From my reading of the article, he's not blocking her from getting an abortion - it's not got that far yet. He's actually blocking her being examined to determine what the risk levels of the various options even are. That's pretty crappy, imho.
You're right about the obvious bias of the article, but I don't see any reason that the woman shouldn't be examined so that any decisions taken are done so with full information, at least.
That is bad. I didn't realise the woman couldn't be examined and get a medical opinion of what should be done. I thought it was more that if the doctors do say she should have an abortion, they would have to argue their case against that of the child's advocate before they are allowed to carry it out.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
denny
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-05-24 04:29 pm (UTC)You're right about the obvious bias of the article, but I don't see any reason that the woman shouldn't be examined so that any decisions taken are done so with full information, at least.
Re:
Date: 2003-05-25 03:29 am (UTC)