Comment on South Australia’s upper house narrowly rejects ‘Trumpian’ bill to wind back abortion care
joelfromaus@aussie.zone 5 weeks ago
…legislation that would force women seeking an abortion after 27 weeks and six days – an extremely rare occurrence – to be induced, to deliver the child alive.
Emphasis mine.
That’s 10 weeks early. I’m far from an expert but that’s extremely premature, right? Like, that baby is going to be in a very precarious place for a significant amount of time, yeah?
Again, I’m far from an expert but that seems horrible for literally everyone involved, especially the child! Possibly leading to lifelong health and developmental issues.
rainynight65@feddit.org 4 weeks ago
If a woman seeks abortion at that stage, it is almost guaranteed to be due to a condition that would seriously endanger her, the baby, or both, if the pregnancy was carried to term. Nobody just decides after 27 weeks that they simply don’t want the baby. In these cases, inducing to deliver the baby will likely not help the baby and it could still seriously harm the mother.
What this guy proposes would be, in most cases, indistinguishable from an abortion, but way more harmful for everyone involved. It’s telling that it is usually men who try to push these kinds of law.