Roe v Wade is on deck

[Emily Lake]

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.

Except those delays kill women.

Trigger Abortion Bans Linked to Delayed, Less Effective Miscarriage Care

Shifts in management may be an unintended effect of abortion restrictions

www.medpagetoday.com

You're killing women.

OMG, the horrible travesty of expecting a doctor to document the diagnosis that led to the procedure! It's the end of the world, and people are going to die because doctors are expected to do what they do every single fucking day forever!

I DID NOT PROPOSE ANYTHING THAT CAUSES DELAYS.

Don't listen to Elixir, he continues to spread disinformation about my views.

I say "doctors write down the diagnosis that supports medical necessity in the 3rd trimester". Elixir then says "doctors have to get approval from cops or politicians".

Stop assuming that Elixir is being forthright or honest about this, he isn't.

 

[Emily Lake]

Don't be stupid. The objective is DON'T SACRIFICE WOMEN.

No women are being sacrificed.

Abortion Bans Linked to Sharp Rise in Sepsis, Infant Death, and Pregnancy-Associated Death, New Research Shows - Population Reference Bureau

In the wake of Roe's overturn, states with abortion bans have seen 478 excess infant deaths and 59 excess deaths during or after pregnancy.

www.prb.org

59 women that you say don't exist.

Of course we will never have good data:

Maternal death reviews get political as state officials intrude • Stateline

Every state has a committee of medical and public health experts tasked with investigating deaths that occur during and after pregnancy.

stateline.org

The reaction is to quit looking.

I say "medical necessity required for 3rd trimester" and your support for an opposing view is complete and total bans.

Just stop alread.

 

[Emily Lake]

But you do agree that personhood is actually a thing, right? You do recognize that some entities are persons? I mean, I assume you would agree that @bilby is a person, and @Toni is a person, even if you don't agree that I'm one?

And I'm betting you agree that non-personhood is a real thing too, right? Like, the keyboard I'm typing on isn't a person, wouldn't you agree?

If those two things are true, then there must exist an inflection point between them, some stage of transition from non-person to person - even if nobody can perfectly agree on where that curve is perfectly horizontal.

I bet if you put your mind to it, you could make a reasonable and logic estimate of the range within which the vast majority of other people looking at the same curve would agree that the it's more or less horizontal. And I bet that such a range is not at the very extreme end of the curve.

We have no ability to clearly draw the line.

You don't have the ability to clearly draw the line between red and purple or purple and blue either - but I'm betting you can tell the difference between red and blue.

You're engaging in the heap fallacy.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think laws should be made on the basis of A. I also think that third trimester fetuses are people for all intents and purposes, and thus the harm to them should be considered.

“third trimester fetuses are people” sounds deceptively reasonable. What if the prospective patient’s “fertilization date” is uncertain? Are you okay either way going with the patient’s best guess? What if they lie? Prison?

That, and it means the government is going to second-guess any decision they make--and they do not have a record of doing so honestly.

As evidenced by the tons and tons of government second-guessing when RvW was in place for... nearly 50 years.

 

[Emily Lake]

Wow! You guys have been arguing about this for 4 years! Has anyone ever changed their mind? I don't have enough time to waste to read all 242 pages of posts.

The argument may have shifted.

We now have a number of people who are stridently arguing AGAINST Roe v Wade.

Interesting times.

Roe is about third trimester is a medical decision. You are trying to play gotcha on the medical decision.

No, I'm not. Not even little bit. Where are you getting this assumption from, because it's certainly NOT coming from anything I've said.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Except those delays kill women.

Trigger Abortion Bans Linked to Delayed, Less Effective Miscarriage Care

Shifts in management may be an unintended effect of abortion restrictions

www.medpagetoday.com

You're killing women.

I think Emily spends a lot of time and energy ensuring that she won’t get it.

I think you spend a lot of time and energy intentionally mispresenting my views.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am not, and have never been, opposed to abortion being legal.

I know that Emily. You’re not opposed to abortion being legal as long as it is subjected to a second opinion. In advance. That is neither bodily autonomy nor personal freedom IMHO.

Again with your selective and intentionally misleading framing. Be more honest.

I will reiterate once more: Completely accessible abortion with absolutely no strings whatsoever within the first 2 trimesters. I only landed at 2nd opinion in the 3rd trimester because YOU objected to my initial expectation that the doctor needs to provide a medical need on the fucking record. That's where I started, and YOU decided that wasn't sufficient and kept trying to foist judges into the mix. I didn't do that - YOU did that idiotic cartwheel of non-logic.

I was perfectly happy with the doctor just fucking documenting what the diagnosis justifying the medical need was.

Which is going to happen anyway. You are demanding what would happen as a matter of course. That leaves two possibilities:

1) You do not realize the actual situation and are not qualified to have an opinion on it.

2) You understand the actual situation and you are attempting to throw up roadblocks.

What would you think of (US) a politician determined to pass a bill requiring drivers to drive on the right side of the road? Would you think that's really all that's in the bill??

Or option 3: Elixir has actually argued that abortion should be completely legal, with no requirement for medical necessity at any point during gestation. Elixir and you have actually argued that abortion be entirely discretionary with absolutely no safeguards at all at any point.

I think that's a heartless and careless position, because at some point in gestation it's no longer a lump of cells, it's a baby. And that means that at some point, abortion isn't removing a parasitic lump of tissue, it's killing a baby. Not from conception - that's dumb as rocks. But somewhere around viability, I think a definitive medical necessity should be the only justification for killing a baby.

 

[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.

Except those delays kill women.

Trigger Abortion Bans Linked to Delayed, Less Effective Miscarriage Care

Shifts in management may be an unintended effect of abortion restrictions

www.medpagetoday.com

You're killing women.

OMG, the horrible travesty of expecting a doctor to document the diagnosis that led to the procedure! It's the end of the world, and people are going to die because doctors are expected to do what they do every single fucking day forever!

I DID NOT PROPOSE ANYTHING THAT CAUSES DELAYS.

Don't listen to Elixir, he continues to spread disinformation about my views.

I say "doctors write down the diagnosis that supports medical necessity in the 3rd trimester". Elixir then says "doctors have to get approval from cops or politicians".

Stop assuming that Elixir is being forthright or honest about this, he isn't.

Did you not read the article?

The rules are causing doctors to hesitate or completely refuse to become involved. If the woman isn't going to drop dead this instant they're sent away. And sometimes they die. Even in absolutely clear-cut cases: there is no possible successful pregnancy from an incomplete miscarriage. But they still can't do that dreaded "abortion".

Louisiana has put Mifeprestine and Misoprostol on the controlled substances list--which means they're not on obstetric crash carts anymore. If you don't count the deaths (note how the red states are stopping publishing maternal mortality data--they know they're killing women and are covering it up) it won't kill anyone.

This is the real world result of the scrutiny you are after.

It's not a video game where you have perfect information. This is zero tolerance, works no better in the hospital than it does in the school. And in the hospital it kills.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Don't be stupid. The objective is DON'T SACRIFICE WOMEN.

No women are being sacrificed.

Abortion Bans Linked to Sharp Rise in Sepsis, Infant Death, and Pregnancy-Associated Death, New Research Shows - Population Reference Bureau

In the wake of Roe's overturn, states with abortion bans have seen 478 excess infant deaths and 59 excess deaths during or after pregnancy.

www.prb.org

59 women that you say don't exist.

Of course we will never have good data:

Maternal death reviews get political as state officials intrude • Stateline

Every state has a committee of medical and public health experts tasked with investigating deaths that occur during and after pregnancy.

stateline.org

The reaction is to quit looking.

I say "medical necessity required for 3rd trimester" and your support for an opposing view is complete and total bans.

Just stop alread.

You're utterly missing the point.

I'm showing that "medically necessary" has the real world effect of killing women. Doesn't matter when in the pregnancy you put the fence, you still kill women who might possibly be beyond it.

 

[Toni]

I am not, and have never been, opposed to abortion being legal.

I know that Emily. You’re not opposed to abortion being legal as long as it is subjected to a second opinion. In advance. That is neither bodily autonomy nor personal freedom IMHO.

Again with your selective and intentionally misleading framing. Be more honest.

I will reiterate once more: Completely accessible abortion with absolutely no strings whatsoever within the first 2 trimesters. I only landed at 2nd opinion in the 3rd trimester because YOU objected to my initial expectation that the doctor needs to provide a medical need on the fucking record. That's where I started, and YOU decided that wasn't sufficient and kept trying to foist judges into the mix. I didn't do that - YOU did that idiotic cartwheel of non-logic.

I was perfectly happy with the doctor just fucking documenting what the diagnosis justifying the medical need was.

Which is going to happen anyway. You are demanding what would happen as a matter of course. That leaves two possibilities:

1) You do not realize the actual situation and are not qualified to have an opinion on it.

2) You understand the actual situation and you are attempting to throw up roadblocks.

What would you think of (US) a politician determined to pass a bill requiring drivers to drive on the right side of the road? Would you think that's really all that's in the bill??

Or option 3: Elixir has actually argued that abortion should be completely legal, with no requirement for medical necessity at any point during gestation. Elixir and you have actually argued that abortion be entirely discretionary with absolutely no safeguards at all at any point.

I think that's a heartless and careless position, because at some point in gestation it's no longer a lump of cells, it's a baby. And that means that at some point, abortion isn't removing a parasitic lump of tissue, it's killing a baby. Not from conception - that's dumb as rocks. But somewhere around viability, I think a definitive medical necessity should be the only justification for killing a baby.

1. Fetuses are not parasites by biological definition. Fetuses of the same species are specifically excluded as parasitic

2. I think safeguards should be in place with respect to the life, the health and wellbeing and wishes of the mother .

I'm the monster. I'm the bigot.

No more of this bullshit.

Welcome to the shitshow.

In my experience, calls for reasonable solutions that allow actual women the privacy and safety we desire while ALSO making accommodations for transwomen will be rejected in their entirety, and you'll be called names for it. The only acceptable solution is the complete capitulation of female women to the wants and desires of males, even if doing so introduces risks we already face at significantly disproportionate rates.

I started out simply wanting the right to evict pre-op males who identify as trans from showers and changing rooms. After years of this discussion, I've come to realize that there is no possible solution that will be accepted by transwomen other than real women completely surrendering everything - including our language - to them.

It's the most blatant act of appropriation and colonization I've ever run across.

Nonsense. What trans people want is to stop being TARGETED and painted as perverts. The LAWS should be to make all businesses that provide "showering/changing" facilities, provide PRIVACY for those that prefer it. If ADA laws can be put into place, then so can privacy laws.

Unfortunately, there are those who absolutely do wish to target trans people.

Horrendously, there are some very few individuals with nefarious motives who want access to women’s facilities first the purposes of predation. This is pretty rare and it makes it much more difficult to reach consensus that protects everyone from the criminal intentions of a small number of people.

Private stalls seem the way to go, to ensure the privacy and dignity of all.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think laws should be made on the basis of A. I also think that third trimester fetuses are people for all intents and purposes, and thus the harm to them should be considered.

“third trimester fetuses are people” sounds deceptively reasonable. What if the prospective patient’s “fertilization date” is uncertain? Are you okay either way going with the patient’s best guess? What if they lie? Prison?

That, and it means the government is going to second-guess any decision they make--and they do not have a record of doing so honestly.

As evidenced by the tons and tons of government second-guessing when RvW was in place for... nearly 50 years.

The Republicans weren't trying to stick their noses into the ER before. Now they are.

The states with abortion bans are a better look at what's happening because they are the states where they are doing the most nose-sticking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow! You guys have been arguing about this for 4 years! Has anyone ever changed their mind? I don't have enough time to waste to read all 242 pages of posts.

The argument may have shifted.

We now have a number of people who are stridently arguing AGAINST Roe v Wade.

Interesting times.

Roe is about third trimester is a medical decision. You are trying to play gotcha on the medical decision.

No, I'm not. Not even little bit. Where are you getting this assumption from, because it's certainly NOT coming from anything I've said.

Things like demanding they document what medical problem caused the need for the abortion.

That's going to be documented as a matter of course anyway. Thus it's meaningless unless it's for playing gotcha.

You keep using the playbook of the punishment crowd. You keep waddling down the street quacking "I'm a goose!"

 

[Tigers!]

I’ve had my breasts and my crotch grabbed in front of others multiple times. Sometimes when there was a small attempt to hide what was going on. Most often not. Being groped ( a form of sexual assault) by strangers or by acquaintances is not uncommon in public transportation, elevators, bars, restaurants, parties or at workplaces. Penetration also can occur and yep, people have been raped in public venues and dressing rooms

It is not rare, Loren. Not at all,

And that is the sad tragedy of it all. Far too many men (small in overall numbers but still too large in number) can not/will not keep their hands off women.
I have been in too many workplaces where women are fearful. And not without reason. I have fought too many men who cannot keep their hands to themselves. They do not have a civil tongue on their heads. It seems the feeling of power & control is what drives these men.

 

[Elixir]

I DID NOT PROPOSE ANYTHING THAT CAUSES DELAYS.

Uh …
Never mind, Ems. I’ll forget you said that, for now.

 

[Elixir]

at some point in gestation it's no longer a lump of cells,

How will I know when I reach that point?
AFAICT I am still a lump of cells. All I can say in my own defense is that at least I am no longer living as an obligate parasite*
… but who’s judging, right?

* Ooops - please read “At least I’m not sustained by sharing another organism’s blood supply, its oxygenation system, its immune system it’s detoxifying systems, and the nutrients it ingests”. So much better than “parasitic” wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Elixir]

This is the real world result of the scrutiny you are after.

QFT
I don’t think Emily sees it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not, and have never been, opposed to abortion being legal.

I know that Emily. You’re not opposed to abortion being legal as long as it is subjected to a second opinion. In advance. That is neither bodily autonomy nor personal freedom IMHO.

Again with your selective and intentionally misleading framing. Be more honest.

I will reiterate once more: Completely accessible abortion with absolutely no strings whatsoever within the first 2 trimesters. I only landed at 2nd opinion in the 3rd trimester because YOU objected to my initial expectation that the doctor needs to provide a medical need on the fucking record. That's where I started, and YOU decided that wasn't sufficient and kept trying to foist judges into the mix. I didn't do that - YOU did that idiotic cartwheel of non-logic.

I was perfectly happy with the doctor just fucking documenting what the diagnosis justifying the medical need was.

Which is going to happen anyway. You are demanding what would happen as a matter of course. That leaves two possibilities:

1) You do not realize the actual situation and are not qualified to have an opinion on it.

2) You understand the actual situation and you are attempting to throw up roadblocks.

What would you think of (US) a politician determined to pass a bill requiring drivers to drive on the right side of the road? Would you think that's really all that's in the bill??

Or option 3: Elixir has actually argued that abortion should be completely legal, with no requirement for medical necessity at any point during gestation. Elixir and you have actually argued that abortion be entirely discretionary with absolutely no safeguards at all at any point.

I think that's a heartless and careless position, because at some point in gestation it's no longer a lump of cells, it's a baby. And that means that at some point, abortion isn't removing a parasitic lump of tissue, it's killing a baby. Not from conception - that's dumb as rocks. But somewhere around viability, I think a definitive medical necessity should be the only justification for killing a baby.

But that's not the same thing as what you are asking for with Roe.

And I understand why he's saying this--the medical professionals have proven responsible about this, the politicians have not. The politicians are killing women, we have no good evidence (I do not consider that paper you cited good--it doesn't feel like a proper scientific paper, but rather an attempt to pretend to be science) of a problem with improper abortions.

And you keep presenting arguments that do not appear to be based on understanding. Of course the doctor documents, why should a politician be legislating what's already standard? Multiple doctors agree? Many places simply will not have multiple specialists at hand, especially in the wee hours.

 

[Emily Lake]

You're utterly missing the point.

I'm showing that "medically necessary" has the real world effect of killing women. Doesn't matter when in the pregnancy you put the fence, you still kill women who might possibly be beyond it.

As evidenced by the hordes and hordes of deaths that happened in the nearly 50 years under RvW, which had the same requirement? And the hordes and hordes of deaths that occur in pretty much every other developed nation, all of which have more stringent restrictions than RvW?

 

[Emily Lake]

No, I'm not. Not even little bit. Where are you getting this assumption from, because it's certainly NOT coming from anything I've said.

Things like demanding they document what medical problem caused the need for the abortion.

That's going to be documented as a matter of course anyway.

If they're going to document it anyway, then it's not an issue, is it? The only possible situation in which it could cause any problem at all is in the very rare instance where there is no medical necessity in the first place. It's a safeguard, and a very reasonable one at that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately, there are those who absolutely do wish to target trans people.

Horrendously, there are some very few individuals with nefarious motives who want access to women’s facilities first the purposes of predation. This is pretty rare and it makes it much more difficult to reach consensus that protects everyone from the criminal intentions of a small number of people.

Yes, both groups exist.

Note that the second group should be divided into those who enter in disguise vs those who do so openly. What's the usual scenario? Rest stop or the like, isolated, predator is hiding outside, waiting for a victim to show up. Will laws about trans have any effect on these? No. The only relevant ones are those entering in disguise.

Real world news reports, we see repeated examples of the former. The anti-trans crowd struggles to come up with any evidence for the latter. It's very clear which side is victimized more. That says to me the laws are too restrictive. I care an awful lot more about those who are harmed rather than those simply distressed.