US-Roe vs Wade overturned

[iNow]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

“If a 10-year-old became pregnant as a result of rape and it was threatening her life, then that’s not an abortion,” Foster said. “So it would not fall under any abortion restriction in our nation.”

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

I guess as long as you don't call it an abortion it's okay...

The Parties sure like their extreme positions. How about "I can't really define abortion but I know it when I hear about it".

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess as long as you don't call it an abortion it's okay...

Actually, in Texas women and officials are recognizing that evacuation of a miscarriage is the same procedure as an abortion, using a couple of the same drugs that are being banned. Women are being denied treatment for miscarriage even though it's not an abortion.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages

Quote

"The challenge is that the treatment for an abortion and the treatment for a miscarriage are exactly the same," said Dr. Sarah Prager, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington in Seattle and an expert in early pregnancy loss.

 

[geordief]

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Actually, in Texas women and officials are recognizing that evacuation of a miscarriage is the same procedure as an abortion, using a couple of the same drugs that are being banned. Women are being denied treatment for miscarriage even though it's not an abortion.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/05/10/1097734167/in-texas-abortion-laws-inhibit-care-for-miscarriages

 

Can they take a class action against the State?

 

Can they also say their civil rights have been violated and light a fire under the Supeme Court?

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, geordief said:

Can they take a class action against the State?

 

Can they also say their civil rights have been violated and light a fire under the Supeme Court?

What right is allegedly being violated? The one that SCOTUS just said doesn't exist?

[J.C.MacSwell]

What law allows someone to abort a tumour?

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What law allows someone to abort a tumour?

Murphy's 

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess as long as you don't call it an abortion it's okay...

The Parties sure like their extreme positions. How about "I can't really define abortion but I know it when I hear about it".

As the article states, by keeping things uncertain, the effective result is that physicians are afraid to perform life-saving measures including in fairly obvious cases such as ectopic pregnancies. The creation of an implicit threat seems to be very much by design and aims to take out medical decisions away from physicians into a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers.

[geordief]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

What right is allegedly being violated? The one that SCOTUS just said doesn't exist?

Yes,that one.

I mean to take a symbolic case (in addition to practical  cases that might actually  result  in some compensation)

[iNow]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

by keeping things uncertain, the effective result is that physicians are afraid to perform life-saving measures including in fairly obvious cases such as ectopic pregnancies. The creation of an implicit threat seems to be very much by design

Ding! 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

As the article states, by keeping things uncertain, the effective result is that physicians are afraid to perform life-saving measures including in fairly obvious cases such as ectopic pregnancies. The creation of an implicit threat seems to be very much by design and aims to take out medical decisions away from physicians into a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers.

Which is how it should be...so why don't you find some reasonable law makers?

The vast, vast majority of Americans agree with the objections to the extremes of both sides, including:

1. No abortions under any circumstances

and

2. Abortions by choice under any circumstances

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Murphy's 

I think that law might point to why each of the Parties should sew their shirt together, rather than hope the other Party can be made to look worse...assuming they have any actual interest in improving outcomes and maintaining anything worthwhile they have in place.

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Which is how it should be...so why don't you find some reasonable law makers?

Because the strategy of the last few decades is to rile up your base against the other position (regardless what it may be) rather than being reasonable. If you follow the other thread regarding rationality vs logic vs reason, this seems like a situation where being rational (how to get all the votes) trumps reason (what do folks really want).
 

Also while I am not a voter anywhere (for now) I will note that this trend is not unique to the US. It is employed with various success throughout Europe and it is an increasing trend in Canada (probably by diffusion).

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Which is how it should be...

Which should be?

- The creation of an implicit threat

- taking medical decisions away from physicians 

- a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers

- all three? 

Should be that way for everyone in all cases? If the lawmakers are predominantly of one faith, or share a prejudice, then all life, death, treatment and prevention should be designed on their belief, rather on the scientifically determined best outcome for the patient?

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

so why don't you find some reasonable law makers?

When did this become CharonY's job description?

 

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The vast, vast majority of Americans agree with the objections to the extremes of both sides, including:

1. No abortions under any circumstances

and

2. Abortions by choice under any circumstances

They very well might be so, but 2. is not, and has never been the actual pro-choice position - despite many, many attempts to present it this way.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Peterkin

[swansont]

4 hours ago, geordief said:

Yes,that one.

I mean to take a symbolic case (in addition to practical  cases that might actually  result  in some compensation)

I’m not a lawyer, but I imagine such a suit would be immediately tossed

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Which should be?

- The creation of an implicit threat

- taking medical decisions away from physicians 

- a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers

- all three? 

 

 

The one I bolded when quoting CY.

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

When did this become CharonY's job description?

It's in all our job descriptions...at least those in democracies.

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

 

 

They very well might be so, but 2. is not, and has never been the actual pro-choice position - despite many, many attempts to present it this way.

Many, many, and many...Both sides have presented it this way.

 

[Peterkin]

28 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The one I bolded when quoting CY.

That was half a sentence with no meaning without the other half"

The creation of an implicit threat seems to be very much by design and aims to take out medical decisions away from physicians into a

So what you are approving is a system of intimidation where physicians are forced to make medical decisions according to the moral code of people who have no medical knowledge but know - or think they know - what some Hebrew prophets wrote 28+ centuries ago. 

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It's in all our job descriptions...at least those in democracies.

to "find some reasonable law makers" Yah. Good idea... a little short on implementation.

35 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Many, many, and many...Both sides have presented it this way.

Only one side has presented it this way in legal or legislative argument. Only one side has put the extreme position in action and enshrined it in law. These opposites are in no way equal or comparable, and have never been the only choices available to patients, doctors, jurists or legislators.  

[TheVat]

Due to heavily gerrymandered districting in about half the US states, a minority view of abortion is now becoming the law there.  Simply chiding us "vote better!" is not going to fix this.  Real solutions will be complex and difficult and require electoral reform and, before that holy grail is found, underground networks to help pregnant women trapped by various circumstances in states that have gone medieval.  

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Which is how it should be...

We might be able to do that if we could agree on whose morals to uphold. The ones who want the baby/fetus to live at the expense of the mother or the ones who want the mother to live at the expense of the baby/fetus.

[TheVat]

It's worth noting that a ban on abortion actually violates some religious beliefs and practices, and therefore could be met with a Constitutional pleading in high courts.

https://www.brandeis.edu/jewish-experience/social-justice/2022/june/abortion-judaism-joffe.html

[Peterkin]

To right-wing lawmakers, who lives and who dies is not the issue - it's not even a consideration. If no abortion - or other procedure to stop bleeding or remove necrotic tissue - is performed, both mother and foetus may very well die. Or the mother may bring a pregnancy to term, deliver a defective baby, which dies a few hours or days or horrible months later, and the mother may also die of sepsis or hemorrhage. The legislators and jurists are not interested in medical problems. 

The only issue is who decides.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

That was half a sentence with no meaning without the other half"

Right. But you made your list with that exactly as one of options.

I answered your question.

Your welcome.

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

We might be able to do that if we could agree on whose morals to uphold. The ones who want the baby/fetus to live at the expense of the mother or the ones who want the mother to live at the expense of the baby/fetus.

The majority fall in neither of those strict categories.

Surely it's apparent that if the majority had their say, though few might be fully satisfied there would be a much more satisfactory situation than what we have currently.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Due to heavily gerrymandered districting in about half the US states, a minority view of abortion is now becoming the law there.  Simply chiding us "vote better!" is not going to fix this.    

You only get to vote during elections. You can refuse to support the current Parties at any time and signal openness to "voting better" to better options.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

  Real solutions will be complex and difficult and require electoral reform and, before that holy grail is found, underground networks to help pregnant women trapped by various circumstances in states that have gone medieval.  

I'm quite aware that it's complex and difficult. Electoral reform could be worthwhile as well, but you can certainly improve the lot of pregnant women and fetuses without it.

[Peterkin]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I answered your question.

Yes, and now you have clarified it. You believe that medical decisions should be made, not by medically trained persons on scientific grounds, nor by the patient whose life and health is at stake, but by unqualified legislators, according to their own value system. Only without the 1. implicit threat or 2. taking away a right those affected already have.

That means a return to the middle ages, when the decision-makes were prelates, the threat was explicit and the plague took out a third of Europe's population, while the Inquisition burned midwives.  

In the following statement, you also seem to take it for granted that voters are able to 'find' and elect what you consider reasonable legislators. That, too has happened, and was the standard for a few good years, while reasonable legislators enacted laws in accord with their constituents' will, and left medical decisions to medical personnel and their patients. That is the very state of affairs which has been reversed, one reasonable law at a time, one civil right at a time, one legal protection after another, in America's processional toward the medieval status quo. 

Once the democratic process has been corrupted and debased, voters no longer have the power to reform it - which was the very purpose of the corruption. The only way for a populace robbed of its political power to regain it is through revolution. 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Peterkin

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes, and now you have clarified it. You believe that medical decisions should be made, not by medically trained persons on scientific grounds, nor by the patients who is life and health is at stake, but by unqualified legislators, according to their own value system. Only without the 1. implicit threat or 2. taking away a right those affected already have.

That means a return to the middle ages, when the decision-makes were prelates, the threat was explicit and the plague took out a third of Europe's population, while the Inquisition burned midwives.  

I guess in fairness I can claim that you believe medically trained persons should be unrestrained by any laws made by legislators?

Why is it all or none with you?

After giving your head a shake, try looking at these two choices, one which I agreed with and one I rejected:

- taking medical decisions away from physicians 

- a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers

Is my position getting any clearer to you?

 

[Peterkin]

10 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Electoral reform could be worthwhile as well, but you can certainly improve the lot of pregnant women and fetuses without it.

There is that "you" again. No, he cannot. No voter can.

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I guess in fairness I can claim that you believe medically trained persons should be unrestrained by any laws made by legislators?

All the law needs to do is protect citizens from predation by other citizens. That doesn't require meddling in the treatment decisions of individual patients. Doctors and nurses have their own code of ethics and are quite capable of maintaining professional standards in their ranks. Legislation is required only in the allocation of resources to serve the public well-being. (It would also be nice to have in the organization of national and local response to emergencies... but, alas!)

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why is it all or none with you?

All or none of what? Reasonable laws and guidelines have been in effect for about 50 years, in most civilized countries. People are upset, because that reasonable state of affairs has been upset.

With me, it's neither: I'm an onlooker.

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

taking medical decisions away from physicians 

- a morality-based judgement system controlled by law-makers

Is my position getting any clearer to you?

Yes. You want lawmakers to control medicine according to their own moral position, and somehow exert this control without taking it away from doctors and patients.

That's exactly as clear as wanting individual voters to correct flaws in an electoral process that has already been damaged beyond repair. 

Any other pairs of opposites you while you're prescribing?   

 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Peterkin

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes. You want lawmakers to control medicine according to their own moral position, and somehow exert this control without taking it away from doctors and patients.

Close. That of their constituents...but you are slowly getting there despite your extreme polarizing mindset.

Both mothers and medical personnel need restrictions on their choices. Without it infanticide would be legal.

...and that has been done, illegally, in our country.