This is a good question in theory, but in actual practice new laws don’t generally try to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Rather than offer a strict list of “when you can” and “when you can’t” do something, they use vague terms such as “if deemed medically necessary.” I don’t know if you realize it or not, but it is legal right now in every single state to get an abortion right up to the moment of birth because of this very concept.
The same day the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, which everyone knows about, they also handed down Doe v. Bolton. If you don’t know about that case, you should Google it and read it - ALL of it. It is that law that Roe v. Wade has to refer to, and any other law since has referred to, when it comes to the notion of “medical necessity.”
Why read it all? Because you probably wouldn’t take a person seriously who told you that a woman could get an abortion at 9 months because it was causing her
family some emotional distress. But, that’s exactly what can AND does happen every day. It is whatever the attending physician says it is.
Why is it, do you suppose, that when the last President’s administration sought to examine some of these medical records to determine if the medical “reason” documented for abortions were, in fact, valid - that is, in accordance with Doe v. Bolton criteria, the Federal Court Judges were all over them and shut them down in a heartbeat? They don’t want that can of worms opened, where their courtrooms would fill up with cases challenging this or that not being in accordance with Doe.
So in the scenario proposed in this thread, a more likely approach would be that a new law would use the nebulous phrase “medical necessity” or one like it, and that would be viewed as meaning “refer to the criteria as set forth in Doe v. Bolton” to determine what medical necessity is. This is how our politicians play this little game with us… they SAY they only support abortion in “limited” cases, but then the list of “limited” is the Doe list, which is really no limit at all.
This is one of the key paragraphs in the decision; it puts the decision determining medical necessity square in the hands of
the attending physician
and no one else. Whatever the doctor says, goes. If the doctor says abort at 9 months, that’s what’s medically necessary. Emphases are mine.
The statute’s emphasis, as has been repetitively noted, is on** the attending physician’s "best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary."That should be sufficient.** The reasons for the presence of the confirmation step in the statute are perhaps apparent, but they are insufficient to withstand constitutional challenge. Again, no other voluntary medical or surgical procedure for which Georgia requires confirmation by two other physicians has been cited to us. If a physician is licensed by the State, he is recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment. If he fails in this, professional censure or deprivation of his license are available remedies. Required acquiescence by co-practitioners has no rational connection with a patient’s needs and unduly infringes on the physician’s right to practice. The attending physician will know when a consultation is advisable the doubtful situation, the need for assurance when the medical decision is a delicate one, and the like. Physicians have followed this routine historically and know its usefulness and benefit for all concerned. It is still true today that “[rleliance must be placed upon the assurance given by his license, issued by an authority competent to judge in that respect, that he [the physician] possesses the requisite qualifications.” Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114, 122-123 (1889). See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 71.
Go read the case; it will help you understand current attempts to massage the laws before our Congress right now, to where you’re told it says one thing, but it supports a lot more than you think.
