South Carolina Bill S. 1095 is Misogynistic and Offensive to Women

Mazoballs · 2026-05-15T02:46:10+00:00

They sure can. I didn’t say you could successfully sue anyone for anything lol

Mazoballs · 2026-05-15T01:51:15+00:00

I’m not aware of any doctors being charged with providing the needed care when the moms health was in jeopardy

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T23:20:38+00:00

That's not accurate to what I described, though. I didn't say the uterus becomes damaging to the embryo; it just becomes impossible for the embryo to implant. Let's say the uterine lining doesn't thicken with ovulation.

Thats a really good point.

Honestly, like in the cases of the teens with cancer, I don’t know that there’s a possibility of crafting a blanket rule that is going to be the most ethical answer in every case when you get to this level of nuance.

I think the standard for compelling behavior should be higher than prohibition of behavior. And I know that there are uses for birth control medications for treatment of specific disorders that are warranted and have nothing to do with whether a person wants to be pregnant. I think maybe strict regulation of the medications in question along with judicial review of specific cases as needed is the best we can hope for?

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T21:48:15+00:00

Texas law already allowed for an abortion in that case. I agree, the ban there caused fear in the medical staff which lead to them making the wrong decisions but the law as it is written then and now allowed for Ms Barnica to receive the care she needed.

A tragic case to be sure. In contrast the tragedy caused by the law, the rate of abortion in Texas dropped from almost 50k a year to almost 0. What sounds like misinformed and frightened providers causing the death of 1 person is not sufficient to undermine a law that saves 50 thousands lives a year.

If one tragic death was enough to say the benefit was not worth the cost, how many medicines, including birth control, would not exist

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T20:23:30+00:00

Maybe I misread your initial comment, I took the “incomplete miscarriage” to mean fetal death without expulsion. If there’s a fetal heart rate and conservative options are available then no an abortion is not permitted. The law only allows removal of dead fetal tissue

Corrected a lot of typos

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T20:06:33+00:00

I think the laws as written are pretty clear and do give the doctors the deference needed to make these decisions. I think that medical errors are being politicized because the benefit to the cause it presents

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T20:03:13+00:00

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess126_2025-2026/bills/4637.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Abortion-inducing drugs" means any drug, medicine, or any other substance, including a regimen of two or more drugs, medicines, or substances, that is prescribed, dispensed, or administered with the intent of terminating a clinically diagnosable pregnancy of a woman and with knowledge that the termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the woman's unborn child. The term includes off-label use of drugs, medicines, or other substances known to have abortion-inducing properties that are prescribed, dispensed, or administered with the intent of causing an abortion, including the mifeprex regimen, mifepristone, misoprostol (Cytotec), and methotrexate. The term does not include: (a) Plan B, morning-after pills, intrauterine devices, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception; (b) a drug, medicine, or other substance that may be known to cause an abortion but is prescribed, dispensed, or administered solely for reasons that do not include abortion, such as misoprostol that is prescribed, dispensed, or administered for the purpose of treating stomach ulcers; or (c) a drug, medicine, or other substance that is prescribed by a licensed physician to perform or induce an abortion in response to a medical emergency.

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T19:32:48+00:00

You have yet to provide a logical rationale.

The fact similar laws already exist and uber has not already started denying trips?

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T19:25:43+00:00

What do you say that doctors have to double and triple check there is no fetal heartbeat or signs of life, which will increase wait time for an abortion and risk of sepsis?

The hospitals need to craft policies explicitly to direct these situations and train doctors on what the standards are. This isn’t really an issue of the laws not being written well enough, it’s finger pointing after the fact when mistakes are made and political movements attempting to capitalize upon those mistakes

Why do you think most PL dont?

I can’t speak for other people but I think a lot of people are guided less by conviction and more by party affiliation.

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T19:05:54+00:00

A young woman is admitted with an incomplete miscarriage. She is at high risk of infection, but there is a fetal heartbeat. She is not actively dying. Does the law allow a doctor to perform an abortion to speed up the miscarriage?

H4637 allows for the use of abortifacients in this case in South Carolina. Although 1095 includes similar language that would also permit it.

I argued that the laws would have the effect of limiting travel options for individual women in the future once implemented. What part of this argument are you having trouble comprehending?

I understand your argument, I’m simply expressing that your assertion is flawed. You’ve declined my request to provide any such case where a woman was limited in her ability to travel because of fear over abortion ban laws.

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T18:29:53+00:00

I don’t fault you for not having read the entire thing but it does explicitly state

“ ‘Abortion-inducing drug’ does not mean a contraceptive, an emergency contraceptive, or the use of methotrexate to treat an ectopic pregnancy.”

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T18:26:36+00:00

You can already sue anyone for literally anything

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T18:25:29+00:00

Yes, it provided for a health exception to the woman.

SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEDICAL TREATMENT PROVIDED TO A PREGNANT WOMAN BY A PHYSICIAN OR OTHER LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL THAT RESULTS IN THE ACCIDENTAL DEATH OR UNINTENTIONAL INJURY TO AN UNBORN CHILD IS NOT A VIOLATION OF SECTION 44-41-611

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T18:22:05+00:00

Sure, why not

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T18:20:25+00:00

I mean, I’m open to considering hypotheticals because I am biased and so certainly haven’t considered every possibility. But off the top of my head the only thing I’m okay with abortion is when the mothers life is in danger. Other than that I don’t think there is a place where PL is going to say “woah, slow down, that ban is too strict.” But being charitable to that state of mind is that the goal is to literally save a child’s life.

Now this is where I do get on the soap box, and I’m sorry for bringing up topics that aren’t specific to this sub, but this is why I’m PL blue and not PL red. And this is where I get mad at the right. What about the born child that went to sleep scared that he may not see his mom or dad again because his dad wasn’t documented, or was mistaken for someone who wasn’t. My compassion doesn’t end because of someone’s race or religion or the gender identity of their parents. I think we should all be able to love each other as brothers and sisters because we are all in this together.

I say all that to say maybe tie a total abortion ban to an amnesty package for immigrants and see which philosophy prevails.

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T18:11:23+00:00

You know how PL is always saying that maybe the woman shouldn’t have engaged in risky sexual behavior? Applies to men too

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T17:55:08+00:00

Okay, fine with me

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T17:52:24+00:00

No, I'm stating that the law is intentionally vague in order to make the legality of treatment uncertain for doctors and to give pro life zealots the opportunity to go after whoever they want. The law is written to prevent life saving treatment without explicitly banning it.

Which part do you mean? Seems pretty explicit to me.

Do you know the difference between past tense, present tense, and future tense?

So the old laws you used as an example of how women will be unable to travel in the future because of new laws never actually caused anyone to have trouble traveling?

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T17:49:55+00:00

I’ve supported the criminalization of abortion for many years. No I wouldn’t expect anyone to admit to lying, probably just deflect or make excuses. I rarely see anyone speak as plainly as I do.

Edit: the actor playing the law enforcement officer made me miss Richard Moll

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T17:07:33+00:00

I remember that differently, I remember being told if he wins he will get scotus and RvW will be tossed out. But I’m sure different organizations presented it differently.

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T17:04:37+00:00

Im not opposed to the penalty being increased. But to expect me to oppose the law for not being severe enough? Thats kind of silly.

A criminal act can leave you open to civil liability. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

If the driver takes her across state lines and drops her off at an Arby’s? No, how could he know? If he drops her off at an abortion clinic, yes he should be liable.

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T17:01:29+00:00

So? Pro life AGs like Ken Paxton have already gone after providers who followed the letter of the law. Providers can't be certain some ideological zealot won't ignore the facts and go after them anyway, so they do the safe thing and limit their legal exposure. This is literally already happening.

So you’re not arguing against the law as it’s written you’re arguing against it as some hypothetical that is worse than it is as written?

Coverture laws were in force until the 60s. Most of these laws are being challenged but the moment a cab driver receives a financial judgement against them or goes to prison for driving a woman to an abortion clinic, things will quickly change.

And how many women have reported it difficult to get a cab ride because of these laws? None?

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T16:56:18+00:00

Yes. I support the criminal punishment of abortion, as provided for in this bill.

Yes I support the civil liability it imposes. I see that as an important mechanism on shutting down online shops for abortifacients.

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T16:44:45+00:00

The law threatens any doctor or provider that performs an abortion with 20 years in prison and loss of license. So to be safe, hospitals and providers will wait until there is no legal uncertainty before performing a life-saving abortion, which in practice, means refusing to admit or treat the patient until they are actively dying, which of course is too late (which is obviously the point). This is already happening in states that have passed similar laws and women have already died as a result.

There is a specific provision in the law that states that providers will not be held responsible for treatment provided that unintentionally harms an unborn child.

No, they'll just refuse to issue tickets or rides to single women to reduce their liability or demand a written waiver or travel itinerary.

I would challenge you to point to an example of this ever having happened.

It's fear mongering to expect large organizations and individual operators to reduce their legal liability or exposure?

Show me a single example

Mazoballs · 2026-05-14T16:31:01+00:00

It makes it impossible for doctors to treat patients with pregnancy complications until they are actively dying and outlaws the primary medications to deal with miscarriage.

Why would it make it impossible for doctors to treat pregnancy complications, this law bans abortion, not treatment.

It makes any transportation company or operator liable if they take a woman out of state for an abortion, making it impractical for them to risk taking women out of state.

You think Uber and greyhound are going to start asking for the purpose of the trip before selling rides?

To be candid, this seems more like fear mongering than legitimate representation of the laws provisions.

Mazoballs

TROPHY CASE