Roe v Wade is on deck

[laughing dog]

Ignoring the apples and oranges measurement issue that others have mentioned, the point is that the MOTHER should get to choose which risk she wishes to bear, not anyone else.

Well gee, if mom gets to choose whether or not to kill her baby, why not just let her kill it after it's born too?

Your response is an epic example of emotional drivel masquerading as an argument.

First, it missed the point that people like you feel that you get to choose what risks a pregnant woman has to bear in the 3rd trimester.

Second, Since a fetus is not a baby, your question is based on a false premise.

Finally, But your statement applies just as well to your standard since fetus that is two days shy of the 3rd trimester is just as much a "baby".

 

[ZiprHead]

I know it doesn't work like that. That's my point. Some posters have made an appeal to medical standards of practice and ethical guidelines, with the assumption that such ethical principles provide meaningful guidance on when it's appropriate and ethical for a doctor to perform a third trimester abortion and when it's not. The reality is that the ethical principles that are published do not provide any guidance on abortions at all - not a single word. Furthermore, the ethical principles vary from organization to organization - there is no single organization whose ethical principles apply to all doctors - only about 15% of the practicing doctors in the US are part of AMA at all for example.

And beyond that, there are no comprehensive standards of practice for doctors. They don't exist. There is no handbook - thus my point that some posters are laboring under the FALSE IMPRESSION that there are well-defined standards of practice. There are none. None exist with regards to abortion.

What you are refusing to consider is that the standards of practice change over time as things are learned. Thus the details should not be codified!

The standards are you do not deviate too far from standard practice lest you get your license yanked.

What you are missing is that NO STANDARD OF PRACTICE EXISTS related to abortion.

And... ? So what?

 

[Elixir]

And... ? So what?

WE NEED STANDARDS!
And we need to ENFORCE them.
Because it's reprehensible what's going on.
Punishment is in order! Prevention!!

So we should be hiring lots of standard setters - permanent positions because decent standards change under situational opportunities or limitations, new technologies etc., plus the fact that the standards need to be spelled out for every single possible contingency, to make sure that when reprehensible happens, it never goes unpunished.
And we need enforcers. Boards won't do because they don't have STANDARDS or an enforcement mechanism.
Maybe the HHS Secretary would be the right guy? He seems real medical and everything, and knows how government works.
He stopped the measles anyway. Vitamin A.
I don't know, but it all starts and ends with standards. I've done the harms/benefits analysis and yeah, it might be a little painful for a little while for some people, but in the end it will be beautiful. So beautiful, like nothing you've ever seen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whether you wish to admit it or not, the reality of your position is that you want to mandate some pregnant woman has to put her life in danger to satisfy your "religious" view about a fetus's personhood.

False. Demonstrably false based on my actual stated position and the policy approach that I support.

Your policy approach needlessly creates more liability for doctors, in demanding a second doctor put their nose into it. Once in, their nose is in, they can become liable for everything down the road.

Yup, when you put hurdles you get what we see now: docs unwilling to touch cases that do fall within the "rules" in the fear they will be prosecuted.

Sure sure, and those docs were totally unwilling to touch cases that fell within the rules under RvW... yep, totally.

It's beyond dumb that the only counter-arguments you have to reinstating RvW as an actual federal law... is an appeal to what happens without RvW when several states have complete bans. It's absolutely stupid and completely illogical.

The bans supposedly permit abortion to save the woman. But in practice they create enough doubt that women die. What you are proposing for the third trimester sounds an awful lot like the intimidation tactics that are currently killing women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The old approach worked. Your approach has been demonstrated to cause problems. Yet you insist the old ways aren't adequate--which either means blind faith or that you desire those problems.

I'm literally asking for the old approach! The one you say worked - that's exactly what the fuck I want!

Then why the bit about documenting reasons, the bit about having two doctors confirm etc? None of that existed under RvW. Thus while you say you want RvW you are asserting something different.

You have also given conflicting standards for when a third trimester abortion should be permitted--and completely ignored it when I pointed out that you were giving a standard that permitted abortion for any reason almost to birth.

What are you talking about here?

The topic was about how damaged a preemie would be. You were lumping into medical anything that would need the NICU.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know it doesn't work like that. That's my point. Some posters have made an appeal to medical standards of practice and ethical guidelines, with the assumption that such ethical principles provide meaningful guidance on when it's appropriate and ethical for a doctor to perform a third trimester abortion and when it's not. The reality is that the ethical principles that are published do not provide any guidance on abortions at all - not a single word. Furthermore, the ethical principles vary from organization to organization - there is no single organization whose ethical principles apply to all doctors - only about 15% of the practicing doctors in the US are part of AMA at all for example.

And beyond that, there are no comprehensive standards of practice for doctors. They don't exist. There is no handbook - thus my point that some posters are laboring under the FALSE IMPRESSION that there are well-defined standards of practice. There are none. None exist with regards to abortion.

What you are refusing to consider is that the standards of practice change over time as things are learned. Thus the details should not be codified!

The standards are you do not deviate too far from standard practice lest you get your license yanked.

What you are missing is that NO STANDARD OF PRACTICE EXISTS related to abortion.

The problem here is that there's no document to point to. Rather, it's the collective opinion of the medical world.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No need for cops or politicians causing life-threatening delays in treatment.

For the fifty billionth time... these "life-threatening delays" are a figment of your imagination, and thus a strawman. I suppose if you really enjoy arguing with the voices in your head, go for it. Just stop implying that those voices represent my views or proposals.

Figments that have already killed women.

An unknown, but presumed to be "enough", under complete fucking abortion bans! It's not relevant.

They're happening in places without complete bans.

Figments that were killing women long before the current mess. I posted one many years ago--I forget the name of the condition but it was extremely high blood pressure due to pregnancy. There's only one treatment: end the pregnancy. But high blood pressure generally has no symptoms: the chance that she would live to delivery was low, but at no point could you say she was in imminent danger. Medicaid. Medicaid wouldn't pay for an abortion, she couldn't pay. Effectively, a death sentence.

This is irrelevant, and an entirely different problem. It does not serve as a reasonable argument against RvW.

The problem you have identified is that someone else wouldn't pay for the abortion. Not that the woman was denied access to an abortion, only that someone else wouldn't pay. That's an entirely different problem, and one that if we could get past this absurd extremist position that you hold, we could probably fine a reasonable solution to.

It is very relevant because it was a case that was very clearly medical in nature, yet her life was never in imminent danger. Thus she would die under any of the medical exemption standards we are seeing even if she was paying out of pocket.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But who here is asking for third trimester abortions when nothing's wrong? Nobody. It's not that we want to see such cases, it's that we are balancing the risk of (doctor performs unethical abortion) vs (politician blocks doctor from performing a needed abortion) and concluding that the error rate in the second case is far higher and thus the overall outcome will be improved by shifting this balance away from the politicians.

You're not though. You're ASSUMING that the rate is far higher - you don't have any stats to back that up. All you have are anecdotes and appeals to slippery slopes and fear.

I did your work for you. Turns out that deaths from denial of abortion are no more than 35.2 in 2022, whereas viable healthy fetuses inside healthy mothers killed by abortion were 71.4.

You continue to trot out this one study. A study that is inherently weak (unverifiable data set that was obtained without any controls) and it feels very wrong reading it--I do not feel that I'm reading a proper piece of research. Thus I do not consider that number relevant.

 

[Elixir]

I was amazed to see this:

Waco TX (REUTERS)
Nobel Prize Winner Reveals She Was Almost Aborted
"If it wasn't for the laws our blessed governor had in place when my mom had her mental problem, I wouldn't be here today" she sobbed as she received her Nobel Prize in Economics.

Oh wait, no I wasn't. And I don't expect to be, any time soon, because I made it up.
But I didn't make this up:

A third woman has died under Texas’ abortion ban as doctors reach for riskier miscarriage treatments​

Porsha Ngumezi bled to death as she was miscarrying after her doctor opted against an emergency procedure used to end pregnancies.

 

[laughing dog]

But who here is asking for third trimester abortions when nothing's wrong? Nobody. It's not that we want to see such cases, it's that we are balancing the risk of (doctor performs unethical abortion) vs (politician blocks doctor from performing a needed abortion) and concluding that the error rate in the second case is far higher and thus the overall outcome will be improved by shifting this balance away from the politicians.

You're not though. You're ASSUMING that the rate is far higher - you don't have any stats to back that up. All you have are anecdotes and appeals to slippery slopes and fear.

I did your work for you. Turns out that deaths from denial of abortion are no more than 35.2 in 2022, whereas viable healthy fetuses inside healthy mothers killed by abortion were 71.4.

You continue to trot out this one study. A study that is inherently weak (unverifiable data set that was obtained without any controls) and it feels very wrong reading it--I do not feel that I'm reading a proper piece of research. Thus I do not consider that number relevant.

Loren, you are missing the point: half a healthy fetus is more valuable than a fertile woman.

 

[Elixir]

Loren, you are missing the point: half a healthy fetus is more valuable than a fertile woman.

That’s what happens when you let emotions guide your harms/benefits analysis. You kill a bunch of women, and HOPE that maybe the laws you supported will also SAVE a fetus or few.
But if it only saved one fetus, wouldn’t it be worth it? Ems?

 

[Toni]

But who here is asking for third trimester abortions when nothing's wrong? Nobody. It's not that we want to see such cases, it's that we are balancing the risk of (doctor performs unethical abortion) vs (politician blocks doctor from performing a needed abortion) and concluding that the error rate in the second case is far higher and thus the overall outcome will be improved by shifting this balance away from the politicians.

You're not though. You're ASSUMING that the rate is far higher - you don't have any stats to back that up. All you have are anecdotes and appeals to slippery slopes and fear.

I did your work for you. Turns out that deaths from denial of abortion are no more than 35.2 in 2022, whereas viable healthy fetuses inside healthy mothers killed by abortion were 71.4.

You continue to trot out this one study. A study that is inherently weak (unverifiable data set that was obtained without any controls) and it feels very wrong reading it--I do not feel that I'm reading a proper piece of research. Thus I do not consider that number relevant.

Loren, you are missing the point: half a healthy fetus is more valuable than a fertile woman.

Because a fetus might be male.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But who here is asking for third trimester abortions when nothing's wrong? Nobody. It's not that we want to see such cases, it's that we are balancing the risk of (doctor performs unethical abortion) vs (politician blocks doctor from performing a needed abortion) and concluding that the error rate in the second case is far higher and thus the overall outcome will be improved by shifting this balance away from the politicians.

You're not though. You're ASSUMING that the rate is far higher - you don't have any stats to back that up. All you have are anecdotes and appeals to slippery slopes and fear.

I did your work for you. Turns out that deaths from denial of abortion are no more than 35.2 in 2022, whereas viable healthy fetuses inside healthy mothers killed by abortion were 71.4.

You continue to trot out this one study. A study that is inherently weak (unverifiable data set that was obtained without any controls) and it feels very wrong reading it--I do not feel that I'm reading a proper piece of research. Thus I do not consider that number relevant.

Loren, you are missing the point: half a healthy fetus is more valuable than a fertile woman.

Because a fetus might be male.

I suggest you reread it without your discrimination blinders on.

 

[Toni]

But who here is asking for third trimester abortions when nothing's wrong? Nobody. It's not that we want to see such cases, it's that we are balancing the risk of (doctor performs unethical abortion) vs (politician blocks doctor from performing a needed abortion) and concluding that the error rate in the second case is far higher and thus the overall outcome will be improved by shifting this balance away from the politicians.

You're not though. You're ASSUMING that the rate is far higher - you don't have any stats to back that up. All you have are anecdotes and appeals to slippery slopes and fear.

I did your work for you. Turns out that deaths from denial of abortion are no more than 35.2 in 2022, whereas viable healthy fetuses inside healthy mothers killed by abortion were 71.4.

You continue to trot out this one study. A study that is inherently weak (unverifiable data set that was obtained without any controls) and it feels very wrong reading it--I do not feel that I'm reading a proper piece of research. Thus I do not consider that number relevant.

Loren, you are missing the point: half a healthy fetus is more valuable than a fertile woman.

Because a fetus might be male.

I suggest you reread it without your discrimination blinders on.

Apres vous.

You probably are not aware of the history of Cesarean sections. In the early days, they were inevitably fatal for the mother, which was considered a fair trade in case the emerging baby was a male. One could always get another wife but a male heir ( or a few) was less certain.

There are multiple cultures through history, including not too distant in the past, and perhaps still occurring where female babies were put out left to die, or sold into slavery of various types and more recently, where the number of births are restricted, female fetuses were/are aborted in favor of the potential to produce a male.

 

[NoHolyCows]

You continue to trot out this one study. A study that is inherently weak (unverifiable data set that was obtained without any controls) and it feels very wrong reading it--I do not feel that I'm reading a proper piece of research. Thus I do not consider that number relevant.

Yep, imagine interviewing 28 people at a gun show and finding 2 who say they carry without a permit. You can’t claim 7.14% of all U.S. gun owners do the same. The sampling frame doesn’t allow that.

NHC

 

[Emily Lake]

I know it doesn't work like that. That's my point. Some posters have made an appeal to medical standards of practice and ethical guidelines, with the assumption that such ethical principles provide meaningful guidance on when it's appropriate and ethical for a doctor to perform a third trimester abortion and when it's not. The reality is that the ethical principles that are published do not provide any guidance on abortions at all - not a single word. Furthermore, the ethical principles vary from organization to organization - there is no single organization whose ethical principles apply to all doctors - only about 15% of the practicing doctors in the US are part of AMA at all for example.

And beyond that, there are no comprehensive standards of practice for doctors. They don't exist. There is no handbook - thus my point that some posters are laboring under the FALSE IMPRESSION that there are well-defined standards of practice. There are none. None exist with regards to abortion.

What you are refusing to consider is that the standards of practice change over time as things are learned. Thus the details should not be codified!

The standards are you do not deviate too far from standard practice lest you get your license yanked.

What you are missing is that NO STANDARD OF PRACTICE EXISTS related to abortion.

And... ? So what?

So it's a terminally flawed argument for people to insist that we should rely on doctors being held to standards of practice as presented under their ethical guidelines when no such SoPs exist.

No license will be yanked if there is no standard of practice.

 

[Emily Lake]

The bans supposedly permit abortion to save the woman. But in practice they create enough doubt that women die. What you are proposing for the third trimester sounds an awful lot like the intimidation tactics that are currently killing women.

Yes, sure, Roe totally sounds exactly like the bans that are (presumably) killing women.

Of course, the data seems to indicate that it's an exceptional few women who are actually killed... but don't let that stop you from an emotional appeal.

 

[Emily Lake]

They're happening in places without complete bans.

It should be incredibly easy for you to present non-anecdotal evidence then.

 

[Elixir]

Of course, the data seems to indicate that it's an exceptional few women who are actually killed...

WERE "actually killed". The numbers are mounting, especially where the camel now shits in the tent.

 

[Elixir]

They're happening in places without complete bans.

It should be incredibly easy for you to present non-anecdotal evidence then.

NOT. Republitards are making sure the body count is unobtainable. Of course.
That's how they keep innocents like Emily from complaining about the harm.

The same political leaders who enacted abortion bans oversee the state committees that review maternal deaths. These committees haven’t tracked the laws’ impacts, and most haven’t finished examining cases from the year the bans went into effect.​

More good reason to bet politicians out of the business of regulating reproductive healthcare, wouldn't you agree?

In states with abortion bans, ProPublica has found, pregnant women have bled to death, succumbed to fatal infections and wound up in morgues with what medical examiners recorded were “products of conception” still in their bodies.
These are the very kinds of cases state maternal mortality review committees are supposed to delve into, determining why they happened and how to stop them from happening again.
But panels in states that have recently imposed strict bans on abortion have done little to uncover whether the laws are contributing to maternal deaths, including tracking delays in care for pregnancy complications and making these problems known, a ProPublica investigation shows.