Roe vs Wade Overturned!

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 5, 2022 17:00:28 GMT -5 justme said:

Jul 3, 2022 12:53:39 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Most of the medications used have multiple indications.

Just look at the comments about viagra when these issues come it. It was originally developed as a drug for heart disease; it had this unexpected "side" effect. It has now returned to its original use in pulmonary hypertension. Making it illegal will cause significant problems for the thousands of people on it for its "legitimate: medical use.

Methotrexate is used for abortions. It is also a chemotherapy agent, and is used in psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Misoprostol is used for abortions, but also in ulcers.

Oral contraceptives are used for birth control, but also for uterine bleeding and a whole host of other indications. 

Banning all of these drugs is impossible. As we have seen, physicians can prescribe any legal medication for anything they wish, even if it is ineffective-hello ivermectin.

Heartbeat bills are nonsense. Brain death is the standard nationwide, and those patients all have heartbeats, but are declared dead. But the law as written is unclear, and if you have an overzealous prosecutor you could be arrested for intervening if the fetus has a heartbeat. How many physicians do you think want to go to jail. WE will risk our lives, but I am not going to jail. If any of these politicians really cared, they could draft bills with the input of the medical profession that would help to eliminate the ambiguity and the plain nonsense in  these laws. But as we have seen over the last 2 years, republicans have little respect for science and doctors. So I do not see this happening for some time. They have no interest in any sor tof compromise right now.

What I hate is most that I know that are like abortion should be regulated but of course there needs to be an exception for the mother's life can't tell me how that law works. Is it when the mother's life is at a 50% risk? Or only 80%? What if it's a 30% chance to die before birth due to discovered cancer? And who determines the risk? Does it change if she already has kids? Is married?

No answers. Just of course it should be allowed. Well if you can't tell me how it'll be allowed suffice it to say that it won't be. These are states that from what I've heard can't even agree that ectopic pregnancies must be aborted.

Which is why physicians and healthcare lawyers are being cautious. The risk is still too great. Clarity in these situations is important. But they are using a hammer in a situation that is fraught with uncertainty.

I saw something that a rheumatology practice in SC will no longer prescribe methotrexate to women of childbearing age. There are many medications that are similarly problematic. I wonder how conservative mothers will feel when dermatologist won’t prescribe accurate for their teenage daughters

[minnesotapaintlady]

Jul 5, 2022 14:38:16 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jul 3, 2022 12:24:25 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

These are the unintended consequences that the anti-abortion contingent haven't foreseen.


I was talking with my mom about just this sort of stuff, and she'd pooh-poohed my concerns - oh no, that's emergency, you'd get taken care of.  No, mom, didn't you hear about the woman in Malta?  Couldn't treat her until the heartbeat stopped, even with zero chance of saving the baby, even though she risked going septic.  Didn't you hear about the woman in Ireland who DIED?  That prompted Catholic Ireland to drop their abortion ban. Oh, but...


So I'm wondering about attacking the abortion bans from the healthcare side.
1. Are there/have there been other past legislative bans on medical procedures or individual medications, despite useful applications elsewhere? If they ban a particular abortion drug, but that drug is also prescribed for other conditions, does that mean it is 100% illegal for everything now? Or just for use in abortion cases?
2.Are there ways to justify procedures from a different viewpoint (saving the mother being the most obvious) and the pregnancy effect is simply (officially) an unintended side effect. If your patient is the mother, you treat the mother as primary.

I'm probably not explaining it well enough. In 1, I'm thinking similar to how birth control is often technically prescribed to regulate irregular or heavy periods, to get around religious prohibitions on its use.


Would it be possible to craft laws to prohibit legislation interfering with medical care decisions? Legislators are not medical professionals, and should not be involved in influencing medical decisions between a patient and their doctor. People may think facelifts or boob jobs are unnecessary, so want to ban plastic surgery. But it also includes reconstructive surgery that might be necessary after injuries, or cancer surgery, or for birth defects like cleft lip.

ETA: Going back to the ectopic pregnancies - they will NEVER be viable.  There's no point protecting that "pregnancy", but there's a strong need to treat the woman. If fertility and successful pregnancies are the all important goal, preventing more damage to the woman's reproductive system by treating ASAP should be best practice, right? And saving the woman's life (for future pregnancies), too.

How many etoipic pregnancies happen every year? Are they included in the abortion numbers that are out there? What week (on average)would that procedure happen? It seems like that would be fairly early.

Just curious how many women are at risk.

My aunt's ruptured at 10 weeks.  She didn't know she was pregnant until in the ER.  

[giramomma]

Jul 5, 2022 14:38:16 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jul 3, 2022 12:24:25 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

These are the unintended consequences that the anti-abortion contingent haven't foreseen.


I was talking with my mom about just this sort of stuff, and she'd pooh-poohed my concerns - oh no, that's emergency, you'd get taken care of.  No, mom, didn't you hear about the woman in Malta?  Couldn't treat her until the heartbeat stopped, even with zero chance of saving the baby, even though she risked going septic.  Didn't you hear about the woman in Ireland who DIED?  That prompted Catholic Ireland to drop their abortion ban. Oh, but...


So I'm wondering about attacking the abortion bans from the healthcare side.
1. Are there/have there been other past legislative bans on medical procedures or individual medications, despite useful applications elsewhere? If they ban a particular abortion drug, but that drug is also prescribed for other conditions, does that mean it is 100% illegal for everything now? Or just for use in abortion cases?
2.Are there ways to justify procedures from a different viewpoint (saving the mother being the most obvious) and the pregnancy effect is simply (officially) an unintended side effect. If your patient is the mother, you treat the mother as primary.

I'm probably not explaining it well enough. In 1, I'm thinking similar to how birth control is often technically prescribed to regulate irregular or heavy periods, to get around religious prohibitions on its use.


Would it be possible to craft laws to prohibit legislation interfering with medical care decisions? Legislators are not medical professionals, and should not be involved in influencing medical decisions between a patient and their doctor. People may think facelifts or boob jobs are unnecessary, so want to ban plastic surgery. But it also includes reconstructive surgery that might be necessary after injuries, or cancer surgery, or for birth defects like cleft lip.

ETA: Going back to the ectopic pregnancies - they will NEVER be viable.  There's no point protecting that "pregnancy", but there's a strong need to treat the woman. If fertility and successful pregnancies are the all important goal, preventing more damage to the woman's reproductive system by treating ASAP should be best practice, right? And saving the woman's life (for future pregnancies), too.

How many etoipic pregnancies happen every year? Are they included in the abortion numbers that are out there? What week (on average)would that procedure happen? It seems like that would be fairly early.

Just curious how many women are at risk.

March of dimes claims 1 in 50 pregnancies or 2% of pregnancies.

www.marchofdimes.org/complications/ectopic-pregnancy.aspx

I would think at some point, that number would be going down because of the decline in fertility rates.

Here's something from the CDC to play with, to watch changes in fertility rates decline in the US:

www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/fertility_rate/fertility_rates.htm

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Jul 5, 2022 13:58:56 GMT -5 bean29 said:

When I was talking to DD this am she mentioned that her IUD has only been in place for a year but she is having issues with it.  I told her she should contact her Dr. and deal with it asap as currently there are no restrictions on IUD's but there could be in the future.

I also mentioned that I had thought she should move to a blue state.  She admitted the same had occurred to her.  She works for a company that has locations all over the US, so hopefully she can apply for positions in Blue States rather than Red States, or at least avoid the worst of them.  I also told her that our OBGYN practice is at a Catholic Hospital.  The actual practice is in a Medical Office Building on the Hospital complex.  I don't think she will make any immediate moves though, it might be hard to get away from Dr's affiliated with Catholic Organizations in our area.  As an aside, there are about 3 female Dr's in our practice.  She told me she really likes the Male Dr. in our practice.  She said she also liked the Male Dr. in the practice she saw when she was in college.  I am wondering if the Males they let join their practice are top notch b/c if they are not the best, everyone wants to see the Female OBGYN Dr's.

I am beyond worrying about having babies, but I would not be happy if I had advance directives and they were ignored.  For now, I don't feel any need to change Doctors regarding them being affiliated with a Catholic Hospital.

I really don’t have a preference, but have onl6 had male GYNs and have been quite happy with all of them.  The one thing all of them have had in common is that they spoke to me like I was an intelligent person, capable of having a say in my healthcare.  

I would not in the least assume they are not top notch.  I do think assumption is a little sexist though.

I am not sure what state you are in, but if you are in a state that has physician supplied euthanasia, then any affiliation with a Catholic hospital is out.  In WA, the only local hospital is Catholic.  If you are a physician here with admitting privileges, they’ll be pulled if you provide this service.  So patients need to get sent to Seattle.  My concern with having a physician affiliated with a Catholic hospital would be whether or not you’d get a referral.  Referrals can make horrible situations like this easy….or even more nightmarish.  This is one of the situations which scares the crap out of me, which is why most of my health care is 100 miles down the road.  At least, I’d be established in other practices than local. 

[teen persuasion]

Jul 5, 2022 14:38:16 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jul 3, 2022 12:24:25 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

These are the unintended consequences that the anti-abortion contingent haven't foreseen.


I was talking with my mom about just this sort of stuff, and she'd pooh-poohed my concerns - oh no, that's emergency, you'd get taken care of.  No, mom, didn't you hear about the woman in Malta?  Couldn't treat her until the heartbeat stopped, even with zero chance of saving the baby, even though she risked going septic.  Didn't you hear about the woman in Ireland who DIED?  That prompted Catholic Ireland to drop their abortion ban. Oh, but...


So I'm wondering about attacking the abortion bans from the healthcare side.
1. Are there/have there been other past legislative bans on medical procedures or individual medications, despite useful applications elsewhere? If they ban a particular abortion drug, but that drug is also prescribed for other conditions, does that mean it is 100% illegal for everything now? Or just for use in abortion cases?
2.Are there ways to justify procedures from a different viewpoint (saving the mother being the most obvious) and the pregnancy effect is simply (officially) an unintended side effect. If your patient is the mother, you treat the mother as primary.

I'm probably not explaining it well enough. In 1, I'm thinking similar to how birth control is often technically prescribed to regulate irregular or heavy periods, to get around religious prohibitions on its use.


Would it be possible to craft laws to prohibit legislation interfering with medical care decisions? Legislators are not medical professionals, and should not be involved in influencing medical decisions between a patient and their doctor. People may think facelifts or boob jobs are unnecessary, so want to ban plastic surgery. But it also includes reconstructive surgery that might be necessary after injuries, or cancer surgery, or for birth defects like cleft lip.

ETA: Going back to the ectopic pregnancies - they will NEVER be viable.  There's no point protecting that "pregnancy", but there's a strong need to treat the woman. If fertility and successful pregnancies are the all important goal, preventing more damage to the woman's reproductive system by treating ASAP should be best practice, right? And saving the woman's life (for future pregnancies), too.

How many etoipic pregnancies happen every year? Are they included in the abortion numbers that are out there? What week (on average)would that procedure happen? It seems like that would be fairly early.

Just curious how many women are at risk.

Two per 100 pregnancies are ectopic, according to Planned Parenthood. Some hit on Google said: rare, fewer than 200k US cases. And another said symptoms 6-8 weeks after last period (presumably you'd want treatment ASAP).

It was harder to quickly track down stats vs abortion. But the Guttmacher Institute said it did not include ectopic pregnancies with abortion numbers.

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2022 19:34:24 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

I really don’t have a preference, but have onl6 had male GYNs and have been quite happy with all of them.  The one thing all of them have had in common is that they spoke to me like I was an intelligent person, capable of having a say in my healthcare.  

I would not in the least assume they are not top notch.  I do think assumption is a little sexist though.

I agree. I do think that women have changed that specialty; even if they've never been through pregnancy or other conditions, they've probably heard plenty from other women among friends and family who have, since women share these stories more with other women. Examples of horrible treatment in the 1950s: my Ex's Aunt went to a doc who "permitted" women to gain 2 lbs. per month. If they gained more he'd yell at them. Some would leave his office in tears. Which meant, of course, in late pregnancy they were probably starving themselves and their growing fetuses. Another friend, same era, told me she was prescribed diet pills in pregnancy to manage her weight.   In the 1970s one woman wrote a book about her experience with miscarriage. The title was the observation her (male) doctor made: "Nothing to cry about". The good male doctors have learned why women were gravitating to female doctors and changed accordingly.

When my sister started her practice I remembered an article in Ms. Magazine about a woman who went to a female gynecologist for the first time and found she'd put a mobile on the ceiling over the exam table- of course. She'd been in "the position" herself and had provided a distraction.

I sent my sister one.

[TheOtherMe]

I remember when the mobile on the ceilings happened.  I think we are dating ourselves.  

I don't care if my doctor is an DO or MD, male or female as long as they treat me with respect.  

I have never felt disrespected by any OB/GYN but I've also never given birth.

[daisylu]

And so it begins:



link

Mortellus is a 40-year-old author and mortician living in rural North Carolina. They are a practicing necromancer and witch, and they also have rheumatoid arthritis.

Recently, they shared on Twitter that their doctor is refusing to continue prescribing the common arthritis medication methotrexate to them because it can also be used for abortion. To be clear, they are NOT currently or planning to become pregnant.



And sadly, Mortellus isn't the only one running into this problem. In the replies, other users shared that they're also encountering difficulties acquiring this drug as an arthritis treatment, and similar threads have been popping up elsewhere on Twitter.
Via email, Mortellus shared with BuzzFeed that although they live in North Carolina, a state where abortion is still legal, their rheumatologist is just across the border in South Carolina. In that state, a law banning abortions after six weeks is now in effect and doctors are also allowed to deny nonemergency care that conflicts with their religious beliefs, such as family planning, under the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act.

Mortellus also told BuzzFeed that they have been taking this medication for over a decade and have been a patient at the South Carolina practice for about five years without experiencing this problem.

[bean29]

Jul 6, 2022 7:54:37 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

I remember when the mobile on the ceilings happened.  I think we are dating ourselves.  

I don't care if my doctor is an DO or MD, male or female as long as they treat me with respect.  

I have never felt disrespected by any OB/GYN but I've also never given birth.

I hated the first Male Dr. I saw.  I did feel that he was disrespectful to me. Which is why when I chose the next one I chose a female.  I stayed with her until she retired.  She was replaced by another Female Dr, and I like her too, so I just stayed in the same practice.  My Female Dr had a male partner that I really liked.  I saw him a few times when I was expecting, and he delivered my Son.  My family practitioner Dr. I see for other issues is also a female.  And my Endocrinologist.  My first OBGYN referred me to the practice.  I actually don't know who her partners are, I have never been asked to see a different Dr, and I have been with them over 15 years.

[stillmovingforward]

Jul 6, 2022 9:05:09 GMT -5 daisylu said:

And so it begins:



link

Mortellus is a 40-year-old author and mortician living in rural North Carolina. They are a practicing necromancer and witch, and they also have rheumatoid arthritis.

Recently, they shared on Twitter that their doctor is refusing to continue prescribing the common arthritis medication methotrexate to them because it can also be used for abortion. To be clear, they are NOT currently or planning to become pregnant.



And sadly, Mortellus isn't the only one running into this problem. In the replies, other users shared that they're also encountering difficulties acquiring this drug as an arthritis treatment, and similar threads have been popping up elsewhere on Twitter.
Via email, Mortellus shared with BuzzFeed that although they live in North Carolina, a state where abortion is still legal, their rheumatologist is just across the border in South Carolina. In that state, a law banning abortions after six weeks is now in effect and doctors are also allowed to deny nonemergency care that conflicts with their religious beliefs, such as family planning, under the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act.

Mortellus also told BuzzFeed that they have been taking this medication for over a decade and have been a patient at the South Carolina practice for about five years without experiencing this problem.

Yup, women in my lupus group are having the same problem already too.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Jul 6, 2022 7:31:17 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Jul 5, 2022 19:34:24 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

I really don’t have a preference, but have onl6 had male GYNs and have been quite happy with all of them.  The one thing all of them have had in common is that they spoke to me like I was an intelligent person, capable of having a say in my healthcare.  

I would not in the least assume they are not top notch.  I do think assumption is a little sexist though.

I agree. I do think that women have changed that specialty; even if they've never been through pregnancy or other conditions, they've probably heard plenty from other women among friends and family who have, since women share these stories more with other women. Examples of horrible treatment in the 1950s: my Ex's Aunt went to a doc who "permitted" women to gain 2 lbs. per month. If they gained more he'd yell at them. Some would leave his office in tears. Which meant, of course, in late pregnancy they were probably starving themselves and their growing fetuses. Another friend, same era, told me she was prescribed diet pills in pregnancy to manage her weight.   In the 1970s one woman wrote a book about her experience with miscarriage. The title was the observation her (male) doctor made: "Nothing to cry about". The good male doctors have learned why women were gravitating to female doctors and changed accordingly.

When my sister started her practice I remembered an article in Ms. Magazine about a woman who went to a female gynecologist for the first time and found she'd put a mobile on the ceiling over the exam table- of course. She'd been in "the position" herself and had provided a distraction.

I sent my sister one.

My GYN has plastered his ceiling with pictures of babies.  When I went looking a few years ago, I liked that he had a degree in PH as well as being a GYN.  We had an interesting discussion about Covid when I went a few months ago, from a PH perspective.  

[minnesotapaintlady]

I saw all men OBs until maybe the past 10 years or so.  My first pelvic exam was by our family practice doctor that delivered me. He would send me home with a years supply of birth control samples every year and I never had to pay a dime for pills.  I stayed with him until I was in my 30's then started going to a regular OB/GYN who was also a man.  He was super nice, but after he retired I just started seeing the nurse practitioners at the office.  Not worried about any prenatal stuff anymore and it's a lot easier to get in to see them.  I've never really noticed a difference in care between the male and female OBs and am comfortable with either.

[Ava]

I can't believe they actually overturned Roe vs. Wade. 
Somehow, I thought they would respect it, silly me.

It's a huge set back and it shows how little respect they have for women. Even though Im past bearing age I feel like a second class citizen now. And I feel sorry for the young women who'll have this decision affect their lives.

Between this and the ongoing, non-stop, senseless shootings, I'm feeling very sad about this country and wondering if I still want to be here. Not that I have any options as I'm too invested (work, a home, retirement accounts, SS, etc) I can leave when I retire but not now.

With that said no place is perfect (which doesn't mean we shouldnt try to improve this country, there's plenty of room for that). 

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2022 9:05:09 GMT -5 daisylu said:

And so it begins:



link

Mortellus is a 40-year-old author and mortician living in rural North Carolina. They are a practicing necromancer and witch, and they also have rheumatoid arthritis.

Recently, they shared on Twitter that their doctor is refusing to continue prescribing the common arthritis medication methotrexate to them because it can also be used for abortion. To be clear, they are NOT currently or planning to become pregnant.



And sadly, Mortellus isn't the only one running into this problem. In the replies, other users shared that they're also encountering difficulties acquiring this drug as an arthritis treatment, and similar threads have been popping up elsewhere on Twitter.
Via email, Mortellus shared with BuzzFeed that although they live in North Carolina, a state where abortion is still legal, their rheumatologist is just across the border in South Carolina. In that state, a law banning abortions after six weeks is now in effect and doctors are also allowed to deny nonemergency care that conflicts with their religious beliefs, such as family planning, under the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act.

Mortellus also told BuzzFeed that they have been taking this medication for over a decade and have been a patient at the South Carolina practice for about five years without experiencing this problem.

So the idea of a fetus takes precedence over an actual person?  I am living in a world I don't recognize.  How long before women can't have alcohol because that could damage a fetus?  Or all the other medications, that shouldn't be taken while pregnant.  I am just disgusted.  

[djAdvocate]

i am hoping the disgust overflows into collective action.

[thyme4change]

Jul 5, 2022 17:00:28 GMT -5 justme said:

Jul 3, 2022 12:53:39 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

Most of the medications used have multiple indications.

Just look at the comments about viagra when these issues come it. It was originally developed as a drug for heart disease; it had this unexpected "side" effect. It has now returned to its original use in pulmonary hypertension. Making it illegal will cause significant problems for the thousands of people on it for its "legitimate: medical use.

Methotrexate is used for abortions. It is also a chemotherapy agent, and is used in psoriasis and rheumatoid arthritis.

Misoprostol is used for abortions, but also in ulcers.

Oral contraceptives are used for birth control, but also for uterine bleeding and a whole host of other indications. 

Banning all of these drugs is impossible. As we have seen, physicians can prescribe any legal medication for anything they wish, even if it is ineffective-hello ivermectin.

Heartbeat bills are nonsense. Brain death is the standard nationwide, and those patients all have heartbeats, but are declared dead. But the law as written is unclear, and if you have an overzealous prosecutor you could be arrested for intervening if the fetus has a heartbeat. How many physicians do you think want to go to jail. WE will risk our lives, but I am not going to jail. If any of these politicians really cared, they could draft bills with the input of the medical profession that would help to eliminate the ambiguity and the plain nonsense in  these laws. But as we have seen over the last 2 years, republicans have little respect for science and doctors. So I do not see this happening for some time. They have no interest in any sor tof compromise right now.

What I hate is most that I know that are like abortion should be regulated but of course there needs to be an exception for the mother's life can't tell me how that law works. Is it when the mother's life is at a 50% risk? Or only 80%? What if it's a 30% chance to die before birth due to discovered cancer? And who determines the risk? Does it change if she already has kids? Is married?

No answers. Just of course it should be allowed. Well if you can't tell me how it'll be allowed suffice it to say that it won't be. These are states that from what I've heard can't even agree that ectopic pregnancies must be aborted.

The New York Times daily podcast interviewed a woman who was an abortion rights crusader before Roe. She said that if you attempted suicide, you could be given an okay for an abortion. But it had to be a real, verifiable attempt. However, if your suicide attempt was too severe, you could be institutionalized. And it was all at the discretion of the doctor - who was most likely male.

She said she was frustrated when Roe passed because her group was taking a different legal theory and she thought the legal theory Roe was proposing was weak and risky. She was right.

[justme]

Jul 6, 2022 19:57:54 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Jul 5, 2022 17:00:28 GMT -5 justme said:

What I hate is most that I know that are like abortion should be regulated but of course there needs to be an exception for the mother's life can't tell me how that law works. Is it when the mother's life is at a 50% risk? Or only 80%? What if it's a 30% chance to die before birth due to discovered cancer? And who determines the risk? Does it change if she already has kids? Is married?

No answers. Just of course it should be allowed. Well if you can't tell me how it'll be allowed suffice it to say that it won't be. These are states that from what I've heard can't even agree that ectopic pregnancies must be aborted.

The New York Times daily podcast interviewed a woman who was an abortion rights crusader before Roe. She said that if you attempted suicide, you could be given an okay for an abortion. But it had to be a real, verifiable attempt. However, if your suicide attempt was too severe, you could be institutionalized. And it was all at the discretion of the doctor - who was most likely male.

She said she was frustrated when Roe passed because her group was taking a different legal theory and she thought the legal theory Roe was proposing was weak and risky. She was right.

I stopped looking into it because this all was frustrating me, but I found it interesting that some argue that abortion isn't a constitutional right even though laws against abortion are quite new. Like a bit over 100 years. So maybe the founding fathers didn't add it because it was accepted back then.

[TheOtherMe]

Jul 6, 2022 19:14:12 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i am hoping the disgust overflows into collective action.

In this very Catholic area, it has led to demonstrations about our freedoms to choose what happens to our own bodies have been taken away.  The demonstration was held on the 4th of July and they chose the route to the fireworks.  Very wise for maximum exposure.  The two women who organized said they were each Catholic.

My friend from eastern Pennsylvania organized a demonstration there on the 4th of July.  She was very pleased with the number of men and women who marched.  She is now organizing a second one there.  

Our governor appealed the 24 hour waiting period that was ruled unconstitutional a couple of years now to the Iowa Supreme Court.  She lost again.  I fully expect her to call an emergency session of the legislature.

[Deleted]

For those of you who are moved to contribute, I just made a donation to this organization.

brigidalliance.org/

They help women get access to abortions "whatever it takes", including transportation, child care costs, and lodging. While I haven't done extensive research on my own, it's on the list for my Fidelity Donor-Advised Fund, which means it's a 501(c)(3) and Fidelity has done some checking.

[giramomma]

Jul 6, 2022 18:40:56 GMT -5 @pooks said:

Jul 6, 2022 9:05:09 GMT -5 daisylu said:

And so it begins:



link

So the idea of a fetus takes precedence over an actual person?  I am living in a world I don't recognize.  How long before women can't have alcohol because that could damage a fetus?  Or all the other medications, that shouldn't be taken while pregnant.  I am just disgusted.  

Those laws have been around for a while...

slate.com/human-interest/2017/08/states-that-punish-pregnant-women-for-drinking-are-more-likely-to-restrict-reproductive-rights.html

"But the new study in Alcohol and Alcoholism notes that the most common punitive U.S. pregnancy-alcohol policy requires or encourages medical practitioners to report a pregnant woman or new mother’s suspected alcohol use to Child Protective Services. Such laws exist in 21 states."

[chiver78]

Jul 7, 2022 7:52:08 GMT -5 giramomma said:

Jul 6, 2022 18:40:56 GMT -5 @pooks said:

So the idea of a fetus takes precedence over an actual person?  I am living in a world I don't recognize.  How long before women can't have alcohol because that could damage a fetus?  Or all the other medications, that shouldn't be taken while pregnant.  I am just disgusted.  

Those laws have been around for a while...

slate.com/human-interest/2017/08/states-that-punish-pregnant-women-for-drinking-are-more-likely-to-restrict-reproductive-rights.html

"But the new study in Alcohol and Alcoholism notes that the most common punitive U.S. pregnancy-alcohol policy requires or encourages medical practitioners to report a pregnant woman or new mother’s suspected alcohol use to Child Protective Services. Such laws exist in 21 states."

maybe it's just me being overly cynical, but I read pooks' comment more that soon women could be banned from having alcohol at all, IN CASE she might be pregnant. y'know, it's all about the fetus and all. 

[cyanne]

Jul 6, 2022 22:34:38 GMT -5 justme said:

Jul 6, 2022 19:57:54 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

The New York Times daily podcast interviewed a woman who was an abortion rights crusader before Roe. She said that if you attempted suicide, you could be given an okay for an abortion. But it had to be a real, verifiable attempt. However, if your suicide attempt was too severe, you could be institutionalized. And it was all at the discretion of the doctor - who was most likely male.

She said she was frustrated when Roe passed because her group was taking a different legal theory and she thought the legal theory Roe was proposing was weak and risky. She was right.

I stopped looking into it because this all was frustrating me, but I found it interesting that some argue that abortion isn't a constitutional right even though laws against abortion are quite new. Like a bit over 100 years. So maybe the founding fathers didn't add it because it was accepted back then.

Here is a link about the history of abortion. It wasn’t illegal.
www.americanprogress.org/article/scarlet-letters-getting-the-history-of-abortion-and-contraception-right/

[finnime]

From my FB feed: 

[daisylu]

Jul 7, 2022 8:42:32 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

Jul 7, 2022 7:52:08 GMT -5 giramomma said:

Those laws have been around for a while...

slate.com/human-interest/2017/08/states-that-punish-pregnant-women-for-drinking-are-more-likely-to-restrict-reproductive-rights.html

"But the new study in Alcohol and Alcoholism notes that the most common punitive U.S. pregnancy-alcohol policy requires or encourages medical practitioners to report a pregnant woman or new mother’s suspected alcohol use to Child Protective Services. Such laws exist in 21 states."

maybe it's just me being overly cynical, but I read pooks' comment more that soon women could be banned from having alcohol at all, IN CASE she might be pregnant. y'know, it's all about the fetus and all. 

As the article I posted was about a woman being denied her RA medication because it would abort IF she accidentally conceived, that is how I took it too.

[Tennesseer]

Article from Rolling Stone magazine.

SCOTUS Justices ‘Prayed With’ Her — Then Cited Her Bosses to End Roe
A right-wing evangelical activist was caught on tape bragging that she prayed with Supreme Court justices. The court’s majority cited a legal brief that her group filed while overturning Roe v. Wade

At an evangelical victory party in front of the Supreme Court to celebrate the downfall of Roe v. Wade last week, a prominent Capitol Hill religious leader was caught on a hot mic making a bombshell claim: that she prays with sitting justices inside the high court. “We’re the only people who do that,” Peggy Nienaber said.

This disclosure was a serious matter on its own terms, but it also suggested a major conflict of interest. Nienaber’s ministry’s umbrella organization, Liberty Counsel, frequently brings lawsuits before the Supreme Court. In fact, the conservative majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which ended nearly 50 years of federal abortion rights, cited an amicus brief authored by Liberty Counsel in its ruling.

In other words: Sitting Supreme Court justices have prayed together with evangelical leaders whose bosses were bringing cases and arguments before the high court.

Nienaber is Liberty Counsel’s executive director of DC Ministry, as well as the vice president of Faith & Liberty, whose ministry offices sit directly behind the Supreme Court. She spoke to a livestreamer who goes by Connie IRL, seemingly unaware she was being recorded. “You actually pray with the Supreme Court justices?” the livestreamer asked. “I do,” Nienaber said. “They will pray with us, those that like us to pray with them.” She did not specify which justices prayed with her, but added with a chortle, “Some of them don’t!” The livestreamer then asked if Nienaber ministered to the justices in their homes or at her office. Neither, she said. “We actually go in there.”

Nienaber intended her comments, broadcast on YouTube, to be “totally off the record,” she says in the clip. That’s likely because such an arrangement presents a problem for the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, which not only weighed in on the Dobbs case as a friend of the court, but also litigated and won a 9-0 Supreme Court victory this May in a case centered on the public display of a religious flag.

The Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment. Liberty Counsel’s founder, Mat Staver, strenuously denied that the in-person ministering to justices that Nienaber bragged about exists. “It’s entirely untrue,” Staver tells Rolling Stone. “There is just no way that has happened.” He adds: “She has prayer meetings for them, not with them.” Asked if he had an explanation for Nienaber’s direct comments to the contrary, Staver says, “I don’t.”

But the founder of the ministry, who surrendered its operations to Liberty Counsel in 2018, tells Rolling Stone that he hosted prayer sessions with conservative justices in their chambers from the late-1990s through when he left the group in the mid-2010s. Rob Schenck, who launched the ministry under the name Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, described how the organization forged ministry relationships with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the late Antonin Scalia, saying he would pray with them inside the high court. Nienaber was Schenk’s close associate in that era, and continued with the ministry after it came under the umbrella of Liberty Counsel.

Louis Virelli is a professor at Stetson University College of Law who wrote a book about Supreme Court recusals. He’s blunt in his assessment: “Praying with a group that filed an amicus brief with a court,” he says, “is a problem.”

Rest of article here: SCOTUS Justices ‘Prayed With’ Her — Then Cited Her Bosses to End Roe

[djAdvocate]

what...the....actual....fuck?

[raeoflyte]

I read that most of the funding for this came from catholic churches.

When the conversation moved to Catholics vs. Protestants I almost wrote the "not all Catholics" because I had a positive experience in the church growing up. But the organization has plenty of issues. Even if I were religious and Christian now I don't think I could align myself with them.

[daisylu]

🤬

[finnime]

   

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Jul 7, 2022 18:11:12 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Article from Rolling Stone magazine.

SCOTUS Justices ‘Prayed With’ Her — Then Cited Her Bosses to End Roe
A right-wing evangelical activist was caught on tape bragging that she prayed with Supreme Court justices. The court’s majority cited a legal brief that her group filed while overturning Roe v. Wade

At an evangelical victory party in front of the Supreme Court to celebrate the downfall of Roe v. Wade last week, a prominent Capitol Hill religious leader was caught on a hot mic making a bombshell claim: that she prays with sitting justices inside the high court. “We’re the only people who do that,” Peggy Nienaber said.

This disclosure was a serious matter on its own terms, but it also suggested a major conflict of interest. Nienaber’s ministry’s umbrella organization, Liberty Counsel, frequently brings lawsuits before the Supreme Court. In fact, the conservative majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which ended nearly 50 years of federal abortion rights, cited an amicus brief authored by Liberty Counsel in its ruling.

In other words: Sitting Supreme Court justices have prayed together with evangelical leaders whose bosses were bringing cases and arguments before the high court.

Nienaber is Liberty Counsel’s executive director of DC Ministry, as well as the vice president of Faith & Liberty, whose ministry offices sit directly behind the Supreme Court. She spoke to a livestreamer who goes by Connie IRL, seemingly unaware she was being recorded. “You actually pray with the Supreme Court justices?” the livestreamer asked. “I do,” Nienaber said. “They will pray with us, those that like us to pray with them.” She did not specify which justices prayed with her, but added with a chortle, “Some of them don’t!” The livestreamer then asked if Nienaber ministered to the justices in their homes or at her office. Neither, she said. “We actually go in there.”

Nienaber intended her comments, broadcast on YouTube, to be “totally off the record,” she says in the clip. That’s likely because such an arrangement presents a problem for the Orlando-based Liberty Counsel, which not only weighed in on the Dobbs case as a friend of the court, but also litigated and won a 9-0 Supreme Court victory this May in a case centered on the public display of a religious flag.

The Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment. Liberty Counsel’s founder, Mat Staver, strenuously denied that the in-person ministering to justices that Nienaber bragged about exists. “It’s entirely untrue,” Staver tells Rolling Stone. “There is just no way that has happened.” He adds: “She has prayer meetings for them, not with them.” Asked if he had an explanation for Nienaber’s direct comments to the contrary, Staver says, “I don’t.”

But the founder of the ministry, who surrendered its operations to Liberty Counsel in 2018, tells Rolling Stone that he hosted prayer sessions with conservative justices in their chambers from the late-1990s through when he left the group in the mid-2010s. Rob Schenck, who launched the ministry under the name Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital, described how the organization forged ministry relationships with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and the late Antonin Scalia, saying he would pray with them inside the high court. Nienaber was Schenk’s close associate in that era, and continued with the ministry after it came under the umbrella of Liberty Counsel.

Louis Virelli is a professor at Stetson University College of Law who wrote a book about Supreme Court recusals. He’s blunt in his assessment: “Praying with a group that filed an amicus brief with a court,” he says, “is a problem.”

Rest of article here: SCOTUS Justices ‘Prayed With’ Her — Then Cited Her Bosses to End Roe

I really, reaaaallllllly hope this comment was taken out of context and/or twisted.