Roe v Wade is on deck

[Loren Pechtel]

Republican opposition to abortion threatens global HIV/AIDS program that has saved 25 million lives

Two decades ago, the U.S. government created what's described as the largest commitment by any nation in history to combat a single disease, AIDS.

apnews.com

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — The graves at the edge of the orphanage tell a story of despair. The rough planks in the cracked earth are painted with the names of children, most of them dead in the 1990s. That was before the HIV drugs arrived.

Today, the orphanage in Kenya’s capital is a happier, more hopeful place for children with HIV. But a political fight taking place in the United States is threatening the program that helps to keep them and millions of others around the world alive.

The reason for the threat? Abortion.

The AIDS epidemic has killed more than 40 million people since the first recorded cases in 1981, tripling child mortality and carving decades off life expectancy in the hardest-hit areas of Africa, where the cost of treatment put it out of reach. Horrified, then-President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress two decades ago created what is described as the largest commitment by any nation to combat a single disease.

The program, known as the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, partners with nonprofit groups to provide HIV/AIDS medication to millions around the world. It strengthens local and national health care systems, cares for children orphaned by AIDS and provides job training for people at risk.


Now, a few Republican lawmakers are endangering the stability of the program, which officials say has saved 25 million lives in 55 countries from Ukraine to Brazil to Indonesia. That includes the lives of 5.5 million infants born HIV-free.

At the Catholic-run Nairobi orphanage, program manager Paul Mulongo has a message for Washington.

“Let them know that the lives of these children we are taking care of are purely in their hands,” Mulongo says.

Well, duh! Sex is supposed to be dangerous. HIV is one of God's punishments. Quit doing Satan's work!

 

[lpetrich]

Texas highways are the next anti-abortion target | The Texas Tribune - "Even in conservative corners of Texas, efforts to crack down on abortion travel are meeting resistance with some local officials who support Texas’s strict abortion laws, expressing concern that the efforts go too far."

As the meeting began on a late August evening, residents spilled out into the hallway, the brim of one cowboy hat kissing the next, each person jostling for a look at the five city council members who would decide whether to make Llano the third city in Texas to outlaw what some antiabortion activists call “abortion trafficking.”

...
“I feel like there’s a lot more to discuss about this,” said Laura Almond, a staunch conservative who owns a consignment shop in the middle of town. “I have a ton of questions.”

More than a year after Roe v. Wade was overturned, many conservatives have grown frustrated by the number of people able to circumvent antiabortion laws — with some advocates grasping for even stricter measures they hope will fully eradicate abortion nationwide.

... ordinances like the one proposed in Llano ... make it illegal to transport anyone to get an abortion on roads within the city or county limits. The laws allow any private citizen to sue a person or organization they suspect of violating the ordinance.

Antiabortion advocates behind the measure are targeting regions along interstates and in areas with airports, with the goal of blocking off the main arteries out of Texas and keeping pregnant women hemmed within the confines of their antiabortion state.

...
By Dickson’s definition, “abortion trafficking” is the act of helping any pregnant woman cross state lines to end her pregnancy, lending her a ride, funding, or another form of support. While the term “trafficking” typically refers to people who are forced, tricked or coerced, Dickson’s definition applies to all people seeking abortions — because, he argues, “the unborn child is always taken against their will.”

More:
The unconstitutional plan to trap women who need an abortion in Texas - Vox

More than a year ago, anti-abortion activists appeared eager to prohibit anyone seeking an abortion in a state where it is banned from traveling to another state where it is legal. Indeed, many lawmakers appeared so eager to enact such travel bans that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, of all people, attempted to cut off these laws before they could be enacted.

“May a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion?” Kavanaugh asked in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the decision overruling Roe v. Wade. “In my view, the answer is no,” Kavanaugh replied to his own question, “based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” The Constitution has long been understood to allow US citizens to travel among the states.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hyper Partisan Ohio Supreme Court okays the BS language added to the summary for the Reproductive Rights Amendment on the ballot this November.

The original version supplied by the people trying to get the amendment passed is here and uses actually science terms.

The proposed amendment would: Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.

Yeah... they can't win straight up so the GOP does what they've been doing since Nixon, lying their fucking asses off.

 

[cycomiko]

Hyper Partisan Ohio Supreme Court okays the BS language added to the summary for the Reproductive Rights Amendment on the ballot this November.

The original version supplied by the people trying to get the amendment passed is here and uses actually science terms.

The proposed amendment would: Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.

Yeah... they can't win straight up so the GOP does what they've been doing since Nixon, lying their fucking asses off.

Does Ohio provide a voter pamphlet like they do here in WA? Google didn't have what I was looking for. When I lived in UT they told me I had to contact each organization or candidate for statements.

Anyway, in WA, a few weeks before the elections, we get a pamphlet with info on every candidate or measure to be voted on. The candidates get to provide a statement or purpose or belief or whatever. Each measure has a statement FOR and AGAINST that's provided by whatever org. If Ohio had such a thing the "against" side could provide a clarifying statement.

Side note: I was stoked to move back to WA after six years and get my first voter pamphlet and find that Goodspaceguy is still on the ballot every time.

 

[crazyfingers]

Anyway, in WA, a few weeks before the elections, we get a pamphlet with info on every candidate or measure to be voted on. The candidates get to provide a statement or purpose or belief or whatever. Each measure has a statement FOR and AGAINST that's provided by whatever org. If Ohio had such a thing the "against" side could provide a clarifying statement.

We get a pamphlet like that in Massachusetts. It doesn't have pros and cons on candidates but does have the working of any ballot measure and Pros and Cons on each.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In Ohio, that might show up in a newspaper. The GOP doesn't want people actually knowing what they are voting on.

 

[cycomiko]

In Ohio, that might show up in a newspaper. The GOP doesn't want people actually knowing what they are voting on.

Give the GOP a break. Do you know how hard it is to get people to vote against their own interests? Only libtards want to be well informed.

 

[Copernicus]

Hyper Partisan Ohio Supreme Court okays the BS language added to the summary for the Reproductive Rights Amendment on the ballot this November.

The original version supplied by the people trying to get the amendment passed is here and uses actually science terms.

The proposed amendment would: Always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability if, in the treating physician’s determination, the abortion is necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health.

Yeah... they can't win straight up so the GOP does what they've been doing since Nixon, lying their fucking asses off.

Does Ohio provide a voter pamphlet like they do here in WA? Google didn't have what I was looking for. When I lived in UT they told me I had to contact each organization or candidate for statements.

Anyway, in WA, a few weeks before the elections, we get a pamphlet with info on every candidate or measure to be voted on. The candidates get to provide a statement or purpose or belief or whatever. Each measure has a statement FOR and AGAINST that's provided by whatever org. If Ohio had such a thing the "against" side could provide a clarifying statement.

Side note: I was stoked to move back to WA after six years and get my first voter pamphlet and find that Goodspaceguy is still on the ballot every time.

I grew up in Ohio and still have family there, so I sympathize with people who have to put up with that nonsense. Religious fanaticism has always been a strong factor in elections, but the newly emboldened Republican extremists will stop at no deception or outrage to keep their stranglehold on power. I am very glad to be living in Washington state, which has voter pamphlets that allow both sides to have their say and universal postage-free mail-in ballots. There is a big contrast between states that care about democracy and those that don't.

 

[ZiprHead]

The abortion myths Republicans are recycling to reframe a losing issue

Anti-abortion activists lost every referendum on the issue in 2022 and the right is scrambling to find a way to talk about a political hot potato

www.theguardian.com

 

[lpetrich]

Discussing:

‘Late-term abortions’

Abortions ‘up until the day of birth’

‘Post-birth abortions’

A 15-week abortion ban – and the questionable reasons for it

Seems like "We only want those bits of Czechoslovakia with lots of ethnic Germans in them" and hoping that pro-choicers will be like latter-day Neville Chamberlains. But Adolf Hitler was not satisfied, and anti-abortionists are also not satisfied, heavily restricting abortion or banning it outright when they can.

 

[ZiprHead]

A Woman Was Denied Medication for Being of ‘Childbearing Age.’ She Just Sued the Hospital

Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

jezebel.com

Rule said that as she sat in her neurologist’s office at Glens Falls Hospital, she told him she never planned to have kids and would have an abortion if she became pregnant; referencing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, he responded that getting the care she was seeking is “trickier now with the way things are going.” He also said she should bring her partner “in on the conversation” on her medical care. Rule asked if the issue preventing her from getting the “highly effective” medication was solely that she could become pregnant and, “If I was, like, through menopause, would [the medication] be very effective for cluster headaches?” The doctor affirmed it would. He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.” Rule shared audio recordings of the appointment on TikTok at the time.

Last week, Rule filed a lawsuit against Albany Medical Health Partners charging the largest hospital system in upstate New York with discrimination over the denial of her medication and a string of incidents afterward. The suit alleges that denying her medication because she’s of “childbearing age” and prioritizing an imagined fetus over her health violates federal law—specifically, the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination provisions and the Age Discrimination Act. “Where are we drawing the line here?” Rule told Jezebel. “Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test, proof they’re on birth control, get a hysterectomy, to get life-saving health care?” She said she hopes her lawsuit can create more medical protections for people of “childbearing age” post-Roe.

 

[Rhea]

What an ASSHOLE that doctor is! “Bring in your partner” on whether she can get meds for cluster headaches? Her uterus is someone else’s PROPERTY!?

And it’s not trickier in fucking NEW YORK where the governor signed legislation that guarantees the right to an abortion! What a lying sack of fundamentalist shit!

On Eve of Dobbs Decision Anniversary, Governor Hochul Signs Legislation Strengthening Access to Reproductive Health Care

Governor Hochul signed legislation into law to strengthen access to reproductive health care and protect patients and doctors who require abortion care through telehealth services.

www.governor.ny.gov

He should not be allowed to treat patients like that.

 

[Toni]

A Woman Was Denied Medication for Being of ‘Childbearing Age.’ She Just Sued the Hospital

Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

jezebel.com

Rule said that as she sat in her neurologist’s office at Glens Falls Hospital, she told him she never planned to have kids and would have an abortion if she became pregnant; referencing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, he responded that getting the care she was seeking is “trickier now with the way things are going.” He also said she should bring her partner “in on the conversation” on her medical care. Rule asked if the issue preventing her from getting the “highly effective” medication was solely that she could become pregnant and, “If I was, like, through menopause, would [the medication] be very effective for cluster headaches?” The doctor affirmed it would. He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.” Rule shared audio recordings of the appointment on TikTok at the time.

Last week, Rule filed a lawsuit against Albany Medical Health Partners charging the largest hospital system in upstate New York with discrimination over the denial of her medication and a string of incidents afterward. The suit alleges that denying her medication because she’s of “childbearing age” and prioritizing an imagined fetus over her health violates federal law—specifically, the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination provisions and the Age Discrimination Act. “Where are we drawing the line here?” Rule told Jezebel. “Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test, proof they’re on birth control, get a hysterectomy, to get life-saving health care?” She said she hopes her lawsuit can create more medical protections for people of “childbearing age” post-Roe.

That ‘like’ should have been the horrified emoji. I’ve heard of things like this happening. FWIW, my sister used to suffer from cluster headaches which make migraines seem like a pleasant day in the park in comparison.

The doctor would have been remiss if he had failed to ask her if she hoped to become pregnant and if he failed to discuss the dangers/incompatibility of a health pregnancy while being treated. In fact, various firms of birth control should have been discussed to find the method most compatible with treatment t for cluster headaches. This should be as routine as discussing any other medication or condition that could affect treatment or be affected by the treatment.

 

[Rhea]

The doctor would have been remiss if he had failed to ask her if she hoped to become pregnant and if he failed to discuss the dangers/incompatibility of a health pregnancy while being treated.

Sure, agree - until the moment she said she did not WANT to get pregnant and would get an abortion if she did.

 

[Toni]

The doctor would have been remiss if he had failed to ask her if she hoped to become pregnant and if he failed to discuss the dangers/incompatibility of a health pregnancy while being treated.

Sure, agree - until the moment she said she did not WANT to get pregnant and would get an abortion if she did.

Right—but he still needed to know what type of birth control she was using because that can affect other medical actions. And to ensure that she would not become pregnant while being treated for cluster headaches.

And of course, sometimes people change their minds when confronted with an unplanned pregnancy. Either way.

Please don’t misunderstand: She deserved to be believed and treated for her cluster headaches. But it was his responsibility as her treating physician to ensure she understood the stakes and that an appropriate effective contraceptive was used during treatment.

 

[Rhea]

The doctor would have been remiss if he had failed to ask her if she hoped to become pregnant and if he failed to discuss the dangers/incompatibility of a health pregnancy while being treated.

Sure, agree - until the moment she said she did not WANT to get pregnant and would get an abortion if she did.

Right—but he still needed to know what type of birth control she was using because that can affect other medical actions. And to ensure that she would not become pregnant while being treated for cluster headaches.

And of course, sometimes people change their minds when confronted with an unplanned pregnancy. Either way.

Please don’t misunderstand: She deserved to be believed and treated for her cluster headaches. But it was his responsibility as her treating physician to ensure she understood the stakes and that an appropriate effective contraceptive was used during treatment.

I’m not able to parse how your reasonable position of making sure meds don’t interact dangerously absolves the doctor’s UNreasonable position when he said:

he responded that getting the care she was seeking is “trickier now with the way things are going.” He also said she should bring her partner “in on the conversation” on her medical care. Rule asked if the issue preventing her from getting the “highly effective” medication was solely that she could become pregnant and, “If I was, like, through menopause, would [the medication] be very effective for cluster headaches?” The doctor affirmed it would. He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.”

None of these statements or questions operates in the service of making sure her current birth control will contraindicate the meds or whether she might change her mind on a hypothetical pregnancy.


There’s NO “TRICKY” involved with a patient getting a med that would necessitate an abortion in NY. Abortion is fully legal and accessible.
There’s NO REASON for her partner to have a say in this.
There’s NO RELEVANCE of whether her sex partners are steady.

So none of these are Doctor’s “responsibility” to know, and that is why he’s being sued for age discrimination. (Really put an asterisk and call it sexism)

 

[Copernicus]

Rhea is right about the way the doctor framed the medical care of his patient. She made clear what her private decisions were regarding her health care, and her partner might have a concern if she were planning to become pregnant, but that would still be her private business. The doctor's role was only to advise her on her own medical care, not her relationship with her partner. That was a blatant attempt to interfere with her private life rather than his duty as a medical adviser. He was making his decision on what medicine to prescribe on the basis of his opinion of her relationship with a male partner.

 

[Toni]

The doctor would have been remiss if he had failed to ask her if she hoped to become pregnant and if he failed to discuss the dangers/incompatibility of a health pregnancy while being treated.

Sure, agree - until the moment she said she did not WANT to get pregnant and would get an abortion if she did.

Right—but he still needed to know what type of birth control she was using because that can affect other medical actions. And to ensure that she would not become pregnant while being treated for cluster headaches.

And of course, sometimes people change their minds when confronted with an unplanned pregnancy. Either way.

Please don’t misunderstand: She deserved to be believed and treated for her cluster headaches. But it was his responsibility as her treating physician to ensure she understood the stakes and that an appropriate effective contraceptive was used during treatment.

I’m not able to parse how your reasonable position of making sure meds don’t interact dangerously absolves the doctor’s UNreasonable position when he said:

he responded that getting the care she was seeking is “trickier now with the way things are going.” He also said she should bring her partner “in on the conversation” on her medical care. Rule asked if the issue preventing her from getting the “highly effective” medication was solely that she could become pregnant and, “If I was, like, through menopause, would [the medication] be very effective for cluster headaches?” The doctor affirmed it would. He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.”

None of these statements or questions operates in the service of making sure her current birth control will contraindicate the meds or whether she might change her mind on a hypothetical pregnancy.


There’s NO “TRICKY” involved with a patient getting a med that would necessitate an abortion in NY. Abortion is fully legal and accessible.
There’s NO REASON for her partner to have a say in this.
There’s NO RELEVANCE of whether her sex partners are steady.

So none of these are Doctor’s “responsibility” to know, and that is why he’s being sued for age discrimination. (Really put an asterisk and call it sexism)

Oh, absolutely the doctor was wrong!

He does have an obligation to ensure that the patient understands the risks if she were to become pregnant while on that medication—and depending on where she lives, an abortion might not be easily obtainable. She’s in NY so it should not be a problem. But if she were not? The doctor would need to know and should point out that a termination could be problematic if she were in a different state. Her health could very much be at risk

As the account of that doctor visit is related, the doctor is quite in the wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A Woman Was Denied Medication for Being of ‘Childbearing Age.’ She Just Sued the Hospital

Tara Rule says her doctor in upstate New York was “determined to protect a hypothetical fetus" instead of helping her treat debilitating pain.

jezebel.com

Rule said that as she sat in her neurologist’s office at Glens Falls Hospital, she told him she never planned to have kids and would have an abortion if she became pregnant; referencing the overturning of Roe v. Wade, he responded that getting the care she was seeking is “trickier now with the way things are going.” He also said she should bring her partner “in on the conversation” on her medical care. Rule asked if the issue preventing her from getting the “highly effective” medication was solely that she could become pregnant and, “If I was, like, through menopause, would [the medication] be very effective for cluster headaches?” The doctor affirmed it would. He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.” Rule shared audio recordings of the appointment on TikTok at the time.

Last week, Rule filed a lawsuit against Albany Medical Health Partners charging the largest hospital system in upstate New York with discrimination over the denial of her medication and a string of incidents afterward. The suit alleges that denying her medication because she’s of “childbearing age” and prioritizing an imagined fetus over her health violates federal law—specifically, the Affordable Care Act’s anti-discrimination provisions and the Age Discrimination Act. “Where are we drawing the line here?” Rule told Jezebel. “Are hospitals going to require someone to share a pregnancy test, proof they’re on birth control, get a hysterectomy, to get life-saving health care?” She said she hopes her lawsuit can create more medical protections for people of “childbearing age” post-Roe.

Malpractice as far as I'm concerned.

The medical community has already figured out how to handle pregnancy class X drugs. The ultimate example is still in use: thalidomide. (The blocking of blood vessel development can be useful in some situations.) It's handled by requiring doubled contraception, not by denying the drug unless the woman is non-compliant. (Same as long term use of some schedule II drugs--the patient signs an agreement about what they will and won't do while on it.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What an ASSHOLE that doctor is! “Bring in your partner” on whether she can get meds for cluster headaches? Her uterus is someone else’s PROPERTY!?

Actually, I don't have a problem with that part of it--the partner should know how badly a pregnancy could go and pretty much has to know if the doctor is going to require doubled contraception to use the drug.