• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Roe v Wade overturned - this is some BS part II

DeSantis is typical of the phony conservatives who complain government has too much reach into people's lives. Unless they're in power and it's something they want and then look out!

To my IANAL eyes, yes, this looks grossly unconstitutional. To threaten legal action -- up to and including jail time -- against news organizations for running ads supporting a political position DeSantis opposes? WTAH?!? :(
 
MAGA cry about freedom of speech if they are told that they can't incite violence. Yet, they actually oppose protected freedoms of speech that they don't like.
 
This horror show illustrates why medical exemptions aren't sufficient. If you put catching a murder rap on the wrong side of a diagnosis, this is what you get.
 
This horror show illustrates why medical exemptions aren't sufficient. If you put catching a murder rap on the wrong side of a diagnosis, this is what you get.
Unfortunately, I suspect this outcome is at best expected and tolerated. At worst (and the hoofbeats keep coming closer) welcomed. The so-called pro-lifers value human life only as an abstract icon of faith. When it enters the realm of worldly existence, they wash their hands of it.
 
https://www.propublica.org/article/nevaeh-crain-death-texas-abortion-ban-emtala

Chalk another death up to the victory over abortion. I figure Americans are just used to people dying after being denied life saving care which is why this isn't being treated as a big deal, unlike in Ireland when a similar death happened.
Halappenavar was only the one death that couldn't be hushed up, being the wife of the Indian ambassador. Many Irish women died that way, but their deaths didn't get international attention like a dignitary's does.
 
Halappenavar was only the one death that couldn't be hushed up, being the wife of the Indian ambassador. Many Irish women died that way, but their deaths didn't get international attention like a dignitary's does.
She wasn't the wife of the Indian ambassador, they were both immigrants over on work visas. Not that that excuses her death.

And she wasn't the only woman whose case was in the papers at the time. There was a case where a brain dead woman was kept on life support for weeks after brain death because her foetus was still showing a heartbeat and there was also a case of a young asylum seeker who was refused leave to travel to the UK to have an abortion of a foetus conceived through rape https://www.irishtimes.com/news/soc...omen-unable-to-travel-for-abortions-1.2037483.

Then you can go back further to things like the X case in 1992 or Annie Lovett or the Kerry Bbabies scandal, all issues that became national scandals due to the abortion ban.
 
Huh, according to Wikipedia, you're right. The Indian ambassador did get involved, but his name was Chakravarti. I now wonder where I got the idea that her husband was the ambassador.
 
The new, full-throated alpha male maga meme is Your Body, My Choice. To say it's gonna get a lot worse before it gets better is dishonest; it's just gonna get worse.
 
According to Texas documents, it didn't happen. They've taken measures to ensure such things aren't documented or trended.
 
I'm sure state lawmakers are insisting it doesn't have to happen. That doctors are letting patients come to harm in order to deceive people into believing the law is bad. That's totally believable and not insane at all.
 
So if the law wasn't there, the doctors wouldn't do it, therefore it's the doctors' fault?
That makes sense....
 
It is never the fault of The Party, no matter how much evidence there is that it is.
 
This horror show illustrates why medical exemptions aren't sufficient. If you put catching a murder rap on the wrong side of a diagnosis, this is what you get.
Doctors already face civil and criminal liability for sucking at their job.

Also, how big is this new risk? How many abortions are the result of a diagnosed medical necessity?
 
Doctors already face civil and criminal liability for sucking at their job.

Also, how big is this new risk? How many abortions are the result of a diagnosed medical necessity?
We could ask the women who have died due to these new laws how big a risk they think it is. Oh, wait...
 
How many women would that be?

How do we not already know how many abortions every year are performed out of diagnosed medical necessity?
Why would Texas decide not to track such things?
Your integration into Vranyo culture seemed smooth, did you learn that from Russians or Fox news?
 
How many women would that be?

How do we not already know how many abortions every year are performed out of diagnosed medical necessity?
A quick, non-intense search shows that it is well under one percent of pregnancies. Of course, if you are an OB/GYN working at a hospital, you might be delivering 250-300 babies a year. A one in ten-thousand chance per pregnancy could have a one in four chance of coming up in a ten-year career.
 
How many women would that be?

How do we not already know how many abortions every year are performed out of diagnosed medical necessity?
Several so far, which have been discussed here on ISF already. And the number will continue to grow.

Why does it matter how many are performed out of diagnosed medical necessity every year? That's not the point. The point is that women are dying due to these new restrictive laws.
 
How many women would that be?

How do we not already know how many abortions every year are performed out of diagnosed medical necessity?
How would we know whose reports to trust here? After all, are we not discussing a case in which, fearing the wrath of a State with the power to imprison doctors and end their livelihood using its own criteria rather than their own judgment, they appear to have considered "medical necessity" too ambiguously defined to risk saving a woman who was dying under their eyes? And at least according to Thaiboxerkitten, this case, which one would think clearly was one of medical necessity, was not properly reported either. Whether that's because the State prefers such cases not to exist, or because the doctors prefer not to be called on their mistakes, or both, one might suspect any statistics to be unreliable. The State authorities are eminently unqualified to make medical decisions, but rely on doctors' fear of their unwarranted power to make the stupid decisions for them. As long as that unwarranted power exists, the price for letting a woman die is almost certainly less than the price for being judged an accessory to illegal abortion, and if there were a hell, the legislators responsible for it should burn there.

And of course, as always, the very question presumes an anti-abortion position, since in any place where abortion is elective, such statistics need not be gathered in the first place. The only places where such statistics might be needed are those where the authorities are most likely to lie and to cover up the consequences of their bad judgment.

Whether or not you think the result is worth the cost, the fact remains that as things currently exist in places like Texas, doctors must guess whether their judgment or that of politicians, some of them egregious science-hating crackpots, will rule their actions, at the cost of their livelihood and freedom. It's an insane system, and even if you believe that the resulting drop in abortions is a goal worth that price, there will be small but conspicuous collateral damage, and it will involve real people who are born and live upon the earth, who at least so far are still free to tell us just how bloody and heartbreaking and stupid it is.
 
How would we know whose reports to trust here? After all, are we not discussing a case in which, fearing the wrath of a State with the power to imprison doctors and end their livelihood using its own criteria rather than their own judgment, they appear to have considered "medical necessity" too ambiguously defined to risk saving a woman who was dying under their eyes? And at least according to Thaiboxerkitten, this case, which one would think clearly was one of medical necessity, was not properly reported either. Whether that's because the State prefers such cases not to exist, or because the doctors prefer not to be called on their mistakes, or both, one might suspect any statistics to be unreliable. The State authorities are eminently unqualified to make medical decisions, but rely on doctors' fear of their unwarranted power to make the stupid decisions for them. As long as that unwarranted power exists, the price for letting a woman die is almost certainly less than the price for being judged an accessory to illegal abortion, and if there were a hell, the legislators responsible for it should burn there.

And of course, as always, the very question presumes an anti-abortion position, since in any place where abortion is elective, such statistics need not be gathered in the first place. The only places where such statistics might be needed are those where the authorities are most likely to lie and to cover up the consequences of their bad judgment.

Whether or not you think the result is worth the cost, the fact remains that as things currently exist in places like Texas, doctors must guess whether their judgment or that of politicians, some of them egregious science-hating crackpots, will rule their actions, at the cost of their livelihood and freedom. It's an insane system, and even if you believe that the resulting drop in abortions is a goal worth that price, there will be small but conspicuous collateral damage, and it will involve real people who are born and live upon the earth, who at least so far are still free to tell us just how bloody and heartbreaking and stupid it is.
Bravo and well-said, Bruto! :bigclap
 
Bah this is the kind of crazy talk that will let women with dead fetus's get abortions even if their lives are not in active danger, crazy.

I also wonder how these laws are effecting women who need a DNC and are not pregnant, is that considered an abortion because the procedure is the same one or not. How legal is it and how much evidence do you need that the patient was not actually pregnant to get away with it.
 
Texas decides that 2022 and 2023 deaths of pregnant women should be ignored. Probably because "Earlier this year, an analysis by the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that between 2019 and 2022, Texas’ maternal mortality rate rose by 56% compared to an 11% raise nationally. "

www.dallasobserver.com

Texas Maternal Mortality Committee Won’t Investigate Deaths in 2022–23

Advocates warn that overlooking such data could complicate research into the impact of Texas' abortion ban.
www.dallasobserver.com
www.dallasobserver.com
 
An 11% increase nationally is a disgrace (though it presumably includes the increase in Texas so the US without Texas may be under 10%), but 56% would seem to indicate that parts of the US are either going back in time or hurtling towards developing country status
 
There is no need to collect these figures anymore - nothing can be done about them, it's god's will and anyway it's women's problem so too icky for blokes to get involved.
 
An 11% increase nationally is a disgrace (though it presumably includes the increase in Texas so the US without Texas may be under 10%), but 56% would seem to indicate that parts of the US are either going back in time or hurtling towards developing country status
A small quibble, if developing countries are presumably heading in one direction and we in the other, we will have but a moment to wave as we pass by. Only in some quarters is development a negative.

It is, however, a pretty good stratagem for self-emigration of the so called illegals. Many conservatives want to reverse the trend by making the US inhospitable, but those damned liberals and bleeding heart sanctuarians get in the way of their righteous hostility, so for those of single mind, perhaps achieving that grail will be worth the price of alternatively making our country worse than where they came from.
 
A small quibble, if developing countries are presumably heading in one direction and we in the other, we will have but a moment to wave as we pass by. Only in some quarters is development a negative.

It is, however, a pretty good stratagem for self-emigration of the so called illegals. Many conservatives want to reverse the trend by making the US inhospitable, but those damned liberals and bleeding heart sanctuarians get in the way of their righteous hostility, so for those of single mind, perhaps achieving that grail will be worth the price of alternatively making our country worse than where they came from.
Rather like the Jews who emigrated from the Pale in Imperial Russia and from 1930's Germany.
 
I see now that Texas is suing a New York doctor for prescribing mail order pills to a Texan woman. One might presume that this is unenforceable, since the doctor is in New York. Then again, the Supreme Court might just undergo a sudden reversal of their disdain for precedent and decide that Dred Scott applies.

 
An 11% increase nationally is a disgrace (though it presumably includes the increase in Texas so the US without Texas may be under 10%), but 56% would seem to indicate that parts of the US are either going back in time or hurtling towards developing country status
Maternal mortality rates in the US are terrible. There is extremely high variation between states California is best at <10 deaths / 100,000 whilst Mississippi is highest at > 80 deaths / 100,000 equivalent to Columbia. For comparison a poor country like Cuba has a maternal mortality 40/100,000 slightly better than Texas. All of Europe has maternal mortality rates lower than California. The US already sits squarely with developing countries such as Gaza, Grenada.

 
The Attorney General of Missouri has filed a lawsuit claiming that their state and others like it are harmed by the availability of mail order abortion drugs, using as proof of the harm a statistical decline in 15-19 year old pregnancies. Not the only argument here, but one of them, is that the availability of abortion pills deprives the state of the right to refuse abortion to teenage girls in its care. Another argument is made that the state is harmed by the loss of population and associated political power! Abortion is called a "sovereign injury to the state itself."

For the TLDR folks. skip down to somewhere around page 190


e.t.a. I should not have said it was just Missouri. They've teamed up with Kansas and Idaho.
 
The Attorney General of Missouri has filed a lawsuit claiming that their state and others like it are harmed by the availability of mail order abortion drugs, using as proof of the harm a statistical decline in 15-19 year old pregnancies. Not the only argument here, but one of them, is that the availability of abortion pills deprives the state of the right to refuse abortion to teenage girls in its care. Another argument is made that the state is harmed by the loss of population and associated political power! Abortion is called a "sovereign injury to the state itself."

For the TLDR folks. skip down to somewhere around page 190


e.t.a. I should not have said it was just Missouri. They've teamed up with Kansas and Idaho.
Republicans support underage sex and teen pregnancy.

I was tempted to put an exclamation point at the end of that sentence, but I decided that I just don't find it surprising.
 
Doctors already face civil and criminal liability for sucking at their job.

Also, how big is this new risk? How many abortions are the result of a diagnosed medical necessity?
Last time I looked an (early stage) abortion was safer than continuing with pregnancy. So it depends how you define necessity. If it is offering a treatment that minimises health risk to the woman, termination of pregnancy (early stage) is always best.
 
Back
Top Bottom