It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade

[smac97]

This is interesting:

Quote

During a Congressional hearing today, an OBGYN made it clear to Democrats that protecting babies from abortion does not stop medical care and treatment for pregnant women.

Dr. Christina Francis, a board certified OGBYN, told lawmakers that abortion bans do not stop treatment for ectopic pregnancy or miscarriage.

“Elective abortion does not need to be legal in order to ensure we can provide our patients with excellent healthcare,” she said.

Dr. Francis shares that she has treated ectopic pregnancies hundreds of times during her career.

“My intent in these situations is to save the life of the mother. Not as in the case of an abortion, which is to end the life of a preborn human being,” she explained.

Some abortion advocates have been spreading stories about how a handful of women have not received proper and timely treatment for miscarriage or ectopic pregnancies. Francis says the problem is not protecting babies from abortions, it is hospital administrators and doctors who don’t properly understand and follow the laws — noting that abortion bans allow such treatment.

“I have heard stories about physicians hesitating to take care of ectopic pregnancies. My understanding is that this is not the fault of the law; it’s the fault of the physician and the hospital that doesn’t understand what the law means,” she explained.

The medical expert also explained that aboriton is not really necessary to protect the life of pregnant women.

“I have never needed to intentionally end the life of my fetal patient in order to save the life of a mother,” she said.

Dr. Francis also explained that most physicians do not want to do abortions.

“If you look at surveys done by abortion providers it shows that 76% and 93% of OBGYN’s do not perform abortions – they understand that elective abortion is NOT healthcare,” she added.

These are some pretty solid points.

See also this article from Dr. Ingrid Skop, M.D., F.O.C.A.G.:

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court decision on Dobbs has sent abortion advocates and their allies in the media scurrying to strike fear into the hearts of women. 

One example from just before the ruling is a New York Times article titled “Poland Shows the Risks for Women When Abortion Is Banned.” The article’s false implication is that thousands of women in the United States could die of pregnancy complications because physicians will now have their hands tied from intervening in life-threatening situations. That’s a bald-faced lie. 

As a board-certified ob-gyn, I’ve delivered more than 5,000 babies and walked alongside thousands of women experiencing difficult pregnancies, including women facing life-threatening complications. Modern medical advances mean we don’t have to choose between the mother and her baby, even in dangerous pregnancies.

Almost always, the mother can receive the care she needs and the baby can be given a chance to survive. Always, both mother and baby can be treated with dignity and respect. 

"Modern medical advances mean we don’t have to choose between the mother and her baby, even in dangerous pregnancies."

I am really curious about this statement.  How true is it?  I suspect there may be some excpetions to it ("almost always..."), but how many?

Quote

 

In more than a quarter-century of practice, I’ve never encountered a law that prevents me from taking medical action to save a mother’s life. What’s more, I practice in Texas, home of the controversial Texas Heartbeat Act. Those of us who have read the law know it’s nonsense to suggest the Heartbeat Act prevents doctors from saving a woman’s life, as abortion advocates claim. 

In 2022, pregnancy complications that threaten a woman’s life are rare. When they do occur, medical interventions can most likely save the life of the mother while giving her child a chance to survive. Because medical care in America is so advanced, even high-risk pregnancies usually result in the safe delivery of a healthy baby alongside a healthy mother. 

 

"{M}edical interventions that most likely save the life of the mother while giving her child a chance to survive ... {E}ven high-risk pregnancies usually result in the safe deliverty of a healthy baby alongside a healthy mother."

Is this an accurate statement?

Quote

It’s important to understand the difference between abortion and medical care in instances where the mother’s life might be at risk. Intentionally ending the life of a baby is not medical care. 

The use of abortion in the case of a life-threatening pregnancy complication typically involves a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure, more commonly referred to as a “dismemberment” abortion. In contrast, true medical care seeks to save both the unborn baby and the mother. 

Sometimes, it’s necessary to deliver a baby preterm, and sadly the baby doesn’t always survive. But my goal is always to save both the young unborn child and the mother. If the baby is not able to survive, the compassionate and best thing to do is to deliver the baby in a medically standard way (such as induction or C-section), so the mother is able to hold her child and grieve her loss. That’s the compassion and dignity that the medically unnecessary act of abortion robs a mother. 

"Intentionally ending the life of a baby is not medical care."

There do seem to be very rare instances when abortion can be medically necessary.

Quote

Abortion advocates and their media allies, however, want you to believe that pro-lifers are so extreme that they’ll willingly sacrifice the lives of women, even those with life-threatening conditions such as non-viable ectopic pregnancies. That’s false.

An ectopic pregnancy happens when an embryo implants outside of the uterus, usually in the fallopian tube, and the fetus has no chance of survival to a live birth. This occurs in 1-2 percent of pregnancies in the United States, but accounts for 4-10 percent of pregnancy-related deaths.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists affirms: “Ectopic pregnancy is a dangerous condition that requires that the pregnancy end.” As soon as it’s diagnosed, physicians will treat an ectopic pregnancy because the mother’s life is at risk, a routine obstetric procedure that is not jeopardized by Dobbs. 

This is lifesaving medical care. It is not an elective abortion. 

Apparently there has been some fearmongering about Dobbs affecting medical treatment of ectopic pregnancies.  I am glad to see this getting cleared up.

Quote

Presenting abortion as the “life-saving solution” for women facing challenging pregnancies is a warped view of health care. It belongs in a culture that does not value human life. And it denies the modern medical science that can bring both mother and baby safely through even a traumatic pregnancy. 

Contrary to the media’s thinly veiled scare tactics, the lives of American women are not threatened by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision.   

It’s worth noting that the vast majority of ob-gyns do not perform abortions because abortion isn’t medical care. In rare cases of dangerous pregnancies, there will always be medical contingencies for the health and safety of both mother and unborn child. If a mother faces medical risks from a pregnancy, her health can, should, and must be addressed as paramount. And it will be. 

Don’t let the abortion industry or its mouthpieces in the media scare you into believing otherwise. 

Good stuff, this.

Regarding the ectopic-pregnancies-and-miscarriages-count-as-abortions thing, see here:

Quote

{Some are} wrongly calling the treatment of ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages abortions. According to certified OB-GYNs, treating ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages has nothing to do with performing abortions. Abortion is an elective choice to kill an unborn child. Treatment for ectopic pregnancy and miscarriages do not constitute abortion because the intent is to save lives, not take them. Misleading women by wrongly labeling pro-life medical care “abortion” isn’t promoting “choice.” It’s just nakedly pro-abortion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, okay.  CFR.  Chapter and verse, please, where I caricatured you or your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

I responded to a faithful Latter-day Saint who objected to the comparison between Tithing and Taxes. Taxes were a forced taking and the Bishop wouldn’t show up to his house with a gun for not paying. Inflammatory rhetoric. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1981/02/concerning-tithing?lang=eng

The church teaches here and elsewhere that tithing is a debt. Akin to a “legal obligation to the Lord”. Failure to pay tithing comes with a threat: (from the article)

Quote

“For, behold, the day cometh,” he said, “that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

“But unto you that fear my name shall the Son of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall” (Mal. 4:1–2).

This prophecy was quoted by Jesus to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 25:1–2) and, with slight variation, by Moroni to Joseph Smith.

In September 1831, the Lord in a revelation made this further reference to the burning which will accompany his second coming:

“Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.

“For after today cometh the burning … for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.

“Wherefore, if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today” (D&C 64:23–25).

That is, if you believe this, you will pay your tithing.

Elsewhere we are taught the wages of unrepentant sin is death. Elsewhere the punishment for the wicked is decribed as “eternal torment”. 
 

To make a rhetorical point, I contrasted spending a few years in jail (for tac violations) to the gods punishement for sin as described in the Book of Mormon (eternal torment). As I later clarified, it was not my intent to deceive the unwashed masses, indeed I was talking to a faithful Latter-day Saint who was very familiar with LDS beliefs and terminologies. None the less you twisted the comment, called me a liar “intellectually dishonest”, “flagrantly misrepresenting” LDS teachings. The latter is obsurd and hilarious given who I was talking to. 
 

This is an extensive detail. Please dissect this post 15 ways in a 2000 word essay that completely misses the point and move on with your day. But you’ll excuse me if I treat you with the exact same respect that you show to others. 
 

ETA and before you get back to me on God’s (and Alma’s) choice of the word “eternal” to describe the punishement coming for the sinners by pointing out a kingdom of Glory, I’m going to ask you to go read BYU professors Steve Pecks “a short stay in hell” and get back to me on how long “short” actually is. 

Edited July 19, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Well, okay.  CFR.  Chapter and verse, please, where I caricatured you or your position.

I responded to a faithful Latter-day Saint who objected to the comparison between Tithing and Taxes. Taxes were a forced taking and the Bishop wouldn’t show up to his house with a gun for not paying. Inflammatory rhetoric. 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1981/02/concerning-tithing?lang=eng

The church teaches here and elsewhere that tithing is a debt. Akin to a “legal obligation to the Lord”. Failure to pay tithing comes with a threat: (from the article)

Elsewhere we are taught the wages of unrepentant sin is death. Elsewhere the punishment for the wicked is decribed as “eternal torment”. 
 

To make a rhetorical point, I contrasted spending a few years in jail (for tac violations) to the gods punishement for sin as described in the Book of Mormon (eternal torment). As I later clarified, it was not my intent to deceive the unwashed masses, indeed I was talking to a faithful Latter-day Saint who was very familiar with LDS beliefs and terminologies. None the less you twisted the comment, called me a liar “intellectually dishonest”, “flagrantly misrepresenting” LDS teachings. The latter is obsurd and hilarious given who I was talking to. 
 

This is an extensive detail. Please dissect this post 15 ways in a 2000 word essay that completely misses the point and move on with your day. But you’ll excuse me if I treat you with the exact same respect that you show to others. 
 

ETA and before you get back to me on God’s (and Alma’s) choice of the word “eternal” to describe the punishement coming for the sinners by pointing out a kingdom of Glory, I’m going to ask you to go read BYU professors Steve Pecks “a short stay in hell” and get back to me on how long “short” actually is. 

Non-responsive to my CFR.

Again: Chapter and verse, please, where I caricatured you or your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Non-responsive to my CFR.

Again: Chapter and verse, please, where I caricatured you or your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Answered. If you’re not satisfied go tattle to the mods. I will graciously accept their punishment if needed.

Edited July 19, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Answered.

Nope.  You did not provide a reference to me caricaturing you or your position.

It's possible that I have.  I make mistakes.  And if I have, I will retract it and apologize.  But first I need to see what it is you are referencing.

So . . . CFR.

1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you’re not satisfied go tattle to the mods. 

Again: Chapter and verse, please, where I caricatured you or your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  You did not provide a reference to me caricaturing you or your position.

It's possible that I have.  I make mistakes.  And if I have, I will retract it and apologize.  But first I need to see what it is you are referencing.

So . . . CFR.

Again: Chapter and verse, please, where I caricatured you or your position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pettiness Level - Expert