Roe v Wade is on deck

[Arctish]

If that's all you want, then say "I want the provisions established under Roe v Wade to become Constitutional law" and stop right there. Stop posting what sounds like an argument for increased restrictions on third trimester abortions. Stop presenting that imaginary woman who wants to kill her fetus a day before her due date as though the possibility she might succeed is important to you.

But if that imaginary woman and her imperiled imaginary fetus is important then stop complaining when people focus on that part of your post.

OMFG! I have been saying that from the first interaction ages ago! Over and over and over. And for that I’ve been called names, told I want women to die, and had every possible absurdity leveled at me! Holy cow, I’ve said to you REPEATEDLY that‘s what I want and what I’m advocating for!

You keep repeating things but you aren't explaining them.

When I asked you what rules or guidelines you would suggest to keep the pregnant psychopath and the evil doctor from aborting her healthy baby a day before it's due to be born, you just got cranky and went right back to restating your opinion that aborting before the 24th week is fine but aborting after that is wrong unless it is medically necessary.

Is there a state that in your opinion does a better job of protecting fetusus than most others? Is there a nation that has a low maternal death rate and almost no late term abortions and you think we should emulate them? Is there any example of a state or a nation doing things right, or at least more right than what is currently happening in the US?

Apparently you don't trust doctors enough to allow them to decide when an abortion is warranted. If that's the case, then tell us who you think should have final say and how you propose they be positioned so that they can make that call in a timely manner.

What are your suggestions?

Elixir has repeatedly misconstrued my position as wanting a compete ban on any 3rd trimester abortion even when there’s a clear risk. Jarhyn has treated me like a monster because I believe late in the pregnancy it’s a baby, not a fetus. Even Toni has repeatedly acted as if RvW style limitations late in the game is a horrible thing and opined that politicians should have no say whatsoever.

I have provided my reasoning, my beliefs, my views over and over - and they’re views shared by over 80% of Americans, and every single fucking thing I’ve said has been picked apart and challenged to the frayed edge. You tell ME not to focus on the part that is literally the sticking point for this entire stupid thread in which nearly everyone is busy pretending they can’t tell the difference between red and blue.

I’ve been told there’s no justification for. Having legal limitations on 3rd trimester abortions, because nobody ever aborts a healthy baby that far along, and no doctor would do it anyway. So I provided evidence that while rare, they do actually happen.

Who told you that there is no justification for having legal limits on third trimester abortions? Can you quote them?

I think you tend to see things as black or white with very little allowances for shades of gray, and that's affecting how you interpret what people are saying about the inherent dangers of strict regulations, draconian laws, and absolute barriers to third trimester abortions. I see people saying there is justification for having rules and guidelines based on medical ethics and upheld by medical boards that regulate the practice of medicine in their states

BUT

those rules and regulations need to be flexible because not every medical condition is just like the textbook example, and a hard "no" on abortions increases the chances of women dying for no good reason.

I see people saying we need to rely on certified medical professionals because they are the ones with the knowledge base and skill set needed to decide when it is medically necessary to abort a fetus, and not rely on politicians because most of them know fuck-all about pregnancy and women's health.

I’ve been told no clinic would ever do it that far along unless there’s a clear medical need, so I provided links to a clinic that advertises that they will do them up to 39 weeks.

Please repost that link. I missed it earlier.

You know what? I’m just plain tired of this game. You complained about me getting into weeds, and said that me stating clearly (for the thousandth time) that I want a federal law that matches the standards of RvW. But you’ve immediately turned right around and demanded that I have to be able to specify exactly and in detail how that would be enforced. I’m not a damned lawyer or lawmaker. I don’t know, but my lack of specific knowledge outside my wheelhouse doesn’t negate it in any way, and it’s frankly stupid to make such a demand.

I did not make any such demands.

To quote myself from post#5659:

What do you think should be done, Emily?

I realize you might not have a fully formed proposal but please share what suggestions you have to improve the assessment of medical need and monitoring of abortion providers.

I am asking for your suggestions. What do you think can be done to improve the current situation in your state or mine?

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. If it's yours, then just say it.

Personally, I think the pregnant woman has final say over all medical matters affecting her until fetal viability has been reached. After that point I think doctors have a duty to preserve the life of both the pregnant woman and her fetus. However, the chances of a fetus surviving delivery at 24-28 weeks are slight so medical decisions should weigh heavily in the favor of the pregnant woman until much later in the pregnancy. IMO the guiding principle should be for doctors to save both if they can but concentrate on saving the one most likely to survive. If they err on the side of caution, it should be on the side of the one that has a proven ability to survive outside the womb.

 

[Elixir]

If they err on the side of caution, it should be on the side of the one that has a proven ability to survive outside the womb.

After my mom had my father taken off life support in 1959, she explained to me not only about that decision, but about how the primacy of the mother’s life was decided (at the time) in situations where it was clearly the mom or the baby.
“She can make more”.
I don’t think that’s a valid argument in all such cases, but odds of survival outside the womb, is.

 

[Bomb#20]

But the phrase “abortion on demand” has a life of its own; it should have been aborted in its first trimester.

So what phrase should replace it?

“Abortion”.
As opposed to “abortion upon approval” or whatever …

Well, as Toni pointed out upthread, that’s not what the word “abortion” means. Why would you want to tell people something that isn’t true? And as I pointed out upthread, using it that way is counterproductive — if using “abortion” to mean “having no laws limiting access” becomes normalized then we’ll have created an 80% consensus against abortion. Why do you think it’s a good idea to use it in place of “abortion on demand”?

You’ve misunderstood what I wrote upthread or perhaps I was imprecise about what the term abortion means from a medical standpoint—I am not going to search all of my posts in this thread but I assume I did not adequately describe or define what I meant.

Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus.

What is commonly called a miscarriage is also called a ‘natural’ or ‘spontaneous’ abortion.

Up to 25% of all pregnancies and 15-20 percent of all clinically established pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Most of these occur in the first 12 weeks after the last menstrual period.

Note that this does NOT include miscarriages/spontaneous abortions which have NOT been clinically established (ie no positive pregnancy test).

I stand by my statement unthread that we simply use the word abortion to describe the termination of a pregnancy, either spontaneous or induced. This confirms to the use of the terminology by the AMA and other medical associations.

As it is now, some women who have spontaneous abortions ( miscarriages) are being charged with homicide.

It’s odd that you’re going hyper-technical on the meaning of “abortion” while insisting on the colloquial meaning of “demand”. “Demand” technically is just the customer’s willingness to pay for the good or service at the supplier’s asking price, and that’s all abortion-on-demand refers to. Nobody thinks markets being governed by supply and demand means Musk has to build a space rocket for anyone who goes up to him and demands one. But you’re quite right that the dual meanings have led to the term being weaponized against women. That’s what makes your post so odd. You’re describing exactly the same phenomenon with the word “abortion” — the dual meanings are being used to weaponize that word against women too. The sensible thing to do is to get the medical community to stop using it as a synonym for “miscarriage”. But you’re defending that usage on a technicality.

 

[Elixir]

that’s not what the word “abortion” means

Right. That’s what I complained about.
Abortion shouldn’t have to be qualified with bullshit like “on demand” to differentiate it from illegal abortion; illegal abortion should need the qualification. “Abortion” should mean every abortion.

BTW I don’t expect my every complaint to be codified, or even to become common use. Not in the face of the conservatives’ billions pushing “abortion on demand” and similar vilifications, anyhow.

 

[Toni]

But the phrase “abortion on demand” has a life of its own; it should have been aborted in its first trimester.

So what phrase should replace it?

“Abortion”.
As opposed to “abortion upon approval” or whatever …

Well, as Toni pointed out upthread, that’s not what the word “abortion” means. Why would you want to tell people something that isn’t true? And as I pointed out upthread, using it that way is counterproductive — if using “abortion” to mean “having no laws limiting access” becomes normalized then we’ll have created an 80% consensus against abortion. Why do you think it’s a good idea to use it in place of “abortion on demand”?

You’ve misunderstood what I wrote upthread or perhaps I was imprecise about what the term abortion means from a medical standpoint—I am not going to search all of my posts in this thread but I assume I did not adequately describe or define what I meant.

Abortion is the spontaneous or induced termination of a pregnancy prior to viability of a fetus.

What is commonly called a miscarriage is also called a ‘natural’ or ‘spontaneous’ abortion.

Up to 25% of all pregnancies and 15-20 percent of all clinically established pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Most of these occur in the first 12 weeks after the last menstrual period.

Note that this does NOT include miscarriages/spontaneous abortions which have NOT been clinically established (ie no positive pregnancy test).

I stand by my statement unthread that we simply use the word abortion to describe the termination of a pregnancy, either spontaneous or induced. This confirms to the use of the terminology by the AMA and other medical associations.

As it is now, some women who have spontaneous abortions ( miscarriages) are being charged with homicide.

It’s odd that you’re going hyper-technical on the meaning of “abortion” while insisting on the colloquial meaning of “demand”. “Demand” technically is just the customer’s willingness to pay for the good or service at the supplier’s asking price, and that’s all abortion-on-demand refers to. Nobody thinks markets being governed by supply and demand means Musk has to build a space rocket for anyone who goes up to him and demands one. But you’re quite right that the dual meanings have led to the term being weaponized against women. That’s what makes your post so odd. You’re describing exactly the same phenomenon with the word “abortion” — the dual meanings are being used to weaponize that word against women too. The sensible thing to do is to get the medical community to stop using it as a synonym for “miscarriage”. But you’re defending that usage on a technicality.

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

 

[Bomb#20]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

But that’s exactly what abortion on demand is, in Oregon for example— a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on terms of the deal without state interference. If the mother is being coerced she’s not really a willing buyer; if the doctor thinks it will injure or kill her he or she won’t be a willing seller, any more than Musk would willingly bolt a Falcon 9 onto a customer’s capsule if it looked like an unspaceworthy craft that would kill its pilot. That doesn’t mean Musk’s price for launching services isn’t based on supply and demand.

 

[Toni]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

But that’s exactly what abortion on demand is, in Oregon for example— a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on terms of the deal without state interference. If the mother is being coerced she’s not really a willing buyer; if the doctor thinks it will injure or kill her he or she won’t be a willing seller, any more than Musk would willingly bolt a Falcon 9 onto a customer’s capsule if it looked like an unspaceworthy craft that would kill its pilot. That doesn’t mean Musk’s price for launching services isn’t based on supply and demand.

I’m objecting to the term on demand because I don’t think it’s very accurate and I do think it’s very inflammatory. Inflammatory means dangerous for women and abortion providers and clinic workers.

If the doctor thinks it’s not medically sound to perform an abortions she might well try to convince her or seek out another provider. People seeking abortions are generally pretty desperate to terminate the pregnancy.

 

[Elixir]

@Bomb#20 , do you really believe that those pushing opposition to “abortion on demand” are trying to inform people of mothers’ willingness to pay for medical services? That’s bullshit.
They are dishonestly imply the VERB:

“As a verb, demand means to ask for something urgently, forcefully, or with a claim of authority.”

They are implying - stating flat out, actually - that regardless of who the payer might be, pregnant women are demanding abortions and expect their demand to be accommodated, regardless.
3rd trimester, or even already born and breathing, sufficiently strident “demands” are acquiesced to, and babies die.
That’s the message, and I don’t believe you can credibly deny knowing that.

 

[Toni]

Abortion on demand isn’t really a thing, though. At least in any sort of legal/liicensed setting. Possibly there is whatever the equivalent of back alley abortions being performed. I’m not talking about illegal abortions provided by unlicensed persons.

If you want to have an abortion then there is some screening for length of pregnancy, medical conditions, etc. and generally to ensure it is what the woman wants—she is not being coerced.

If there is any medically contraindication, she’s not likely to find a legal provider who will proceed.

But that’s exactly what abortion on demand is, in Oregon for example— a willing buyer and a willing seller agreeing on terms of the deal without state interference. If the mother is being coerced she’s not really a willing buyer; if the doctor thinks it will injure or kill her he or she won’t be a willing seller, any more than Musk would willingly bolt a Falcon 9 onto a customer’s capsule if it looked like an unspaceworthy craft that would kill its pilot. That doesn’t mean Musk’s price for launching services isn’t based on supply and demand.

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.

 

[Bomb#20]

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.

Do you think when abortion rights activists adopted the abortion on demand phrase as their slogan in the seventies, they meant for a bombed or high customer to get one no questions asked?

 

[Arctish]

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.

Do you think when abortion rights activists adopted the abortion on demand phrase as their slogan in the seventies, they meant for a bombed or high customer to get one no questions asked?

Meanings change in living languages, and context is important.

"Don we now our gay apparel" didn't used to mean we're getting ready to meet our Grindr hookups.

 

[Toni]

If someone walks into a clinic bombed or high abd demands an abortion: she’s not going to get one. She’s going to have to sober up and then have a nice interview to determine her mental status, abc her actual wishes, medical condition, etc.

Do you think when abortion rights activists adopted the abortion on demand phrase as their slogan in the seventies, they meant for a bombed or high customer to get one no questions asked?

I think that abortion advocates expected that all appropriate medical criteria be observed when performing an abortion or any other procedure.

Surgery of any kind is contraindicated if the individual is inebriated or under the influence of recreational ( and some other) drugs Abd many prescriptions.

 

[Bomb#20]

if using “abortion” to mean “having no laws limiting access”…

So you feel that it needs a qualifier?
To differentiate this abortion from that abortion?
If I added the word “accessible”, do you think “accessible abortion” would be any less horrifying to the public I was trying to get off women’s case? (I doubt it).
I think the word accessible should be considered implied, as it is with “appendectomy” or any other common, accessible medical procedure.

Oh for the love of god. “On demand” is not a qualifier! It isn’t there to differentiate different subsets of abortions. It’s not a bloody adjective! “Abortion” is the name of a medical procedure. “Abortion on demand” is the name of a government policy, the policy of not getting involved. If you want to get rid of the phrase “abortion on demand” you’re going to need a new name for that policy if you want to go on advocating it. “Abortion” is a nutty term to use for the policy because it’s a procedure, not a policy, and because it will make everyone who uses it that way confusing and everyone who hears it used that way confused, and because it will be rhetorically good for prolifers and bad for women. And the majority isn’t against the government-not-involved policy because the word “demand” is horrifying but because killing beings that seem indistinguishable from preemies in the nicu is horrifying. The public is going to call the hands-off policy something unless people like you stop advocating it, which isn’t going to happen, so your only options are to come up with a better name for your preferred policy and get people to use it, or to have the public go on calling it “abortion on demand”. Pick one.

 

[Elixir]

Oh for the love of god. “On demand” is not a qualifier!

FFS Did you fail fourth grade grammar? I would not have thought so.
In this national debate “On demand” qualifies an abortion to differentiate it rhetorically from abortions performed due to medical necessity, determined by Church andr State.

 

[Bomb#20]

I’m objecting to the term on demand because I don’t think it’s very accurate and I do think it’s very inflammatory. Inflammatory means dangerous for women and abortion providers and clinic workers.

If the doctor thinks it’s not medically sound to perform an abortions she might well try to convince her or seek out another provider. People seeking abortions are generally pretty desperate to terminate the pregnancy.

Yes, I get all that— this is a situation where connotation matters more than technical definition. So why the devil don’t you apply the same nuanced considerations to “abortion” that you’re quite sensibly applying to “demand”? Why are you defending the use of “abortion” to refer to a noninduced miscarriage? That too is inflammatory and dangerous to women and abortion providers. And why on earth would you want to compound the problem by adding yet a third meaning to “abortion” — using it to mean the concept currently known as “abortion on demand”? That will just ensure that when a woman gets a first trimester medically necessary abortion people who find out she. had it will equate it with an unnecessary third trimester abortion — which will once again be inflammatory and dangerous.

 

[Toni]

I’m objecting to the term on demand because I don’t think it’s very accurate and I do think it’s very inflammatory. Inflammatory means dangerous for women and abortion providers and clinic workers.

If the doctor thinks it’s not medically sound to perform an abortions she might well try to convince her or seek out another provider. People seeking abortions are generally pretty desperate to terminate the pregnancy.

Yes, I get all that— this is a situation where connotation matters more than technical definition. So why the devil don’t you apply the same nuanced considerations to “abortion” that you’re quite sensibly applying to “demand”? Why are you defending the use of “abortion” to refer to a noninduced miscarriage? That too is inflammatory and dangerous to women and abortion providers. And why on earth would you want to compound the problem by adding yet a third meaning to “abortion” — using it to mean the concept currently known as “abortion on demand”? That will just ensure that when a woman gets a first trimester medically necessary abortion people who find out she. had it will equate it with an unnecessary third trimester abortion — which will once again be inflammatory and dangerous.

Because that's what abortion is. Miscarriage is the non-rigorous term, not abortion.

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

 

[thebeave]

A lot more people who oppose third trimester abortion also oppose first and second trimester abortions than do not.

I question this claim. Here is results of a Gallup opinion poll (from 2018, so prior to the SC RvW decision). Is your claim supported within this survey data?

Trimesters Still Key to U.S. Abortion Views

 

[Emily Lake]

This isn’t hard. Require a medical necessity by law; rely on doctors to determine whether medical necessity is present and document the diagnose that supports it.

I don't trust the idiots that write the legislation to have a grasp of any particular situation.
For instance, why would I believe that some idiot running for office knows enough about "medical necessity" to define it for everyone? I don't think so at all. And I'm convinced that the majority of them will keep up the "crueler than thou" competition currently raging in US government for the sake of wealth and power.

I agree that a few late term abortions are morally repugnant, but I don't think that government interference in women's reproductive care is a solution.
Tom

Legislators don’t need to define medical necessity. They don’t define medical necessity for ACA when it comes to provisions for reconstructive and corrective surgery as opposed to cosmetic. The refs say the first two must be covered by insurance, and the latter cannot be eligible for subsidized coverage.

This is no different, and it’s increasingly absurd to pretend that such detail is required.

If it’s medically necessary, there will be a diagnosis code of the medical condition that supports it, documented in the medical records as the supporting evidence for why the procedure was done.

Cosmetic surgery won’t have a diagnosis code, because theres nothing to diagnose - there’s no medical diagnosis for “customer wants a smaller nose”. Corrective surgery will, because “deviated septum that restricts or diverts airflow” is an actual medical condition. There is no diagnosis code for “customer wants big ok’ titties”. There is a diagnosis code for “replace tissue lost to mastectomy” as well as for “giant boobies causing persistent back strain and ligament damage”.

Why are you (and others) demanding a degree of perfect specificity for this that is not present in any other regulations?

 

[Emily Lake]

I disagree. I don’t think every single variable needs to be spelled out. There simply needs to be a medical necessity for an abortion in the 3rd trimester.

Who in this scenario determines medical necessity?

Doctors, you nitwit.

I have answered this multiple times. This is not difficult. Requiring that there be a medical need doesn’t mean that anyone other than a doctor is making that determination. I swear this entire discussion is willful obtuseness. I have a hard time believing that so many people complete lack basic reasoning skills.

Use your vast reasoning abilities to explain to this sea of morons how that is different than
1) the guidelines from either the AMA or the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that are written by doctors that you reject as insufficient, and

For the gajillionth time… none of the “guidelines” include any language whatsoever that require a medical necessity in the late term. Appealing to nonexistent guidelines as a sufficient safeguard is absurd.

2) the principle that the decision should be left to the pregnant woman and her doctor that you dismiss.

If the doctor has your view and the woman has Jarhyn’s, then you both wouldn’t even blink at killing a baby the day before it’s due.

Hell, if both the doctor and mother have Jarhyn’s view, they might well decide it’s okay to kill an inconvenient toddler because they aren’t people.

The obvious point that your genius reasoning missed is that you advocate for doctors determining medical necessity while simultaneously denying their expertise in constructing guidelines or making medically necessary judgments.

If they actually made guidelines that restricted 3rd T abortions, and those guidelines were universally applicable, I would be fine with it. But they haven’t done so, and such guidelines don’t exist that do that.

Right now, the ‘judgement’ of a doctor with your beliefs and a patient with Elixir’s would be to kill a baby two days before it’s due if that’s what the mother wants, even if both the mother and baby are perfectly healthy.

I don’t think that should be legally allowable, no more than I think it should be legally for a doctor to amputate a healthy appendage if a person walks in off the street and just says “hey, I don’t like my left arm, I want you to cut it off”.

 

[Emily Lake]

. What do you think can be done to improve the current situation in your state or mine?

I don’t think anything needs to be specified or monitored at all. I think we simply need a clear regulation that requires a medical diagnosis of an issue that justifies a 3rd T abortion. You know… require a doctor to document a legitimate diagnosis code in the records.

Which I’ve said several times over the course of a year or more.

Why do you seem to feel that something more specific is required?

"I don't know" is a perfectly valid answer. If it's yours, then just say it.

Personally, I think the pregnant woman has final say over all medical matters affecting her until fetal viability has been reached. After that point I think doctors have a duty to preserve the life of both the pregnant woman and her fetus. However, the chances of a fetus surviving delivery at 24-28 weeks are slight so medical decisions should weigh heavily in the favor of the pregnant woman until much later in the pregnancy. IMO the guiding principle should be for doctors to save both if they can but concentrate on saving the one most likely to survive. If they err on the side of caution, it should be on the side of the one that has a proven ability to survive outside the womb.

Survival for a prematurely delivered baby at 28 weeks is between 85% and 90% with no notable long term issues. At 27 weeks (start if 3rd trimester) it’s 80%.

At no point have I suggested a viability threshold lower than 27 weeks, and I’d be content with 28. You could probably negotiate me to 29 if it gets us to an agreement.

Your view appears to align quite closely with mine. So why are you arguing against me? What part of my position is the hang-up for you?