The part you are missing is that the time frame doesn't matter. My original point is that, by 24 weeks, any abortion would be because it is medically necessary. That medical necessity is the point, whether it happens at 24 weeks or at 17 weeks.

If there is a law in place that an abortion isn't allowed after a given time (whatever that time is) unless medically necessary, then any such abortion must be legally defended. Otherwise, what would be the point of the law? If all that is necessary is for a doctor to say it's necessary, then the law would be unenforceable.

So if abortions that late are medically necessary, and such a law is unenforceable, why have it? At that point it just causes more harm.

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?

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.

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.

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?

The rest of my sentence answers that exact question, but I'll expand on that anyway:

Say a woman is forced to have an abortion to save her life. There are only a few ways this could go:

1. She has the abortion first. She is now required to defend the decision she and her doctor made while still dealing with the loss of her child. As has happened. And while the charges were eventually dropped under public outcry, the whole ordeal should never have happened in the first place, and the door remains open for it to happen again.

2. She must get approval for the abortion, which can take time and lead to unnecessary complications. As has happened.

3. She risks death for herself or the fetus. If the fetus dies and she lives, she still risks arrest. As has happened.

The point being, if you make it illegal after a set point, there must be a procedure to determine if a pregnancy is an acceptable candidate for termination, a procedure to determine if an unexpected termination was deliberate or not, and a punishment if a termination happens when it wasn't pre-approved. Forcing a grieving woman through this procedure with no fore-knowledge of whether or not she will be punished for something out of her control is the very antithesis of justice and humanity.

Edit: to expand further: This restriction also results in higher death rates for both women and infants, so if the goal is to save lives, it fails.

Did you read the rest of my sentence?

No one terminates a pregnancy after 6 months because they want to, and forcing a grieving mother through a legal battle to decide if a pregnancy is an acceptable exception is cruel. The decision should be between the woman and her doctor; no one else needs to be involved.

A lot of it is from the loss of a major tax loophole that was closed up. In short, in order to encourage new large scale construction projects, congress in the 50's allowed building owners to claim multiple years of depreciation on the building, allowing them to essentially pay no taxes for a long time. Once that was changed back to straight-line depreciation, malls could no longer be used a tax havens and started shutting down.

Is there any data on illegal drug imports over time so we can compare it to various administration's border policies? It just seems to me that we've been dealing with illegal drugs from Mexico for a long time now, no matter who is in charge.

For example: here are the minutes of the Committee on Energy and Commerce talking about fentanyl in 2017.