Roe v Wade is on deck

[Politesse]

While I've always been a strong supporter of Women's Choice, I've always thought it absurd to claim that abortion rights are "guaranteed by the Constitution."

Do you feel that men and women are equally and fairly punished for the consequences of illicit sex?

Sprichts Englisch? Whatever.

Ah, so you never understood the legal argument to begin with.

Ah. So you think the Constitution require that if I get a woman pregnant, I must wear devices to simulate the burdens of pregnancy and childbirth?

Not at all. It is far better to relieve inequities by removing discriminatory laws, than by adding more. The purpose of the Roe decision was to minimize the burden of the law on the common citizen while still preserving both our civil rights and the power of the government to make necessary interventions. And that is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreens hand out medical records to cops without warrants

Lawmakers want HHS to revise health privacy law to require warrants.

arstechnica.com

ome will do so without even running the requests by a legal professional, according to a congressional investigation.

The revelation raises grave medical privacy concerns, particularly in a post-Dobbs era in which many states are working to criminalize reproductive health care. Even if people in states with restrictive laws cross state lines for care, pharmacists in massive chains, such as CVS, can access records across borders.

Lawmakers noted the pharmacies' policies for releasing medical records in a letter dated Tuesday to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra. The letter—signed by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.)—said their investigation pulled information from briefings with eight big prescription drug suppliers.

They include the seven largest pharmacy chains in the country: CVS Health, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Cigna, Optum Rx, Walmart Stores, Inc., The Kroger Company, and Rite Aid Corporation. The lawmakers also spoke with Amazon Pharmacy.

HIPAA violations all the way down.

I'm not going to get too upset with the companies. When you deal with sensitive stuff (and pharmacies have a lot of controlled substances) defying the cops can cause you a lot of grief while they "investigate" the "mishandling" of said stuff.

Then get a fucking warrant! That makes it so much easier for the pharmacy.

Congress would have to do that. As it stands the companies will be hurting themselves if they fight it.

I have to sign endless sets of paper to allow info to transition from my doctor to another doctor. But fhe State can have whatever they want when they want it?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not going to get too upset with the companies. When you deal with sensitive stuff (and pharmacies have a lot of controlled substances) defying the cops can cause you a lot of grief while they "investigate" the "mishandling" of said stuff.

Then get a fucking warrant! That makes it so much easier for the pharmacy.

Congress would have to do that. As it stands the companies will be hurting themselves if they fight it.

Where do you come up with this crap???

The problem is the company sees not complying as asking for regulators to audit them. They're not going to resist that pressure. The Supreme Court gave us the fruit of the poisoned tree to discourage warantless snooping but it doesn't prevent businesses being pressured into "consent" with the threat of inspections being used to get said "consent".

It's going to continue until something is done to stop it and I certainly don't think the current court will. Thus, Congress.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not going to get too upset with the companies. When you deal with sensitive stuff (and pharmacies have a lot of controlled substances) defying the cops can cause you a lot of grief while they "investigate" the "mishandling" of said stuff.

Then get a fucking warrant! That makes it so much easier for the pharmacy.

Congress would have to do that. As it stands the companies will be hurting themselves if they fight it.

Where do you come up with this crap???

The problem is the company sees not complying as asking for regulators to audit them. They're not going to resist that pressure. The Supreme Court gave us the fruit of the poisoned tree to discourage warantless snooping but it doesn't prevent businesses being pressured into "consent" with the threat of inspections being used to get said "consent".

It's going to continue until something is done to stop it and I certainly don't think the current court will. Thus, Congress.

Pharmacies are already regularly audited, at a minimum of every two years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm not going to get too upset with the companies. When you deal with sensitive stuff (and pharmacies have a lot of controlled substances) defying the cops can cause you a lot of grief while they "investigate" the "mishandling" of said stuff.

Then get a fucking warrant! That makes it so much easier for the pharmacy.

Congress would have to do that. As it stands the companies will be hurting themselves if they fight it.

Where do you come up with this crap???

The problem is the company sees not complying as asking for regulators to audit them. They're not going to resist that pressure. The Supreme Court gave us the fruit of the poisoned tree to discourage warantless snooping but it doesn't prevent businesses being pressured into "consent" with the threat of inspections being used to get said "consent".

It's going to continue until something is done to stop it and I certainly don't think the current court will. Thus, Congress.

Pharmacies are already regularly audited, at a minimum of every two years.

Doesn't mean they couldn't be subject to some additional probing if they weren't being sufficiently cooperative.

Police using the threat of inspection as a way to coerce cooperation is hardly news.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm not going to get too upset with the companies. When you deal with sensitive stuff (and pharmacies have a lot of controlled substances) defying the cops can cause you a lot of grief while they "investigate" the "mishandling" of said stuff.

Then get a fucking warrant! That makes it so much easier for the pharmacy.

Congress would have to do that. As it stands the companies will be hurting themselves if they fight it.

Where do you come up with this crap???

The problem is the company sees not complying as asking for regulators to audit them. They're not going to resist that pressure. The Supreme Court gave us the fruit of the poisoned tree to discourage warantless snooping but it doesn't prevent businesses being pressured into "consent" with the threat of inspections being used to get said "consent".

It's going to continue until something is done to stop it and I certainly don't think the current court will. Thus, Congress.

Pharmacies are already regularly audited, at a minimum of every two years.

Doesn't mean they couldn't be subject to some additional probing if they weren't being sufficiently cooperative.

Police using the threat of inspection as a way to coerce cooperation is hardly news.

Do you have some examples of this or are you just guessing?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just issued a crushing rebuttal of Justice Alito

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did more than properly characterize restrictions on abortions as potential discrimination on the basis of sex. It also took aim at the heart of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern wrote, the majority in Dobbs cherry-picked its way through history to justify eliminating the right to an abortion. Alito’s opinion relied upon centuries-old legal reasoning from a time when, for instance, marital rape was not a crime, women could not own property, and more generally, women were not full citizens under the law.

I particularly liked the sign being held by a person that said "Guns have more rights than my uterus." She could have just as easily said "Guns have more rights than women."

 

[ZiprHead]

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just issued a crushing rebuttal of Justice Alito

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did more than properly characterize restrictions on abortions as potential discrimination on the basis of sex. It also took aim at the heart of Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in Dobbs. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern wrote, the majority in Dobbs cherry-picked its way through history to justify eliminating the right to an abortion. Alito’s opinion relied upon centuries-old legal reasoning from a time when, for instance, marital rape was not a crime, women could not own property, and more generally, women were not full citizens under the law.

I particularly liked the sign being held by a person that said "Guns have more rights than my uterus." She could have just as easily said "Guns have more rights than women."

I pretty much said the same thing when the decision came down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And they're not planning on stopping at abortion:

https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/ok-senator-files-bill-to-punish-woman-getting-an-abortion-wants-to-ban-contraception/

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And they're not planning on stopping at abortion:

https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/ok-senator-files-bill-to-punish-woman-getting-an-abortion-wants-to-ban-contraception/

Sounds like another conservative douchebag who wants to milk a fanatical base for money.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And they're not planning on stopping at abortion:

https://kfor.com/news/oklahoma-legislature/ok-senator-files-bill-to-punish-woman-getting-an-abortion-wants-to-ban-contraception/

Sounds like another conservative douchebag who wants to milk a fanatical base for money.

Well that and Justice Thomas inferenced he wanted to do so in his concurring opinion to Dobbs... but it'd cost another boat to keep him on the bench.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well that and Justice Thomas inferenced he wanted to do so in his concurring opinion to Dobbs... but it'd cost another boat motor home to keep him on the bench.

FTFY

 

[Toni]

This is no surprise to any woman who has been paying attention at all since RoeVWade. We used to say that if men could get pregnant, abortion would reconsidered a holy sacrement. We were not wrong…

 

[TomC]

This is no surprise to any woman who has been paying attention at all since RoeVWade. We used to say that if men could get pregnant, abortion would reconsidered a holy sacrement. We were not wrong…

Who is "we"?
I'm a gay male Catholic nontheist.
I totally understood that 40 years ago.
Tom

 

[Toni]

This is no surprise to any woman who has been paying attention at all since RoeVWade. We used to say that if men could get pregnant, abortion would reconsidered a holy sacrement. We -were not wrong…

Who is "we"?
I'm a gay male Catholic nontheist.
I totally understood that 40 years ago.
Tom

Women.
Fairly obvious if you follow the sentences.

Women have always talked with other women about pregnancy, childbirth, miscarriage, abortion.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alabama votes to support the 'death' of sacred unborn life as long as it doesn't occur inside a woman.

The measures that passed almost unanimously in both Alabama chambers Thursday afternoon provide legal immunity “for death or damage to an embryo to any individual or entity when providing or receiving goods or services related to in vitro fertilization.”

How can they justify it? Math.

Republican Sen. Larry Stutts, an OB/GYN and the bill’s sponsor, acknowledge the “moral quandary” with IVF but said discarded embryos are “a small, small percentage” compared to the ones used or retained.

Is that your final answer because... umm... do we really want to talk about abortions verses natural miscarriages and spontaneous abortions?

 

[blastula]

Red State AGs Keep Trying to Kill Ballot Measures by a Thousand Cuts - Bolts

Organizers say red state officials have stretched their powers by stonewalling proposed ballot measures on abortion, voting rights, and government transparency.

boltsmag.org

 

[lpetrich]

The Alabama Supreme Court’s Ruling on Frozen Embryos | Johns Hopkins | Bloomberg School of Public Health

The Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling on February 16 declaring that embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) should be considered children. Several of the state’s IVF clinics have since paused services, and lawmakers, doctors, and patients are raising concerns about the far-ranging impacts of the ruling on health care, including reproductive technology.

What happened?

The plaintiffs are three couples who all underwent IVF treatment at a fertility clinic in Alabama. Through the IVF treatment they received, they all became pregnant and gave birth to healthy babies.

As a result of the IVF treatments, they also produced a number of additional embryos—this is standard procedure in an IVF cycle. Those additional embryos that were not used were frozen and preserved by the fertility clinic. The presumption is that the couples could come back at some later time and have another IVF cycle using these embryos without having to again go through the hormonal treatments and surgeries.

What happened next is what gave rise to this case. The plaintiff couples’ frozen embryos had been cryo-preserved at the fertility clinic, which is located within a hospital. In December 2020, a patient of that hospital entered the fertility clinic's cryo-preservation unit and opened one of the tanks in which frozen embryos are stored. These embryos are stored at sub-freezing temperatures, so when the patient put his hand in and grabbed some of the embryos, he burned himself and dropped the embryos, which hit the ground and were destroyed.

The couples then sued the clinic and the hospital for violating the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, and the trial judge stated that these embryos did not qualify as children or people. The couples then appealed the case to the state's Supreme Court, which ruled the opposite, stating that the law applies “to all unborn children without limitation. And that includes unborn children who are not located in utero at the time they are killed.”

 

[lpetrich]

• In vitro fertilization (IVF) - Mayo Clinic
• In vitro fertilization (IVF): MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia
• In Vitro Fertilization (IVF): Risks, Success Rate, Procedure, Results
• What Is In-Vitro-Fertilization (IVF)?
• IVF (In Vitro Fertilization): Procedure & How It Works
• In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) > Fact Sheets > Yale Medicine
• IVF - NHS+

The first step is extraction of a woman's egg cells: oocytes. Part of this is taking fertility drugs so that the ovaries will release extra eggs instead of one at a time: ovulation induction. Then a doctor inserts a tube into the vagina and womb to suck them out: egg retrieval.

Once extracted, the eggs may then be frozen to store them.

One also needs sperm cells from a man, but extracting those is usually relatively easy. If necessary, sperms may be extracted directly from a man's testicles. Sperms may also be frozen to store them.

Eggs and sperms are then brought together in a lab, and if the sperms have trouble fertilizing eggs, then sperms may be injected into eggs: intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Once an egg is fertilized, it starts dividing, making an embryo. After 3 to 5 days, an embryo is injected into a woman's womb. Embryos may also be frozen to store them.

 

[ZiprHead]

The couples then sued the clinic and the hospital for violating the state's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, and the trial judge stated that these embryos did not qualify as children or people. The couples then appealed the case to the state's Supreme Court, which ruled the opposite, stating that the law applies “to all unborn children without limitation. And that includes unborn children who are not located in utero at the time they are killed.”

So they ruined they're own chances of using ivf again.