The real story lost in all of this btw is that these things can now be debated and adjudicated. Any case involving an ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage is already off the table and none of the laws involve prosecuting the woman for abortion (many leftist loons are telling women they need to take off any Cycle Apps off their phone because Big Brother is about to go full Handmaids Tale on them).

The left is doing what it does and focusing on the .5% of cases (Rape, Incest, Life of the Mother) and ignoring the 99.5%. So now the best thing is going to happen. We will actually have debate on those issues and legislation by voters and their reps. The exceptions can be addressed.

The way the left is trying to mislead women on abortion as to what the law means is disgusting. Saw a lengthy Twitter posting going on and on about how 13 year olds wouldn't be able to get abortions (though by definition that's statutory rape) and it quickly evolved into how all conservative men want child brides they can turn into baby factories. Of course they also don't mention how Planned Parenthood is notorious for never reporting any activity related to abortions to cops and lying about ages. They just send the victims back to be victimized again so they can keep them as a customer coming back for more. They are truly sick.

Telling women a hospital won’t give her surgery for an ectopic pregnancy- when all hospitals in 50/50 states will- is what is going to kill women.

But the Left doesn’t care. They need women to die just like they needed Covid deaths and mass shootings.

— THE Red-Headed libertarian™ (@TRHLofficial) June 27, 2022

This is truth. When liberal media is the main source of information for a lot of these women then terrible things are going to happen and the liberal media will gleefully try to blame conservatives for their own lies.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Is an exception to save the mother really needed? You have two lives; one will be lost. You save the mother. What doctor would not do that?

---

One that doesn't want to lose their license if someone challenges that the mother was not guaranteed death if she carried to term
Is it scary to think that?
Yes. But people suck

---

I'm sorry but how can an ectopic pregnancy be carried to term? Curious, not debating.

---

Very rarely an intrabdominal ectopic pregnancy occurs. Not a typical "tubal" ectopic pregnancy. But is extremely rare

TThom said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Is an exception to save the mother really needed? You have two lives; one will be lost. You save the mother. What doctor would not do that?

---

One that doesn't want to lose their license if someone challenges that the mother was not guaranteed death if she carried to term
Is it scary to think that?
Yes. But people suck

---

I'm sorry but how can an ectopic pregnancy be carried to term? Curious, not debating.

---

Very rarely an intrabdominal ectopic pregnancy occurs. Not a typical "tubal" ectopic pregnancy. But is extremely rare

---

How does the baby get nutrients? Is there still a placenta?

https://radiopaedia.org/articles/abdominal-ectopic-pregnancyaggiehawg said:

---

TThom said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Is an exception to save the mother really needed? You have two lives; one will be lost. You save the mother. What doctor would not do that?

---

One that doesn't want to lose their license if someone challenges that the mother was not guaranteed death if she carried to term
Is it scary to think that?
Yes. But people suck

---

I'm sorry but how can an ectopic pregnancy be carried to term? Curious, not debating.

---

Very rarely an intrabdominal ectopic pregnancy occurs. Not a typical "tubal" ectopic pregnancy. But is extremely rare

---

How does the baby get nutrients? Is there still a placenta?

---

https://radiopaedia.org/articles/abdominal-ectopic-pregnancy

Sounds like a high risk pregnancy and one that endangers the mom.

aggiehawg said:

---

TThom said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Is an exception to save the mother really needed? You have two lives; one will be lost. You save the mother. What doctor would not do that?

---

One that doesn't want to lose their license if someone challenges that the mother was not guaranteed death if she carried to term
Is it scary to think that?
Yes. But people suck

---

I'm sorry but how can an ectopic pregnancy be carried to term? Curious, not debating.

---

Very rarely an intrabdominal ectopic pregnancy occurs. Not a typical "tubal" ectopic pregnancy. But is extremely rare

---

How does the baby get nutrients? Is there still a placenta?

---

Yes there is a placenta as it is a fetal organ. You have hit on why it's so rare to be carried to completion in that maternal/placental interface is a significant issue outside of the uterus

Quote:

---

Yes there is a placenta as it is a fetal organ. You have hit on why it's so rare to be carried to completion in that maternal/placental interface is a significant issue outside of the uterus

---

Thank you for that clarification.

aggiehawg said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Marcus Brutus said:

---

Is an exception to save the mother really needed? You have two lives; one will be lost. You save the mother. What doctor would not do that?

---

One that doesn't want to lose their license if someone challenges that the mother was not guaranteed death if she carried to term
Is it scary to think that?
Yes. But people suck

---

I'm sorry but how can an ectopic pregnancy be carried to term? Curious, not debating.

---

It can't be

There was a poster, long since not on here called OA5 (Once an Aggie Always An Aggie), that told me a mom that wouldn't sacrifice herself to complete an ectopic pregnancy was not a real mom. All real moms would die to give their child a chance at life

All I said was a doctor may not want to end their career because someone says the mom may have survived.

Great video from Dr. John Campbell on fetal development.

vansprinkle said:

---

ABattJudd said:

---

I've seen a bunch of people virtue signaling on FB that women will no long be able to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, nor have a D&C to remove a fetus after missed miscarriage (a pregnancy where the baby dies early but is not expelled from the body).

Is there actually anyone who has ever argued that an ectopic pregnancy should not be terminated, or is this just an appeal to extreme fear? And what does a missed miscarriage have to do with anything? The baby has already passed.

On a personal note, my wife and I lost our first pregnancy to a missed miscarriage. When we went to her doc for the first ultrasound, there was no heartbeat. We were absolutely devastated and broken as we walked out of that office. As we left the car right in front of the door had a number sticker referencing something about coat hangers and the right to choose. I almost went storming back in to beat someone.

---

My wife is a nurse and said that miscarriages are labeled as abortions in the hospital paperwork. You are technically abortioning a fetus, it's just that the fetus is dead before you abort it.

I think doctors just simply need to change their nomenclature for handling miscarriages.

---

This is true. We had a miscarriage with our first, and my wife had to have a DNC. It was labeled as an abortion.

Ectopic pregnancies are non-viable essentially by definition. Nobody in public life (that I'm aware of) opposes ending these pregnancies. The issue is that the wording of some state laws is such that any procedure used for abortion, or any medical procedure involving abortion (all pregnancy terminations, procedural or spontaneous, are abortions medically speaking) could potentially be construed as being illegal. This can result in delays in care as doctors have to rely on hospital legal departments to sort things out and clarify.

This is the issue of laws governing medicine being drafted entirely by people outside the field. You end up with wording that is medically ambiguous. But no, nobody in reality opposes ending an ectopic pregnancy to save a mother's life.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

I didn't realize it, but SB8 strikes out language about ectopic pregnancies. I've emailed by State Rep and State Sen to talk to them about fixing that...

Ectopic pregnancies cannot EVER gestate into a viable child...

---

There have been rare, very rare, ectopic pregnancies that have gone to full term. However they require surgery for delivery.

---

It's EXCEEDINGLY rare, and they dont go to full term. These are a very small percentage of intra-abdominal ectopics (already rare in their own right) and they have to be delivered early.

But the bottom line is that I'm happy to grant an abortion in EVERY case of an ectopic pregnancy, even if there is some small chance of future viability. I'm happy to discuss nuance and exceptions for outliers, the problem is that these are used as distracters by some to avoid talking about the fact that around 85% of all abortions are purely for convenience and utilized effectively a form of birth control.

In just saw some BS Twitter/Facebook posts. These evil people are trying to make others believe that abortions won't be legal for:

Ectopic pregnancies
Placental abruption - um, that's emergency surgery or mom dies.
Incomplete miscarriages (baby died but didn't spontaneously abort) - this is not an abortion, it's a D&C

This is simply dishonest. It takes so much effort to not engage the people sharing this garbage.

Oh, and they also added the instance of a woman who undergoes IVF and ends up with 6 embryos… it would be illegal to selectively reduce the number to something that would be safer to carry and deliver. I don't know how the law impacts that, but it seems like they are reaching.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ectopic pregnancies are non-viable essentially by definition. Nobody in public life (that I'm aware of) opposes ending these pregnancies. The issue is that the wording of some state laws is such that any procedure used for abortion, or any medical procedure involving abortion (all pregnancy terminations, procedural or spontaneous, are abortions medically speaking) could potentially be construed as being illegal. This can result in delays in care as doctors have to rely on hospital legal departments to sort things out and clarify.

This is the issue of laws governing medicine being drafted entirely by people outside the field. You end up with wording that is medically ambiguous. But no, nobody in reality opposes ending an ectopic pregnancy to save a mother's life.

---

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/SB00008F.htm

Quote:

---

SECTION 5. Section 171.061(1), Health and Safety Code, is

amended to read as follows:

(1) "Abortion" has the meaning assigned by Section

245.002. This definition, as applied in this subchapter, may not be

construed to apply to an act done with the intent to [means the act

of using, administering, prescribing, or otherwise providing an

instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or

means with the intent to terminate a clinically diagnosable

pregnancy of a woman and with knowledge that the termination by

those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of

the woman's unborn child. An act is not an abortion if the act is

done with the intent to:

[(A) save the life or preserve the health of an

unborn child;

[(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was

caused by spontaneous abortion;

[(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy; or

[(D)] treat a maternal disease or illness for

which a prescribed drug, medicine, or other substance is indicated.

---

This is the part that seems to be an issue here in Texas...this part was removed.

Which is sort of my point. That wording, medically, is nonsensical.

ABattJudd said:

---

I've seen a bunch of people virtue signaling on FB that women will no long be able to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, nor have a D&C to remove a fetus after missed miscarriage (a pregnancy where the baby dies early but is not expelled from the body).

Is there actually anyone who has ever argued that an ectopic pregnancy should not be terminated, or is this just an appeal to extreme fear? And what does a missed miscarriage have to do with anything? The baby has already passed.

On a personal note, my wife and I lost our first pregnancy to a missed miscarriage. When we went to her doc for the first ultrasound, there was no heartbeat. We were absolutely devastated and broken as we walked out of that office. As we left the car right in front of the door had a number sticker referencing something about coat hangers and the right to choose. I almost went storming back in to beat someone.

---

Pro abortion people in every argument pic.twitter.com/gRQRRkcvIf

— CCG BRYSON (@RealBrysonGray) June 26, 2022

They always throw out these extremely rare scenarios but the reality is always this.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Which is sort of my point. That wording, medically, is nonsensical.

---

Well, they are lawyers.

Though it was probably written by a 19year-old intern from t.u.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

vansprinkle said:

---

ABattJudd said:

---

I've seen a bunch of people virtue signaling on FB that women will no long be able to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, nor have a D&C to remove a fetus after missed miscarriage (a pregnancy where the baby dies early but is not expelled from the body).

Is there actually anyone who has ever argued that an ectopic pregnancy should not be terminated, or is this just an appeal to extreme fear? And what does a missed miscarriage have to do with anything? The baby has already passed.

On a personal note, my wife and I lost our first pregnancy to a missed miscarriage. When we went to her doc for the first ultrasound, there was no heartbeat. We were absolutely devastated and broken as we walked out of that office. As we left the car right in front of the door had a number sticker referencing something about coat hangers and the right to choose. I almost went storming back in to beat someone.

---

My wife is a nurse and said that miscarriages are labeled as abortions in the hospital paperwork. You are technically abortioning a fetus, it's just that the fetus is dead before you abort it.

I think doctors just simply need to change their nomenclature for handling miscarriages.

---

This is true. We had a miscarriage with our first, and my wife had to have a DNC. It was labeled as an abortion.

---

It shouldn't be labeled as an abortion anymore or ever.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Which is sort of my point. That wording, medically, is nonsensical.

---

Well, they are lawyers.

Though it was probably written by a 19year-old intern from t.u.

---

Which is why I believe all legislation of all types should have experts in the relevant fields heavily involved in the drafting, if for no other reason than clarity.

You see the same problem with state/federal O&G legislation for example. People in the relevant fields can read the laws and recognize some of the wording is ambiguous and lacks any clarity.

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Which is sort of my point. That wording, medically, is nonsensical.

---

Well, they are lawyers.

Though it was probably written by a 19year-old intern from t.u.

---

Which is why I believe all legislation of all types should have experts in the relevant fields heavily involved in the drafting, if for no other reason than clarity.

You see the same problem with state/federal O&G legislation for example. People in the relevant fields can read the laws and recognize some of the wording is ambiguous and lacks any clarity.

---

Newsflash: Many if not most draft laws are written by lobbyists.

aggiehawg said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Which is sort of my point. That wording, medically, is nonsensical.

---

Well, they are lawyers.

Though it was probably written by a 19year-old intern from t.u.

---

Which is why I believe all legislation of all types should have experts in the relevant fields heavily involved in the drafting, if for no other reason than clarity.

You see the same problem with state/federal O&G legislation for example. People in the relevant fields can read the laws and recognize some of the wording is ambiguous and lacks any clarity.

---

Newsflash: Many if not most draft laws are written by lobbyists.

---

This is a much more complicated and nuanced dynamic than you think it is.

Lobbyists get bill drafts signed off on by companies they rep. Those companies have their in-house counsel review it. Maybe the lobbyist wrote it, maybe they didn't.

Sometimes, yes, a lobbyist will draft up something themselves. They'll even do it right there in the member's office, working together on the language. This typically happens when there's a time crunch and levels of approval would take too long (think amendments, etc).

EVERY bill draft submitted by a members office goes through TX Legislative Council, a bank of attorneys who review bills in specific subject areas. They are experts on the relevant code and present members with questions about the intent and goals. This helps get the cleanest draft possible.

It's VERY rare for a member to file a non-lege council draft unless they just need a placeholder. 100% of non-lege council drafts that go to the floor are questioned by the membership - "does this have a lege council number?"

Credibility: I worked in the TX capitol for >10 years writing bills and handling policy for members.

Ag with kids said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Ectopic pregnancies are non-viable essentially by definition. Nobody in public life (that I'm aware of) opposes ending these pregnancies. The issue is that the wording of some state laws is such that any procedure used for abortion, or any medical procedure involving abortion (all pregnancy terminations, procedural or spontaneous, are abortions medically speaking) could potentially be construed as being illegal. This can result in delays in care as doctors have to rely on hospital legal departments to sort things out and clarify.

This is the issue of laws governing medicine being drafted entirely by people outside the field. You end up with wording that is medically ambiguous. But no, nobody in reality opposes ending an ectopic pregnancy to save a mother's life.

---

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/SB00008F.htm

Quote:

---

SECTION 5. Section 171.061(1), Health and Safety Code, is

amended to read as follows:

(1) "Abortion" has the meaning assigned by Section

245.002. This definition, as applied in this subchapter, may not be

construed to apply to an act done with the intent to [means the act

of using, administering, prescribing, or otherwise providing an

instrument, a drug, a medicine, or any other substance, device, or

means with the intent to terminate a clinically diagnosable

pregnancy of a woman and with knowledge that the termination by

those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of

the woman's unborn child. An act is not an abortion if the act is

done with the intent to:

[(A) save the life or preserve the health of an

unborn child;

[(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was

caused by spontaneous abortion;

[(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy; or

[(D)] treat a maternal disease or illness for

which a prescribed drug, medicine, or other substance is indicated.

---

This is the part that seems to be an issue here in Texas...this part was removed.

---

It looks like all they're doing is removing all of the redundant areas and driving back to specific points of the Health and Safety Code where an item is already covered. It makes future updates easier because you don't have to find and amend each place it's listed throughout code.

171.061 Section 1 defers back to 245.002 for the definition of an abortion.245.002(1) clarifies that "an act is not an abortion if done with the intent to:
(A) Save the life or preserve the health of an unborn child
(B) remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by spontaneous abortion; or
(C) remove an ectopic pregnancy"

I am definitely not a huge supporter of abortion, especially when it is used as nothing more than a form of birth-control, but I do think that the clear alternative is better sex education and making contraceptives more readily available. The issue is (and the Texas Republican party has made this particularly clear) that the GOP doesn't want better sex education or easier access to contraceptives. Their antiquated Judeo-Christian beliefs have them arguing for abstinence only sex education which is completely outdated and a ridiculous notion.

tlong_10 said:

---

I am definitely not a huge supporter of abortion, especially when it is used as nothing more than a form of birth-control, but I do think that the clear alternative is better sex education and making contraceptives more readily available. The issue is (and the Texas Republican party has made this particularly clear) that the GOP doesn't want better sex education or easier access to contraceptives. Their antiquated Judeo-Christian beliefs have them arguing for abstinence only sex education which is completely outdated and a ridiculous notion.

---

condoms are available free at health departments and planned parenthood. Pretty sure other forms of BC are also available for free or reduced cost, including longer term ones like implants or IUDs.

They are widely and easily obtained but one has to be at least a little motivated to get them.

tlong_10 said:

---

I am definitely not a huge supporter of abortion, especially when it is used as nothing more than a form of birth-control, but I do think that the clear alternative is better sex education and making contraceptives more readily available. The issue is (and the Texas Republican party has made this particularly clear) that the GOP doesn't want better sex education or easier access to contraceptives. Their antiquated Judeo-Christian beliefs have them arguing for abstinence only sex education which is completely outdated and a ridiculous notion.

---

Why are Judeo-Christian beliefs atiquated?

Atheism and doubt in God has been around far longer than Christianity.

If your insistence on the lack of a God can drive your policy motivations, then why can't mine be driven by my belief?

CanyonAg77 said:

---

The draft of a Missouri bill banned abortions for ectopic pregnancies, but that provision was removed early in the process.

I agree that someone was an idiot for putting that in.

I have zero problem with abortions that would truly save the life of the mother. It's self defense, same as if her 19-year-old son came at her with a knife.

---

Do you believe abortion is murder or not?

mesocosm said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

The draft of a Missouri bill banned abortions for ectopic pregnancies, but that provision was removed early in the process.

I agree that someone was an idiot for putting that in.

I have zero problem with abortions that would truly save the life of the mother. It's self defense, same as if her 19-year-old son came at her with a knife.

---

Do you believe abortion is murder or not?

---

Why does that matter?

You might be thinking of Lizelle Herrera from the Rio Grande Valley in April. It was a self-induced abortion, not a miscarriage, and the murder charge was dropped, since it wasn't legally enforceable.

Cynical fear mongering. Plain and simple.

Surgical intervention for an ectopic pregnancy is technically a salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube) and not a procedural abortion.

The decision to perform an elective abortion to save the mother's life is not a trivial one. I was involved with this procedure for a mom that was on a transplant list and she would have died early in the 2nd trimester. It still bothers me, but the most ethical course of action is to save one life rather than lose two. As luck would have it, I was working in the OR next to the one that this same mother had her C-section a few years late after her transplant. I didn't do her case, but it did help ease the lingering guilt somewhat to know she carried an infant to term.

Spontaneous abortion = miscarriage. Miscarriage is the lay terminology.

Elective abortion = abortion as commonly referred to.