• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ohio tries to insist on impossible pregnancy operation.

GlennB

Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
GlennB
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
33,671
Location
Wales
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature requires doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into a woman’s uterus – a procedure that does not exist in medical science – or face charges of “abortion murder”.

Unbelievable. Given that this can be a life-threatening condition we can only hope the bill fails.

linky
 
We need to differentiate bills that introduced with any actual hope of passing and bills which are introduced specifically as symbolic protests.

Not to say I'm 100% sure which one this is, I'd believe either.
 
GlennB said:
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature requires doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into a woman’s uterus – a procedure that does not exist in medical science – or face charges of “abortion murder”.

Unbelievable. Given that this can be a life-threatening condition we can only hope the bill fails.

linky
Click to expand...

Damned, those people are stupid.
 
JoeMorgue said:
We need to differentiate bills that introduced with any actual hope of passing and bills which are introduced specifically as symbolic protests.

Not to say I'm 100% sure which one this is, I'd believe either.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there is a middle ground - bills which get broad support from one side but still are very unlikely to pass unless the legislature is very lopsided - Hyperpartisan bills.

This bill appears to be one. It is sponsored by two representatives and co-sponsored by 19 more (all Republican). That's 21 members of the 100 member legislature. With 61 Republican held seats in the Ohio House, and 24 Republicans in the 33 seat Senate, this seems like something that could actually pass.
 
It is designed to actually fail. The proposers don't actually want this to pass at all. They want the "libs" to oppose it so they can take the appeal to the SCOTUS and try to overturn Roe v Wade, which is their ultimate goal.

I suggest the opposition simply abstain from voting, forcing the conservatives to have to kill it themselves or face an uprising by the women of the state.
 
GlennB said:
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature requires doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into a woman’s uterus – a procedure that does not exist in medical science – or face charges of “abortion murder”.

Unbelievable. Given that this can be a life-threatening condition we can only hope the bill fails.

linky
Click to expand...

HB 413 sponsor Candice Keller is also noted for blaming a Dayton Ohio mass shooting on a long list that included transgenders, recreational marijuana, video games and Obama.

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2019...er-to-resign-over-mass-shooting-comments.html
 
I'm not on Bob's wavelength obviously, but I think somewhere under there there may be something to consider. I don't think a manifestly stupid effort should simply be ignored because it's expected to fail, or to bring consequences other than those it purports to aim at. We've made similar mistakes before, and gotten...well, we've gotten what we've got, over and over.

Someone in the Ohio legislature ought to have the guts to stand up and call this outrageously stupid proposal what it is. It should not be promoted as an us versus them issue about abortion. It should be condemned because it is, whatever your moral point of view, utterly and unforgivably stupid.

Opponents of abortion, who in part object to intervention in the natural processes of life and birth, are proposing now exactly that: an intervention in the natural process of life and birth, with the added craziness that failing to do so will result in a charge of having done exactly what was not done, intervening; and the added stupidity of demanding an operation that does not exist and should not exist. It's dismissed by some because it's expected to fail, and promoted by others because, in failure, it's expected to have peripheral consequences.

I think many conservatives who ought to know better support fools and clowns and idiots who purport to further their agendas. Current Republicans, I think, would vote for Satan if he promised conservative Supreme Court justices. I remember back in 1964 when many Democrats who despised and mistrusted LBJ justified their support on the grounds that at least he's our villain and not theirs. If nobody has spoken up in Ohio to condemn this stupidity for what it is, it is to their shame. Expecting things that are stupid and wrong somehow to nudge things in the right direction is, I think, a terrible mistake more likely to establish the stupid and wrong as normal.
 
I wonder if a pro- choice advocate first brought up this idea as a satire, only to have the conservatives buy into it in their ignorance and self-righteousness? It has to be among the dumbest and most bizarre things I’ve heard of coming from a state legislature, and let’s face it the competition is fierce.
 
Giordano said:
I wonder if a pro- choice advocate first brought up this idea as a satire, only to have the conservatives buy into it in their ignorance and self-righteousness? It has to be among the dumbest and most bizarre things I’ve heard of coming from a state legislature, and let’s face it the competition is fierce.
Click to expand...
You've pretty much just reproduced the original meaning of Poe's law.
 
Over half the posts in this thread have just been sent to AAH since they were nothing but off-topic bickering. If you have nothing to say on the topic, then I suggest that's what you post rather than aiming digs at other members.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin
 
I don't understand this. Doesn't scientific or medical reality have any place in law-making? Can't a bill be shot down simply because it's calling for something that is literally impossible?
 
I get that, but there has to be a realistic point at which reality matters, regardless of politics. You can't pass a law that says people can only use a certain space if they are flying rather than walking. How is this different?
 
isissxn said:
I don't understand this. Doesn't scientific or medical reality have any place in law-making? Can't a bill be shot down simply because it's calling for something that is literally impossible?
Click to expand...
Short answer: No. They can pass a bill outlawing gravity if they want.

But in this case, as far as we know, this is a bill only at the moment. It has not actually been passed into law. Which is why I remain completely suspicious about its true intent. To me, it looks like yet another of these draconian anti-abortion bills specifically designed to fail so that an appeal to the Supreme Court on the subject of abortion can follow. And that is the blue touch paper on trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned. As the local opponents have said, this is not the first time they have had to deal with such nonsensical bills on this subject.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Short answer: No. They can pass a bill outlawing gravity if they want.

But in this case, as far as we know, this is a bill only at the moment. It has not actually been passed into law. Which is why I remain completely suspicious about its true intent. To me, it looks like yet another of these draconian anti-abortion bills specifically designed to fail so that an appeal to the Supreme Court on the subject of abortion can follow. And that is the blue touch paper on trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt you are correct about that.

I guess I'm just blown away that reality doesn't have to be a component in a bill being considered.
 
Sometimes I think it's better if these things ARE passed into law. Doctors are well-placed to sue the government for imposing an impossible condition that puts women's lives at risk. The poor woman with the ectopic pregnancy, not so much. In practice, I don't think most doctors would think twice about what to do - they would be bound by ethics, and possibly by other statutes, that require them to take action that may be required to save a woman's life.

I don't know what the hell these legislators are thinking, but I wouldn't mind them being raked over the coals by a relatively well-heeled, organized profession. They deserve to look as stupid as possible. On the other hand, this requirement seems impossibly stupid to anyone who thinks about it for 5 seconds.

Maybe they never read the bill - it's reportedly 700 PAGES LONG. Some evangelicals' wish list, I suspect. Evil bastards. Pure ******* harassment.
 
isissxn said:
I get that, but there has to be a realistic point at which reality matters, regardless of politics. You can't pass a law that says people can only use a certain space if they are flying rather than walking. How is this different?
Click to expand...

In the courts yes. Legislators can pass whatever they want. You can't be held civilly liable for not not doing something the technology for which has not been invented. If I was a cancer researcher and found a cure for a kind of cancer your loved one died of, you could not sue me for not making the breakthrough fast enough. I would assume any court would not hold a doctor criminally liable for not doing something medical science has not yet figured out how to do.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Short answer: No. They can pass a bill outlawing gravity if they want.

But in this case, as far as we know, this is a bill only at the moment. It has not actually been passed into law. Which is why I remain completely suspicious about its true intent. To me, it looks like yet another of these draconian anti-abortion bills specifically designed to fail so that an appeal to the Supreme Court on the subject of abortion can follow. And that is the blue touch paper on trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned. As the local opponents have said, this is not the first time they have had to deal with such nonsensical bills on this subject.
Click to expand...

This seems an odd strategy since the chance of this bill getting to the SCOTUS is so remote. There are other bills out there far more likely to make it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom