Meadowchik Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 20 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Here is more. https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2022/06/27/fact-check-the-truth-about-miscarriages-ectopic-pregnancies-and-the-end-of-roe-v-wade-n1608551 And this. Find a state without a life of the mother exception. Enjoy. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-states-a767801145ad01617100e57410a0a21d I find your CFR a bit tedious since Nehor and I covered it already. You really believe a woman would be denied life saving care for an ectopic pregnancy? If that happens, the dr. should be sued into oblivion. And this pj article is just another one mostly using the statements of a few doctors, one being the same who was featured in the lifesitenews article you cited previously. Those two sources aren't good.
Meadowchik Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 2 minutes ago, bsjkki said: If you have not kept up with the thread that is not my fault. Plus, I reposted for you anyway. And, it’s not my fault if you don’t like my sources. Prove they are inaccurate. Shocking..the media is biased in its coverage. https://www.lifenews.com/2022/05/17/no-ectopic-pregnancies-and-miscarriages-will-not-be-prosecuted-when-roe-v-wade-is-overturned/ So you're saying that your lifesite and pj articles were what you used before with Nehor?
webbles Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 32 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Right, so you're making speculations and assumptions. No CFR supplied. Is the CFR to link to all of the states' statutes? Or just an article that talks about ectopic pregnancies? Here's one that I think that gives a good view for both sides - https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ectopic-pregnancy-and-abortion-laws-what-to-know Some interesting paragraphs: Quote Though anti-abortion legislation generally contains carve-outs for lifesaving emergency care for the mother, legal and medical experts have raised concerns that the legislative language may be vague enough that healthcare professionals may delay care for people with ectopic pregnancies. Vineeta Gupta, MD, a maternal and child health physician and international human rights lawyer, says the vague and unclear language in anti-abortion bills regarding ectopic pregnancies creates fear, stigma, confusion, and added expenses, all of which increase barriers to care. Quote Currently, the restrictive abortion laws that have passed in certain states do not outright ban abortions for ectopic pregnancies. Though abortion restriction bills contain carve-outs for lifesaving care to the mother — which technically includes ectopic pregnancies — the vague language regarding what is and isn’t legal could confuse healthcare professionals and cause them to delay care out of fear of being prosecuted, according to experts. Quote Some state legislators have questioned why there should be exceptions for ectopic pregnancies, which are the leading cause of maternal deathTrusted Source in the first trimester. Others have previously tried to include provisions requiring doctors to move an ectopic pregnancy from the fallopian tubes to the uterus — a procedure that is medically impossible. Missouri’s abortion bill originally banned abortions to treat ectopic pregnancies, but legislators deleted the ectopic pregnancy provision after public backlash. During a state Senate debate regarding an anti-abortion bill in Oklahoma, a senator asked why there should be exceptions for ectopic pregnancies, The Washington Post reported. Quote “It really comes down to people being misinformed, and it’s led to poor legislation,” she said. “There have been legislators in different states in the United States who have at one point or another tried to introduce legislation that criminalized treatment of ectopic pregnancy.” Quote Though anti-abortion legislation generally contains carve-outs for lifesaving emergency care for the mother, the language in these bills is often vague and confusing. Reproductive rights lawyers say the vague language regarding ectopic pregnancies will increase barriers to care and worsen health equity issues. It sounds like, currently, ectopic pregnancies are allowed to be treated under all the current laws. But the language is confusing so medical professionals might delay the treatment to verify whether they can do the treatment or not. Medical professionals might also not want to treat ectopic pregnancies because of the fear. This could be very dangerous for the mother. In addition, some lawmakers and states have attempted to add language to make it illegal to treat ectopic pregnancies. None of those attempts have been successful, yet. But there is a possibility that they could actually pass at some point in the future. 2
Meadowchik Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 7 minutes ago, webbles said: Is the CFR to link to all of the states' statutes? Or just an article that talks about ectopic pregnancies? Here's one that I think that gives a good view for both sides - https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ectopic-pregnancy-and-abortion-laws-what-to-know Some interesting paragraphs: It sounds like, currently, ectopic pregnancies are allowed to be treated under all the current laws. But the language is confusing so medical professionals might delay the treatment to verify whether they can do the treatment or not. Medical professionals might also not want to treat ectopic pregnancies because of the fear. This could be very dangerous for the mother. In addition, some lawmakers and states have attempted to add language to make it illegal to treat ectopic pregnancies. None of those attempts have been successful, yet. But there is a possibility that they could actually pass at some point in the future. There are also reported cases of pharmacists in Texas refusing to dispense the drugs needed to treat miscarriages because they also treat abortions...to me this is one of the the issues raised when policing medical procedures for reproductive healthcare...the quandary of providers worrying about the law so much that they compromise patient care. 4
Calm Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 Just now, bluebell said: don't know how we would force ourselves on Canadians against their will Going by memory and that isn’t going to be great because news wasn’t my interest and it was more old than new news as the original law was passed in the 70’s I believe (though it was/is always a battle due to constant business and government pressure from the States), but this issue did strike me as important enough I paid some attention to it as there were a lot of Canadians pissed off at those Americans who were trying to shove the American way down Canadians’ throats (meaning their own profit making business usually, but also the American government attempting to pressure Canada into following their lead in all things all the way down to the individual American expat insisting on celebrating July 4th all week or all month even and therefore only giving July 1st a cursory nod at best) … If I am wrong about the specific media issue (TV and radio), maybe a Canadian could correct me…I said “practically”, meaning it wasn’t a gun to the head, but more of a successful or not company or individual musician/band situation. American businesses were creating package deals, iirc (it has been 3 decades), so Canadian business had to buy product they wouldn’t normally buy if they wanted to get the stuff they needed or wanted. Since they had already paid for it, to not use it put their business at risk as they would be spending significantly more money to buy the Canadian product they would prefer as well. It was also difficult to control programming at the user end, so cherry picking what programming they wanted to use for prime time was difficult (if I understand correctly, it was a timing issue, stuff would get cut off, interrupted if they attempted to combine American and Canadian programming). Also some American companies were intentionally taking a loss in order to monopolize the media business. Greedy and not so greedy, but not willing to struggle business owners who went along with it replaced Canadian content with American, thus at the time creating access issues to Canadian produced TV and radio for the typical customer who wanted at least some Canadian themed work. Canadian production companies, including music, were struggling. Today there would be other avenues to get the content produced and access out to the customer, but though there was cable, the quality of Canadian work suffered greatly from lack of funding at times. The Canadian government required a certain percentage of Canadian content, I don’t think it was even a majority (I just checked, it is a majority 55% now with 50% during the prime time evening to midnight), but it was enough to keep the Canadian production companies from popping up daisies. And as far as I am aware, Canada has a pretty decent media industry now. just briefly checked, music on the radio was 30-35% while we were there and now is 40%, don’t know about past TV. I think the movie business (as in theatres) has a Canadian Content requirement. 1
The Nehor Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 US bullying Canada a few years back was partially responsible for the baby formula shortage. 1
bsjkki Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, webbles said: Is the CFR to link to all of the states' statutes? Or just an article that talks about ectopic pregnancies? Here's one that I think that gives a good view for both sides - https://www.healthline.com/health-news/ectopic-pregnancy-and-abortion-laws-what-to-know Some interesting paragraphs: It sounds like, currently, ectopic pregnancies are allowed to be treated under all the current laws. But the language is confusing so medical professionals might delay the treatment to verify whether they can do the treatment or not. Medical professionals might also not want to treat ectopic pregnancies because of the fear. This could be very dangerous for the mother. In addition, some lawmakers and states have attempted to add language to make it illegal to treat ectopic pregnancies. None of those attempts have been successful, yet. But there is a possibility that they could actually pass at some point in the future. Personally, I don’t think the vast majority of obgyn’s are confused at all and the news is just trying to fearmonger. Missouri had a proposed bill that was confusing and quickly was shot down and was doa. Words like ‘possibility’ ‘attempted’ ‘confusing’ ‘might’ just shows how far fetched the ‘possibility’ really is. So, it would be nice if the pro abortion crowd would quit scaring people. They are where any confusion on this is coming from. Edited June 29, 2022 by bsjkki 3
Calm Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 40 minutes ago, bluebell said: I don't know how we would force ourselves on Canadians against their will, but I agree it's not surprising that they are aware of us. And I don't mean it as a dig against them. It's just the truth from what my canadian friends have said (and from what my best friend, who lived there for 7 years, has reported). They, in general, seem to care a lot about our politics while we, in general, seem to care very little about theirs. During the elections every one of my canadian friends was posting articles about different candidates or policies, etc. and sharing their personal views on them (to the point that I had to snooze one until the election was over because it was all she was posting about and it was very opinionated). I've never seen that reciprocated by any of my American friends when Canada holds an election. It's an interesting dichotomy. You have a country of whose people could fit inside California, Canadian military budget is 3% of the US budget and 14 million active duty vs 68,000 active duty (and yes, they recognize that is that low in part because the US wants theirs so big and is willing to be an ally most of the time), the US trades 8 times as much as Canada’s next trade partner (the EU) while Mexico is neck and neck with Canada for the US trade partners and third place China is almost up to half of Canada’s trade, their GNP is less than 8% of the US, the US invaded Canada in two wars…there is a reason the interest tends to be so high… 1
pogi Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) 2 hours ago, Calm said: And I don’t see how you can morally choose to create abusive or neglectful situations for children when it can be avoided... For me, I can morally choose it because the alternative is worse in my moral estimation - Unless you think every child who is neglected or abused should be killed to prevent any more of it... Life is greater still. There are about 3,000 abortions per day in the US according to WHO, which is about 1 million per year. We are not talking about 1 million cases of abuse or neglect...no...much worse, we are talking about 1 million terminations of life. 1 million voices that will never have an opportunity to speak, 1 million (actually 2 million) ears that will never hear. 1 million children that will never know joy or the hardship that makes joy possible. 1 million females who will never become women because they had no advocate. I can't look into the eyes of abortion survivors and say that it would have been better if they were never born. Can't do it. Listening to them speak - the fact that they can speak and have voice - despite the attempt at taking their life is powerful for me. That, to me, is the cost of abortion. The holistic costs of the fullness of life, not just the gestational stage. We can't look at them only from the perspective of the gestational stage. That is not looking at them holistically and is not fair to what they are and will become if we but step out of their way and don't intentionally kill them. I look at and assess human life from the more holistic sphere. An adult human is not possible without the gestational human, and a gestational human is not possible without the adult human. They are both essential to each other! To separate a human being from their potential in assessing their value is a moral failure. It is like assessing the value of a paper dollar based on what it is rather than what it can become, in which case is functionally worthless for much more than toilet paper. Might as well throw it all away. 2 hours ago, Calm said: What will happen to children whose mother gets in legal trouble for having an abortion? (Serious question…are there state laws that put moms in jail and kids in foster care if mom got an abortion? Does mom have to pay legal fees or fines which takes more money away from the care of her children?) I simply can't wrap my head around being more concerned over the penalty of fines than for the human life that was terminated. If a mother kills her husband, yes putting her in prison will make things more difficult for her children...bad choices lead to bad outcomes. What ever happened to the principle of responsibility and accountability? 2 hours ago, Calm said: An analogy…I see banning abortions before providing better parental support like having a bunch of kids with Mom and maybe Dad in a life boat with barely enough water for all of them and at close to its maximum weight. Adding a fetus/pregnancy to the situation pushes it perilously close to its limit. If a storm arises, instead of likely staying afloat, they will likely sink. Instead of having enough water to live, some will get dehydrated enough there will be brain and body damage. Parents will be unable to make sure kids don’t do stupid stuff because of health issues or unable to pay attention to everyone and a kid or two or three may fall over the side and have to try and survive by swimming on their own. I agree that there needs to be better support. But I can't imagine drowning one sibling to keep the others from doing "stupid stuff" or suffering from dehydration, etc. Life is not ideal...but it is worth it. Those who think otherwise are not mentally competent to decide otherwise. I think that the only way we are going to get better parental support is to ban abortions. Things will get worse before they get better. Legislators like Mitt Romney and others are already working on child allowance bills. I think this will only speed those up. For whatever stupid reason, legislators can't just see the stupidity of their decisions, they have to actually experience it before they make any changes. In an ideal world, I would agree with you that first things should be first... Edited June 28, 2022 by pogi 1
Calm Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 9 minutes ago, bsjkki said: So, it be nice if the pro abortion crowd would quit scaring people. They are where any confusion on this is coming from. I don’t doubt that these claims add to confusion, but lawmakers who publicly discussed regulating ectopic pregnancy as webbles reported hold a lot of responsibility as well, especially if they when they give the impression being medically illiterate is not unusual for a lawmaker. 3
Calm Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) 5 minutes ago, pogi said: Unless you think every child who is neglected or abused should be killed to prevent any more of it... Life is greater still. No, I think lawmakers should pay attention to children who are born first and mothers as my guess based on research of what lowers abortion rates is that will prevent deaths of the unborn more than laws punishing women who abort….because I am a practical person first when it comes to government. Edited June 28, 2022 by Calm
bsjkki Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 Just now, Calm said: I don’t doubt that these claims add to confusion, but lawmakers who publicly discussed regulating ectopic pregnancy as webbles reported hold a lot of responsibility as well, especially if they when they give the impression being medically illiterate is not unusual for a lawmaker. Yes. The Missouri guy was an idiot but the proposed bill had 0 chance of passing. It would take a ‘majority’ of both chambers and an idiot governor to pass something and that is never going to happen. So, it’s used as an example to scare people. 2
pogi Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Calm said: No, I think lawmakers should pay attention to children who are born first and mothers as my guess based on research of what lowers abortion rates is that will prevent deaths of the unborn more than laws punishing women who abort….because I am a practical person first when it comes to government. I have already agreed that support for mothers and children should be first priority. My position is this - Woe to you politicians! "These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." At the end of my post I stated that I agree with you, but I don't see your idea as really practical in todays political environment. We may be going about things backwards, but at least we are going about things. I have hope and faith that family and child allowance bills are forthcoming. I know that more needs to be done beyond that, but it is a start. Edited June 28, 2022 by pogi
bluebell Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 22 minutes ago, Calm said: You have a country of whose people could fit inside California, Canadian military budget is 3% of the US budget and 14 million active duty vs 68,000 active duty (and yes, they recognize that is that low in part because the US wants theirs so big and is willing to be an ally most of the time), the US trades 8 times as much as Canada’s next trade partner (the EU) while Mexico is neck and neck with Canada for the US trade partners and third place China is almost up to half of Canada’s trade, their GNP is less than 8% of the US, the US invaded Canada in two wars…there is a reason the interest tends to be so high… Yep. I think it still bugs some Canadians that Americans don't ever really think about their country, but as you've pointed out, they are not to us what we are to them. It makes sense that they have a high interest in the US. It also makes sense that the US doesn't have a high interest in them. Who knows what the future will bring though. 1
JustAnAustralian Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 3 hours ago, OGHoosier said: A description of the law as "precedent" is not a guarantee not to overturn it, SCOTUS decisions overruling previous SCOTUS decisions aren't actually that rare either https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ 3
The Nehor Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 21 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said: SCOTUS decisions overruling previous SCOTUS decisions aren't actually that rare either https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/ We know. That is probably not making anyone feel better.
Duncan Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 1 hour ago, Calm said: You have a country of whose people could fit inside California, Canadian military budget is 3% of the US budget and 14 million active duty vs 68,000 active duty (and yes, they recognize that is that low in part because the US wants theirs so big and is willing to be an ally most of the time), the US trades 8 times as much as Canada’s next trade partner (the EU) while Mexico is neck and neck with Canada for the US trade partners and third place China is almost up to half of Canada’s trade, their GNP is less than 8% of the US, the US invaded Canada in two wars…there is a reason the interest tends to be so high… someone asked me awhile back if Canada was a "seafaring nation" and I was like, nope! I think their are more boats in Canadian museums then there are out on the high seas. I am not knocking the navy or anything but just sheer numbers 2
bsjkki Posted June 28, 2022 Posted June 28, 2022 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: And this pj article is just another one mostly using the statements of a few doctors, one being the same who was featured in the lifesitenews article you cited previously. Those two sources aren't good. Why?
Calm Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 1 hour ago, pogi said: but I don't see your idea as really practical in todays political environment. We may be going about things backwards, but at least we are going about things. I just wonder if it will make things worse rather than better, if the change in abortions where banned won’t be that significant but it will create more supporters of more liberal laws where it isn’t banned and therefore change the general attitude of those states to be more pro abortions, so more women end up having them overall in the US rather than less.
Calm Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 15 minutes ago, Duncan said: someone asked me awhile back if Canada was a "seafaring nation" and I was like, nope! I think their are more boats in Canadian museums then there are out on the high seas. I am not knocking the navy or anything but just sheer numbers There is a ship in landlocked Calgary, lol. A friend was a Lieutenant on/at the stone frigate, HMCS Tecumseh, there. We got a very limited personal tour one evening when no one was about. 1
bsjkki Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said: So you're saying that your lifesite and pj articles were what you used before with Nehor? Those were more ectopic pregnancy specific. Nehor and I debated exceptions for the woman’s life that exist in all 50 states. I provided further back up that doctors and pro life organizations view ectopic pregnancies as non viable and life threatening for the mom. So, imo, the chance that any state would ever pass legislation banning care in these situations is zero. So, it does make me mad when people use these types of scare tactics. 1
Meadowchik Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 6 hours ago, Calm said: I don’t doubt that these claims add to confusion, but lawmakers who publicly discussed regulating ectopic pregnancy as webbles reported hold a lot of responsibility as well, especially if they when they give the impression being medically illiterate is not unusual for a lawmaker. Medically illiterate lawmakers and general public who support them add legitimate fear to the issue.
Meadowchik Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 5 hours ago, bsjkki said: Why? Two short articles, one mostly the opinions of one doctor, the second the opinions of three or so doctors including the one from the first--add to that both being in very right-wing publications. The content isn't thorough, it doesn't offer enough evidence to support your point, and it is issued by questionable sources. It's not very comforting. To your larger point about scare tactics. It is fundamentally scary when you know you have to go to the doctor with medical issues which might have presentation, symptoms, or treatment which are identical to criminalised acts. That's legitimately concerning, worrying. Without federal protections, less women will feel confident about their rights beings protected. Less will seek care when they need it. Statistically, we can reasonably predict that some will die as a result.
bsjkki Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Medically illiterate lawmakers and general public who support them add legitimate fear to the issue. Here is the full story. No one should have legitimate fear about anyone banning treatment for ectopic pregnancies. https://www.truthorfiction.com/missouri-ectopic-pregnancy-bill/ 1
Meadowchik Posted June 29, 2022 Posted June 29, 2022 If you've never had something like it happen to you, you might not realise it can: as someone with good intentions doing nothing wrong, getting caught up in the bureaucracy of rules and laws, and punished for it. It's something people don't expect. When it comes, it can be like a punch in the gut. People who have lived through it are more likely going to notice the hazards of laws interfering with medical treatments.
Recommended Posts