EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3712
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On July 04 2022 01:45 JimmiC wrote: The second article, which Im guessing you did not read gets into many of the those states and how it is not law. This is the vaugness and fear I am and others are talking about. You are with confidence saying that these things are not problems and yet people in your party are actively trying to make them problems. Real life lawyers and doctors ARE being advised not to do things because of uncertainty around the consquences. Almost daily therr are new court rulings and changes. There is no firm plan and you cannot even answer the nost basic questions. All you can do is argue one very specific point that you think is settled (but law makers, doctors and lawyers disagree) and then try to say because of that the rest is going to be ok. It is not, that 10 year old really had to go across state lines to get an abortion and that loop hole is being removed. For the record there is no safe pregnancy for a 10 yearold. And no healthy way for her to get pregnant. If a fetus is causing a bleed, how much is ok? If docs say 20% chamce of death should sge be forced to keep it? How about 40%? Not morally but legally? Will the foctors nurses and admin be held liable if they do? What if the threshold is set at 10%? Are we ok with 10% of these women dying? Do we keep it for 5 more weeks until its way emotionally harder and dangerous but you have crossed the threshold? How do we measure the threahold? What if some.doctors think its 8 % and other 20%? Will there be a panel? Will it politized? How fast can they make that call and how many will be needed? There is so many freaking situations and each of them are unique. Before you had the women and healthcare professionals make the decision. Now you are going to have lawyers and politicans make thr decision or women amd drug dealers. How is this a good thing? I read it better than you did. I'm not going into literally everything atm besides to point out these laws actually do leave the decision of what is necessary to save thr life to the doctors. The states are not making granular decisions like that and the hard cases will get figured out. You can accuse me of ignoring what you are saying but we started on a very specifics topic and now you are trying to shift off of it. And now I must go for a while at least | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On July 03 2022 18:08 Jockmcplop wrote: I don't know if anyone's really said it but Christians in the US are always bitching and whining that Christianity is under attack. Well its not under attack enough. Personally I think its time for a political war against Christianity to try and eradicate it as far as possible. Maybe then they'll learn not to try and enforce their backward medieval nonsense on the part of the population that has brain. I'm pretty sure it would just motivate them more. The religion is built upon martyrdom after all, and this brand of it especially has a strong case of, "the more people disapprove of me, the more right I must be". | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On July 04 2022 01:39 NewSunshine wrote: 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. Some people are more interested in their own minute slice of calm than the chaos and harm afflicting so many people around them. Its a fucked up mentality in the US. | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn. source that the quote is legit: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pastor-dave-barnhart-unborn/ | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On July 04 2022 03:25 Zambrah wrote: Some people are more interested in their own minute slice of calm than the chaos and harm afflicting so many people around them. Its a fucked up mentality in the US. And they don't want to acknowledge the inextricable tie that exists between their calm and the suffering occurring around them. Their religiosity is only appeased when they force everyone else to conform to their beliefs. | ||
|
justanothertownie
16325 Posts
On July 04 2022 01:37 Introvert wrote: 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. Well, good thing that social tension and strife will calm down now that the Supreme Court has finally been taken over by your team! Thank God! | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
So let's talk about them for a moment. Intro is right, no state that I'm aware of has explicitly banned medical intervention in case of ectopic pregnancies. Missouri almost did: + Show Spoiler [source] + https://twitter.com/natedub9/status/1542201526457966593 But it didn't pass. So no problem, right? People with ectopic pregnancies will continue to get the life-saving care they need? Well, not quite. Doctors in Missouri still changed their policy in case of ectopic pregnancies to wait and observe the patient until their condition actually became critical, for fear that without an active medical emergency, they would still face legal penalties: + Show Spoiler [source] + https://twitter.com/MaxKennerly/status/1541998224566796288 This gets at something fundamental about legal protections: you have to be able to trust them for them to be worth anything. Missouri never *actually* banned terminating an ectopic pregnancy, but that's not much comfort to a woman in Missouri who went to the ER with an ectopic pregnancy and had to wait 9 hours until a rupture and blood pooling in her abdomen convinced the doctor he was no longer in legal jeopardy. Legal protections aren't just about those (relatively few) people who find themselves with an ectopic pregnancy in Missouri immediately after Dobbs. They're about everyone who might find themselves in that position. Anybody in Missouri who can get pregnant is less safe than they were pre-Dobbs, and that has to influence people's life plans. Is it safe to take a job in Missouri? What about to visit family there? Even if you're pro-life? Even if you're *trying* to get pregnant? No! Or at least, less safe than it was a month ago! It doesn't just affect a few people in (at least somewhat) rare situations; it affects everybody who could find themselves in one of these situations any day. That's also why focusing on just ectopic pregnancies is deceptive. Suppose Missouri sorts out the legalities around ectopic pregnancies immediately; standard of care returns to what it was pre-Dobbs. What about any other kind of non-viable pregnancy? What about a miscarriage? Will the doctors be allowed to give you the care you need? Will law enforcement feel the need to investigate whether it was really a miscarriage? Even if it was, will they still decide you're at fault for the miscarriage somehow and convict you anyway? It's happened before! + Show Spoiler [source] + https://twitter.com/janecoaston/status/1542503921964355590 In other words, this: On July 03 2022 22:57 Introvert wrote: 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. is demonstrably ignorant of the actual legal consequences of Dobbs. A lot of people are less safe than they were, and that isn't going to change any time soon. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26742 Posts
On July 04 2022 05:52 BlackJack wrote: Women having to wait for ectopic pregnancies to rupture to get an abortion is almost as bad as the time that gunshot victims had to wait outside the ER because they were clogged with people that overdosed on horse paste. I don't think some hearsay from twitter from someone that is clearly an activist is enough to make this claim. In the absence of clarification, or specificity of laws it’s completely plausible. They’re not particularly comparable, one was an outright false story that was only plausible because people are that thick. The other is looking at potential future ramifications of changes to laws. I mean ChristanS as per usual says it much better and better sourced than I. In States that had laws on the books ready to go the second Roe went, if there’s ambiguity as to any potential liability for aborting an ectopic pregnancy, then that’s an oversight in how that law is written, presuming it was meant to be safely covered in the first place. In the absence of that some statements to the effect of ‘look that’s an oversight on x y and z, don’t worry it will be codified subsequently’. They seem stark in their absence, but I’m wholly open to the possibility I just haven’t seen them. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/29/ectopic-pregnancy-trigger-law/ TL;DR: Medical privacy stops healthcare professionals from going on the record saying this is happening, but there's no reason to doubt the reports that we've gotten so far and this kind of thing has happened in other places when abortion was banned. If you want something more solid wait a few weeks, patients will presumably start talking about their experiences, whatever they may be. Again, the focus on ectopic pregnancies is myopic anyway. The larger point is that the answer to "can doctors legally treat this patient?" has become "maybe" for a whole host of situations, and CYA dictates that "maybe" means policy is likely to be "let's just not until someone else settles the precedent." Meanwhile a lot of unavoidable situations went from legally safe to "hopefully no DAs decide this is worth prosecuting." | ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
First, I focused on ectopic pregnancies for two reasons. 1) I had to pick to avoid a sprawling conversation I did not and do not have time for. Bur because it's a relatively common thing, it doesn't seem like dodging to me. Other stuff can be discussed at other times. I in fact briefly talked about things like miscarriages here before. 2) it's getting a lot of attention here and elsewhere, it's not picking a random thing and just zeroing in on that. But I am in fact right, and at this point everyone has to concede as much. At the time Roe was overturned, and before, no state bans treating ectopic pregnancies and a bunch have that explicitly written into their laws. I don't know how many of those stories are even true. But if they are they are tragedies based on false readings of state law. NOT "ambiguities" in state law but simply false readings of it or ignoring it altogether. If for some reason a hospital is or was confused, that will quickly pass because the law is clear. Current law in Missouri says treating ectopic pregnancies is ok, and there is no law saying otherwise. The Missouri house members who voted on their final bill pointed that as well as the fact that, again, treatment is not an abortion. So any confusion should short lived. There isn't the political will to ban it, as that would be stupid. Every time someone tries or it LOOKS like they are trying it fails. Tldr, treating ectopic pregnancies is banned nowhere, thanks for the confirmation now don't go around saying that it is, that could be quite bad thanks Finally, people should remain calm because as I am attempting to point out, much of the anger is based on incorrect or misleading indo. I'm not saying be dispassionate about other's suffering, but that the anger is not grounded in what is actually happening. I want babies to live yes, but I don't want mothers dying because they can't get treatment they need. Thankfully the few legitimate cases of confusion should rapidly decline in frequency as the laws are put into practice. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4945 Posts
On July 04 2022 07:59 JimmiC wrote: You have done a decent job of arguing against a point someone might have made else where, and those people might have good points back, who knows? So now here, how about you stop dodging the super simple questions I have asked you. Or ChristianS point, his description of myopic is somehow too light for what you are doing. How many of the abortions are late elective? And define late elective? How many does a ban actually stop? I don't know why you are laser focused on that except that somehow you read my entire argument back into a comment i made in a single sentence a few pages ago. Most abortions are early and are elective, those that need one later for mom to live are explicitly provided for in the law in every state. There will probably be some initial hesitancy in the part of some doctors but it will work itself out. You know, the way many laws work. To my knowledge there is no evidence that people getting abortions after 15 or even 21 weeks are disproportionately doing so for health reasons. Irrc from 15 and later it's estimated at slightly more than 10% oh all abortions, which is still tens of thousands. Like I said, I am not going to go down this path right now. But I'm not sure what you were hoping to gain from your gotcha attempt. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
On July 04 2022 07:55 Introvert wrote: I'll pop back in here really fast First, I focused on ectopic pregnancies for two reasons. 1) I had to pick to avoid a sprawling conversation I did not and do not have time for. Bur because it's a relatively common thing, it doesn't seem like dodging to me. Other stuff can be discussed at other times. I in fact briefly talked about things like miscarriages here before. 2) it's getting a lot of attention here and elsewhere, it's not picking a random thing and just zeroing in on that. But I am in fact right, and at this point everyone has to concede as much. At the time Roe was overturned, and before, no state bans treating ectopic pregnancies and a bunch have that explicitly written into their laws. I don't know how many of those stories are even true. But if they are they are tragedies based on false readings of state law. NOT "ambiguities" in state law but simply false readings of it or ignoring it altogether. If for some reason a hospital is or was confused, that will quickly pass because the law is clear. Current law in Missouri says treating ectopic pregnancies is ok, and there is no law saying otherwise. The Missouri house members who voted on their final bill pointed that as well as the fact that, again, treatment is not an abortion. So any confusion should short lived. There isn't the political will to ban it, as that would be stupid. Every time someone tries or it LOOKS like they are trying it fails. Tldr, treating ectopic pregnancies is banned nowhere, thanks for the confirmation now don't go around saying that it is, that could be quite bad thanks Finally, people should remain calm because as I am attempting to point out, much of the anger is based on incorrect or misleading indo. I'm not saying be dispassionate about other's suffering, but that the anger is not grounded in what is actually happening. I want babies to live yes, but I don't want mothers dying because they can't get treatment they need. Thankfully the few legitimate cases of confusion should rapidly decline in frequency as the laws are put into practice. Could you provide a source on the bolded? Because otherwise this whole post says basically nothing. "Doesn't explicitly ban treating ectopic pregnancies" =/= "has provisions for medical emergencies that might or might not protect treating ectopic pregnancies" =/= "explicitly protects treating ectopic pregnancies." Edit: "The treatment isn't abortion" seems like nonsense? The treatment results in the pregnancy not continuing. That's an abortion, no? | ||
| ||
