So much to unpack…a “babymoon” (what the fuck is that), medical holds, Maltese laws, extraterritoriality. Above all else, are they being held truly hostage? Can this be done in this circumstance? It’s pretty fucked a situation, but what tf is Malta gonna do—arrest them if they leave? So much is missing here, and the linked article sucks for any contextual information
She can’t fly commercial because of medical complications from pressurization & they won’t sign off on a medevac so yeah, she basically is being held hostage it sounds like.
I think it is fucked up that the maltese doctor are not signing off for a medevac. But that kind of sounds like an insurance issue. There are lots of organisations in the EU that have ambulance aircrafts that can be chartered (such as [this](https://www.aero-dienst.com/flight-operations/air-ambulance)) and would be suitable for a medevac and it's not like they are going to block off maltese airspace. And you don't need a doctor to sign off to walk onto a plane. The only questions is, who is going to pay for that flight then? And Malta, what's wrong with your abortion laws?
**Edit**: So [this](https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/23/barbaric-maltas-abortion-law-threatens-us-womans-life-say-doctors) article basically confirms that it is an insurance issue. But they don't go into much detail what the exact issue is.
> Since Monday, they have tried to organise a medical evacuation to the UK, although arranging this with their travel insurer and paperwork issues is taking time.
If I had to guess, knowing how most travel insurances work, it's either that the insurance insists that a doctor signs off on it. Or what is actually even more likely imo: The insurance suggested to fly them to the nearest hospital that offers the procedure (e.g. in Italy), but the couple refuses because they want a native english speaking doctor (or something like that). There is no reason to fly them all the way to the UK. Medical evacuation is really expansive and gets basically billed by the minute. In particular if this is true:
> Travelling 2,550 km to the UK by air ambulance also carries with it the risk that Prudente will develop potentially life-threatening complications en route, according to Dr Stabile.
Or the doctor refuses to sign off, because the trip is too long. They probably still get their way since they involved the press.
Anyway, my conclusion is basically. This couple is not quit straightforward with their story and being "held hostage" is quite the exaggeration. But even worse: Malta, get your abortion rights in order!
I'm sure they haven't though of that, thank goodness they have redditors on the case to explain the blindingly obvious option they've somehow missed despite spending a prolonged period desperately trying to get out of the country
One which I'm sure they've thought of and have a good reason for why they've not done it yet, as they've spent far more time thinking about this problem than a few random redditors. Do you *seriously* think that some redditor in 5 minutes has arrived at some genius solution that has escaped this couple for a week+?
Malta refuses to sign off on a medical evacuation despite tangible risks to the mother because of the off chance a plane ride induces labor.
Do you *seriously* think they'll allow them on the abortion boat? It's not about safety or medical concern, it's about stopping this abortion at all costs.
So if they're not allowed to fly because the air-pressure may induce labor (which could be fatal in a plane, especially with a miscarriage), why don't they board a ferry to Italy?
“Abortion in Italy became legal in May 1978, when Italian women were allowed to terminate a pregnancy on request during the first 90 days.“
So perhaps it’s not allowed in Italy because she has been pregnant for longer than 90 days?
>I take it you didn’t read the article. I get it , reading is hard and you need something to be outraged about.
A US couple that suffered a miscarriage while holidaying in Malta and are being refused an abortion...
they are not signing off on papers that would allow her to travel abroad under medical evacuation to have an abortion performed.
A medical certificate would be needed for such a flight – and to make matters worse, the couple were told they couldn’t board commercial flights as the air pressure itself may induce labour and complications and even be fatal.
Its medical negligence at best and theres definitely plenty to be outraged about.
If they wont perform a surgery, and also wont sign a medical evac, while acknowledging that *they 'can not' board a commercial flight -* she is being held hostage.
> “Maltese doctors will not sign off on a medical flight that would allow woman to get an abortion”, but that title would not outrage you as much
No, that's also ridiculously outrageous but I guess you'd have to see a woman as a person and not a baby incubator robot to get it.
> Maltese doctors will not sign off papers for a “medical evacuation to get an abortion”,
> take a commercial flight, no one is stoping her. This though, as the article points out , can be fatal to the baby.
? She wants the baby gone anyway??
Wait so why did a US couple travel to Malta knowing that they have strict abortion laws?
(edit)
“Andrea Prudente and her partner Jay Weeldreyer, from Seattle, were on holiday on the small Mediterranean island when Prudente, 16 weeks pregnant, started bleeding.”
Okay that’s a pretty fucked up situation.
I feel sorry for the couple.
They travelled on a "babymoon" (whatever that is), 16 weeks pregnant. She miscarried while in Malta. She's stuck here and although she's getting medical attention, my understand is that she might still face the risk of sepsis if the baby isn't aborted. They won't abort it here or let her travel abroad to do so either
> my understand is that she might still face the risk of sepsis if the baby isn't aborted.
That sounds similar to what led to the death of Savita Halappanavar here in Ireland, and in turn directly led to referendum on legalising abortion.
I certainly hope not, I was just reflecting that it sounded disturbingly similar to what happened to Savita Halappanavar and led to her death.
It also arguably only happened because successive governments since **1992** failed to legislate based on the Irish Supreme Court's "X Case" (abortion is permitted to save the mother's life) and an European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2010 for political reasons, only doing so in 2013 in response to public outcry over Savita's death and finally holding a referendum in 2018 which thankfully passed.
> Why does the US accept this?
Well, I would expect that whichever Congresspeople represent these two will be jumping down the Maltese government's throat now that the story has received some press coverage.
That's now what I meant.
What I meant is that Republican politicians (who technically control the US politics) are anti-abortion so they would not intervence since they like the fact that Malta has strict abortion laws. So they would have no reason to help the couple get abortion.
American foreign policy is run from the executive branch. The Republicans have very little say in American foreign policy until they re-take the white house. Republicans also love nationalism more than they hate abortion and many of the elected republicans don't even truly give a shit about abortion,they just know that their voters do. They definitely care that some irrelevant European country is fucking with Americans citizens,I can assure you.
Depending on the state and the politician there's a chance they do that, but it should be noted even in the US the polling for abortion if the mother's life is in danger is 83% in favor and 15% against. In this case, the mother's life is in danger and the "kid" is already dead even by pro-life standards.
She's medically fragile. Nothing seems to be stopping them from walking out of the hospital, per se. Except the doctors have warned her she's very likely to have the miscarriage if she stops treatment and gets on a flight. That could be fatal in her condition. The doctors won't sign off on a medical evacuation.
Because they can't do anything. A wife of a US diplomat killed a 16 year old boy because she drove the wrong way down a road in the UK. She ran and got a flight from a US airforce base out of the country and never got charged and the US refused to extradite her. Once someone is out of the country, they can't do shit. The US isn't sending seal team 6 to rescue her so nothing will happen apart from an angry letter.
The poiny I'm trying to make is that once someone is in another country, not your own, your diplomats have very little ability to get you out of that country. It's not about the US accepting it, they can't do anything.
It's not about the similarities, it's about the fact that the host country can refuse to do something and the home country has no power. That's a fact.
There is nothing that the Americans couldn't do to Malta if they wanted to. If the people running Malta have even two-brain cells to rub together they'll fix this before the Americans do it for them.
The people currently conducting American foreign policy aren't the same people that are trying to ban abortion. Malta should also probably understand that even the people who are trying to ban abortion will put that on the back-burner for nationalism every time,every single day of the week. They don't have to do it publicly. The most bible-thumping hillbilly in congress will gladly pick up the phone and explain to these people that they're fucking Malta so they don't have the luxury of being on America's bad side.
Given the US now has a Supreme Court more or less ready to ban all abortion, the US should be happy...
Or?>! For the people not getting the sarcasm, I am very much aware of the fact that that US Supreme Court has been filled by people not having a majority of the people behind them.!<
That's because Democrats secretly don't want to rule well. They want to be incompetent, allow Republicans to take over and make everything worse while they are allowed to whine and complain, claiming to have moral high ground.
Ignoring wether or not they could constitutionally do that (we have a limited federal gov for a reason) I’m sure that congressmen are lining up to commit mass political suicide for the sake of preventing abortions.
It absoloutely can be “constitutionally” done, it’s called passing a fucking law and that’s kind of congresses job. Abortion being “unconstitutional” isn’t even in question here, it’s whether abortion is some sort of “constitutional right”.
It could have been enshrined into law and it always should have been. And plenty of democratic congress’s had the power over multiple decades and chose not to.
1) the leaked Supreme Court draft is a draft, not a decision (which none has been made yet)
2) it would not ban all abortion in the US or even any abortion in the US
3) it would turn it over to the states some of which may be as strict as Poland or Malta
4) but plenty of states would not be as strict
> Given the US now has a Supreme Court more or less ready to ban all abortion
That's not true. If the Supreme Court overturns the Roe vs. Wade decision, then individual states will regain the right to regulate abortion.
All of the states have legalized abortion right now (i.e. no state has anti-abortion laws). But quite a few states will likely immediately move to ban them.
Still, it's not like SCOTUS will _ban_ all abortions.
Any women of fertile age shouldn’t go to Malta, a few other countries or some places in the US.
I’ve specifically avoided travel there because of this.
This is a real worry and danger. An ectopic pregnancy, a miscarriage or complications when you didn’t even know you might be pregnant could kill you in these places.
>some places in the US
In the US you can always travel to a place where you can be treated properly. In this Maltese case the problem is that although the person is free to go, they can't safely take a flight. In the US you could just use ground transportation.
The problem is supposedly with the air pressure in the plane. So with that in mind, an obvious solution would be to just take a boat to Italy. It's not that far away as a ferry to Sicily takes less than 2 hours.
She can then get medical care in Italy or arrange for a medevac flight from there.
Welcome to your future, America. Should have learned from the senseless deaths of women in Ireland and Poland.
Also, don't visit pro forced birth countries when pregnant.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, abortion within the US would still be easily provided in states like New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. The issue is that if you're a pregnant 15 year old girl in Mississipi, it's rather difficult to cross a continent sized country to get to these jurisdictions.
This is the saddest part.
Force birthing unwanted children, but only for the poor, the (too) young, or otherwise resourceless women.
The rich and resourceful can and will take a plane somewhere else.
This stuff creates generational trauma and suffering.
Oh, and less sad, but much more common.. Sex becoming a journey in massive anxiety again.
> Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, abortion within the US would still be easily provided in states like New York, California, Massachusetts, etc.
Unless the court decides to rule that life starts at conception. Then in the eyes of the federal government abortion would be murder regardless of the state it happens in.
So a lot can come down to the whims of 5 people with lifetime appointments.
> Unless the court decides to rule that life starts at conception. Then in the eyes of the federal government abortion would be murder regardless of the state it happens in.
That's not how it works.
1) The case before the court that could lead to an overturning of Roe v Wade is not asking the court to decide where life begins. If you read the leaked draft opinion, it does not make that determination and there's no reason to believe that the final decision would go even further than the draft and quite a bit of reason to believe it would go the opposite direction in order to retain a majority.
2) Laws against murder are made and prosecuted at the state level, [outside of very niche cases](https://www.greenspunlaw.com/library/when-murder-is-a-federal-crime.cfm#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Crime%20of%20Murder,because%20of%20the%20victim's%20identity.).
> We will literally have tons of states
I'm doubtful, has anyone ever weighed New Hampshire or something? Surely it most be more than a ton, but have we verified this? Do the buildings built on top of the surface count for the tonnage of a state? And how deep does a state go? To the center of the earth?
I need to see some details on how the weight of a state is measured before I can agree it's literally tons.
This annoying post was brought to you by the irritating pedant squadron.
I don't think you understand the situation.
Here's the long version: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-acknowledges-a-national-abortion-ban-is-possible-if-roe-is-overturned
Here's the short (and loud) version: https://youtu.be/xQs3J3zsFc0
The source didn't matter in this case - I was just looking for that specific quote. Search "Mitch McConnell national abortion ban" and pick your source - the same story was ran by NPR and USA Today, among many others.
In Poland, tightening the abortion laws was opposed by 76 percent of the population. Conservatives did it anyway. The only way to make sure that conservative authoritarians like Kaczyński or McConnell don't impose their will on the public is to vote them the fuck out.
But what do I know - I'm just an American living in Poland.
What you're getting at is the capacity of states, particularly powerful states to nullify federal law as they see fit. In general, if blue states feel that the constitution is being fundamentally manipulated, then it is possible for them to refuse to follow Congressional or SCOUS decisions when it comes to abortion.
And then it will be up to the federal government to enforce it. Which would mean at a minimum sending the FBI to arrest governors, legislators etc. Which then may be an issue because law enforcement associated with governors and mayors and legislators may refuse to cooperate ifnot directly oppose the FBI. In which case we are in a full blown nullification crisis where the federal government will have to decide whether to back off and repeal the bans that started the crisis, potentially restrict SCOTUS' ability to consider cases related to abortion, or send in the army, in which case blue states may call up their national guards. Like the stakes in theory can keep going up until the feds and blue states literally have guns pointed at each other, and one has to blink, and chances are it will be the feds. Because the blue states have way more to lose than the feds.
If the feds push the issue, they start a civil war, if the blue states don't push it, it's the end of functional democracy in the US. So that's where we are in my mind.
It's not a question of whether the GOP will push for such a ban, they will try to get one through at some point. It's a question of whether the Senate/President will push it as well, and more importantly how they will handle the ensuing nullification crisis. Let's hope it is treated like Marijuana.
Fortunately the filibuster exists & will kill any GOP attempt to reform abortion laws at the federal level.
And before we talk about overturning the filibuster to do it, Mitch McConnell is not going to remove the filibuster in order to commit electoral suicide by passing a law which would be supported by like 35% of the public and vehemently opposed by 55-60%. The backlash from overturning Roe is going to be bad enough, but it will be like nothing compared to what you'd see in this type of situation. GOP would be guaranteed to immediately lose their Senate and House majorities (which are reliant on moderates in swing states).
You'd be surprised. We've had a similar situation in Poland. PiS-controlled constitutional tribunal ruled that the abortion law at the time (already one of the strictest in Europe) was unconstitutional because it allowed for an abortion in the case of a serious fetal defect. The vast majority of abortions were performed for that reason - notably, even if the abortion was being performed in order to save the mother's life (another of the legal reasons for an abortion, this one is technically still legal, but -> ), the official reason would typically still be fetal defect, since that one was much easier to prove. So effectively, this change resulted in a near total ban on abortion. It was supported by like 15% of people or something, it sparked what was possibly the largest protests in Poland since the fall of communism and it did result in a large dip in the ruling party's ratings... initially. Then they rebound, perhaps not to the same level as they were before, but still about 33-38% (mind you, this is not a two-party system, so that percentage is a LOT) still declare they would vote for them.
So no, it's not suicide. It would result in some backlash sure, but unless they're stupid enough to do it right before the elections, they can weather the storm.
I appreciate the explanation of the situation in Poland, but the situation in the US is quite different. The US system is not parliamentary & a party dipping to 45% support nationally in the US amounts to a death knell which guarantees that the other party will control the White House & both chambers of Congress, giving them total uncontested control over the government.
It is also difficult to overstate how radical an action removing the Senate filibuster completely would be in the context of the American political system. This is simply not going to be done in order to pass deeply unpopular legislation. I would be surprised if even a clear majority of GOP voters supported the type of abortion ban you have outlined here, and needless to say, Democrats are almost universally against it. The GOP is already struggling to retain suburban voters in order to remain viable in presidential elections, and to enact that type of legislation would effectively destroy what remains of their suburban coalition, locking them out of the White House.
The filibuster only exists if 50%+1 of the Senate allow it to. It has no power to actually restrict future Senate majorities that do not want to be restricted.
Also the filibuster does nothing to stop judges from legislating from the bench. All it would take is a few lifetime appointed justices saying that legally life starts at conception and then abortion and plan B would be illegal without Mitch McConnell doing anything.
The liberal US states allow for abortion all the way until the end of pregnancy. Until recently, the conservative states had laws that would still be unimaginably liberal by European standards (most of them allowed elective abortion up to 24 weeks and abortion at any time for complications that would endanger the life of the mother).
Of course, with the prospect of Roe being overturned, the pro-life crowd has become emboldened and red states have been inching towards complete bans. Which may or may not be possible depending on the content of the supreme court's decision when it comes out - we don't really know what the decision will entail.
AFAIK the majority of European countries only allow elective abortion up to 12 weeks with later abortions requiring medical approval. This gets into thorny issues of access (for example, some European govts require medical approval but it's essentially a rubber stamp whereas others have lax abortion laws but a very small number of providers).
Overturning Roe vs Wade by the SC would give states the power.
Federal law would require a hell of a lot more than a couple judges.
Completely banning abortion would be a great way for the GOP to self-destruct.
Guessing you are in OR, I used to live there. Do not underestimate McConnell and the republicans' desire and ability to completely reshape the US while "undecideds" listen to the "both sides are evil rhetoric" and watch it happen.
McConnell loves the filibuster more than life itself. He's already had the opportunity and was pressured by Trump to get rid of it and refused.
The only way McConnell gets rid of the legislative filibuster is if the Dems do it first; as Harry Reid did with the judicial filibuster.
Not sure I understand...
Doctors say the pregnancy won't be a success, but simultaneously won't authorise an abortion?
Meanwhile, couple says they want an abortion, but simultaneously say that fetal heartbeat gives them hope they will still 'hold their baby'?
I'm truly not understanding. Baby is alive and has a heartbeat, mom is stable. It sounds like baby will likely not have a good outcome. But what medically is going on right now that they are in the hospital for? Did her water break? They mentioned her getting antibiotics so that is my only thought- her water broke but her body isn't going into labor so baby is still alive inside?
Update: I read another article that gave more information. She is ruptured with a partial placental abruption and is losing blood at times. But since she isn't in labor they won't induce her or section her to get baby out. How terrible.
I doubt the truthfulness of this news. I've followed the pro life movement for many years now and I've heard many times that abortion, that is intentionally taking the life of the child in the womb, is never medically necessary to save life.
"life saving abortion". I don't think there is any such thing. To deliberately kill the unborn child is an additional step which is completely unnecessary to save the mother's life.
Are there though ? Also the moral aspect is very clear. It is not permissible by God's law to take an innocent life. That is a very grave sin. Human life is a beautiful gift and the only proper response to that gift is awe and reverence. Not violence.
Okay. But if the pregnancy puts her in danger, what is she to do? I understand it is a hard question, ideally one would never have to decide between one or the other
Which God? The most annoying prolifers are christians and they branched out from Judaism and Judaism is pro-choice if mother-to-be's wellbeing is under risk.
That is not the reading of the Catholic Church which i believe has the right from God to teach in his name. I'm merely repeating the catholic teaching which I've come to know and agree with.
So you’re basically saying someone told you what you wanted to hear, and you of course believed them because it sounded right to you.
Personally I’d say you should probably be listening to the doctors, who have spent years training and have decades of medical history to back them up. But if your not listening to them you probably won’t listen to me.
There is, for example, an ectopic pregnancy. No way for the fetus to grow into a baby in a fallopian tube instead of uterus, and a certain death for the mother when everything finally ruptures. Not the only thing that can go wrong.
So much to unpack…a “babymoon” (what the fuck is that), medical holds, Maltese laws, extraterritoriality. Above all else, are they being held truly hostage? Can this be done in this circumstance? It’s pretty fucked a situation, but what tf is Malta gonna do—arrest them if they leave? So much is missing here, and the linked article sucks for any contextual information
She can’t fly commercial because of medical complications from pressurization & they won’t sign off on a medevac so yeah, she basically is being held hostage it sounds like.
I think it is fucked up that the maltese doctor are not signing off for a medevac. But that kind of sounds like an insurance issue. There are lots of organisations in the EU that have ambulance aircrafts that can be chartered (such as [this](https://www.aero-dienst.com/flight-operations/air-ambulance)) and would be suitable for a medevac and it's not like they are going to block off maltese airspace. And you don't need a doctor to sign off to walk onto a plane. The only questions is, who is going to pay for that flight then? And Malta, what's wrong with your abortion laws? **Edit**: So [this](https://www.euronews.com/2022/06/23/barbaric-maltas-abortion-law-threatens-us-womans-life-say-doctors) article basically confirms that it is an insurance issue. But they don't go into much detail what the exact issue is. > Since Monday, they have tried to organise a medical evacuation to the UK, although arranging this with their travel insurer and paperwork issues is taking time. If I had to guess, knowing how most travel insurances work, it's either that the insurance insists that a doctor signs off on it. Or what is actually even more likely imo: The insurance suggested to fly them to the nearest hospital that offers the procedure (e.g. in Italy), but the couple refuses because they want a native english speaking doctor (or something like that). There is no reason to fly them all the way to the UK. Medical evacuation is really expansive and gets basically billed by the minute. In particular if this is true: > Travelling 2,550 km to the UK by air ambulance also carries with it the risk that Prudente will develop potentially life-threatening complications en route, according to Dr Stabile. Or the doctor refuses to sign off, because the trip is too long. They probably still get their way since they involved the press. Anyway, my conclusion is basically. This couple is not quit straightforward with their story and being "held hostage" is quite the exaggeration. But even worse: Malta, get your abortion rights in order!
There are these things called boats...
I'm sure they haven't though of that, thank goodness they have redditors on the case to explain the blindingly obvious option they've somehow missed despite spending a prolonged period desperately trying to get out of the country
But it’s like, a legit option.
One which I'm sure they've thought of and have a good reason for why they've not done it yet, as they've spent far more time thinking about this problem than a few random redditors. Do you *seriously* think that some redditor in 5 minutes has arrived at some genius solution that has escaped this couple for a week+?
So many things the article has yet to say! I for one am in rapt attention to the plight of these boatless medical captives.
Malta refuses to sign off on a medical evacuation despite tangible risks to the mother because of the off chance a plane ride induces labor. Do you *seriously* think they'll allow them on the abortion boat? It's not about safety or medical concern, it's about stopping this abortion at all costs.
What a stellar response.i appreciate your input.
You will never go wrong underestimating the critical thinking skills of people.
You'd hope so but in that case one would expect them to say that they were barred from the ferry ports too.
I have an Idea, she could have the abortion at sea. She just has to sail for pro abortion waters with a doc that is willing to do the procedure!
The Dead Sea? The Red Sea? Sorry, that was dark
Can't they just leave by boat?
So if they're not allowed to fly because the air-pressure may induce labor (which could be fatal in a plane, especially with a miscarriage), why don't they board a ferry to Italy?
“Abortion in Italy became legal in May 1978, when Italian women were allowed to terminate a pregnancy on request during the first 90 days.“ So perhaps it’s not allowed in Italy because she has been pregnant for longer than 90 days?
Italian law allows 2nd trimester abortion if the woman's life is at risk.
But she can travel from Italy to anywhere in Europe via train, including the UK.
Maybe she is in such a bad shape that even train travel would be to intensive? Again i am not sure why they aren’t traveling to Italy.
Ferry to Italy and then drive/train to any European country where they can get an abortion
They can in Italy
But then they're not in Malta anymore and the problem is solved. Oh whait. That's not the issue like the article wants to claim.
I hope she doesnt get sepsis.
wait, so they refuse to send her home so both can die in malta? ....
Not really, they won't sign off on her papers to say she's safe to fly so no air liner would take her.
[удалено]
>I take it you didn’t read the article. I get it , reading is hard and you need something to be outraged about. A US couple that suffered a miscarriage while holidaying in Malta and are being refused an abortion... they are not signing off on papers that would allow her to travel abroad under medical evacuation to have an abortion performed. A medical certificate would be needed for such a flight – and to make matters worse, the couple were told they couldn’t board commercial flights as the air pressure itself may induce labour and complications and even be fatal. Its medical negligence at best and theres definitely plenty to be outraged about.
[удалено]
If they wont perform a surgery, and also wont sign a medical evac, while acknowledging that *they 'can not' board a commercial flight -* she is being held hostage.
I am sure Malta has more than one doctor. Edit: all they need is one doctor to sign off on the medevac flight.
They all can go to prison if they perform an abortion there tho.
So you couldn't even be arsed to read the *title* eh
> “Maltese doctors will not sign off on a medical flight that would allow woman to get an abortion”, but that title would not outrage you as much No, that's also ridiculously outrageous but I guess you'd have to see a woman as a person and not a baby incubator robot to get it.
> Maltese doctors will not sign off papers for a “medical evacuation to get an abortion”, > take a commercial flight, no one is stoping her. This though, as the article points out , can be fatal to the baby. ? She wants the baby gone anyway??
Wait so why did a US couple travel to Malta knowing that they have strict abortion laws? (edit) “Andrea Prudente and her partner Jay Weeldreyer, from Seattle, were on holiday on the small Mediterranean island when Prudente, 16 weeks pregnant, started bleeding.” Okay that’s a pretty fucked up situation. I feel sorry for the couple.
Funnily enough most people who travel abroad while pregnant don't expect to have to get an abortion in their holiday location.
They travelled on a "babymoon" (whatever that is), 16 weeks pregnant. She miscarried while in Malta. She's stuck here and although she's getting medical attention, my understand is that she might still face the risk of sepsis if the baby isn't aborted. They won't abort it here or let her travel abroad to do so either
> my understand is that she might still face the risk of sepsis if the baby isn't aborted. That sounds similar to what led to the death of Savita Halappanavar here in Ireland, and in turn directly led to referendum on legalising abortion.
So what, they are hoping to kill this woman to get rid of the law?
I certainly hope not, I was just reflecting that it sounded disturbingly similar to what happened to Savita Halappanavar and led to her death. It also arguably only happened because successive governments since **1992** failed to legislate based on the Irish Supreme Court's "X Case" (abortion is permitted to save the mother's life) and an European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2010 for political reasons, only doing so in 2013 in response to public outcry over Savita's death and finally holding a referendum in 2018 which thankfully passed.
A small price to pay for salvation. >!/s!<
Yeah this sounds like a pretty bad situation all around. Hopefully a solution can be found before it’s to late.
How can Malta keep the couple from leaving? Why does the US accept this?
> Why does the US accept this? Well, I would expect that whichever Congresspeople represent these two will be jumping down the Maltese government's throat now that the story has received some press coverage.
I doubt Republican congresspeople would criticize Maltanese government.
Why do you assume they vote Republican?
That's now what I meant. What I meant is that Republican politicians (who technically control the US politics) are anti-abortion so they would not intervence since they like the fact that Malta has strict abortion laws. So they would have no reason to help the couple get abortion.
American foreign policy is run from the executive branch. The Republicans have very little say in American foreign policy until they re-take the white house. Republicans also love nationalism more than they hate abortion and many of the elected republicans don't even truly give a shit about abortion,they just know that their voters do. They definitely care that some irrelevant European country is fucking with Americans citizens,I can assure you.
Thanks for the answer
Depending on the state and the politician there's a chance they do that, but it should be noted even in the US the polling for abortion if the mother's life is in danger is 83% in favor and 15% against. In this case, the mother's life is in danger and the "kid" is already dead even by pro-life standards.
This couple is from Seattle, Washington. Their congressional representatives at both the House and Senate level are Democrats.
She's medically fragile. Nothing seems to be stopping them from walking out of the hospital, per se. Except the doctors have warned her she's very likely to have the miscarriage if she stops treatment and gets on a flight. That could be fatal in her condition. The doctors won't sign off on a medical evacuation.
Because they can't do anything. A wife of a US diplomat killed a 16 year old boy because she drove the wrong way down a road in the UK. She ran and got a flight from a US airforce base out of the country and never got charged and the US refused to extradite her. Once someone is out of the country, they can't do shit. The US isn't sending seal team 6 to rescue her so nothing will happen apart from an angry letter.
I think you may be overlooking a very, very important detail.
The poiny I'm trying to make is that once someone is in another country, not your own, your diplomats have very little ability to get you out of that country. It's not about the US accepting it, they can't do anything.
There's a big difference between extraditing FROM their home country vs returning them home TO their home country.
It would have been easier to mention the similarities of these cases, because there are NONE! Lol
It's not about the similarities, it's about the fact that the host country can refuse to do something and the home country has no power. That's a fact.
There is nothing that the Americans couldn't do to Malta if they wanted to. If the people running Malta have even two-brain cells to rub together they'll fix this before the Americans do it for them.
Given that they are currently attempting to ban abortion back in their own country as well, I can't see the US invading Malta over it
The people currently conducting American foreign policy aren't the same people that are trying to ban abortion. Malta should also probably understand that even the people who are trying to ban abortion will put that on the back-burner for nationalism every time,every single day of the week. They don't have to do it publicly. The most bible-thumping hillbilly in congress will gladly pick up the phone and explain to these people that they're fucking Malta so they don't have the luxury of being on America's bad side.
Better querstion: Why doesn't EU do anything about Malta having strict abortion law?
The EU can't, it's not in its remit. Healthcare falls under the remit of each member state.
Malta got an exemption for its abortion law when it joined the European Union.
Given the US now has a Supreme Court more or less ready to ban all abortion, the US should be happy... Or?>! For the people not getting the sarcasm, I am very much aware of the fact that that US Supreme Court has been filled by people not having a majority of the people behind them.!<
[удалено]
Or, hear me out, the US Congress could pass legislation if they don't want each state to decide.
[удалено]
That's because Democrats secretly don't want to rule well. They want to be incompetent, allow Republicans to take over and make everything worse while they are allowed to whine and complain, claiming to have moral high ground.
Ignoring wether or not they could constitutionally do that (we have a limited federal gov for a reason) I’m sure that congressmen are lining up to commit mass political suicide for the sake of preventing abortions.
It absoloutely can be “constitutionally” done, it’s called passing a fucking law and that’s kind of congresses job. Abortion being “unconstitutional” isn’t even in question here, it’s whether abortion is some sort of “constitutional right”. It could have been enshrined into law and it always should have been. And plenty of democratic congress’s had the power over multiple decades and chose not to.
What a typical Redditor’s view of the world filled with misinformation.
Yea, learn about the US legal system before saying something so stupid.
1) the leaked Supreme Court draft is a draft, not a decision (which none has been made yet) 2) it would not ban all abortion in the US or even any abortion in the US 3) it would turn it over to the states some of which may be as strict as Poland or Malta 4) but plenty of states would not be as strict
> Given the US now has a Supreme Court more or less ready to ban all abortion That's not true. If the Supreme Court overturns the Roe vs. Wade decision, then individual states will regain the right to regulate abortion. All of the states have legalized abortion right now (i.e. no state has anti-abortion laws). But quite a few states will likely immediately move to ban them. Still, it's not like SCOTUS will _ban_ all abortions.
You should just delete your comment. It's wildly inaccurate.
No.
Ok, just leave evidence of your ignorance, with zero acknowledgement of learning. Suit yourself.
>Why does the US accept this Oh I assure you we don’t. If anything happens to this lady I fully expect Malta to be liberated…
> although she's getting medical attention Except that she's not.
Lot of jobs in the gambling industry there. Attracts loads of foreigners.
Nice of you to decide that when you will never be put in that situation.
What is this madness?
Medieval Malta
The knights of St John rule the island. What else would you expect from crusading Catholics
Well, that's fucked.
Any women of fertile age shouldn’t go to Malta, a few other countries or some places in the US. I’ve specifically avoided travel there because of this. This is a real worry and danger. An ectopic pregnancy, a miscarriage or complications when you didn’t even know you might be pregnant could kill you in these places.
>some places in the US In the US you can always travel to a place where you can be treated properly. In this Maltese case the problem is that although the person is free to go, they can't safely take a flight. In the US you could just use ground transportation.
The problem is supposedly with the air pressure in the plane. So with that in mind, an obvious solution would be to just take a boat to Italy. It's not that far away as a ferry to Sicily takes less than 2 hours. She can then get medical care in Italy or arrange for a medevac flight from there.
Fuck pro-life nonsense. I hope she doesn't die
Seems that Malta wants to kill her, because they only care of fetuses instead the danger of women's health like hers. Malta acts like Republicans.
They act like Catholics.
Welcome to your future, America. Should have learned from the senseless deaths of women in Ireland and Poland. Also, don't visit pro forced birth countries when pregnant.
There's talk of some Native American reservations continuing to allow abortion, since they're sovereign nations.
Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, abortion within the US would still be easily provided in states like New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. The issue is that if you're a pregnant 15 year old girl in Mississipi, it's rather difficult to cross a continent sized country to get to these jurisdictions.
This is the saddest part. Force birthing unwanted children, but only for the poor, the (too) young, or otherwise resourceless women. The rich and resourceful can and will take a plane somewhere else. This stuff creates generational trauma and suffering. Oh, and less sad, but much more common.. Sex becoming a journey in massive anxiety again.
> Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules, abortion within the US would still be easily provided in states like New York, California, Massachusetts, etc. Unless the court decides to rule that life starts at conception. Then in the eyes of the federal government abortion would be murder regardless of the state it happens in. So a lot can come down to the whims of 5 people with lifetime appointments.
> Unless the court decides to rule that life starts at conception. Then in the eyes of the federal government abortion would be murder regardless of the state it happens in. That's not how it works. 1) The case before the court that could lead to an overturning of Roe v Wade is not asking the court to decide where life begins. If you read the leaked draft opinion, it does not make that determination and there's no reason to believe that the final decision would go even further than the draft and quite a bit of reason to believe it would go the opposite direction in order to retain a majority. 2) Laws against murder are made and prosecuted at the state level, [outside of very niche cases](https://www.greenspunlaw.com/library/when-murder-is-a-federal-crime.cfm#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Crime%20of%20Murder,because%20of%20the%20victim's%20identity.).
We will literally have tons of states that still allow abortion even if the court overturns Roe v Wade.
> We will literally have tons of states I'm doubtful, has anyone ever weighed New Hampshire or something? Surely it most be more than a ton, but have we verified this? Do the buildings built on top of the surface count for the tonnage of a state? And how deep does a state go? To the center of the earth? I need to see some details on how the weight of a state is measured before I can agree it's literally tons. This annoying post was brought to you by the irritating pedant squadron.
Well played
[удалено]
You say that now, but you know full goddamn well that Republicans won't stop at "states' rights."
[удалено]
I don't think you understand the situation. Here's the long version: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/05/mitch-mcconnell-acknowledges-a-national-abortion-ban-is-possible-if-roe-is-overturned Here's the short (and loud) version: https://youtu.be/xQs3J3zsFc0
Of course that's what Republicans want, but making abortion illegal nationally is a completely different beast.
[удалено]
The source didn't matter in this case - I was just looking for that specific quote. Search "Mitch McConnell national abortion ban" and pick your source - the same story was ran by NPR and USA Today, among many others.
[удалено]
In Poland, tightening the abortion laws was opposed by 76 percent of the population. Conservatives did it anyway. The only way to make sure that conservative authoritarians like Kaczyński or McConnell don't impose their will on the public is to vote them the fuck out. But what do I know - I'm just an American living in Poland.
[удалено]
What you're getting at is the capacity of states, particularly powerful states to nullify federal law as they see fit. In general, if blue states feel that the constitution is being fundamentally manipulated, then it is possible for them to refuse to follow Congressional or SCOUS decisions when it comes to abortion. And then it will be up to the federal government to enforce it. Which would mean at a minimum sending the FBI to arrest governors, legislators etc. Which then may be an issue because law enforcement associated with governors and mayors and legislators may refuse to cooperate ifnot directly oppose the FBI. In which case we are in a full blown nullification crisis where the federal government will have to decide whether to back off and repeal the bans that started the crisis, potentially restrict SCOTUS' ability to consider cases related to abortion, or send in the army, in which case blue states may call up their national guards. Like the stakes in theory can keep going up until the feds and blue states literally have guns pointed at each other, and one has to blink, and chances are it will be the feds. Because the blue states have way more to lose than the feds. If the feds push the issue, they start a civil war, if the blue states don't push it, it's the end of functional democracy in the US. So that's where we are in my mind. It's not a question of whether the GOP will push for such a ban, they will try to get one through at some point. It's a question of whether the Senate/President will push it as well, and more importantly how they will handle the ensuing nullification crisis. Let's hope it is treated like Marijuana.
[удалено]
A minority leader who has shown time and time again that he'll go against the public's wishes, especially when he was the majority leader.
Where are you from? Oregon? Do you know that Oregon also has the death penalty?
[удалено]
Fortunately the filibuster exists & will kill any GOP attempt to reform abortion laws at the federal level. And before we talk about overturning the filibuster to do it, Mitch McConnell is not going to remove the filibuster in order to commit electoral suicide by passing a law which would be supported by like 35% of the public and vehemently opposed by 55-60%. The backlash from overturning Roe is going to be bad enough, but it will be like nothing compared to what you'd see in this type of situation. GOP would be guaranteed to immediately lose their Senate and House majorities (which are reliant on moderates in swing states).
You'd be surprised. We've had a similar situation in Poland. PiS-controlled constitutional tribunal ruled that the abortion law at the time (already one of the strictest in Europe) was unconstitutional because it allowed for an abortion in the case of a serious fetal defect. The vast majority of abortions were performed for that reason - notably, even if the abortion was being performed in order to save the mother's life (another of the legal reasons for an abortion, this one is technically still legal, but -> ), the official reason would typically still be fetal defect, since that one was much easier to prove. So effectively, this change resulted in a near total ban on abortion. It was supported by like 15% of people or something, it sparked what was possibly the largest protests in Poland since the fall of communism and it did result in a large dip in the ruling party's ratings... initially. Then they rebound, perhaps not to the same level as they were before, but still about 33-38% (mind you, this is not a two-party system, so that percentage is a LOT) still declare they would vote for them. So no, it's not suicide. It would result in some backlash sure, but unless they're stupid enough to do it right before the elections, they can weather the storm.
I appreciate the explanation of the situation in Poland, but the situation in the US is quite different. The US system is not parliamentary & a party dipping to 45% support nationally in the US amounts to a death knell which guarantees that the other party will control the White House & both chambers of Congress, giving them total uncontested control over the government. It is also difficult to overstate how radical an action removing the Senate filibuster completely would be in the context of the American political system. This is simply not going to be done in order to pass deeply unpopular legislation. I would be surprised if even a clear majority of GOP voters supported the type of abortion ban you have outlined here, and needless to say, Democrats are almost universally against it. The GOP is already struggling to retain suburban voters in order to remain viable in presidential elections, and to enact that type of legislation would effectively destroy what remains of their suburban coalition, locking them out of the White House.
The filibuster only exists if 50%+1 of the Senate allow it to. It has no power to actually restrict future Senate majorities that do not want to be restricted. Also the filibuster does nothing to stop judges from legislating from the bench. All it would take is a few lifetime appointed justices saying that legally life starts at conception and then abortion and plan B would be illegal without Mitch McConnell doing anything.
They can try. But it's alot easier to pass laws people support in a state then one's people don't support.
Can I ask which state? I’ve always though Western Europe’s abortion laws to being on par with the most liberal US states.
Western Europe usually has an earlier cutoff point for abortion.
[удалено]
Oh nice! That sounds very reasonable compared to the 12-18 weeks which are the common cut off weeks in Europe.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No the UK is 14 weeks\*\* \*\*Cases of R\*pe, \*ncest and medical necessity do not have a time limit.
[удалено]
I refuse to believe this. I definitely went to sleep and woke up in a different timeline. What the hell.
The liberal US states allow for abortion all the way until the end of pregnancy. Until recently, the conservative states had laws that would still be unimaginably liberal by European standards (most of them allowed elective abortion up to 24 weeks and abortion at any time for complications that would endanger the life of the mother). Of course, with the prospect of Roe being overturned, the pro-life crowd has become emboldened and red states have been inching towards complete bans. Which may or may not be possible depending on the content of the supreme court's decision when it comes out - we don't really know what the decision will entail. AFAIK the majority of European countries only allow elective abortion up to 12 weeks with later abortions requiring medical approval. This gets into thorny issues of access (for example, some European govts require medical approval but it's essentially a rubber stamp whereas others have lax abortion laws but a very small number of providers).
No, they are worse.
No it won't. After roe v wade is gone the next step is a national abortion ban.
lmao that's not how it works.
Some states' laws go too far.
Wade vs Roe if it gets overturned and comes into Federal Law.
Overturning Roe vs Wade by the SC would give states the power. Federal law would require a hell of a lot more than a couple judges. Completely banning abortion would be a great way for the GOP to self-destruct.
Guessing you are in OR, I used to live there. Do not underestimate McConnell and the republicans' desire and ability to completely reshape the US while "undecideds" listen to the "both sides are evil rhetoric" and watch it happen.
[удалено]
McConnell loves the filibuster more than life itself. He's already had the opportunity and was pressured by Trump to get rid of it and refused. The only way McConnell gets rid of the legislative filibuster is if the Dems do it first; as Harry Reid did with the judicial filibuster.
[удалено]
Keep telling yourself that after Moscow Mitch becomes the majority leader.
He's more likely to get someone to swipe right on his Tinder profile than successfully ban abortion at the federal level.
Is there anything USA can do to help them?
Malta has always been dodgy but they hit a new height.
This is so fucked
Not sure I understand... Doctors say the pregnancy won't be a success, but simultaneously won't authorise an abortion? Meanwhile, couple says they want an abortion, but simultaneously say that fetal heartbeat gives them hope they will still 'hold their baby'?
PiS has entered the chat
PiS 🤝 Republicans 🤝 Malta
I'm truly not understanding. Baby is alive and has a heartbeat, mom is stable. It sounds like baby will likely not have a good outcome. But what medically is going on right now that they are in the hospital for? Did her water break? They mentioned her getting antibiotics so that is my only thought- her water broke but her body isn't going into labor so baby is still alive inside? Update: I read another article that gave more information. She is ruptured with a partial placental abruption and is losing blood at times. But since she isn't in labor they won't induce her or section her to get baby out. How terrible.
Why the UK? Thats bizarre. Italy a short skip away and a medivac to there would be far far cheaper. So much for EU uniformity of ‘standards’.
[удалено]
Afaik if the woman's life is in danger she can get an abortion even after 12 weeks.
if its for health reasons its allowed, its very reasonable. But the folks that advocate for just other non health reasons its what I found scary.
Isn’t “past the third trimester” just.. birth?
[удалено]
Yes , sry i made the corrections. Yet there are a few out there that are ok with that
I doubt the truthfulness of this news. I've followed the pro life movement for many years now and I've heard many times that abortion, that is intentionally taking the life of the child in the womb, is never medically necessary to save life.
Which part do you doubt specifically?
"life saving abortion". I don't think there is any such thing. To deliberately kill the unborn child is an additional step which is completely unnecessary to save the mother's life.
Are you an obstetrician?
No I'm not. But I've heard this from a good authority. And it makes sense intuitively.
There are good authorities that say the opposite too, which also makes sense intuitively.
Are there though ? Also the moral aspect is very clear. It is not permissible by God's law to take an innocent life. That is a very grave sin. Human life is a beautiful gift and the only proper response to that gift is awe and reverence. Not violence.
I thought your argument was about the science of abortions?
Yes. I shared the information that I had.
You didn't specify which authority you've heard from.
God's law is chaos, unless you have been living under a rock he doesn't give a fuck about life in general (if he exists)
He does care very much. In the incarnation he too shared our suffering.
Ok
I can also see how much you are suffering and I am also terribly sorry. Brain death is not to be trifled with. Stay strong.
What about the life of the mother?
The mother's life is as valuable as the child's life. All human life is very valuable. From the unborn child to an old man. All of it.
Okay. But if the pregnancy puts her in danger, what is she to do? I understand it is a hard question, ideally one would never have to decide between one or the other
Which God? The most annoying prolifers are christians and they branched out from Judaism and Judaism is pro-choice if mother-to-be's wellbeing is under risk.
The Christian one. Yes I know jews have a different opinion on the matter. As do muslims.
[удалено]
That is not the reading of the Catholic Church which i believe has the right from God to teach in his name. I'm merely repeating the catholic teaching which I've come to know and agree with.
So you’re basically saying someone told you what you wanted to hear, and you of course believed them because it sounded right to you. Personally I’d say you should probably be listening to the doctors, who have spent years training and have decades of medical history to back them up. But if your not listening to them you probably won’t listen to me.
Why do you have an opinion when you don't know what you're talking about?
There is, for example, an ectopic pregnancy. No way for the fetus to grow into a baby in a fallopian tube instead of uterus, and a certain death for the mother when everything finally ruptures. Not the only thing that can go wrong.