Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Climate of Deceit
A growing number of commentators are starting to note (something that was obvious during the debate, but apparently missed, based on style rather than substance) that pretty much everything that both Kamala and the moderators said during the debate was false (the only thing they can be credited with is the cats and dogs of Springfield, the denouement of which story may not yet have occurred). Further, almost everything Trump said was true.
So, after conceding the debate, conservative commentators in retrospect are starting to understand that they misconstrued the debate at the time.
A partial list: Kamala cited FBI crime statistics showing a decline in violent crime. Trump noted that the FBI stats were fraudulent, as many jurisdictions don’t report. Further, blue cities like New York lower charges from felonies to misdemeanors and release criminals without bail, all of which skews the FBI statistics, even if the statistics are reported.
But the kicker in this one is that the Biden administration, on taking office, altered the way in which the FBI collects crime statistics. Reporting has been reduced as jurisdictions around the country sought to implement the new system. The number of reporting districts has been down by double-digit percentages ever since the changes. FBI stats have been regarded as unreliable for the last 3+ years. So, she not only knowingly used bad data, but data that has been unreliable during the entirety of this administration.
Take another point: An increase in fracking and natural gas production under the Biden administration, for which Kamala claimed credit. The Biden administration tried to shut down fracking, and couldn’t quite succeed. Manchin of West Virginia got a provision in the IRA that required approving leases for natural gas and fracking, to offset spending on green projects, a provision which Biden/Harris opposed. So any increase in fracking that she might have taken credit for occurred in spite of Kamala rather than because of her.
Plus, the coming online of leases approved during the Trump administration appears to have been the underlying cause of the increases in natural gas production Kamala cited. So it appears Trump was largely responsible for something she takes credit for. Would one equate this with a claim of stolen valor on the political front rather than the military front? I think so. Claiming credit for something accomplished by your predecessor. But that has been a quintessential characteristic of the Biden/Harris administration, exceeded only by the blame they assign to Trump for problems they themselves have created.
A third point: Trump’s comment on abortion in the 7th, 8th, 9th month and infanticide by neglect. The moderator got that one wrong in “correcting” Trump that no state in the Union allowed such practice. Of course, Tim Walz’s Minnesota allows that, and something like 8 cases of such infant deaths have occurred after infants survived attempted abortions. That may have been one of the reasons Kamala selected him. The only quibble one might make is that Trump said “kill,” and you can claim that the babies are not outright “killed,” only allowed to die—passive rather than active infanticide. A profound moral difference between the two, you see. Or so the Democrats would have it.
Now the Kamala campaign has kicked in further with the case of a Georgia woman’s death that Kamala blames on the state’s ban on abortions after 6 weeks of gestation. The woman in question was reportedly at 20 weeks (a couple of weeks short of viability, almost at the third trimester). Since Georgia banned such an abortion, the woman went to North Carolina for an abortion. She arrived late for her appointment at the clinic, so instead of performing the abortion, they gave her the medication for a medical abortion (mifepristone and misoprostol). She had retained placental products after the medically induced abortion, became septic, went to a Georgia hospital, where there was an overnight delay in performing a D&C, and the patient died on the table during the D&C, apparently of sepsis.
Kamala calls this a death from the “Trump abortion ban” in Georgia. Of course, had the patient not requested an abortion but carried the pregnancy to term, that would have been life-saving, almost certainly, for both her and the baby. And, had she not become pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy, none of this would have happened. (Blaming the victim, of course, but isn’t that the Democrat’s favorite pastime in the recent news cycle?)
Beyond those possibilities, I would say there was malpractice at the Georgia medical facility with an inadequate assessment of the patient’s status and the urgency of care. Part of the problem is the lack of continuity of care, e.g., getting a medical abortion in one state and returning to another state for ongoing care. That could potentially be due to her having to go to another state for the abortion, and so may be attributed to the inconvenience resulting from the Georgia law. There could have been a failure on the part of the abortion clinic regarding full information about the potential complications of the medical abortion, how to recognize them, and how to seek follow-up care if complications occurred. There may have been undue delay by the patient in understanding the severity of her circumstances, or difficulty in accessing care, and she may have received substandard care.
Apparently, there is an implication that the Georgia law would ban a D&C under these circumstances, and that the delay in performing the D&C was due to fear on the part of Georgia physicians that they may be complicit in an illegal abortion. However, there is nothing in Georgia law that would in any way implicate the Georgia physicians in criminal activity for performing a D&C for retained tissue following a medical abortion, whether in another state or in Georgia itself, and the physicians would be well aware of this.
I would suggest another possibility. That the patient or her doctors may have had difficulty getting approval for the procedure from her insurance company. That is now a common cause of delayed medical care. I practice in Georgia. I had a case a week ago of a patient with type 2 diabetes in pregnancy, at 4 weeks, who had been on an oral agent and a GLP 1 analog prior to the pregnancy with good blood sugar control. The patient had to stop the GLP 1 1 analog due to the pregnancy and had to start insulin treatment immediately.
High blood sugars in the first 8 weeks of gestation can result in severe neonatal deformities such as cardiac, craniofacial, or limb anomalies that can be devastating and life-threatening. It took a week to get her insurance to approve her insulin, which she could not afford without insurance approval. Further, the insurance company refused coverage of the continuous glucose monitor I prescribed, which is an essential part of the management of insulin-treated diabetes in pregnancy.
So as of today, she has not received approval for this modality to assist her management. We provided her sensors for the DEXOM 7 (of which we have few), but hers was the most pressing need pending authorization by her insurance. Meanwhile, her sugars were in the 200-300 range, whereas optimal control in early pregnancy is blood sugars constantly below 120. She was on Oscar, an Obamacare product. She got the insulin in a week, only thanks to the extreme efforts of clinic personnel to get the insulin coverage approved. This is another way in which federal healthcare endangers patients.
So again, Trump was exactly correct about how deficient the Federal Insurance marketplace (Obamacare) is, and how it needs to be vastly reformed at a minimum. (It has been improved since it was originally implemented, but far from adequately.) The architects of this system were idiots.
Further, the rules of the marketplace essentially derive from Medicare. Indeed, all private insurance is provided based on what Medicare covers, and is directly linked to the Medicare pay scale. We already have de facto Medicare for All, and it is really bad. Every time you have to wait for prior authorization for a medication, a device, or a procedure, or have what the doctor prescribed denied by your private insurer, the reason is due to Medicare regulations, which are followed by all. Extending Medicare to all would not solve these problems of delay and denial that Kamala claims would result from Medicare for All. What would happen is that what greater efficiencies exist in the private sector would disappear, and the whole system would grow more unresponsive.
Further, the reason we have the system we have today is specifically BECAUSE of Medicare. When Medicare was first implemented, there were no controls on costs. Whatever bills doctors or hospitals sent in were paid. The result was that medical inflation skyrocketed. Medicare ushered in the Golden Financial Age of Medicine that pushed Medicare expenditures to 10 times their anticipated amounts. Under the Reagan administration, attempts to control Medicare costs began, and the regulatory burden has grown ever since. So what Kamala wants to apply to everybody didn’t work with seniors. Even with the controls that make the system almost impossible to deal with, and vastly increase the costs of care delivery, the Medicare system is going bankrupt. So, sure, let’s extend a failing system to everyone. Great idea.
*Sorry for the soapbox distraction.
Kamala calls this death in Georgia a death due to the Trump abortion ban, facially false and inflammatory. All of this while calling for civility in political discourse.
I have a little more extreme take on the debate given these circumstances. In my view, it was a very obviously coordinated attempt, by the Kamala campaign and ABC, at a political assassination. Not a physical assassination, as attempted by the Florida or the Pennsylvania shooters, but an attempt to deliver a knockout blow to the Trump campaign, to delegitimize it entirely before the nation. To that extent, it was also a near miss.
All that was required was an agreement between the Kamala campaign and ABC to do a few things: Never fact-check Kamala. Let her say whatever she wanted about Trump without challenge. (When she wasn’t spouting vague platitudes to dodge questions she was smearing Trump with lies. That was her whole debate strategy, and it was truly pathetic. All while promising daydreams that sound more like nightmares.)
An “opportunity” society? That is a stale leftover from some long-forgotten campaign. Give $50,000 to those who for the first time open small businesses? Imagine the graft. It would be vast. A distribution of money to chosen voters to buy elections until forever. Just like student loan forgiveness. The opportunities for corruption are mind-boggling. All done with the idea of buying votes. Harris was allowed to freely dispense nonsense while the moderators fact-checked everything Trump said, calling him on everything they could.
And, lastly, the agreement, spoken or not, entailed avoiding questions about certain topics, such as Kamala’s time as San Francisco DA or California Attorney General, or her brother-in-law’s potential illegal behavior. Those are specific questions on material issues that could get Kamala into very hot water with her Black supporters. Well, now pretty much all of those things have been confirmed as true, although they were obvious during the debate.
So it was not just the mendacity of what Kamala said. Nor that, along with the mendacity of the moderators. But also the mendacity of what was not asked and not said. This was like giving Kamala the opportunity to take shots at Trump with an AK 47 at 50 yards while outfitted head to toe in Kevlar and surrounded by bodyguards. Surprisingly, she missed. She is even less competent than I thought.
I would say that Kamala and ABC have pretty much blown up the future of presidential debates, given the perfidy of the Democrats and the Media (redundant). But the Climate of Deceit goes of course much deeper. The most strident issues of our time are all only deceit. Hoaxes. Fraudulent, top to bottom.
I am not talking about the Russia Hoax, the Jan. 6 hoax, the impeachment hoaxes, the Hunter laptop hoax, the Wuhan lab hoax, the Fauci-Collins hoaxes on COVID origins or management of the pandemic, the vaccine mandate hoax, etc., etc. Those have come and gone and we are still here. At least most of us.
I am referring to the existential threat hoaxes that are gifts that will keep on giving to the Democrats/Progressives/Wokesters, forever and anon.
First is the Climate Hoax. Second is the Transgender fraud. The first is the greatest hoax the world has ever seen, and it has already been completely imbedded in the structure of our society, with potentially disastrous consequences. The second is an attempt to force madness on the population at large, with malice aforethought, with the point of decimating normality and destroying the entire idea of reality. Neither bodes well for the nation or the world. Continuing with the Democrats in control of our government will ensure that this madness continues to be thrust upon us.
But that’s another post.
Before going, I would just point out that the pattern I suggested in a prior post has been continued by Kamala. Barack Obama chose the one senator who was less competent than himself. Then Biden picked the one senator that would be HIS anti-removal insurance policy, a person even less competent than himself (how is that possible, you ask? I can only say, look). Now Kamala has picked the, dare I say it, weirdest Looneytoons character she could find in the country, for her VP pick. Josh Shapiro is far too competent, likable, and would overshadow Kamala from the outset. She was, I suspect, very uncomfortable choosing him because of her insecurity. So we continue downhill rapidly as each presidential candidate, more horrible than the one before, selects his or her running mate. Tell me I’m wrong.
I was surprised by the polls in Minnesota, however. I thought surely the good folk of Minnesota would be delighted to have Walz out of their state, and assumed the support for Kamala would rise in Minnesota with Walz as her running mate. I assumed this might play out like when Lyndon Johnson lost his first senatorial race in Texas to Pappy Daniels, the sitting governor. In that case, Johnson announced his returns too early, and Daniels’ supporters dug up the needed votes to edge Johnson out. Yes, the election was stolen from Johnson. But the supporters of Daniels were just trying to get him out of the state… Turns out, it looks like the good folk of Minnesota are more concerned about the welfare of the country as a whole.
Published in General
Very good, although I would suggest more paragraph breaks.
An impressive compilation of horribles. Thank you.
As you noted any increase in oil & natural gas production in the U. S. is no thanks to the Biden Administration. This article by the Institute for Energy Research from September 2022 lays out how hostile the Biden Administration has been to the oil & gas industry. Among other things, the Biden Administration had by far the lowest level of oil & natural gas leases in the first year and a half of any administration going back to Kennedy.
Excellent post.
A recent Commentary podcast described Walz as a clownish sitcom dad. This article does the same though it attributes the origin of the sitcom dad analogy to Ben Shapiro.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/08/tim_walz_doug_emhoff_and_the_doltish_1990s_and_2000s_sitcom_dad.html
Whatever its origin Commentary or Shapiro, it is an apt analogy and I now think of it every time I see video of Walz
I suspect advertising/campaign consultants think in images over substance and that vibe from Walz was listed as a positive when they were working through the VP list. When it comes to politics very little of the real world bleeds into the virtual reality show.
All sides have become very accepting of lies from politicians and talking heads on their own side. All that matters is the initial soundbite — if it comes up latter that something. was false, mistaken or a lie, it doesn’t matter—the damage is already done. All that matters is winning. America is becoming a low trust society because America is becoming a low truth society– our public figures on all sides are always lying.
Capitalism, and all other forms of freedom and liberty , depends on Trust and Truth. The decline of truth in America is leading of a decline of trust in America, and we are suffering accelerating negative consequences.
For a lot of voters, “truth” is that which is said by politicians on their side. “Lies” are what is spoken by politicians in the other party. Politicians might not lie so much if there were fewer people eager to believe the lies.
Trump made two big mistakes: 1) agreeing to debate Biden early in the summer, thereby allowing the Dems to replace that old fool before the convention; and 2) agreeing to debate Harris with ABC/Disney moderators who everyone should have known would be in the tank for Kammy. He did not have to agree to either, but for whatever reason agreed to both. Why? Overconfidence, hubris, bad advisors, etc.? He may not recover.
As a bad writer, I can only thank you for the advice and try to implement it. You’ve been very helpful for a long time.
Thanks
I have just read the article in ProPublica regarding the death of the woman in Georgia. I have not read the report from the State Commission that the article cites. It is not clear how ProPublica got a copy of the report(was it leaked? If so it would have been for political purposes, and likely violates the procedures of the State for releasing the information). These are quality assurance reviews of hospitals, and come under State regulatory powers, and are not generally disclosed to the public as far as I am aware. This smacks of the sort of case as that of the physician whistleblower in Texas who provided redacted information about Texas Children’s Hospital continuing to do gender transition surgery on minors after claiming to have stopped doing such procedures; in that case the whistleblower has been charged with Federal crimes).
One notable thing is that the medical abortion prescribed by the abortion clinic in North Carolina is FDA approved for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. So the medical abortion that was prescribed was “off label” that is, not specially covered under FDA approval. A lot of medications are used off label for problems other than the one the medication was originally approved to treat. In this case the medication was used for the purpose for which it was approved, but outside of the parameters for which it was approved.
The pregnancy was a twin pregnancy. The Propublica article seems to imply that that was the reason the patient sought the abortion. She was not in a life circumstance that she could manage twins, as she had moved in to a small apartment with a small child and was planning to start school. She was a single mother. No mention is made in the article at all of the father of her child, or the father of her current pregnancy. Were both the children of the same man? Reading the article one might get the idea that conception doesn’t require another person. That the pregnancy just unesxplicably happened. How did it happen? Was the patient on a form of contraception that failed, or not on contraception? No mention is made either way. She drove to North Carolina with a friend, another woman, not the father of the baby. Who and where is the father? Or are we not to ask? Nowhere in the story is there any mention of the father. No man accompanied her to the hospital, or was at the bedside during her illness, as far as the article recounts the circumstances.
The article states that the patient was delayed in traffic and arrived late for her appointment. She had planned a standard surgical abortion. The article mentions that only 15 minutes of tardiness was allowed by the abortion center due to their enormous load of patients. That smacks of an abortion mill. The article attributes the demand in North Carolina to the abortion restrictions in other states (Georgia, South Carolina). As the center could not do a surgical abortion they offered a medical abortion with a standard protocol of Mifepristone and Misoprostol. The mifepristone was administered by the clinic, and the patient was instructed to take the misoprostol the next day, which she did. The patient left to return to Georgia apparently right after receiving the dose of mifepristone.
No information is provided in the article regarding the length of time between her arrival back in Georgia and her presentation to the Emergency room at the Piedmont Henry Hospital in Stockbridge, GA. The hospital records apparently indicate that the patient was quite ill, needed a D and C, and may have been in the bending stages of sepsis or possibly septic shock. She informed her doctors that she had had a medical abortion. The patient arrived at the hospital at around 7 PM in the evening, apparently the hospital records indicate a deteriorating course. The patient was moved to the ICU the next day (not clear, about 7-8AM?), and eventually a D and C was attempted at about 2 PM. The patient died on the table.
The article, without evidence, suggests the delay was due to fear by the Georgia physicians that they would be held legally liable for doing a D and C on a patient who had had a medical abortion. That is a stretch. It is noted that the hospital after the State review, implemented training for physicians on the Georgia law. However, that might have been routine for the hospital to provide to doctors and may have had nothing to do with this case at all. Sheer coincidence of timing.
No information is available as to whether there were any sanctions against the hospital. From the descriptions in the article, the delay may have been due to the severity of the patient’s status and concern regarding her stability for surgery. The hospital may have been attempting to stabilize her condition to reduce the surgical risk. By the following day she apparently was worse, not better, and the D and C was then an emergency procedure done in heroic circumstances to try to save the patient. Hard to tell. One simply cannot make the assumptions that Propublica makes in the article with any degree of reliability.
Apparently the article concludes that the physician education on the new law was a sanction imposed by the State on the hospital. The evidence is the timing. That could be true. If so, then that appears to be the response of the State to this case. Then one could say that the Georgia law resulted in delay of care at the hospital due to physician misunderstanding or ignorance, not because of the law itself.
There is nothing in the article to suggest that insurance coverage was a concern at all, as I had suggested above.
Of note, the State of North Carolina imposed a 12 week plus 6 day (eg, first trimester) limit on abortion effective July 2023. So this patient would not have been able to get an abortion in North Carolina a year later.
The Propublica article suggests that the complications this patient experienced were very rare. Not so. Retained fetal tissue after spontaneous or medical abortion occur fairly commonly (1-2%) and rise with duration of the pregnancy. Obstetricians generally will not do medical abortions after the first trimester, and then with very careful supervision and followup. Endometritis and ultimately sepsis are almost certain if timely care is not provided for retained tissue after a medical abortion. The article suggests that medical abortion is routine at 20 weeks. Not so. Less than 1% of medical abortions are done at that time point. The large majority are done in the first trimester, with percents rapidly declining week by week beyond the first trimester. That this was a twin pregnancy, that the patient was from out of state without prior contact with personnel at the clinic (North Carolina now requires in-person counseling 72 hours before a planned abortion).
I would fault the Abortion clinic for using an approach that was questionable at that stage of pregnancy, administering the mifepristone to a patient they were seeing for the first time in rushed circumstances, and letting the patient leave the area with instructions on taking the next medication, and essentially leaving her to her own care.
The Propublica article states that the abortion clinic would have immediately provided a D and C, free of charge, if she were in the area. Nice, but she was not, and the clinic knew that she was not going to be in the area. It is not stated if she an OB GYN physician in Stockbridge, or if she had received any OB evaluation prior to going to North Carolina. Apparently she had had some care, as she knew the stage of the pregnancy and the fact that it was a twin pregnancy Perhaps she did have an Ob in Stockbridge but may have been influenced by being told that an abortion could not be done in Georgia, so did not have a well established relationship with an OB/Gyn physician there. There is no information on this in the article, and would have a significant bearing on understanding the circumstance and opportunities for more timely care, and continuity of care.
I spoke with a very experienced OBGYN physician in a state with a complete ban on abortion, who says that she is seeing increasing numbers of patients who have been to other states for abortions and present with retained fetal tissue and require D and C’s.
The physicians in Georgia may have had little experience with patients presenting with retained tissue after medical (or surgical ) abortions in other states needing emergency care for complications. I suspect that they are having much more experience with such circumstances now.
In my view, the abortion clinic in North Carolina behaved in a way that underscores the liberal view of unwanted pregnancies, i.e, that they are equivalent to contagion. After all, that is what Olver Wendell Holmes said in his Buck v. Bell decision that allowed forced sterilization. That Buck v. Bell decision was both cited in and upheld in Roe v. Wade. So we have had a Century of that status applied to humans in utero, until Roe v. Wade was overturned. And Kamala Harris demands that that status be restored. So much for her claims to want to fight for the most vulnerable among us. The most vulnerable among us, if not wanted, for Kamala, are contagion. The abortionists have been on and continue to be on a mission from Gaia to save the planet, it would seem. By culling the human species. And that mission, for the abortionists, seems to supersede all other medical care or considerations, even the safety of the mother. The behavior of this clinic has now been rather strikingly regulated in North Carolina in order to assure that patients are appropriately evaluated ahead of time and do not receive care on the fly as this patient did. Kudos to North Carolina for their actions.
I would rate the Propublica article as egregiously and intentionally misleading but factually true as far as the statements in the article go.
Full disclosure: I am one of the extremists who, after seeing Roe v Wade overturned, is still waiting for some State, any State, to explicitly establish by law that a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, and has a right to appropriate advocacy and legal representation in any procedure affecting that person.Will any State explicitly state that an embryo is human? So far it hasn’t happened. Alabama came close.
Didn’t the old Arizona law basically do that? I haven’t heard anything about it in quite a while now.
We most likely would never have an abortion law stipulating that a zygote is a human being.(A zygote is the fertilized egg between 1 second and two weeks old.)
An embryo is the stage of development that occurs at two weeks (if memory serves me.)
Industrial miscarriages prior to the 2 week point are rather rampant. Often the woman does not even have to work for the industry. In the “clean rooms” of Silicon Valley, where semiconductor chips were made, the women who worked in those rooms had great difficulties, or so they thought, in being able to get pregnant. But ob/gyn doctors in that area compared notes. They discovered that the amount of infertility was so damn high that what was most likely happening was that some of the women did get pregnant, but lost their pregnancies prior to the six week mark.
It took a bit of statistic gathering to arrive at that conclusion.
Currently the COV vaccines are acting in the same manner that the chems in the semiconductor clean rooms acted: as abortificants. For women who lose their pregnancies prior to the 6 week mark, the event might be chalked up to “my period was late.” If the pregnancy involves a zygote, the woman most likely won’t even have that “late” period as an indication that she might have been pregnant. (BTW researchers in Japan have identified the mechanism by which the COV vax material acts as a pregnancy terminator.)
Anyone who desires the health and well being of humans-in-utero should be demanding that the current day insistence on young people being COV-vaccinated be ended immediately. Some colleges and universities still require them. Many health procedures, including chemo, receiving certain injectable pharma products as well as surgeries, require that the individuals have received the COVID vaccine prior to getting the health procedure.
I believe that most state laws did that prior to Roe vWade.All of those laws were nullified by Roe v Wade.
The egg becomes an embryo at the moment of conception. It is called a Zygote when there is only one cell, before the cell divides for the first time, to distinguish the zygote from subsequent two cell or multi cell stages of the embryo, to my understanding.
Right, but there was stuff in the news fairly recently about changing the Arizona law that basically came back into effect after Dobbs. It was pretty strict, in the way that you describe. That it had no effect during Roe, doesn’t somehow mean it didn’t exist, hadn’t been passed.
“The zygote phase lasts for around four days; it eventually turns into a blastocyst, and then an embryo.”
Right. I believe the Arizona law against abortion that long predated Roe v Wade came back in to effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned. I hadn’t seen the news on efforts to change that original law in Arizona, but I am sure you are correct that there was an effort to change it, or perhaps has been changed. Those old original laws that were overturned by Roe v Wade had as their premise the human status of the fetus. Once overturned by Roe v Wade, the fetus no longer had legal status as a human, thus no legal protection. The current 6 and 12 week abortion bans in effect remove human status from the fetus until that stage, and do not establish the embryo from the moment of conception, as human with legal rights or protections. If Arizona changes or has changed its abortion law to permit abortions up to a certain number of weeks, it would eliminate the human rights of the fetus prior to the number of weeks in which abortion is permitted. In my view that would be a step backwards.
Compared to their original law, yes. But I took your question/statement to be that no state had ever passed such a law. I think some states had, such as Arizona. But it was unenforceable during Roe.
I believe all of the pre Roe v Wade state laws banning abortion had as their premise a status as human for the fetus as that was the societal view for laws that were written as far back as the mid 19th century. I intended my statement to refer to the post roe v wade overturn time frame. But I may be wrong there too. I think Louisiana has banned abortion with few exceptions and has pretty much fully returned to the societal consensus that prevailed as far back as the pre Progressive Era (which was also the Eugenics era). I need to research that more.
That can’t be correct, because a blastocyst is a stage of the embryo. As is the Zygote.
Louisiana banned abortions in 2022 after Roe v Wade was overturned, with no exception for rape on incest. So Louisiana returned fully to the status of the law there prior to Roe v. Wade. It is a Catholic state and has acted in concordance with the Catholic faith. In fact, Louisiana later passed a law that the State Compensation Fund (the malpractice funding and procedural system) cannot insure physicians for any malpractice connected to abortion. So, I believe, Louisiana has the most restrictive abortion law in the nation. It fully recognizes the human status of the embryo.