Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, some doctors refuse to perform abortions because they fear running afoul of the law or of someone who objects to abortions and decides to make their life unpleasant or worse.

But plenty of ob/gyns decline to perform non-emergency abortions or abortions under certain circumstances or past certain gestational age because of their own personal ethics of beliefs. And that is ok. It may be very inconvenient t but it certainly is wrong to force anyone to perform a abortion they object to performing just as it is wrong to force a woman to either carry or abort a pregnancy.

I think you are correct that the law has no business forbidding abortions. I do think k there is a legitimate role for govern to play in determining what facilities must be present to perform abortions at different stages.

Do they? How many procedures have these requirements? Government is typically reactive, not proactive. It only acts when things have gone to hell somewhere. Cryptocurrency, NFT, vaping, the youth and social media. Why is abortion so special that we require all of these extra steps compared to much more invasive medical procedures? Is it because women were dying by the dozens weekly due to poor medical care with abortion services? No. It was put in there as a road block to inhibit a woman's access to reproductive health services.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes, some doctors refuse to perform abortions because they fear running afoul of the law or of someone who objects to abortions and decides to make their life unpleasant or worse.

But plenty of ob/gyns decline to perform non-emergency abortions or abortions under certain circumstances or past certain gestational age because of their own personal ethics of beliefs. And that is ok. It may be very inconvenient t but it certainly is wrong to force anyone to perform a abortion they object to performing just as it is wrong to force a woman to either carry or abort a pregnancy.

I think you are correct that the law has no business forbidding abortions. I do think k there is a legitimate role for govern to play in determining what facilities must be present to perform abortions at different stages.

Do they? How many procedures have these requirements? Government is typically reactive, not proactive. It only acts when things have gone to hell somewhere. Cryptocurrency, NFT, vaping, the youth and social media. Why is abortion so special that we require all of these extra steps compared to much more invasive medical procedures? Is it because women were dying by the dozens weekly due to poor medical care with abortion services? No. It was put in there as a road block to inhibit a woman's access to reproductive health services.

I mean, I just necro'd a thread where I explained what's really going on here.

We should be preparing for a physical shooting war over this, not letting someone talk too much while they maneuver to stick a knife in our backs or holding up mere signs as we are ushered to the gallows.

 

[Elixir]

IF you care what I think, then stick to claiming that I think the things I said.

She needs that tattooed on the back of her hands. Vitriolic attacks and false accusations that “you think X” are EMS’ stock in trade.

Plus, she makes zero sense. I point out that abortion laws are proven to kill people. Instead of not wanting to kill people, Em sez it’s okay;

“Proven to be true which is why hordes and hordes of women are dying all throughout Europe and Australia, which have STRICTER limits than I've proposed.”

So, she just wants to kill smaller “hordes”.
What a humanitarian.

Dishonesty and irrationality are a toxic brew, and Emily is serving up enough of it to make the dead hordes roll over in their graves.

 

[Elixir]

Toni believes that if a healthy woman with a healthy fetus decides at 35 weeks gestation that she doesn't want to carry the fetus to term and a doctor is willing to abort it, that's just fine, no problem, it's perfectly reasonable.

Do you agree with my inference from your statement?

Not do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

I think someone needs to compile a list of stuff that Emily says others people believe.
So far she’s batting ZERO, but she keeps fanning away no matter how many times she gets set straight .
Insanity … doing the same thing expecting a different result.

Nor do I believe that aliens kidnap humans and impregnate them,

“But if they did, you’d be okay with killing the baby before it is born” -E

 

[Toni]

Yes, some doctors refuse to perform abortions because they fear running afoul of the law or of someone who objects to abortions and decides to make their life unpleasant or worse.

But plenty of ob/gyns decline to perform non-emergency abortions or abortions under certain circumstances or past certain gestational age because of their own personal ethics of beliefs. And that is ok. It may be very inconvenient t but it certainly is wrong to force anyone to perform a abortion they object to performing just as it is wrong to force a woman to either carry or abort a pregnancy.'s

I think you are correct that the law has no business forbidding abortions. I do think k there is a legitimate role for govern to play in determining what facilities must be present to perform abortions at different stages.

Do they? How many procedures have these requirements? Government is typically reactive, not proactive. It only acts when things have gone to hell somewhere. Cryptocurrency, NFT, vaping, the youth and social media. Why is abortion so special that we require all of these extra steps compared to much more invasive medical procedures? Is it because women were dying by the dozens weekly due to poor medical care with abortion services? No. It was put in there as a road block to inhibit a woman's access to reproductive health services.

LOTS of procedures are based upon what a doctor thinks is needed, desirable, ethical, etc. Almost any procedure is only in specific settings under specific circumstances. At the very least, medical facilities dictate where certain procedures can be performed and under what circumstances. So do professional boards and a host of other regulations and rules that are not determined legislatively.

Suppose today I went into my dentist's office (scheduled appt.) and demanded that he extract my two front teeth. He would refuse outright (and probably do some kind of mental health eval) because 1) my teeth do not need to be extracted 2) having my teeth in place is in my best interests, health wise, and 3) he doesn't perform extractions---he refers such cases to an oral surgeon, partially because he does not maintain all necessary facilities if something should go wrong during the procedure. The types of facilities and equipment are governed to some extent by state law.

If you or I went into a hospital or clinic and demanded our left arm be removed, no one would do that. Or give our 11 year old son double D breast implants or a vasectomy for example, just to be absurd. If I went into my local clinic with a partially amputated finger, they'd stabilize me and send me to a well equipped hospital because they lack the appropriate facilities and expertise to provide the optimal outcome.

 

[Elixir]

If you or I went into a hospital or clinic and demanded our left arm be removed, no one would do that. Or give our 11 year old son double D breast implants or a vasectomy for example, just to be absurd.

Absurd? Those things happen all the time!
We need a LAW! Your left arm or your son’s balls might be SENTIENT. And HE might have preferred a C-cup.

If I went into my local clinic with a partially amputated finger, they'd stabilize me and send me to a well equipped hospital because they lack the appropriate facilities and expertise to provide the optimal outcome.

… just as soon as your congressman consents, of course.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you or I went into a hospital or clinic and demanded our left arm be removed, no one would do that.

This is not totally accurate. Someone might, but the process is not so simple as "merely" walking in and demanding it.

It might take all of a year or two of evaluations and looking for a doctor who really understands, but as regards your own body the law gives you wide latitude, and there are plenty of humans who will have the mental wherewithal to remove someone's healthy arm because they were clear about why and that they vigorously consented to the operation.

This does in fact happen on occasion that someone CAN get a "healthy" arm removed.

People can get all kinds of healthy tissue that displeases them removed, when they take the time to go through proper channels.

They can also coerce the removal of "healthy" tissue through improper channels by making the tissue no-longer-healthy, though this is generally frowned upon. This is generally the reason why those other channels were opened.

 

[Elixir]

as regards your own body the law gives you wide latitude

But as soon as you’re knocked up, Republicans deem your body common property.

 

[thebeave]

If you or I went into a hospital or clinic and demanded our left arm be removed, no one would do that.

This is not totally accurate. Someone might, but the process is not so simple as "merely" walking in and demanding it.

It might take all of a year or two of evaluations and looking for a doctor who really understands, but as regards your own body the law gives you wide latitude, and there are plenty of humans who will have the mental wherewithal to remove someone's healthy arm because they were clear about why and that they vigorously consented to the operation.

This does in fact happen on occasion that someone CAN get a "healthy" arm removed.

People can get all kinds of healthy tissue that displeases them removed, when they take the time to go through proper channels.

They can also coerce the removal of "healthy" tissue through improper channels by making the tissue no-longer-healthy, though this is generally frowned upon. This is generally the reason why those other channels were opened.

Yep. This is a real, mental condition, but I can't remember the name of it. I first heard about it when I was in college. A student with this condition went into the student woodshop and cut off his hand with a radial arm saw, on purpose. He was airlifted to Stanford hospital but he insisted that doctors not try to attach it, as he would just cut it off again. But yeah, after mental evaluation, it turns out these people are much happier with their particular appendage surgically removed. Their brain considers it alien and/or a deformity in a way. Weird.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you or I went into a hospital or clinic and demanded our left arm be removed, no one would do that.

This is not totally accurate. Someone might, but the process is not so simple as "merely" walking in and demanding it.

It might take all of a year or two of evaluations and looking for a doctor who really understands, but as regards your own body the law gives you wide latitude, and there are plenty of humans who will have the mental wherewithal to remove someone's healthy arm because they were clear about why and that they vigorously consented to the operation.

This does in fact happen on occasion that someone CAN get a "healthy" arm removed.

People can get all kinds of healthy tissue that displeases them removed, when they take the time to go through proper channels.

They can also coerce the removal of "healthy" tissue through improper channels by making the tissue no-longer-healthy, though this is generally frowned upon. This is generally the reason why those other channels were opened.

Yep. This is a real, mental condition, but I can't remember the name of it. I first heard about it when I was in college. A student with this condition went into the student woodshop and cut off his hand with a radial arm saw, on purpose. He was airlifted to Stanford hospital but he insisted that doctors not try to attach it, as he would just cut it off again. But yeah, after mental evaluation, it turns out these people are much happier with their particular appendage surgically removed. Their brain considers it alien and/or a deformity in a way. Weird.

So why is it SO hard for you to understand that this is how certain people feel with regards to their hormones?

Just... Let them remove them and put something they are comfortable with in their place. It's not rocket science.

The brain considers the effect alien and foreign, a deformity not in broad flesh shapes but in the function of the system itself.

This is a bit of a derail, but maybe this moment of awareness is what you need.

 

[Elixir]

Their brain considers it alien and/or a deformity in a way. Weird.

Obviously the humane solution would be to remove the brain.

 

[thebeave]

If you or I went into a hospital or clinic and demanded our left arm be removed, no one would do that.

This is not totally accurate. Someone might, but the process is not so simple as "merely" walking in and demanding it.

It might take all of a year or two of evaluations and looking for a doctor who really understands, but as regards your own body the law gives you wide latitude, and there are plenty of humans who will have the mental wherewithal to remove someone's healthy arm because they were clear about why and that they vigorously consented to the operation.

This does in fact happen on occasion that someone CAN get a "healthy" arm removed.

People can get all kinds of healthy tissue that displeases them removed, when they take the time to go through proper channels.

They can also coerce the removal of "healthy" tissue through improper channels by making the tissue no-longer-healthy, though this is generally frowned upon. This is generally the reason why those other channels were opened.

Yep. This is a real, mental condition, but I can't remember the name of it. I first heard about it when I was in college. A student with this condition went into the student woodshop and cut off his hand with a radial arm saw, on purpose. He was airlifted to Stanford hospital but he insisted that doctors not try to attach it, as he would just cut it off again. But yeah, after mental evaluation, it turns out these people are much happier with their particular appendage surgically removed. Their brain considers it alien and/or a deformity in a way. Weird.

So why is it SO hard for you to understand that this is how certain people feel with regards to their hormones?

Just... Let them remove them and put something they are comfortable with in their place. It's not rocket science.

The brain considers the effect alien and foreign, a deformity not in broad flesh shapes but in the function of the system itself.

This is a bit of a derail, but maybe this moment of awareness is what you need.

??? Why are you directing this at me? If someone wants to undergo gender changing surgery or treatment, it doesn't bother me. You're thinking of someone else, maybe?

 

[thebeave]

Their brain considers it alien and/or a deformity in a way. Weird.

Obviously the humane solution would be to remove the brain.

And turn them into Republicans in the process? Not sure that's the right answer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Their brain considers it alien and/or a deformity in a way. Weird.

Obviously the humane solution would be to remove the brain.

And turn them into Republicans in the process? Not sure that's the right answer.

You are thinking of Ron Paul supporters.

 

[Emily Lake]

My apology Emily. Thanks for trying again.

the provider must document the diagnosis on medical records when providing the procedure.

"when", meaning before, during, or after? I believe you are describing a routine procedure there, if the answer is after.

Records may be subject to audit

By WHOM?

and doctors may be held liable

By Whom?

for failure to properly document appropriate medical diagnoses.

So someone decides ex-post-facto whether the doctor is in fact liable. That oughta keep the scoundrels in line.
Right now that would be their licensing board, and the penalty would be revocation.
What did you have in mind?

By whom, by whom, I don't actually fucking care - by someone with reasonable and appropriate authority. I don't have all the answers, it's absurd of you to demand that I have all the answers. I'll speculate wildly that records would be auditable by 1) medical boards, 2) lawyers who wish to challenge, and 3) if there's reason to suspect misbehavior by government officials. I don't have a perfect answer. Who checks that everything was done properly in death with dignity cases where the doctor assists in suicide for terminally ill patients? Those have a huge ton of legal requirements wrapped around them too, and I assume the same type of organizations that oversee and audit those would have a similar role for this.

But how about we ask both history and our European counterparts? Nothing I've proposed is new or novel in any way. So who used to provide oversight when RvW was in place? Why wouldn't the same type of body do it going forward? Who provides oversight in UK and Netherlands? France, Germany, Sweden?

Look, I'm really trying not to get annoyed... but I'm failing. You (and others) keep acting as if even the bare minimum of basic reasonable common sense safeguards are so onerous that the only possible solution is to have absolutely no safeguards at all... and you're just going to assume that nobody would ever do any of the things that you refuse to safeguard against. And to me, that's reckless and negligent.

 

[Emily Lake]

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

Simple, expedient, lends to max happiness, min suffering. Well said.
Unfortunately our dear Emily seems to differ, and wants more "justification" than any licensing board can require.

WHOSE happiness? WHOSE suffering?

 

[Emily Lake]

You have repeatedly expressed your belief that there should be no CRIMINAL LEGAL restrictions of any kind whatsoever on abortion at any stage of gestation at all, ever.

You seem to forget the bold part all the time. Try harder Ems; you have yet to justify your case.

I'm not forgetting it. I am, however, noting that you have not offered up ANY restrictions at all in any fashion. You are *now* saying "no criminal legal" restrictions - well what other kind of restrictions do you think would be appropriate? How about you propose something yourself instead of giving me grief for not having magically invented something you can't manage to think of?

My belief, in simple terms is that

WE SHOULD DO THAT WHICH CAUSES THE LEAST HARM AND SUFFERING
to all concerned, including the fetus but not necessarily especially the fetus. If you disagree,
SHOW ME WRONG!

I don't disagree. That lack of disagreement is exactly why I have taken this position. The problem I'm having is that
1) you insist that somehow my position causes women to bleed out and die in the parking lot and
2) you have absolutely nothing at all in place that gives any consideration to the fetus at all. Nothing - not one goddamned thing that you've talked about has in any way at all shown any care or compassion for the fetus

Fill me in - how do you propose to ensure that harm and suffering for the fetus is also considered?

Don't complain about what horrible things I or someone else would do if my stance was allowed.

Having lived on the ragged edge of the medical community for decades, I've learned that the vast preponderance of medical professionals are good people who use decent science based judgment and human compassion when making "medical judgments" and try their best to recommend appropriate treatments. Even the ones I don't like. Ideally it falls to the patient, who has been diligently informed.

Vast preponderance, sure. But vast preponderance is not all, and there are plenty of doctors out there who don't necessarily make good recommendations, who fail to provide sufficient information. And some just suck at their jobs. I have personally had to deal with the repercussions of being provided incomplete information for my own health and decisions, and that's had some big impacts on my life.

My position includes skepticism of your specious claim of rampant "optional" late term abortions of perfectly healthy fetuses posing no threat. The sentience of a 26 week fetus is very doubtful to me also, but that doesn't really bear on my position regarding what should be regulated by criminal statute.

Of do stop already. At no point have I claimed that later term abortions of healthy fetuses were rampant, nor even common. I've noted several times that they're rare - but rare is not the same as nonexistent. They *do* happen.

 

[Toni]

IMO what is reasonable is what the doctor and the patient decide is reasonable.

Simple, expedient, lends to max happiness, min suffering. Well said.
Unfortunately our dear Emily seems to differ, and wants more "justification" than any licensing board can require.

WHOSE happiness? WHOSE suffering?

Reminds me of the days when the mother’s life was considered expendable in order to preserve the life of the fetus who might be male. Because the fetus might be male.

In an ideal world, every pregnancy would be wanted and every fetus would develop normally ( without serious health issues) and would be born healthy and safe and the health ( physical and mental ) of the mother would be preserved with as little pain and suffering and medical intervention as possible . The baby would go home with loving parents who had the economic and emotional wherewithal as well as familial ( including chosen family) and community and state support to provide the best opportunities for the entire family,


I love fairy tales. The best are very educational.

 

[Emily Lake]

FYI - there's at least one clinic in the US that will perform abortions up to 35 weeks and 6 days of gestation with no restrictions at all.

Where Can I Get an Abortion? | U.S. Abortion Clinic Locator

Quickly search the largest directory of trusted abortion providers in the U.S. Updated weekly.

www.abortionfinder.org

The link does not say anything at all about restrictions. You are putting words into their mouths.

Dude, READ:

Pregnancy Stage

This provider offers abortion services through 35 weeks, 6 days.

Maryland does not limit abortion based on how far along in pregnancy you are.

 

[Elixir]

My apology Emily. Thanks for trying again.

the provider must document the diagnosis on medical records when providing the procedure.

"when", meaning before, during, or after? I believe you are describing a routine procedure there, if the answer is after.

Records may be subject to audit

By WHOM?

and doctors may be held liable

By Whom?

for failure to properly document appropriate medical diagnoses.

So someone decides ex-post-facto whether the doctor is in fact liable. That oughta keep the scoundrels in line.
Right now that would be their licensing board, and the penalty would be revocation.
What did you have in mind?

By whom, by whom, I don't actually fucking care - by someone with reasonable and appropriate authority.

… but NOT the person who knows the most about the case and has the training and experience to make the best call;
THE PREGNANT PERSON’s DOCTOR.
Crazy.

I don't have all the answers, it's absurd of you to demand that I have all the answers.

Why? I have all the answers and it’s just one answer: leave the law out of it. Simple, effective and leads to least harm.

I'll speculate wildly that records would be auditable by 1) medical boards, 2) lawyers who wish to challenge, and 3) if there's reason to suspect misbehavior by government officials.

I’ll speculate that will take weeks and people will die. That’s what happens now.

I don't have a perfect answer. Who checks that everything was done properly in death with dignity cases where the doctor assists in suicide for terminally ill patients? Those have a huge ton of legal requirements wrapped around them too, and I assume the same type of organizations that oversee and audit those would have a similar role for this.

Start another thread. It’s not germane to pregnant women.

But how about we ask both history and our European counterparts? Nothing I've proposed is new or novel in any way.

If you were born yesterday, yeah.
For millennia nobody said a word about restricting anbortion, until infant mortality was reduced to single digit percentages.

You (and others) keep acting as if even the bare minimum of basic reasonable common sense safeguards are so onerous

What we have now is barbaric, and a direct result of what you call “safeguards”. The only thing they safeguard is old white men’s authority over women’s bodies.

that the only possible solution is to have absolutely no safeguards at all... and you're just going to assume that nobody would ever do any of the things that you refuse to safeguard against.

Get off it, Emily. Doctors ARE our safeguards. Not legislators.

And to me, that's reckless and negligent.

To me, letting politicians get involved is stupid, inhumane and demonstrably often lethal.
We can agree to disagree but in the absence of any evidence that laws improve things for people, I am unlikely to suddenly want to put someone in jail for administering reproductive care that violates State criminal statutes.
If a person - doctor or otherwise - is grossly negligent and causes harm, there are already laws on the books.