gestatioinal diabetes – not immediately life threatening easily corrected/controlled with medications, in mild form often untreated

pre-eclampsia/HELPP- almost unheard of prior to 20 weeks, generally occurs in last two months if severe or HELPP then life threatning, milder forms can be managed medically

Hypertension- if rapidly or even slowly fatal not many people over 50 would be walking around… treatable

anticardiolipen antiblody- If found treatable, when found treated with anticoagulants (blood thinners). if presenting with stroke or other embolic event…. well the abortion will not fix that. It would probably be a good idea to take a couple of days and try to fix the damage from the embolic event before preforming the abortion though.

Hyperemesis gravidum- translation – severe morning sickness and also treatable.

ectopic pregnancy- not considered an abortion. The ectopioc fetus has no chance of developing. ectopic pregnancy is considered a medical emergency like a torsed testicle. in fact a minor’s parent would probably have to sign a consent form for a procedure to treat an ectopic pregnancy as apposed ot an abortion.

The picture you paint of suffering pregnant mother forced to lie an wait 48 hours before receiving the cure all treatment of an abrtion is not very honest.

Pre-eclampsia/HELPP is a serious life threatening condition requiring an emergent delivery/abortion to correct the problem. It falls prettily easily under the law as written. I do not think abortion is the primary teratmant for any of the other conditions you have listed.

Assuming there is a non-life threatening condition, that will still affect reproductive ability, limb, or eysight, which cannot be treated other than by emergent abortion, well that is a pretty hard assumption to defend, except for saying anything is possible.

Now add to that assumption that doctors and nurses are going to sit around and let someone lose their reproductive ability, limb or eyesight, while they wait 48 hours. (Oh yeah lets not forget that they do not treat any pain that goes aong with the condition.) This assumtion requires the worst intentions of everyone invloved.

Tell me health care providers will do that because of stupidity, laxziness, or greed and I would probably believe you. Tell me blind obedience to a law? i do not think so. Like everyone else doctors and nurses spend considerable energy figuring out ways to avoid or ignore laws they do not like.

To specifically talk to the torsed testicle situation. I would expect the condition to get treated. With the exception of pre-eclampsia abortion would not be a initial treatment for any of them. Feel free to disagree, we can argue how many stars are in the sky next.

We are arguing from two different ponts of view, I assume the best intentions toward the woman/minor/girl, you assume the worst. We can sit and bounce around medical terms and probabliities all day.
Is there a possibility bad things could happen under the current law? Yes

Is it possible bad things could happen with no law? Yes.

the first 20-30 months of a pregnancy

I think you mean weeks, not months. Unless you’re talking elephants.

The law would not affect true medical emergencies which the woman would be treated as inpatient vs. conditions allowing treatment from home and an abortion in an outpatient clinic.

The law makes no distinction between outpatient and inpatient treatment. As you point out, anyone that sick needs to be hospitalized, but with the law as it is written, the hospital has no more legal right to do the abortion without the 48 hour waiting period than an outpatient clinic would, unless they can justify it as a life-threatening situation. Not health, limb, or fertility threatening, life threatening only.

What percentage of women who want an abortion carry the child to the last two months?

I can’t prove this, but I suspect the answer is practically none. Only about 1.4% of abortions occur after 21 weeks gestation (ie in the last four months of pregnancy) and the vast majority of those are done because of fetal abnormalities or risk to the mother’s life. In fact, if you could find a way of preventing these third trimester abortions by making them unnecessary (ie correcting fetal abnormailites, making pregnancy and delivery absolutely safe), you could then ban third trimester abortion and annoy, inconvenience, or endanger practically no one.

What I am trying to say is that during the first 20-30 months of a pregnancy the risk of a non-life threatening, emergent condition with significant health or reproductive risks is exceedingly low.

I suppose that depends on your definition of “exceedingly low.” Preclampsia can occur any time during pregnancy, as can anticardiolipin antibodies, HELLP syndrome, gestational diabetes, hypertension, hyperemesis gravidum, and others. Ectopic pregnancy isn’t initially a life threatening emergency, but treating it before it becomes one seems like a better idea than waiting until it is.

Consider the question in another way. Suppose there were a law that no procedure could be done on the male reproductive system in a boy under 18 until 48 hours after his parents were notified unless the condition was life threatening. Suppose then a 17 year old presented with testicular torsion (one testical twisted, blocking its blood supply and causing great pain and, if it is not treated promptly, loss of that testicle…but not death, at least not initially). Would you support a 48 hour waiting period or a 7 day judicial bypass in this case? Remember, if the problem is not corrected promptly, the patient will be in great pain for those 48 hours and will lose the testicle, possibly leading to fertility problems, whereas if it is corrected quickly, he should recover completely and have normal fertility. How is this situation different from that of a 17 year old girl with an ectopic pregnancy that has not yet burst?

Can a 17 year old receive an appendectomy without parental consent, not notification but consent?

Yes. In a heartbeat. You don’t wait on appys unless there is a strong medical contraindication. In fact, if the parents were there and refused consent, the 17 year old would probably become a ward of the court for the purposes of undergoing the procedure. It’s been established in court that a parent does not have the right to deny a child life saving treatment.

The law would not affect true medical emergencies which the woman would be treated as inpatient vs. conditions allowing treatment from home and an abortion in an outpatient clinic. I think you want to use medical emergencies to justify the use of any medical condition as a reason for exemption.

The statute under review is New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Prior to Abortion Act, which prohibits abortion providers from performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor unless the minor’s parents or guardian have been given at least 48 hours’ notice.

This sounds to me like there is a waiting period of 48 hours after the parents have been told, regardless of their consent or lack thereof. That’s a long time to wait in a medical emergency. Quite long enough for gestational diabetes to blind someone or destroy their kidneys or for thrombosis to destroy their veins or lungs. Among other possible complications.