Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

I get an impression with this case that she's being dismissive of the doctor's attempts at risk mitigation.

Where is his duty? To his patient or to his malpractice insurers?

Cluster headaches do not resolve in a few years.

In the real world he's going to listen to his malpractice insurers.

I think I might have found the drug--a slew of nasty things it can do to the fetus and it's basically a last resort drug for fertile women. I'm not finding anything specific about contraception requirements, though.

His duty is to his patient. He took an oath.

Nobody needs to read the package insert , Loren. That’s not the issue. Everyone accepts that the medication would be devastating to a developing fetus.

Only one person seems to care about the woman who is alive and suffering instead of a hypothetical fetus that has not be and is never intended to be conceived.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I get an impression with this case that she's being dismissive of the doctor's attempts at risk mitigation.

Where is his duty? To his patient or to his malpractice insurers?

Cluster headaches do not resolve in a few years.

In the real world he's going to listen to his malpractice insurers.

I think I might have found the drug--a slew of nasty things it can do to the fetus and it's basically a last resort drug for fertile women. I'm not finding anything specific about contraception requirements, though.

His duty is to his patient. He took an oath.

Nobody needs to read the package insert , Loren. That’s not the issue. Everyone accepts that the medication would be devastating to a developing fetus.

Only one person seems to care about the woman who is alive and suffering instead of a hypothetical fetus that has not be and is never intended to be conceived.

Medicine works on defense in depth whenever possible.

If I'm right about the drug it's a last resort drug for women capable of becoming pregnant--and we do not know if they actually need to use a last resort drug in this case.

 

[bilby]

@Loren Pechtel - please just stop digging. You're so far in the hole that even Lassie has given up on you at this point.

 

[Copernicus]

@Loren Pechtel - please just stop digging. You're so far in the hole that even Lassie has given up on you at this point.

Quit dogging him to stop digging down in that hole. He has gone so far out on a limb that you need to start barking up the tree he is in.

 

[Rhea]

Apparently it is really really important to make sure the message that women can’t be trusted to make their own medical decisions is argued loud and strong. Especially when you have are not a woman and have no idea at all what women know or don’t know, but you are absolutely ACHINGLY certain that it’s less than you.

 

[laughing dog]

I understand LP’s position. It is a simple application of the Hippocratic oath - First, do no harm - to the doctor’s expected malpractice premium.

Of course, LP’s focus is entirely misplaced. If the physician was concerned about the drug’s potential effects on a possible pregnancy, the obvious course of action would be to discuss those concerns with the woman so that she understood them, and then suggest a pregnancy test instead of the course of action he took.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

His duty is to his patient. He took an oath.

Nobody needs to read the package insert , Loren. That’s not the issue. Everyone accepts that the medication would be devastating to a developing fetus.

Only one person seems to care about the woman who is alive and suffering instead of a hypothetical fetus that has not be and is never intended to be conceived.

Medicine works on defense in depth whenever possible.

If I'm right about the drug it's a last resort drug for women capable of becoming pregnant--and we do not know if they actually need to use a last resort drug in this case.

Technically, there is no harm in getting pregnant. She can't bear a fetus to birth while on the drug. Maybe she should get a tattoo explaining it for men.

 

[Toni]

His duty is to his patient. He took an oath.

Nobody needs to read the package insert , Loren. That’s not the issue. Everyone accepts that the medication would be devastating to a developing fetus.

Only one person seems to care about the woman who is alive and suffering instead of a hypothetical fetus that has not be and is never intended to be conceived.

Medicine works on defense in depth whenever possible.

If I'm right about the drug it's a last resort drug for women capable of becoming pregnant--and we do not know if they actually need to use a last resort drug in this case.

Technically, there is no harm in getting pregnant. She can't bear a fetus to birth while on the drug. Maybe she should get a tattoo explaining it for men.

She’s going through enough. Maybe she should demand proof of vasectomy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There you go again, not thinking about the guy's feelings.

 

[Rhea]

Once again for those still watching in black and white - it’s her body. Hers and only hers.


The doctor is utterly out of line to do anything other than tell HER what SHE should do for safety.
And the men in this thread are utterly out of line trying to say that they know better than she does what she should do.


Her body is hers. She is having cluster headaches. The medication comes with some warnings. Those warnings have been delivered to her. Without some proof that she is being non-compliant AND that the non-compliance will harm her personally, then STFU And don’t try to pretend she needs your control.

 

[Elixir]

Texas Republicans Ban Women From Using Highways for Abortion Appointments​

This comes after six cities and counties in Texas have passed abortion-related bans, out of nine that have considered them. However, this ordinance makes Lubbock the biggest jurisdiction yet to pass restrictions on abortion-related transportation.

During Monday's meeting, the Lubbock County Commissioners Court passed an ordinance banning abortion, abortion-inducing drugs and travel for abortion in the unincorporated areas of Lubbock County, declaring Lubbock County a "Sanctuary County for the Unborn."

Oooookkay … do the women of Lubbock get tax rebates because they helped pay for roads they are now forbidden to use except under constraint?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that stuff is frightening. They are creating rules about what you can and can't do on the roadways now. Did they do this for child molestation or murder? No, just abortion.

 

[robnisch]

MSN

Not exactly what the Pro Life groups want to see. It has just shifted to other states.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, that stuff is frightening. They are creating rules about what you can and can't do on the roadways now. Did they do this for child molestation or murder? No, just abortion.

I'm pretty sure that molesting a child, or murdering someone, are both illegal acts, even if you do them on a public highway, although admittedly I am unaware of any child molester or murderer who attempted to use the "but I was on a public highway" defence, so I can't quote a specific judicial precedent.

 

[bilby]

Not exactly what the Pro Life groups want to see.

Oh, I don't know. I don't think they really care how many abortions actually occur; If they did, they would be campaigning for contraceptives to be handed out in high schools, as part of a detailed and comprehensive sex education program.

What they apparently want to see (based in their actions , rather than their words) is women being made to suffer; And they're being quite effective in that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that stuff is frightening. They are creating rules about what you can and can't do on the roadways now. Did they do this for child molestation or murder? No, just abortion.

I'm pretty sure that molesting a child, or murdering someone, are both illegal acts, even if you do them on a public highway, although admittedly I am unaware of any child molester or murderer who attempted to use the "but I was on a public highway" defence, so I can't quote a specific judicial precedent.

They are making it a crime to use a road to commit to a particular verb, and only one verb.

 

[Rhea]

Yeah, that stuff is frightening. They are creating rules about what you can and can't do on the roadways now. Did they do this for child molestation or murder? No, just abortion.

I'm pretty sure that molesting a child, or murdering someone, are both illegal acts, even if you do them on a public highway, although admittedly I am unaware of any child molester or murderer who attempted to use the "but I was on a public highway" defence, so I can't quote a specific judicial precedent.

But if you molest a child and get caught, you don’t ALSO get a ticket for driving on the highway to get there.

 

[bilby]

Yeah, that stuff is frightening. They are creating rules about what you can and can't do on the roadways now. Did they do this for child molestation or murder? No, just abortion.

I'm pretty sure that molesting a child, or murdering someone, are both illegal acts, even if you do them on a public highway, although admittedly I am unaware of any child molester or murderer who attempted to use the "but I was on a public highway" defence, so I can't quote a specific judicial precedent.

But if you molest a child and get caught, you don’t ALSO get a ticket for driving on the highway to get there.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, that stuff is frightening. They are creating rules about what you can and can't do on the roadways now. Did they do this for child molestation or murder? No, just abortion.

I'm pretty sure that molesting a child, or murdering someone, are both illegal acts, even if you do them on a public highway, although admittedly I am unaware of any child molester or murderer who attempted to use the "but I was on a public highway" defence, so I can't quote a specific judicial precedent.

Unfortunately the precedent is on their side. A good-hearted but I think bad law that makes it illegal for a US citizen to leave the country for the purpose of having sex with a minor. (I think there are some qualifications on that but I don't recall them at the moment.) It's meant to combat child sex tourism.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, that stuff is frightening. They are creating rules about what you can and can't do on the roadways now. Did they do this for child molestation or murder? No, just abortion.

I'm pretty sure that molesting a child, or murdering someone, are both illegal acts, even if you do them on a public highway, although admittedly I am unaware of any child molester or murderer who attempted to use the "but I was on a public highway" defence, so I can't quote a specific judicial precedent.

Unfortunately the precedent is on their side. A good-hearted but I think bad law that makes it illegal for a US citizen to leave the country for the purpose of having sex with a minor. (I think there are some qualifications on that but I don't recall them at the moment.) It's meant to combat child sex tourism.

You think that it is fine for US citizens to travel to other countries to have sex with children? Am I misunderstanding you?