|
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 |
On July 04 2022 08:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2022 08:13 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2022 07:59 JimmiC wrote: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 well to ban it, as that would be stupid. Every time someone tries or it LOOK 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 feq legitimate cases of confusion should rapidly decline in frequency as the laws are put into practice. 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. Its not a gotcha attempt. Its a have you thought through the basic questions that need to answered if you want to impliment an abortion ban to have it result in more living children. And then ideally more livung children that are properly cared for so you can have a successful society. Iy seems like these super basic things have been ignored. Like I would feel more comfortable if a 10 year old rape victim abortion is elective or not in your and in legal defibitions. Also is there some conservative website or news organization memeing on that one specific case? It srems odd that both our Republican posters are only posting about it.
They aren't MY definitions and the 10 year old girl was only a few days over 6 weeks when she came in if I remember the story. So that's not late term. If that's what you wanted me to say then..., no I don't consider 6 weeks "late."
The Missouri one? I'm responding to that one tweet that's been posted here multiple times.
|
On July 04 2022 08:24 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +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?
It's the same logic around the "Don't Say Gay" bill. It doesn't literally tell you that you can't talk about gay people, or about what being gay or queer or transgender means, it just paints a lot of broad brush strokes around the vicinity of "sexualized discussion", both to paint homosexuality, queerness, etc. as some perverted sexual maladjustment, and to leave just enough room for interpretation that a lot of teachers don't want to get near the line - the law was written fuzzily enough intentionally to make that a hazy issue that can be weaponized later.
Despite whether one state or another does or does not explicitly ban treating ectopic pregnancy, the rhetoric is definitely floating out there among the right, and there are absolutely circles where treating an ectopic pregnancy is lumped in under abortions, and the evangelical Christians don't care to distinguish. Just knowing that someone might not care to distinguish between them and bring a lawsuit against someone regardless, and that a judge might just agree with them, is enough to chill a huge number of healthcare providers who just want to keep their job and help people (or make money). "But it isn't explicitly banned" doesn't mean a thing when you keep people on their toes and make them not want to play around with where the line actually is. Because as these rulings have shown in the first place, they are more than happy to push the envelope to come after pregnant people.
|
On July 04 2022 08:24 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Not off the top of my head. Last i saw it was actually in a story mentioning the Missouri house legislatures who alao said other state laws protected it. But as I said early, no state pre-Roe laws banned it either, so unless a trigger law explicitly does...
I'm not an expert, but it's a different procedure, done on a pregnancy that is never viable.
No, a doctor can’t re-implant or move your ectopic pregnancy into your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies can’t grow into fetuses: A pregnancy won’t survive if it’s ectopic, because a fertilized egg can’t grow or survive outside your uterus.
Untreated ectopic pregnancies can cause internal bleeding, infection, and in some cases lead to death. When you have an ectopic pregnancy, it’s extremely important to get treatment from a doctor as soon as possible.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that when done safely, ends a pregnancy that’s in your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are unsafely outside of your uterus (usually in the fallopian tubes), and are removed with a medicine called methotrexate or through a laparoscopic surgical procedure. The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous when left untreated and can’t lead to a baby. If you’re pregnant and have severe pain or bleeding, go to the emergency room right away. If you have any other symptoms of ectopic pregnancy, contact your doctor or nurse as soon as you can. The earlier an ectopic pregnancy is found and treated, the safer you’ll be.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancy
States have always treated it differently from everything I've read.
|
On July 04 2022 08:45 Introvert wrote:
Not off the top of my head. Last i saw it was actually in a story mentioning the Missouri house legislatures who alao said other state laws protected it. But as I said early, no state pre-Roe laws banned it either, so unless a trigger law explicitly does...
I think our point is that it doesn't need to explicitly ban it. If it doesn't affirm the right to that care, it leaves room for zealous right-wing officials to wage lawsuits and start investigations into people who got that care because "what if it was actually an abortion instead?"
If you're asking folks to trust the right-wingers, because this is the time they'll actually keep their word, I think you're in for a hard sell. The good faith is gone, the trust is burned. People aren't just going to assume everything will be ok because you say so.
|
On July 04 2022 08:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2022 08:24 ChristianS wrote: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? Not off the top of my head. Last i saw it was actually in a story mentioning the Missouri house legislatures who alao said other state laws protected it. But as I said early, no state pre-Roe laws banned it either, so unless a trigger law explicitly does... I'm not an expert, but it's a different procedure, done on a pregnancy that is never viable. Show nested quote +No, a doctor can’t re-implant or move your ectopic pregnancy into your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies can’t grow into fetuses: A pregnancy won’t survive if it’s ectopic, because a fertilized egg can’t grow or survive outside your uterus.
Untreated ectopic pregnancies can cause internal bleeding, infection, and in some cases lead to death. When you have an ectopic pregnancy, it’s extremely important to get treatment from a doctor as soon as possible.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that when done safely, ends a pregnancy that’s in your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are unsafely outside of your uterus (usually in the fallopian tubes), and are removed with a medicine called methotrexate or through a laparoscopic surgical procedure. The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous when left untreated and can’t lead to a baby. If you’re pregnant and have severe pain or bleeding, go to the emergency room right away. If you have any other symptoms of ectopic pregnancy, contact your doctor or nurse as soon as you can. The earlier an ectopic pregnancy is found and treated, the safer you’ll be.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancyStates have always treated it differently from everything I've read.
So... you're not actually claiming that there's explicit legal protections for treating ectopic pregnancies in Missouri law. You're also not claiming there's any settled jurisprudence on whether the text of the Missouri trigger law (which only actually took effect, like, a week ago) could be applied to treating ectopic pregnancies. So you're claiming... what? That a DA probably wouldn't choose to prosecute? That you think if the case is tried, that it's likely to come out in the doctor's favor? You understand that both of those scenarios imply legal risk, right? I don't actually think you're too dense to understand the concept of legal risk, so what is it you're actually saying?
And when you've repeatedly asserted it's "not an abortion" you're really just saying "well I wouldn't consider it an abortion because the fetus would have died anyway"? Because some of the treatments clearly do kill the fetus. So all you're actually saying is "ectopic pregnancies are nonviable" which we already knew, so why are you repeating it over and over? I absolutely guarantee "it's only abortion if you kill it in the uterus" is not actually a thing you believe.
|
On July 04 2022 09:17 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2022 08:45 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2022 08:24 ChristianS wrote: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? Not off the top of my head. Last i saw it was actually in a story mentioning the Missouri house legislatures who alao said other state laws protected it. But as I said early, no state pre-Roe laws banned it either, so unless a trigger law explicitly does... I'm not an expert, but it's a different procedure, done on a pregnancy that is never viable. No, a doctor can’t re-implant or move your ectopic pregnancy into your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies can’t grow into fetuses: A pregnancy won’t survive if it’s ectopic, because a fertilized egg can’t grow or survive outside your uterus.
Untreated ectopic pregnancies can cause internal bleeding, infection, and in some cases lead to death. When you have an ectopic pregnancy, it’s extremely important to get treatment from a doctor as soon as possible.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that when done safely, ends a pregnancy that’s in your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are unsafely outside of your uterus (usually in the fallopian tubes), and are removed with a medicine called methotrexate or through a laparoscopic surgical procedure. The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous when left untreated and can’t lead to a baby. If you’re pregnant and have severe pain or bleeding, go to the emergency room right away. If you have any other symptoms of ectopic pregnancy, contact your doctor or nurse as soon as you can. The earlier an ectopic pregnancy is found and treated, the safer you’ll be.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancyStates have always treated it differently from everything I've read. So... you're not actually claiming that there's explicit legal protections for treating ectopic pregnancies in Missouri law. You're also not claiming there's any settled jurisprudence on whether the text of the Missouri trigger law (which only actually took effect, like, a week ago) could be applied to treating ectopic pregnancies. So you're claiming... what? That a DA probably wouldn't choose to prosecute? That you think if the case is tried, that it's likely to come out in the doctor's favor? You understand that both of those scenarios imply legal risk, right? I don't actually think you're too dense to understand the concept of legal risk, so what is it you're actually saying? And when you've repeatedly asserted it's "not an abortion" you're really just saying "well I wouldn't consider it an abortion because the fetus would have died anyway"? Because some of the treatments clearly do kill the fetus. So all you're actually saying is "ectopic pregnancies are nonviable" which we already knew, so why are you repeating it over and over? I absolutely guarantee "it's only abortion if you kill it in the uterus" is not actually a thing you believe.
No, I'm saying I can't source it here on my phone atm. I read that it is protected in Missouri law, I don't have the text of the law. It's not the law they recently passed, if that's the confusion.
The link I provided from the biggest abortion provider in the country says they aren't the same, states treat them as not the same, therefore I say, on the basis of authority outside my own, that they are not the same. And vsrious pro-life groups consider them differently. An entopic pregnancy cannot lead to a child being born and is a threat to the woman. Crudely put, that child will be/is dead no matter what. So yes. I can totally draw a distinction between that and an abortion. The status of the fetus as a person/ potentially a person is overridden by those other factors.
|
Northern Ireland26040 Posts
On July 04 2022 08:40 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2022 08:24 ChristianS wrote: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? It's the same logic around the "Don't Say Gay" bill. It doesn't literally tell you that you can't talk about gay people, or about what being gay or queer or transgender means, it just paints a lot of broad brush strokes around the vicinity of "sexualized discussion", both to paint homosexuality, queerness, etc. as some perverted sexual maladjustment, and to leave just enough room for interpretation that a lot of teachers don't want to get near the line - the law was written fuzzily enough intentionally to make that a hazy issue that can be weaponized later. Despite whether one state or another does or does not explicitly ban treating ectopic pregnancy, the rhetoric is definitely floating out there among the right, and there are absolutely circles where treating an ectopic pregnancy is lumped in under abortions, and the evangelical Christians don't care to distinguish. Just knowing that someone might not care to distinguish between them and bring a lawsuit against someone regardless, and that a judge might just agree with them, is enough to chill a huge number of healthcare providers who just want to keep their job and help people (or make money). "But it isn't explicitly banned" doesn't mean a thing when you keep people on their toes and make them not want to play around with where the line actually is. Because as these rulings have shown in the first place, they are more than happy to push the envelope to come after pregnant people.
As ever, State divergence applies. Specifically dovetailing with the worst of the ‘abortion bounties’ frameworks folks have outlined.
It’s a rather bad combination. Unless a procedure is absolutely bullet proof in its clear legality, one risks lawsuit after lawsuit. And lawsuits that don’t appear to be particularly difficult or financially prohibitive to being to bear.
I’m not a lawyer but it can’t be too difficult to add explicit conditions and procedures to a statute if there’s any wriggle room or uncertainty.
If it comes down to people jumping to worst case scenarios, and it all works out in the wash (relatively speaking) and we’re all wrong to be concerned and it’s all hunky dory, hey great! Women get better care than the worst projections I’m hearing and fearing.
It’s not like we all absolutely love Republicans being as heartless as we can imagine just to feel better about ourselves.
|
On July 04 2022 08:24 ChristianS wrote:
Edit: "The treatment isn't abortion" seems like nonsense? The treatment results in the pregnancy not continuing. That's an abortion, no?
Yes, but if you call it an abortion some women will refuse to do it and pointlessly die because of the tainted nature of the word in their communities. It's a semantic compromise that gives them and religious legislators an out.
|
|
|
On July 04 2022 09:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2022 09:17 ChristianS wrote:On July 04 2022 08:45 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2022 08:24 ChristianS wrote: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? Not off the top of my head. Last i saw it was actually in a story mentioning the Missouri house legislatures who alao said other state laws protected it. But as I said early, no state pre-Roe laws banned it either, so unless a trigger law explicitly does... I'm not an expert, but it's a different procedure, done on a pregnancy that is never viable. No, a doctor can’t re-implant or move your ectopic pregnancy into your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies can’t grow into fetuses: A pregnancy won’t survive if it’s ectopic, because a fertilized egg can’t grow or survive outside your uterus.
Untreated ectopic pregnancies can cause internal bleeding, infection, and in some cases lead to death. When you have an ectopic pregnancy, it’s extremely important to get treatment from a doctor as soon as possible.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that when done safely, ends a pregnancy that’s in your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are unsafely outside of your uterus (usually in the fallopian tubes), and are removed with a medicine called methotrexate or through a laparoscopic surgical procedure. The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous when left untreated and can’t lead to a baby. If you’re pregnant and have severe pain or bleeding, go to the emergency room right away. If you have any other symptoms of ectopic pregnancy, contact your doctor or nurse as soon as you can. The earlier an ectopic pregnancy is found and treated, the safer you’ll be.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancyStates have always treated it differently from everything I've read. So... you're not actually claiming that there's explicit legal protections for treating ectopic pregnancies in Missouri law. You're also not claiming there's any settled jurisprudence on whether the text of the Missouri trigger law (which only actually took effect, like, a week ago) could be applied to treating ectopic pregnancies. So you're claiming... what? That a DA probably wouldn't choose to prosecute? That you think if the case is tried, that it's likely to come out in the doctor's favor? You understand that both of those scenarios imply legal risk, right? I don't actually think you're too dense to understand the concept of legal risk, so what is it you're actually saying? And when you've repeatedly asserted it's "not an abortion" you're really just saying "well I wouldn't consider it an abortion because the fetus would have died anyway"? Because some of the treatments clearly do kill the fetus. So all you're actually saying is "ectopic pregnancies are nonviable" which we already knew, so why are you repeating it over and over? I absolutely guarantee "it's only abortion if you kill it in the uterus" is not actually a thing you believe. No, I'm saying I can't source it here on my phone atm. I read that it is protected in Missouri law, I don't have the text of the law. It's not the law they recently passed, if that's the confusion. The link I provided from the biggest abortion provider in the country says they aren't the same, states treat them as not the same, therefore I say, on the basis of authority outside my own, that they are not the same. And vsrious pro-life groups consider them differently. An entopic pregnancy cannot lead to a child being born and is a threat to the woman. Crudely put, that child will be/is dead no matter what. So yes. I can totally draw a distinction between that and an abortion. The status of the fetus as a person/ potentially a person is overridden by those other factors.
So you're saying there *is* explicit legal protection for treating ectopic pregnancies in Missouri law that all these hospitals' lawyers missed, you just can't find a source for it? This seems like one of those "big if true" situations. If you ever do find a source I'd love to see it!
I have no interest in this semantic distinction, you're welcome to define "abortion" however you like. I doubt you actually put much stock in Planned Parenthood's opinion on this matter or any other, but it sounds like we're in agreement that terminating an ectopic pregnancy is the only moral course, and the law should explicitly and unambiguously exempt doctors and patients from any legal punishment for that treatment. Good! Seems like a real shame that doctors (and their lawyers) in a number of states think they're putting themselves in legal jeopardy doing it, no? Maybe we can extend that same sentiment to people being denied medications like methotrexate because they're potential "abortifacients"? Or to people who had to travel to another state for chemotherapy for the same reason? Seems like some pro-life legislation across the country has put a lot of people in legal jeopardy for no good reason!
I'm going out of my way not to bring up other issues that seem pretty flagrant (still haven't heard whether you're okay with the 10-year-old rape victim being forced to carry it to term, for instance) because you seem really eager to escape the discussion. But it sounds like we might be able to find agreement that all these people deserve stronger legal protections, and states that failed to do so should rectify that immediately?
|
I just don't think the 10 year girl example is a good one for the overall abortion discussion. It's such a vanishingly small number of abortions before these bans went into effect that they aren't great for big policies. They are better discussed as exceptions to more general bans instead of working the other way through. I have sympathy for both positions and while the number of "medically necessary" abortions are very small I could see it being a serious threat to a girl that young. So that's the basis on which I could justify it. But something like 97% of abortions are not health related at all, so it's not the right case through which to make sweeping claims.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 04 2022 10:06 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2022 09:26 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2022 09:17 ChristianS wrote:On July 04 2022 08:45 Introvert wrote:On July 04 2022 08:24 ChristianS wrote: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? Not off the top of my head. Last i saw it was actually in a story mentioning the Missouri house legislatures who alao said other state laws protected it. But as I said early, no state pre-Roe laws banned it either, so unless a trigger law explicitly does... I'm not an expert, but it's a different procedure, done on a pregnancy that is never viable. No, a doctor can’t re-implant or move your ectopic pregnancy into your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies can’t grow into fetuses: A pregnancy won’t survive if it’s ectopic, because a fertilized egg can’t grow or survive outside your uterus.
Untreated ectopic pregnancies can cause internal bleeding, infection, and in some cases lead to death. When you have an ectopic pregnancy, it’s extremely important to get treatment from a doctor as soon as possible.
Treating an ectopic pregnancy isn’t the same thing as getting an abortion. Abortion is a medical procedure that when done safely, ends a pregnancy that’s in your uterus. Ectopic pregnancies are unsafely outside of your uterus (usually in the fallopian tubes), and are removed with a medicine called methotrexate or through a laparoscopic surgical procedure. The medical procedures for abortions are not the same as the medical procedures for an ectopic pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancies are dangerous when left untreated and can’t lead to a baby. If you’re pregnant and have severe pain or bleeding, go to the emergency room right away. If you have any other symptoms of ectopic pregnancy, contact your doctor or nurse as soon as you can. The earlier an ectopic pregnancy is found and treated, the safer you’ll be.
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/pregnancy/ectopic-pregnancyStates have always treated it differently from everything I've read. So... you're not actually claiming that there's explicit legal protections for treating ectopic pregnancies in Missouri law. You're also not claiming there's any settled jurisprudence on whether the text of the Missouri trigger law (which only actually took effect, like, a week ago) could be applied to treating ectopic pregnancies. So you're claiming... what? That a DA probably wouldn't choose to prosecute? That you think if the case is tried, that it's likely to come out in the doctor's favor? You understand that both of those scenarios imply legal risk, right? I don't actually think you're too dense to understand the concept of legal risk, so what is it you're actually saying? And when you've repeatedly asserted it's "not an abortion" you're really just saying "well I wouldn't consider it an abortion because the fetus would have died anyway"? Because some of the treatments clearly do kill the fetus. So all you're actually saying is "ectopic pregnancies are nonviable" which we already knew, so why are you repeating it over and over? I absolutely guarantee "it's only abortion if you kill it in the uterus" is not actually a thing you believe. No, I'm saying I can't source it here on my phone atm. I read that it is protected in Missouri law, I don't have the text of the law. It's not the law they recently passed, if that's the confusion. The link I provided from the biggest abortion provider in the country says they aren't the same, states treat them as not the same, therefore I say, on the basis of authority outside my own, that they are not the same. And vsrious pro-life groups consider them differently. An entopic pregnancy cannot lead to a child being born and is a threat to the woman. Crudely put, that child will be/is dead no matter what. So yes. I can totally draw a distinction between that and an abortion. The status of the fetus as a person/ potentially a person is overridden by those other factors. So you're saying there *is* explicit legal protection for treating ectopic pregnancies in Missouri law that all these hospitals' lawyers missed, you just can't find a source for it? This seems like one of those "big if true" situations. If you ever do find a source I'd love to see it! I have no interest in this semantic distinction, you're welcome to define "abortion" however you like. I doubt you actually put much stock in Planned Parenthood's opinion on this matter or any other, but it sounds like we're in agreement that terminating an ectopic pregnancy is the only moral course, and the law should explicitly and unambiguously exempt doctors and patients from any legal punishment for that treatment. Good! Seems like a real shame that doctors (and their lawyers) in a number of states think they're putting themselves in legal jeopardy doing it, no? Maybe we can extend that same sentiment to people being denied medications like methotrexate because they're potential "abortifacients"? Or to people who had to travel to another state for chemotherapy for the same reason? Seems like some pro-life legislation across the country has put a lot of people in legal jeopardy for no good reason! I'm going out of my way not to bring up other issues that seem pretty flagrant (still haven't heard whether you're okay with the 10-year-old rape victim being forced to carry it to term, for instance) because you seem really eager to escape the discussion. But it sounds like we might be able to find agreement that all these people deserve stronger legal protections, and states that failed to do so should rectify that immediately? To your Missouri question, so far as I know the "confusion" comes from the fact that the 2019 law could be interpreted to ban ectopic treatment but the provision was removed. Therefore, the the recent law they passed doesn't speak to it either way, but other laws in the state specifically allow treatment for entopic pregnancies. So the confusion is from only looking at the 2019 law, basically. That of course assumes that the story is true. Ans I don't know how widespread it is either. At the very worst it will be sorted very quickly.
|
|
|
The states leave the medical determination to the doctor. They may not be used to that in many states, but a concensus will emerge.
Many states are moving forward on help for expectant mothers. Texas already has started and Ohio, from what I understand, will take up the issue when they come back into session. What form of support to give pregnant woman and new mothers are active areas of discussion in pro-life circles atm. But I'm never going to say it's better for a child to be aborted than born, even if you could know that I don't think it would justify an abortion. But these things will take time, and if you believe an abortion is morally worse than inadequate support for moms than it's clearly justified to ban first.
|
On July 04 2022 11:04 Introvert wrote:
The states leave the medical determination to the doctor. They may not be used to that in many states, but a concensus will emerge.
They pass the buck to doctors with vague terms like "serious risk" to avoid asking themselves what % of a woman's life they're willing to risk to feel good about stopping an abortion.
They don't leave the determination of what "seriously fast" means to the traffic cop because answering that doesn't come with difficult self-reflection.
|
On July 04 2022 11:04 Introvert wrote:
The states leave the medical determination to the doctor. They may not be used to that in many states, but a concensus will emerge.
Many states are moving forward on help for expectant mothers. Texas already has started and Ohio, from what I understand, will take up the issue when they come back into session. What form of support to give pregnant woman and new mothers are active areas of discussion in pro-life circles atm. But I'm never going to say it's better for a child to be aborted than born, even if you could know that I don't think it would justify an abortion. But these things will take time, and if you believe an abortion is morally worse than inadequate support for moms than it's clearly justified to ban first.
That should have been a discussion y'all "pro-life" folks had before you forced every woman in a red state to become infant production units for the state's domestic supply. If you cared about the utterly predictable reality of forcing women to have children they don't always want or aren't always equipped to have, then you put a safety net in place first. You put infrastructure in place first. Then maybe people wouldn't be left to come up with the only conclusion of women getting fucked over just 'cause.
"Oh, I guess things are actually terrible now. Should've thought of that. Oh well, we're definitely thinking about it now!" I bet that consoles all the women whose agency and autonomy as a human being was hijacked.
|
The only form of support any conservative will give a human child or it’s mother is sneering and jeering about decision making because conservatives in the US have no values deeper than “fuck everyone who isn’t me.”
|
Its not a new thing, it's not an "oh crap we messed up" just to be clear. Things like that take time and again from a pro-life perspective ending abortions is obviously paramount, and easier*.
|
yea, no way anyone could’ve perceived possible risks and outlier cases before making laws. the only way to understand what it could mean to put lives at risk with one’s ignorance and a pen is to simply do it and deal with the fallout as it comes.
what an embarrassing take. ‘this is a topic in pro life circles now.’
it’s not new, but actually putting any thought into it is. thanks, that wasnt already clear. any other shockers to hit us with?
in future conversations you may not want to come out with the ‘the christians have wanted this for decades but had absolutely no idea what it would mean so we’re talking about it now’ from the gate. usually a person wants to save a little face. foresight isn’t a gift to only the gentiles.
|
|
|
On July 04 2022 12:39 Introvert wrote:
Its not a new thing, it's not an "oh crap we messed up" just to be clear. Things like that take time and again from a pro-life perspective ending abortions is obviously paramount, and easier*.
It's certainly easier to jump out of a moving airplane without planning for what happens afterward, that's for sure.
I don't think that makes it better. Just so you know. Saying "well we're thinking about how to support women at the moment. We have been for a long time, actually" gives people a pretty clear impression of where you stand when they look at all of the nothing currently in place. Shoving people out the door of the airplane was paramount, so you did that first. Coming up with a parachute will happen later. Maybe. If we care enough to still want to do it later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
