|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
The initial stages of the abortion ban are going to be messy and awful. Still, I expect the laws to be revised as the practical implications become impossible to ignore. So far all the abortion bans have been an exercise in legal circlejerking with no real thought put into how it will actually turn out in practice.
It's like you move out for college and imagine that you can party all day, until you realize you're going to fail out.
|
On July 03 2022 21:50 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial stages of the abortion ban are going to be messy and awful. Still, I expect the laws to be revised as the practical implications become impossible to ignore. So far all the abortion bans have been an exercise in legal circlejerking with no real thought put into how it will actually turn out in practice.
It's like you move out for college and imagine that you can party all day, until you realize you're going to fail out.
There are many sayings about using extremes. Almost no abortions that happen in this country are for women in that situation. They would use that to defend adults getting elective abortions very late their pregnancies. Ans much of the confusion isn't even the law. There's so much disinformation here and they doing a great harm to others by spreading it, on stuff like ectopic pregnancies which not a single state bans thr treatment of. Thr stories there are either lies, or hospitals have bad lawyers. Some percentage may just be confused, but that will change with time and the people here and elsewhere are doing great harm in by spreading bad information when there are women out there who will need treatment.
|
|
|
|
|
50 year old precedent is cast aside in a single decision, century-old laws are suddenly active again, many of which include no exceptions whatsoever, abortion bounty hunter laws are on the books, and the uncertainty is the fault of patients and providers? That’s fucking rich, let the victim blaming continue!
|
On July 03 2022 23:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2022 22:57 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 21:50 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial stages of the abortion ban are going to be messy and awful. Still, I expect the laws to be revised as the practical implications become impossible to ignore. So far all the abortion bans have been an exercise in legal circlejerking with no real thought put into how it will actually turn out in practice.
It's like you move out for college and imagine that you can party all day, until you realize you're going to fail out. There are many sayings about using extremes. Almost no abortions that happen in this country are for women in that situation. They would use that to defend adults getting elective abortions very late their pregnancies. Ans much of the confusion isn't even the law. There's so much disinformation here and they doing a great harm to others by spreading it, on stuff like ectopic pregnancies which not a single state bans thr treatment of. Thr stories there are either lies, or hospitals have bad lawyers. Some percentage may just be confused, but that will change with time and the people here and elsewhere are doing great harm in by spreading bad information when there are women out there who will need treatment. How many of the abortions are late elective? And define late elective? How many does a ban actually stop? When you can not provide these numbers rethink your own bullshit please. Edit: also if you can produce where in the law it allows ectopic pregnancies', use Texas please, everything I have read says it was made purposely vague. You have posted this is factually inaccurate should be easy for you to show instead of just tell (hard for conservatives I know). https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/abortion-ban-exceptions-life-threatening-pregnancy-rcna36026Show nested quote +"My lawyer told me, 'Unless they are on that table dying in front of you, you cannot do an abortion on them or you are breaking the law,'" she said, adding, "How am I supposed to help people from jail?" Show nested quote +"What does the risk of death have to be, and how imminent must it be?" Lisa Harris, a professor of reproductive health at the University of Michigan, wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month. "Might abortion be permissible in a patient with pulmonary hypertension, for whom we cite a 30-to-50% chance of dying with ongoing pregnancy? Or must it be 100%?"
Edit: ans the parts of the story you quoted weren't even about ectopic pregnancies. Do YOU read what you post?
I'm on my phone so I will do what I try to avoid ans post a Twitter thread. But the summary is that A) pre-Roe laws were never considered to apply to ectopic pregnancies (thr treatment for those isn't even an abortion) B) many states, as listed, made it explicit again anyways. I don't even know where you are going to someone who would defend banning treatments for ectopic pregnancies. So *at best* is an uncertainty that will be quickly fixed, at worst it's dangerous misinformation.
And yes, I do partially blame the lawyers, they've known for a long time now that Roe could go, especially after the leaked draft was put out. They should have been ready. I didn't blame the patients either, btw. That's not victim blaming I expected something less obviously dishonest from you.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 03 2022 23:58 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2022 23:49 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 23:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2022 22:57 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 21:50 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial stages of the abortion ban are going to be messy and awful. Still, I expect the laws to be revised as the practical implications become impossible to ignore. So far all the abortion bans have been an exercise in legal circlejerking with no real thought put into how it will actually turn out in practice.
It's like you move out for college and imagine that you can party all day, until you realize you're going to fail out. There are many sayings about using extremes. Almost no abortions that happen in this country are for women in that situation. They would use that to defend adults getting elective abortions very late their pregnancies. Ans much of the confusion isn't even the law. There's so much disinformation here and they doing a great harm to others by spreading it, on stuff like ectopic pregnancies which not a single state bans thr treatment of. Thr stories there are either lies, or hospitals have bad lawyers. Some percentage may just be confused, but that will change with time and the people here and elsewhere are doing great harm in by spreading bad information when there are women out there who will need treatment. How many of the abortions are late elective? And define late elective? How many does a ban actually stop? When you can not provide these numbers rethink your own bullshit please. Edit: also if you can produce where in the law it allows ectopic pregnancies', use Texas please, everything I have read says it was made purposely vague. You have posted this is factually inaccurate should be easy for you to show instead of just tell (hard for conservatives I know). https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/abortion-ban-exceptions-life-threatening-pregnancy-rcna36026"My lawyer told me, 'Unless they are on that table dying in front of you, you cannot do an abortion on them or you are breaking the law,'" she said, adding, "How am I supposed to help people from jail?" "What does the risk of death have to be, and how imminent must it be?" Lisa Harris, a professor of reproductive health at the University of Michigan, wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month. "Might abortion be permissible in a patient with pulmonary hypertension, for whom we cite a 30-to-50% chance of dying with ongoing pregnancy? Or must it be 100%?"
Edit: ans the parts of the story you quoted weren't even about ectopic pregnancies. Do YOU read what you post? I'm on my phone so I will do what I try to avoid ans post a Twitter thread. But the summary is that A) pre-Roe laws were never considered to apply to ectopic pregnancies (thr treatment for those isn't even an abortion) B) many states, as listed, made it explicit again anyways. I don't even know where you are going to someone who would defend banning treatments for ectopic pregnancies. So *at best* is an uncertainty that will be quickly fixed, at worst it's dangerous misinformation. And yes, I do partially blame the lawyers, they've known for a long time now that Roe could go, especially after the leaked draft was put out. They should have been ready. Ectopic is one of the reasons that would fit the definition of a "dangerous pregnancy" but would all rise to life threatening? Not all ectopic would kill someone. They talk in the article about why the law is written vaguely and what that means for all dangerous pregnancies. Maybe read the article, or the mountains of them, without disagreeing with them before you start. There is massive confusion you have to have your head awfully burried in the sand to think, yep this is going to work out real well when all the care providers are not sure about the implications. Generally a major change takes time, with pilots, education and so on to try to avoid major issues. This has none of that. It is a wildly stupid law implemented worse!
The life of thr mother is just extra. Treating entopic pregnancies isn't an abortion in the first place, states going back to pre-Roe laws didn't consider them that way, and many states that passed laws recently made it explicit. That's the point. It's not that vague because it doesn't fit into that category anyways.
|
|
|
On July 04 2022 00:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2022 00:04 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 23:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2022 23:49 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 23:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2022 22:57 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 21:50 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial stages of the abortion ban are going to be messy and awful. Still, I expect the laws to be revised as the practical implications become impossible to ignore. So far all the abortion bans have been an exercise in legal circlejerking with no real thought put into how it will actually turn out in practice.
It's like you move out for college and imagine that you can party all day, until you realize you're going to fail out. There are many sayings about using extremes. Almost no abortions that happen in this country are for women in that situation. They would use that to defend adults getting elective abortions very late their pregnancies. Ans much of the confusion isn't even the law. There's so much disinformation here and they doing a great harm to others by spreading it, on stuff like ectopic pregnancies which not a single state bans thr treatment of. Thr stories there are either lies, or hospitals have bad lawyers. Some percentage may just be confused, but that will change with time and the people here and elsewhere are doing great harm in by spreading bad information when there are women out there who will need treatment. How many of the abortions are late elective? And define late elective? How many does a ban actually stop? When you can not provide these numbers rethink your own bullshit please. Edit: also if you can produce where in the law it allows ectopic pregnancies', use Texas please, everything I have read says it was made purposely vague. You have posted this is factually inaccurate should be easy for you to show instead of just tell (hard for conservatives I know). https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/abortion-ban-exceptions-life-threatening-pregnancy-rcna36026"My lawyer told me, 'Unless they are on that table dying in front of you, you cannot do an abortion on them or you are breaking the law,'" she said, adding, "How am I supposed to help people from jail?" "What does the risk of death have to be, and how imminent must it be?" Lisa Harris, a professor of reproductive health at the University of Michigan, wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month. "Might abortion be permissible in a patient with pulmonary hypertension, for whom we cite a 30-to-50% chance of dying with ongoing pregnancy? Or must it be 100%?"
Edit: ans the parts of the story you quoted weren't even about ectopic pregnancies. Do YOU read what you post? I'm on my phone so I will do what I try to avoid ans post a Twitter thread. But the summary is that A) pre-Roe laws were never considered to apply to ectopic pregnancies (thr treatment for those isn't even an abortion) B) many states, as listed, made it explicit again anyways. I don't even know where you are going to someone who would defend banning treatments for ectopic pregnancies. So *at best* is an uncertainty that will be quickly fixed, at worst it's dangerous misinformation. And yes, I do partially blame the lawyers, they've known for a long time now that Roe could go, especially after the leaked draft was put out. They should have been ready. Ectopic is one of the reasons that would fit the definition of a "dangerous pregnancy" but would all rise to life threatening? Not all ectopic would kill someone. They talk in the article about why the law is written vaguely and what that means for all dangerous pregnancies. Maybe read the article, or the mountains of them, without disagreeing with them before you start. There is massive confusion you have to have your head awfully burried in the sand to think, yep this is going to work out real well when all the care providers are not sure about the implications. Generally a major change takes time, with pilots, education and so on to try to avoid major issues. This has none of that. It is a wildly stupid law implemented worse! The life of thr mother is just extra. Treating entopic pregnancies isn't an abortion in the first place, states going back to pre-Roe laws didn't consider them that way, and many states that passed laws recently made it explicit. That's the point. It's not that vague because it doesn't fit into that category anyways. How about in the cases above? Extopic is just one of the many. People are using it as an example not because it is the only issue but because it is one of many? Which law is that person quoting? The one from 1925 that was ruled allowed? From what I'm reading there is a few of these laws poking around.
Seema like people are using it as an example because A) it's always (almost always?) dangerous and the pregnancy is not viable, B) it's relatively common.
I don't have time or know the details of literally every case but I also know that the vast majority of abortions are not done for health reasons so again to focus on them is to focus on extremes. If there are questions about when an abortion is necessary for the mother than that will be worked out in cases where it's not obvious. But as far as I can read these uncertainties should be rare too, especially in states that already had some sort of restriction. Knowledge didn't begin today, we have some grasp on what conditions are life-threatening. Most (all?) Of these laws leave that jusgement to the woman's doctor, which is why Iin very select circumstances i could understand hesitation. But that will work itself out.
The fact that so many of the horror stories revolve around a procedure not even an abortion and not regulated by abortion laws calls into question the integrity of those sharing as well as being potentially dangerous false information.
|
|
|
|
|
The extreme examples happen, Introvert. It took like a week for this case to happen after the ban was instated. You're delusional if you think this is some immaterial portion of the issue.
I will also point out that no one who gets a later-term abortion does so frivolously. They're almost universally people who planned to take their pregnancy to term.
And finally, I will point out that whatever the reason for someone to get an abortion, it is none of your goddamn business, at all. Nobody asked you.
|
Something to keep in mind is the massive chilling effect here.
As a doctor / hospital, you don't know how the clearly medically ignorant theocratic shitheads legislating and enforcing these things are going to look upon you doing anything vaguely related to abortion.
So you can have a situation where technically removing ectopic pregnancies is legal, but the procedure is effectively not gonna happen in any red state.
Am sure we had a tweet stating this with some more detail in the last few pages.
|
On July 04 2022 01:02 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Something to keep in mind is the massive chilling effect here.
As a doctor / hospital, you don't know how the clearly medically ignorant theocratic shitheads legislating and enforcing these things are going to look upon you doing anything vaguely related to abortion.
So you can have a situation where technically removing ectopic pregnancies is legal, but the procedure is effectively not gonna happen in any red state.
Am sure we had a tweet stating this with some more detail in the last few pages.
Exactly. Technically cancer medication is completely outside the scope of the ruling, and yet some of them have an alternate use as an abortifacient, so doctors are threatened by the law, even if it's prescribing methotrexate to a woman dying of cancer. It's already happening.
And if we had all this time to codify abortion rights, the folks behind the abortion bans likewise had the same amount of time to consider the deadly consequences of a total ban on abortion. So I'm gonna go ahead and blame them.
|
On July 04 2022 00:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2022 00:04 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 23:58 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2022 23:49 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 23:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 03 2022 22:57 Introvert wrote:On July 03 2022 21:50 gobbledydook wrote:
The initial stages of the abortion ban are going to be messy and awful. Still, I expect the laws to be revised as the practical implications become impossible to ignore. So far all the abortion bans have been an exercise in legal circlejerking with no real thought put into how it will actually turn out in practice.
It's like you move out for college and imagine that you can party all day, until you realize you're going to fail out. There are many sayings about using extremes. Almost no abortions that happen in this country are for women in that situation. They would use that to defend adults getting elective abortions very late their pregnancies. Ans much of the confusion isn't even the law. There's so much disinformation here and they doing a great harm to others by spreading it, on stuff like ectopic pregnancies which not a single state bans thr treatment of. Thr stories there are either lies, or hospitals have bad lawyers. Some percentage may just be confused, but that will change with time and the people here and elsewhere are doing great harm in by spreading bad information when there are women out there who will need treatment. How many of the abortions are late elective? And define late elective? How many does a ban actually stop? When you can not provide these numbers rethink your own bullshit please. Edit: also if you can produce where in the law it allows ectopic pregnancies', use Texas please, everything I have read says it was made purposely vague. You have posted this is factually inaccurate should be easy for you to show instead of just tell (hard for conservatives I know). https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/abortion-ban-exceptions-life-threatening-pregnancy-rcna36026"My lawyer told me, 'Unless they are on that table dying in front of you, you cannot do an abortion on them or you are breaking the law,'" she said, adding, "How am I supposed to help people from jail?" "What does the risk of death have to be, and how imminent must it be?" Lisa Harris, a professor of reproductive health at the University of Michigan, wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month. "Might abortion be permissible in a patient with pulmonary hypertension, for whom we cite a 30-to-50% chance of dying with ongoing pregnancy? Or must it be 100%?"
Edit: ans the parts of the story you quoted weren't even about ectopic pregnancies. Do YOU read what you post? I'm on my phone so I will do what I try to avoid ans post a Twitter thread. But the summary is that A) pre-Roe laws were never considered to apply to ectopic pregnancies (thr treatment for those isn't even an abortion) B) many states, as listed, made it explicit again anyways. I don't even know where you are going to someone who would defend banning treatments for ectopic pregnancies. So *at best* is an uncertainty that will be quickly fixed, at worst it's dangerous misinformation. And yes, I do partially blame the lawyers, they've known for a long time now that Roe could go, especially after the leaked draft was put out. They should have been ready. Ectopic is one of the reasons that would fit the definition of a "dangerous pregnancy" but would all rise to life threatening? Not all ectopic would kill someone. They talk in the article about why the law is written vaguely and what that means for all dangerous pregnancies. Maybe read the article, or the mountains of them, without disagreeing with them before you start. There is massive confusion you have to have your head awfully burried in the sand to think, yep this is going to work out real well when all the care providers are not sure about the implications. Generally a major change takes time, with pilots, education and so on to try to avoid major issues. This has none of that. It is a wildly stupid law implemented worse! The life of thr mother is just extra. Treating entopic pregnancies isn't an abortion in the first place, states going back to pre-Roe laws didn't consider them that way, and many states that passed laws recently made it explicit. That's the point. It's not that vague because it doesn't fit into that category anyways. How about this law? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/29/ohio-extreme-abortion-bill-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancyHere is a long discussion on the topic, but it is really a bit of a straw man because there are sorts of pregnancies that could result in harm to the mother, but at what % risk, who determines that % and how soon must the moms life be in peril to have the doctors off the hook? That is the vagueness I'm talking about. https://newrepublic.com/article/166411/ectopic-pregnancy-roe-abortion-banOn top of that people are fearful of the next one, because this one is already rolling things back 50 years and it clear that logic and science are not the determining factors for the people wanting the laws or even those writing them!
I'm out and about so I can only answer so much, I'm trying to confine to the most widely cited and yet obviously misleading claim which is about ectopic pregnancies.
But I'm not sure you are reading your own links... that Ohio bill is not a law, it never even became one (that articleis 2 years old). Pretty much all of your posts on this particular issue have been fretting over things that, far from even being erroneous readings of the laws, are things explicitly NOT laws.
It's fearmongering to say that states that explicitly leave ectopic treatments out are Trojan horses for the future. For example the law in LA that the second article was complaing about explicitly sets treating ectopic pregnancies as separate from abortion. It's in black and white. You are running out of backwards red states where this could be an issue. We discussed Texas, but there is also Georgia, Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio, Arkansas, and Alabama. Just off the top of my head. Those last ones all say it even in the newer laws.
|
Even now, we're overreacting. Fucking LOL. Yeah, ignore the decades of history of radical evangelicals stripping your freedoms by degrees. That never happened.
Also, we're using extreme rhetoric and examples, Introvert? Tough shit. I don't wanna fucking hear it honestly. For decades, y'all have been butting your noses into other people's bedrooms and other people's business, offering unsolicited judgement and harassment. Confronting people minding their own business and planning their own families and calling them baby murderers, bombing health clinics and killing doctors.
You can take the extreme examples and fucking deal, my dude.
|
You've been in a constant state of rage for all the years you've been in this thread so your view is not of too much interest. I would just say that for the sake of women who need life saving treatment of all kinds everyone should refrain from spreading bad info because they are angry. Tho tbf this thread is male dominated, but people have wives and girlfriends, and talk to friends irl. So one should make sure the information is correct.
|
I've been in a constant state of giving a shit about the real world consequences of your fantasy football game. There's a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
