Forums

[Not Me]

This is actually a legal question, not a political debate.

I just did a bit of research into the injunction that the judge in NY ordered barring enforcement of the partial birth abortion ban. He issued the injunction because of the lack of an exception to protect the health of the mother. He also noted that there is a lack of consensus regarding whether it is ever necessary to protect the health of the mother to use an intact D&X. I believe the judge has it right on that - that there is a lack of consensus.

So it seems to me that the whole case is going to be about whether there are other procedures that can be used that are just as safe for the mother's health.

What happens to the plaintiff's case if the DOJ is not allowed access to the medical records that form the basis of the opinions of the plaintiff physicians that there are instances that an intact D&X is the safest procedure? Will they be able to testify to that if the DOJ is denied access to the medical evidence on which these opinions are based?

This is not a situation where you can point to objective clinical trials, because there aren't any. All you have are the opinions of one group of doctors vs. another group and these opinions are based on their personal experience as doctors, but not on clinical trials.

It seems to me to be unfair to let a doctor testify that he has a professional opinion regarding this without giving DOJ access to the evidence that forms the basis for the doc's opinion. Especially since this is a fundamental rights case, the burden of persuasion is on the state, not the plaintiff.