I think it was written by religious fanatics that don’t give a shit about women.
Or by a government that by writing it hopes to gain a huge amount of votes by the religious right.

I disagree @SQUEEKY2. It is written by old, dried up conservative men that want to control women’s lives. Not a religious one the bunch.

I agree with @chyna. It is not at all about religious fanaticism, it is about controlling and subjugating women.

To answer the Q as written, what it means to me is that the people who wrote the legislation are are especially and grotesquely lacking in humanity and compassion.

It doesn’t matter what the time frame is.

“Do you think even the morning after pill is ilegal?”

@JLeslie Not yet but some states are talking about it and IUDs. https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a39945228/plan-b-ban/

@chyna “people who wrote the legislation are are especially and grotesquely lacking in humanity and compassion.” Sounds like the definition of Conservative

It’s written and said by liberals and Democrats all across social media, in commercials, and among friends to describe laws that have been changed.

@Tropical_Willie I’m asking about if you read that specific sentence on its own in a meme, political ad, or a Facebook friend or jelly writes it. What do YOU assume is legal in the state being referenced? Do you assume there are no legal abortions in that state, not even with pills, not even for rape and incest?

@canidmajor Under Roe there was a timeframe.

I’ve always seen it as “a total ban on abortion with no exception for rape or incest.” I don’t really see how one could interpret it any other way. If one meant to say, you can get an abortion up to 15 weeks – or whenever – then rape or incest would necessarily be included in that time frame.

It means they will be traveling out of state if they want to get an abortion.

@janbb I’ve seen it worded that way too, which is very clear.

Regarding Florida, commercials and media against DeSantis were conveniently leaving off the 15 week part and leaving it up to interpretation.

It’s worth saying that statements DeSantis has made conveniently leave off the 15 week thing also and he just emphasizes changing laws to protect life.

I wonder in other states how accurately and fully abortion law changes are being represented?

@cheebdragon Do you mean you assume that there is no exception for those things at any time in the pregnancy with how I worded it in the OP? I think that’s how most people interpret it, but I wasn’t sure, that’s why I’m asking.

Total ban ! Starting at 6 weeks in several states

To me it reads that if a woman is raped the law gives her no option but to give birth to the baby and raise the rapist’s child. I can’t think of a more cruel and unusual punishment for a crime never mind for a blameless victim. Rapists will probably get a twisted kick out of it.

I assume it means you’re not getting an abortion in that state, whether you’ve been raped by your uncle, your father, your brother, or a stranger. Tough shit.

Cruel and inhumane and barbaric, fucked up, backward. Not a state I’d be living in and I kept all this crap in mind when I voted on Tuesday.

Ok, apart from the part about it signalling it’s a place with maniacs writing laws, to answer the OP’s actual questions, we’re looking at legal language, which is literal, so:

”“no exception for incest or rape””
– Means exactly, and only, that.

“Do you think even the morning after pill is ilegal?”
– No, I think that would be a different line in the legal code. Might be, or not. Look for a line about it, or ask a lawyer.

“Do you assume there is no abortion at all for anyone including women who were raped or became pregnant through incest?”
– No I don’t. That line is about exceptions to WHATEVER the other law is. It could be that only abortions in the 3rd trimester are illegal, for example.
– But if the law does say that, I tend to expect that the abortion law was written by maniacs, so may be pretty extreme. But I think often first trimester abortions are still legal.

“If you read that sentence would it prompt you to research exactly the details? Or, you think it is plainly obvious what the law in that state encompasses?”
– No it is not obvious what the rest of the laws are, from that one snippet!
– If I wanted to know what the law was, then yes, I’d read the law, or more likely, an article summarizing the law.

“Do you think it’s misleading or factual or both, to only say or write that there are no exceptions, if the state actually does allow abortion up to 6,15, or 24 weeks, whatever the case may be, and the law is only referring to after that time limit?”
– Time limits are one aspect of an abortion law. Exceptions are another. They have nothing to do with one another. If someone is confused about the difference, I’d say they have issues parsing logic language (and/or suspect them of being kind of thick and/or conservative – that is, I associate that kind of logical dissonance with many US conservatives, and/or “Christian fundamentalists”).

I assume right wing, bible-licking, fuckwads have engineered super majorities in whatever legislature they’ve managed to hijack from moderate voters – And are sending a message to uppity women.

But of course they’ll keep enough cash on hand to pay for out of state abortions for any female associates, interns, neighbors, housekeepers, waitresses or stepdaughters unlucky enough to be “caucused” by their politics.

Because there are always exceptions…

@JLoon That about sizes it up.

I’m not sure if I worded the Q poorly or not. The answers were mostly not quite what I had in mind, but I found the answers very interesting anyway.

I think my assumption was correct after reading these answers that if people heard over and over “no exceptions for rape and incest” they would assume there are no exceptions any time in the pregnancy if it’s not specified in the sentence that there are no exceptions for rape and incest after 15 weeks. So, not specifying the 15 weeks is misleading. This is what was and is happening in Florida, I constantly hear “DeSantis has no exceptions for rape and incest.”

It seems to me people who are outraged about narrowing abortion laws are likely to think the worst scenario and people who want to take away abortion rights would want to believe there are extreme restrictions and so they likely fill it in based on their predisposition.

However, it seems some pro-life people are ok with exceptions for rape and incest, and oddly some of them don’t think it needs to be written into law to save the life of the mother, which bothers me..

@JLeslie the state laws that are written and soon to be re-written are more and more restrictive.

NO ABORTIONS is soon to be the laws in several backward states ! Some state are looking for jail time for women looking for and getting an abortion and doctors locked too that treated the woman (even if doctor is out of state ? ? )

@Tropical_Willie Yes, I know. I’m sure the final goal is no abortion at the federal level. I don’t believe State’s Rights will be enough for the extremists at the head of the whole thing.

The Q isn’t about that though. It is about the interpretation of a sentence that is being said over and over again. It happens to be what is being said about the law change in my state that was signed by my governor, but it could be any Republican led state. My governor changed the abortion law from where it was at 24 weeks to 15. Basically, no other change. 15 is too strict in my opinion, but the Q isn’t about that either.

@JLeslie – I think by asking this question and struggling with the answers, you’re getting just a small glimpse of what a rape or incest victim has to endure in order to find legal protection and get proper medical and psychiatric care in these states.

It’s not just a complicated labyrinth – it’s an abusive gauntlet where women are beaten with hostile rules and procedures at every step.

The answer I posted above is what I honestly feel. What I think is that the chaos that’s followed overturning of Roe is an example of the mysogyny and intellectual rot that’s eating away at the “conservative” movement. It was more in the background until June 24, curtained by Federal abortion protections. Now it’s been dragged into the open, and like so much else with right wing politics it’s sickening.

What it all means to me is that shit-eating politicians who scrape their votes from the bottom of the extremist fringe reap what they sow: They swallowed bogus “right to life” ideaology and got sucked into passing laws that treated abortion as murder. And now in order to seem morally pure and make their jacked-up laws appear “rational”, they can’t permit exceptions for rape or incest (because it’s MURDER GODDAMIT).

So the only choices left for these elected hacks are the ones they all want to run away from – Criminalizing any woman who chooses to end her pregnancy for any reason, or decriminalizing rape and incest.

They deserve to hang from their own rope. But it’s the rest of us that will be dangling in the wind.

@JLoon The Q isn’t about the rights rape victims should have to terminate a pregnancy caused by the rape, but I understand that’s why people get so emotional and blinded and can’t think about anything else.

The Q is about commercials, social media, talking heads on TV, and the average Joe Schmo making statements about the changes in the laws and how accurate and truthful the statements are about the changes.

@JLeslie – Sorry, but I don’t get that from what you posted.

You asked : ”... what does that mean to you?”

Want to try another question?

@JLoon How would I word it?

I think pretty much everyone here is saying they would assume no exceptions at any time in the pregnancy So, that means the sentence is misleading.

@JLeslie I feel like I’m almost the only one who actually answered the question you were asking, but that’s not what my answer was.

But maybe in the arena of US politics and Floridian TV ads, people who actually listen to, think about, and respond to the literal meanings of words, are a fringe minority. ;-)

It seems to me that the logical form of your conclusion is about like: “they said A and B, but I think most people assume that means C too, so saying A + B was misleading”. No?

What does it mean to me??
It makes me extremely glad that I am a Canadian.

@JLeslie I feel for you trying to get across just what you mean.

If I saw that sentence, I would assume that it means that there will be no legal abortions performed, period, at any fetal age. So if in fact, the state will allow abortions up to 15 weeks, then yes, that’s grossly misleading.

Personally, I see the morning after pill as a separate issue, so I wouldn’t lump it in with abortions.

I wouldn’t research it, although I should because I think the meaning is clear.

@Jleslie – Evidently I misunderstood what you were aiming for.

Maybe post an example of the kind of abortion law you’re thinking of…?

Here’s what current Florida law says:

“The Florida law prohibits abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions if the procedure is necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life, prevent serious injury or if the fetus has a fatal abnormality. It does not allow exemptions in cases where pregnancies were caused by rape, incest or human trafficking.”

@janbb Yes, that’s exactly what I said. I know the law, it’s other people who seem to be assuming no exceptions through the entire pregnancy. They don’t question it, they don’t look up the details.

Not everyone, I don’t mean I’m the only one who can figure it out, I’m just talking about a purposeful omission in the marketing from the left (and the right for that matter) and a part of the left and right interpret that a certain way.

I’m not asking for someone to explain the law to me, if that is your intent, I’m asking about what other people assume by the sentence.

@JLeslie I know you weren’t asking anyone to explain it to you but I thought the facts might be useful for understanding to others. I didn’t see it clearly stated anywhere in the thread.

@JLeslie, I didn’t see anywhere that “other people…seem to be assuming no exceptions through the entire pregnancy”, where do you get that?
And, @janbb, I appreciate you posting that.

The summary of the Florida law posted by @janbb may be closer to what the OP was trying to frame as a question – But I’m not sure it really changes my own answers much.

When I look at the “exceptions” created in the Florida abortion law, they seem to imply that a woman can end her pregnancy any time after 15 weeks if there is a medical need, but not at any time before or after 15 weeks even if she’s been raped or victimized by incest.

I think what this means to me and to any woman trying to understand the law, is that there is no logical or reasonable path to follow for anyone in really dire circumstances. It’s the
worst possible mix of politics, medicine and law.

What exactly are the medical conditions that are considered “life threatening”? If Iapse into a coma or I’m brain damaged by an injury but still have a viable fetus, makes the final decision?

Exactly what “fetal abnormalities” would allow an abortion? Downs Syndome? Heart defects? Spina bifida? Even if they can be corrected after birth?

If I’m raped and have to carry the child through full pregnancy to birth is it still a crime? Should I even report it? Can I sue my rapist, or the state?

What if I’m a minor impregnated by an adult family member who has a duty to protect me?

I see bullshit everywhere I look.

@JLeslie I just saw your add on to my first post.

I was referring to the egregious inhumanity of the the “no exceptions for rape or incest” restrictions. They did not exist under Roe. You mentioned the the 15 week timeframe, and I still maintain that that doesn’t lessen or increase the awfulness of it.

—FWIW the morning after pill
is available on Amazon.—

Forcing a woman to give birth against her will is very much like a kind of rape anyways. I don’t think the manner in which the fetus was conceived does anything to change that fact.

My first thought when I read or hear that is that I want to read the actual bill, not someone else’s interpretation of it.

@JLeslie “I think my assumption was correct after reading these answers that if people heard over and over ‘no exceptions for rape and incest’ they would assume there are no exceptions any time in the pregnancy.”

As far as I can tell, the responses you are getting are too mixed for you to draw this conclusion. And I will add myself to those who would think that it only means “no exceptions to existing restrictions” and not “no abortions ever and no exceptions.”

But I think maybe you asked the wrong question. It seems what you’re really wondering about is if it is somehow dishonest or misleading to focus on the lack of exceptions in existing laws rather than giving a complete picture of the existing laws. In that case, I really think the source matters. Politicians aren’t neutral actors. I expect them and the ads they put out to focus on that which best serves their interest. News outlets ought to be neutral actors (even if they often aren’t). When they present issues without context, they are being misleading at best.

@canidmajor Not everyone in the thread assumed no access at all to abortions for those women, but these answers are a sample of people who seemed to assume there would be no access:

It means they will be traveling out of state if they want to get an abortion.

But of course they’ll keep enough cash on hand to pay for out of state abortions for any female associates, interns, neighbors, housekeepers, waitresses or stepdaughters unlucky enough to be “caucused” by their politics.

If I saw that sentence, I would assume that it means that there will be no legal abortions performed, period, at any fetal age. So if in fact, the state will allow abortions up to 15 weeks, then yes, that’s grossly misleading.

I assume it means you’re not getting an abortion in that state, whether you’ve been raped by your uncle, your father, your brother, or a stranger. Tough shit.

As far as Roe, the way I understand it, Roe allowed abortion through the second trimester. In fact, the states had some ability under Roe to limit access in the second trimester, and in the third trimester a woman could not abort except in dire circumstance, and of course in a dire circumstance in the third trimester it would be a delivery, not an abortion. No one is killing a 7,8,9 month baby.

Later, Casey overturned the trimester guideline, but reinforced the notion of viability. I don’t know if there was a certain amount of weeks under Casey. Casey reinforced that states can’t put up unreasonable barriers to having access to their protected right to end a pregnancy before viability.

Both cases a woman couldn’t legally get an abortion at 7,8,9 months for rape or incest, there were limits. I’d say with medical technology it’s been at 6,7,8,9 months under the trimester calculation for a while. Using 40 weeks, maybe the limit would be 24 to 28 weeks more or less?

I understand women who are raped or incest are traumatized and might be psychologically unable to deal with the possibility they might be pregnant or might be very young and unsure what to do or not even understand they are pregnant. That’s extremely rare, not that it matters, because just one woman going through it is too much, but I’m just “happy” for now they still have access for 15 weeks under DeSantis’ law, and that at least in the spirit of the law doctors can perform ab abortion to save a woman’s life and not worry about going to jail. He could have tried to go with a stricter law. His law is being challenged and I hope if we can’t keep 24 weeks that there is a compromise and not 15 weeks. It reminds me of the minimum wage going to $15. All or none.

@Irukandji Yes, my main curiosity was is it misleading.

If it is from “news” sources then is it more unacceptable than politicians? More dishonest? News is in quotes, because cable news isn’t necessarily considered news by some people, but rather a show or propaganda.

I agree not everyone thought it meant a total ban, but I think enough people did that it misleads at least some people.

¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ I thought I gave the exact answer she was looking for but got nothing, so I give up. Good luck, guys.

@smudges You did understand my Q as I intended.

ok, cool

Such a law is pure madness.

@gondwanalon When you read the OP are you assuming no exceptions for rape and incest the entire pregnancy?

@JLeslie “No exceptions” means no exceptions. That’s insane.

@JLeslie “I think enough people did that it misleads at least some people.”

But you started at “most,” so “some” is a significant downgrade in your assumption. That you don’t seem to realize that suggests heavy confirmation bias.

Well @seawulf575 did you get a chance to read the bill?

@Irukandji I’ll agree the words most and some are different, but I’ll just say it’s enough to matter. I do think the omission is purposeful.

I myself would assume the entire pregnancy if I didn’t know better, but I was looking into the new law since before the heavy campaigning for the election so I did know better.

Plus, I don’t trust most national TV media with how they frame DeSantis, so I tend to look up everything. Thankfully, my local media is much more likely to be more complete with facts, but that’s not always the case either.

Now, we have another jelly, @gondwanalon, who also assumed the entire pregnancy. Plus, people I know in real life.

@SQUEEKY2 Which bill? None was cited in the original question.

I guess the one the @JLeslie is refering to?

One thing I would like to bring up @seawulf575 , you said it was good that the supreme court over turned it ,it should be at the state level ,then why is Lindsy Grahm slobbering to introduce a nation wide bill on abortion, isn’t that the feds wanting their hands on it?
And taking it back out of the hands of the states?

@seawulf575 It really doesn’t matter what state or bill, it’s a general example regarding the marketing or communication about abortion law.

What sparked the Q was what Governor DeSantis signed off on back in April, and how it is being framed by politicians and talking heads on TV.

@SQUEEKY2 You absolutely are correct that if someone in Congress proposes a bill to legislate abortion nationally that it is the feds wanting their hands on it. My answer remains the same…I disagree with that idea.

@JLeslie I understood that from the start. However our friend @SQUEEKY2 had challenged me by asking if I had read the bill. Since no specific bill had been cited I had to respond with that. My original answer is exactly what you just stated…that politicians and talking heads on TV make things up about bills so they can brand the political opponents in a certain way. We’ve seen it over and over again and I consider it disinformation. So when I see things like that I like to go to the original bill if I am curious about what is REALLY being suggested.

@seawulf575 Yes, your first post answered my Q, thanks for that.