Comfort care is medical care. When any person of any age has a condition that is incompatible with life, they deserve pallitive care, not being hooked up to machines and tubes that will not make a difference. Late term abortions are rare; they are not done to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. This is why Minnesota lets women make their own decisions based on their own situation and medical advice. It may not be the decision you would make.
This post was edited by Jane S at August 8, 2024 2:06 AM MDT
Why did he change to law? He removed the specific requirement for medical care to save the life of a child who has been born. A baby who survives an abortion at the point has the right to life and medical professionals have the responsibility it give life saving and lifepreserving care. This is the requirement and responsibility that Walz removed from the law.
This post was edited by my2cents at August 7, 2024 7:43 PM MDT
I can't say for sure and I don't know where that graphic of a marked up bill came from. But, if it is legit, I would say that the words pertaining to takingallreasonablemeasures, consistentwithgoodmedical
practice, covers giving life preserving care when the situation warrants it. But if a fetus is not going to live, no matter what, then pallitive care is the right thing to do. This is a decision for the parents and the doctors. Not the government. If parents want to hold their dying infant, instead of watching from a distance while tubes and needles are inserted, knowing the infant will die anyway, they need to have that right.
A doctors job is to save the patient. In this case it is a born infant. As soon at the baby is born it is not a fetus is is a born human being. And at that point legally has a right to life. And the doctor has a responsibility to provide medical care to save that human life. Not to decide the baby cannot be saved or is not. If it is still covered then why remove the language that clearly states what is required? Why remove the clearly stated fact that the law applied to born alive infants?
I think the law is clear as revised. If doctors aren't capable of deciding whether an infant can be saved, then who is? Never mind, that was a rhetorical question. Clearly you think politicians know more than doctors. And that parents should have no say in what treatment they want for their child.
This post was edited by Jane S at August 8, 2024 2:06 AM MDT
Why did he change it? Why was the born alive baby and preserve life language removed? He took away the clarity, the right to life, the requirement and responsibility to preserve life. And not to have to report it.
I already answered that. Perhaps when someone you care about has a child whose incompletely formed brain is visible through his open skull, as I have had, you might be less dogmatic about the need for life-preserving care, and taking away the the rights of parents to make choices based on medical advice. Until then, feel free to work on having the government make healthcare choices. And continue to support a candidate who told his nephew that he should just let the nephew's 19 -year-old severly disabled son die instead of paying to care for him.
This post was edited by Jane S at August 8, 2024 6:41 AM MDT
That is a sad sitituation. And I am sure very traumatic.
This is about botched abortions. When the baby survived the abortion. And then simply allowing the child to die. The law specifically states to give medical treatment to a born alive baby who survived an abortion. The same treatment a born alive baby would recieve at a hospital would recieve.
There was absolutely no need to change the language of the law. Other than to ignore the reports and pretend it didn't happen.
This post was edited by my2cents at August 8, 2024 7:55 AM MDT
Because according to the original wording, a baby with half a brain but still breathing would be forced to have life - preserving measures that at best would add a few painful, uncomfortable minutes or hours to his inevitably doomed existence and deny the parents the right to hold their child while he takes his last breaths in relative comfort. Or alternatively, the mother can wait for the unborn child to die in utero, continue to carry it to term, possibly risking her own health, then give birth to dead, deformed baby. Is that better? No law can cover every circumstance and medical care should be up to patients and doctors, not politicians. No need to keep arguing, you are not going to change my opinion or yours.
This post was edited by Jane S at August 8, 2024 11:31 AM MDT
This post was edited by Jane S at August 8, 2024 2:06 AM MDT
Jane S 