

[imayid2]

I’m merely pointing out that not all cases cited in these articles would’ve had a different outcome from Halacha/Jewish Ethics view, than the laws this article is complaining about. Therefore the ramifications for frum women aren’t as immense as you’re trying to make it to be. Though to be sure I’m sure some cases would be affected.

[biobook]

I’m merely pointing out that not all cases cited in these articles would’ve had a different outcome from Halacha/Jewish Ethics view, than the laws this article is complaining about. Therefore the ramifications for frum women aren’t as immense as you’re trying to make it to be. Though to be sure I’m sure some cases would be affected.

I still can't tell - Did you read the NYT article?  If so, did you understand it?  Did you read my post?  Did you understand it? 

[imayid2]

I still can't tell - Did you read the NYT article?  If so, did you understand it?  Did you read my post?  Did you understand it?

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

[biobook]

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Then which cases are you referring to here?

Halacha and Jewish ethics would almost certainly require/recommend pushing off abortion in some/many cases described.

[imayid2]

Then which cases are you referring to here?

Cases cited in the article where the woman’s water broke and she wasn’t in imminent danger.

[biobook]

Cases cited in the article where the woman’s water broke and she wasn’t in imminent danger.

How imminent does the danger have to be to permit aborting the pregnancy in these cases?

[imayid2]

How imminent does the danger have to be to permit aborting the pregnancy in these cases?

Probably subject to halachik debate.
There are different opinions as to the level of danger necessary to abort.
I saw an interesting story where a woman’s water broke in her 20th week and Rav Ovadia Yosef did not allow her to abort.
Another story with a woman who’s water broke in her 15th week, and after clarifying with the doctor if she can wait a bit, he advised her to wait.

[biobook]

Probably subject to halachik debate.
There are different opinions as to the level of danger necessary to abort.
I saw an interesting story where a woman’s water broke in her 20th week and Rav Ovadia Yosef did not allow her to abort.

With the new laws being enacted, halachik debate about how great a danger is needed before allowing an abortion is irrelevant.  The state has decided that the woman must be in imminent danger of death, even if the halachic decision is that she should abort long before becoming so seriously ill.  Only then can the doctors abort to save her life, or at least, to try to save her life. 

The problem with letting women get so sick is that not all with recover.  As the NYT article quotes:
“It’s like you bring lots of people to the top of a high rise and push them to the edge and then catch them before they fall,” said Dr. Alireza A. Shamshirsaz, an obstetrician and fetal surgeon who practiced in Houston until last month. “It’s a very dangerous way of practicing. All of us know some of them will die.”

[imayid2]

With the new laws being enacted, halachik debate about how great a danger is needed before allowing an abortion is irrelevant.  The state has decided that the woman must be in imminent danger of death, even if the halachic decision is that she should abort long before becoming so seriously ill.  Only then can the doctors abort to save her life, or at least, to try to save her life. 

The actual law in Texas says (3)  "Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.
It does not say "imminent".
Regardless, my main point is that these cases have a minimal effect on frum women, and many cases cited in the article are irrelevant from our religious viewpoint. The minimal cases effected don't warrant the extreme position you wish for. Not at all.

[shiframeir]

just found this thread, glad to see so many DDF lawyers! I can see both sides to an extent (though i generally side with the OU's statement of this seems like it will possibly lead to jews having to be encumbered from doing what a rabbi may say is the best course).
But i'm focused on the reasoning, which if continued consistently, will hurt religious liberties. Agudah is right now fighting hard for autonomy from closer NY oversight of jewish school curriculum, and that essentially derives from the SC decisions of pierce v. society of sisters (decided around the same time lots of other substantive due process cases were decided), yoder etc. which found a fundamental right for parents to decide on children's schooling decisions. But as Scalia (who was at least consistent on the point) spelled out in his dissent in Troxel (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville/Dissent_Scalia), there is no fundamental right of parents to make decisions about their kids in the Constitution, nor is it historically consistent (they didnt have public schools way back when).

When i was in law school, Thomas was my favorite writer bc he was always so pashut/focused on the text. but i can't understand how Thomas can argue (practically as he did in Troxel vs now in Dobbs) that a right rooted in court decisions 75 years ago supports substantive due process protection (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville/Concurrence_Thomas), but the 50 year old precedent is just egregious and must be overturned. Can't help but believe he is just focused on the results, but if/when the dems come into town/pack the SC, we may lose our rights to yeshiva education...

Separately, his intellectual dishonesty (and apparent plan to make other changes consistent with his religious beliefs) is concerning, and perhaps lowers religion even further in the eyes of so many americans turning to atheism.

[shiframeir]

The actual law in Texas says (3)  "Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.
It does not say "imminent".
Regardless, my main point is that these cases have a minimal effect on frum women, and many cases cited in the article are irrelevant from our religious viewpoint. The minimal cases effected don't warrant the extreme position you wish for. Not at all.

what about tay sachs babies or other issues focused on major mental health effects that practically ruin lives where there is much halachic support (esp today) for turning to abortion (esp early on)? these laws disregard serious affects to women (me and my wife have had 3 pregnancy losses, including a stillborn and an ectopic, and i can tell you the long-term affects are real).

separately, i still dont understand why  religious jews should lobby/publicly announce preference for a position that may kill even 1 jew where there is no binding obligation of hocheach tocheach for the general non-jewish populace (and indeed, this appears to be the only Noahide law we make announcements about, yet nothing telling idol worshippers or the catholics to get rid of their avodah zarah (clearly the consensus understanding) which should be just as important)?

Finallly , there are real sources in halacha about not helping nonjews (idol worshippers, which in practice we consider possibly most of the nonjews today) have children/weaning them (e.g. yoreh deah 154-2), and increase that population, so its especially strange to choose to push this when in general it goes against a torah value.

[imayid2]

just found this thread, glad to see so many DDF lawyers! I can see both sides to an extent (though i generally side with the OU's statement of this seems like it will possibly lead to jews having to be encumbered from doing what a rabbi may say is the best course).
But i'm focused on the reasoning, which if continued consistently, will hurt religious liberties. Agudah is right now fighting hard for autonomy from closer NY oversight of jewish school curriculum, and that essentially derives from the SC decisions of pierce v. society of sisters (decided around the same time lots of other substantive due process cases were decided), yoder etc. which found a fundamental right for parents to decide on children's schooling decisions. But as Scalia (who was at least consistent on the point) spelled out in his dissent in Troxel (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Troxel_v._Granville/Dissent_Scalia), there is no fundamental right of parents to make decisions about their kids in the Constitution, nor is it historically consistent (they didnt have public schools way back when).

you may appreciate this https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184865/20210726093205304_19-1932%20Amicus%20Brief%20of%20Jewish%20Coalition%20for%20Religious%20Liberty.pdf

[biobook]

The actual law in Texas says (3)  "Medical emergency" means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed.
It does not say "imminent".

How much of a threat is "life-threatening"?  Does there have to be a 90% chance she'll die?  What if it's a 50% chance?  Or only 20%? 

Regardless, my main point is that these cases have a minimal effect on frum women, and many cases cited in the article are irrelevant from our religious viewpoint. The minimal cases effected don't warrant the extreme position you wish for. Not at all.

Can you be specific which cases you're referring to?  The cases in the article are:
incomplete miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, ectopic pregnancy
(we can skip the rare case of twins, one born prematurely as stillbirth)
Which of these don't occur in frum women?  Which are irrelevant from our religious viewpoint?

[PlatinumGuy]

i still dont understand why  religious jews should lobby/publicly announce preference for a position that may kill even 1 jew where there is no binding obligation of hocheach tocheach for the general non-jewish populace

It's a Chabad thing. The Rebbe held there is a Chiyuv to be mekarev goyim to keep 7 mitzvos. I've been curious for a while what the source is, since as you mentioned there is no הוכח תוכיח and no כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה. From skimming through it above it sounded like R Moshe Tendler also held there is an inyan to stop them from aborting.

There is a din for Beis Din to police 7 mitzvahs so maybe he extrapolated the Inyan from there.

I would say though that there is a concept of כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס, so perhaps we have a duty to prevent that, unless that changed after מתן תורה when were set apart.

[shiframeir]

There is a din for Beis Din to police 7 mitzvahs so maybe he extrapolated the Inyan from there.
I would say though that there is a concept of כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס, so perhaps we have a duty to prevent that, unless that changed after מתן תורה when were set apart.

on first point im sure u realize how hard a jump that is in the US where we dont have sovereignty, and rely on the goodwill of the general population to maintain our right to our religious perspective
on the latter, i dont know how clear that is in terms of potentially harming a jew in order to tell the goyim to stop killing, and even moreso when there are real sources saying we shouldnt help idol worshippers have more healthy babies.