> Why should a doctor have to be put on trial for doing what they think is best for their patient? Does a legal body have a better understanding of the medical issues involved?

At no point did I say that the doctor should have to defend it, or be put on trial. They shouldn't. But if anyone has to defend the decision to do something out of medical necessity, it should be, you know, the medical professional who said it was necessary?

>Can you explain to me why the situation would be different at 24 weeks as opposed to 18 weeks? The same processes and procedures are in place, regardless of time frame.

I asked a question about why we couldn't restrict abortions after 24 weeks if they were never done for elective reasons after 24 weeks. I'm not sure how 18 weeks is after 24 weeks. Last I knew, 18 weeks was before 24 weeks, so anything that happened at 18 weeks would not then be covered by restrictions after 24 weeks. Unless my math is way off.

>Does the reason why a fetus is not viable matter? Would the situation be any different if the cause was the genetic anomaly as the report stated? Is it okay to let the woman die if drugs are involved? Again, why does the time frame matter? Pregnancies can be lost at more than 24 weeks for many reasons, including natural ones.

Declaring the fetus not viable would be permitted. As long as it was truly not viable, and not like Iceland where they consider Down's syndrome a legitimate reason to terminate. Yes, the situation would be different if there was an actual genetic anomaly and not substance abuse. No, it's not OK to let a woman die because of drug use but literally nobody is making that argument except as a straw man. And again, that case was at 17 weeks, I specifically asked about a ban after 24 weeks.

>What you are missing is the idea that getting more people involved in a personal and highly traumatic decision - people who are less qualified to make that decision at that - will only make problems worse. Why do you think more restrictive states have higher fatalities?

Again, if a doctor says it's medically necessary, and that's all that's needed, who else is involved in that decision? And states that are more restrictive tend to have lower quality healthcare, and less access to healthcare, in general, that states that are less restrictive. Surely that could contribute to higher fatality rates, no? Or if they magically made abortion unrestricted up until the moment of birth, no questions asked, (as you want), would they suddenly not have higher fatality rates despite no other changes to healthcare quality and access?

I will ask the question one more time, since I still have not gotten an answer. If nobody is going to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks for elective reasons, why is it a problem to restrict abortion access to only non-elective reasons after 24 weeks?

Everything you've provided as a citation or example, thus far, would either be elective, didn't happen after 24 weeks, or is hypothetical.