Protests at the Supreme Court of the United States on the day Roe vs Wade was overturned. Photo by Ted Eytan from Washington, DC, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 Rest assured: I have been paying attention. And while I have missed the boat on a timely dissection of Dobbs<\/em><\/a>, I nevertheless have a bit to say on the topic. This is not an opinion-based screed; I rarely if ever debate abortion and I’m not going to get into the overall controversy — much. However, I do have some thoughts I want to share to make sense of some hyperbole and worst-case scenarios floating around.<\/p>\n Like most things legal, it all comes down to the wording of the various state statutes, because the word “abortion” has different meanings, depending on who you ask. The discrepancies are evident when you hear the warnings about women being prosecuted for miscarriages or left to die from ruptured fallopian tubes when an ectopic goes untreated. “But that’s NOT abortion!” say the pro-lifers who dismiss and eye-roll these concerns as strawmen or red herrings. To them, abortion only means the intentional destruction of an unwanted embryo\/fetus (for brevity I will use the term fetus from here on, though many abortions occur at the embryonic stage.) So when stories started making the rounds about emergency room doctors letting patients with ectopics get to the brink of death before acting, they are met with skepticism.<\/p>\n
\nHey everyone! It’s your favorite Ordinary Times lawsplainer. You might wonder where I’ve been, what with all these huge SCOTUS opinions coming down. You were probably expecting a breakdown from me on a few of them. Believe me, I was itching to provide you with some. Unfortunately, my work load at my day job has basically tripled since the end of May, leaving me no time or energy for law blogging.<\/p>\n