Roe vs Wade Overturned!

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/health/doctors-weigh-litigation-miscarriage-care/index.html

When Marlena Stell had a miscarriage, she says she begged her doctor for help but instead was forced to walk around for at least two weeks with fetal remains inside her because of strict anti-abortion laws.

Stell, who was 9½ weeks pregnant at the time, said she was "blindsided" when her doctor showed her an ultrasound image showing the fetus was no longer alive, and then refused to do the standard surgery to remove the fetal remains.

Doctors say they do understand the law - but that it's not enough to protect them.


Texas and other states allow citizens to sue doctors they suspect have performed an abortion. They're incentivized to file such suits because they can win money - in Texas, for example, if the citizen wins, the doctor has to pay them at least $10,000.


"The Texas law pits citizens against citizens," said Vladeck, the University of Texas legal scholar. "Even worse, I think what it does is, it encourages citizens to spy on each other."

If the citizen is wrong -- if the court finds, for example, that the doctor performed a surgery for a miscarriage and not an abortion -- the doctor still has to pay their own legal fees, as Texas law specifically forbids doctors from recouping fees from plaintiffs.


"Even for those providers who are confident that what they're doing is within the letter of the law, they face the specter of potentially ruinous litigation. They can't stop it. They can't avoid it. They can't pre-empt it," Vladeck said.


All it would take to cause the doctor ruin is a citizen who is confused about the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, or someone who is out for money or someone who has a vendetta against the doctor or the patient.


"Physicians may be apprehensive about a situation where a woman has a miscarriage and let's say she has an angry partner and they try to charge the physicians with aiding an abortion," said Dr. Leah Tatum, a spokeswoman for the Texas chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Sure, it's a total misunderstanding that anyone and their mother can accuse you of performing an illegal abortion to collect $10k and you'll walk away righteous because Texas and its' government totally understand medical care.  This is the same state that insists you have to teach a "balanced" view of the Holocaust.  I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them either as a doctor.


Texas Right to Life has heard stories like this one and says it's all a big "misunderstanding."


The group says doctors have been misinformed, and that while the Texas anti-abortion law, known as SB 8, doesn't define the word "abortion," another Texas statute says "an act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by" a miscarriage.

[justme]

That's not dissimilar to my problem with "except for when it risks the life of the mother". How much risk does the mother's life have to be? Will doctors risk it if the mom isn't on death's door?

You know they were just wanting to stop all abortions even those of dead fetuses with not allowing doctors to recoup legal fees. If the doctor can prove it was dead the accuser should pay, but that goes against Texas making itself a police state.

[djAdvocate]

given that they have laws regulating dildoes in Texas, it seems that they crossed that threshold some time ago, and are quite comfortable being there.

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2022 15:05:14 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

The group says doctors have been misinformed, and that while the Texas anti-abortion law, known as SB 8, doesn't define the word "abortion," another Texas statute says "an act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by" a miscarriage.

Except that they don't think it's dead as long as its heart is still beating- even if the mother is at risk of a fatal infection.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

Jul 20, 2022 15:56:05 GMT -5 justme said:

That's not dissimilar to my problem with "except for when it risks the life of the mother". How much risk does the mother's life have to be? Will doctors risk it if the mom isn't on death's door?

You know they were just wanting to stop all abortions even those of dead fetuses with not allowing doctors to recoup legal fees. If the doctor can prove it was dead the accuser should pay, but that goes against Texas making itself a police state.

Based on the Catholic run hospital here yes the mother better be pretty close to meeting her maker before the doctor will intervene.  There are umpteen pages of paperwork doctors now have to do to prove they didn't act too soon and that they followed doctrine as instructed.  It's a bunch of celibate dudes in priest robes who get to decide what "too soon" is not fellow medical doctors. 

Iowa is moving towards no exceptions.  It's nice to know my only value in life is as a walking incubator.  Screw my husband, my two children who are already here or anyone else who values me.  I need to push DH to get snipped sooner rather than later.  I got another 3 years on my IUD and I am not going to risk not being able to get my hands on anything but condoms in this state by that time.

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2022 13:05:12 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Try explaining "third trimester abortion" to people.  They legit believe it's a perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy baby that decides at the absolute last minute she doesn't want a baby anymore and doctors take care of it for them.

When I was in college, my BF's dysfunctional sister got pregnant- she was 18 or 19- and decided to keep the baby. She changed her mind in her 5th month. It was after Roe v. Wade but she couldn't get an abortion in Indiana where they lived so her parents took her to KY. Even though I'd been happy about the Roe v. Wade decision I was kind of horrified. If it had been my daughter I would have told her, "That ship has sailed. You're having this baby."

I agree, though, that while her case might be the stereotype, it's the exception.

[TheOtherMe]

It was also her decision to make, not her parents or anyone else's.

[moon/Laura]

Jul 20, 2022 17:02:40 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

It was also her decision to make, not her parents or anyone else's.

Only thing is, the GOP and the pretend christians think it's everyone BUT the woman's decision to make. Fuck them.

[TheOtherMe]

Jul 20, 2022 18:43:41 GMT -5 moon/Laura said:

Jul 20, 2022 17:02:40 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

It was also her decision to make, not her parents or anyone else's.

Only thing is, the GOP and the pretend christians think it's everyone BUT the woman's decision to make. Fuck them.

Agreed.  I was speaking to Athena's example after Roe went in to effect.  

[teen persuasion]

Jul 20, 2022 14:06:05 GMT -5 Cookies Galore said:

Jul 20, 2022 13:05:12 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

Try explaining "third trimester abortion" to people.  They legit believe it's a perfectly healthy woman with a perfectly healthy baby that decides at the absolute last minute she doesn't want a baby anymore and doctors take care of it for them.

There is no explaining that if that is happening it is because something went heart wrenchingly wrong.  And to force a mother to carry to term can risk her life, not to mention the trauma of forcing a woman to carry the pregnancy knowing the outcome.

It's called an abortion because that is what it medically is.  They'll go through all sorts of gymnastics to try to explain to you how it's "different" if you use the A word.

It's like calling it "Obamacare" vs "ACA".   They see a trigger word and don't bother to move past it to actually educate themselves on the topic they are discussing.

I won't even use the term "miscarriage" anymore, unless I'm talking about justice. It's spontaneous abortion or missed abortion. I don't care if you think I'm being crass, Susan, it's the medical terminology and I will use it until you get it through your thick skull.

Me too - trying to get thru to my mom and sister. Miscarriage is a layman's term, the medical term is spontaneous abortion, or in my cases, incomplete abortion. Abortion is right there in both terms.

[teen persuasion]

Jul 20, 2022 15:05:14 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/health/doctors-weigh-litigation-miscarriage-care/index.html

When Marlena Stell had a miscarriage, she says she begged her doctor for help but instead was forced to walk around for at least two weeks with fetal remains inside her because of strict anti-abortion laws.

Stell, who was 9½ weeks pregnant at the time, said she was "blindsided" when her doctor showed her an ultrasound image showing the fetus was no longer alive, and then refused to do the standard surgery to remove the fetal remains.

Doctors say they do understand the law - but that it's not enough to protect them.


Texas and other states allow citizens to sue doctors they suspect have performed an abortion. They're incentivized to file such suits because they can win money - in Texas, for example, if the citizen wins, the doctor has to pay them at least $10,000.


"The Texas law pits citizens against citizens," said Vladeck, the University of Texas legal scholar. "Even worse, I think what it does is, it encourages citizens to spy on each other."

If the citizen is wrong -- if the court finds, for example, that the doctor performed a surgery for a miscarriage and not an abortion -- the doctor still has to pay their own legal fees, as Texas law specifically forbids doctors from recouping fees from plaintiffs.


"Even for those providers who are confident that what they're doing is within the letter of the law, they face the specter of potentially ruinous litigation. They can't stop it. They can't avoid it. They can't pre-empt it," Vladeck said.


All it would take to cause the doctor ruin is a citizen who is confused about the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage, or someone who is out for money or someone who has a vendetta against the doctor or the patient.


"Physicians may be apprehensive about a situation where a woman has a miscarriage and let's say she has an angry partner and they try to charge the physicians with aiding an abortion," said Dr. Leah Tatum, a spokeswoman for the Texas chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Sure, it's a total misunderstanding that anyone and their mother can accuse you of performing an illegal abortion to collect $10k and you'll walk away righteous because Texas and its' government totally understand medical care.  This is the same state that insists you have to teach a "balanced" view of the Holocaust.  I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them either as a doctor.


Texas Right to Life has heard stories like this one and says it's all a big "misunderstanding."


The group says doctors have been misinformed, and that while the Texas anti-abortion law, known as SB 8, doesn't define the word "abortion," another Texas statute says "an act is not an abortion if the act is done with the intent to remove a dead, unborn child whose death was caused by" a miscarriage.

These situations have me a bit confused - because I was there, but in some ways the opposite.

An ultrasound showed my first pregnancy was not viable - they wouldn't show me the ultrasound - but the doctor gave me the option to let nature take its course, or have a D&C immediately.  I opted to wait, I now think because without seeing the evidence I wasn't quite sure the doctor was right.  I was never told there's any  potential problem with waiting, but I keep reading now about risks.  

So was I foolhardy to wait, or was my doctor negligent in not telling me of risks, or is this getting blown out of proportion?  Or am I way off base?  I don't know what to think.

I do know that MAKING people wait for treatment unnecessarily to CYA is wrong.  I was grateful to have the choice.

[Tennesseer]

Roe’s demise triggers Missouri law forbidding pregnant women from finalizing a divorce

Under an old Missouri law from 1973, a woman cannot get a divorce finalized if she is pregnant; she can file for divorce, but it won’t be finalized as long as she is pregnant. In 2022, abortion rights defenders are worried about the law’s ramifications now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court after 49 years.

Journalist Anna Spoerre, in an article published by the Kansas City Star on July 20, explains, “In Missouri, divorce cases cannot be finalized if a woman is pregnant, since a custody agreement must first be in place, multiple attorneys told The Star. That custody agreement cannot be completed until the child is born.”

Before the High Court struck down Roe v. Wade with its 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a divorce in Missouri could be finalized after a woman had an abortion. The Roe decision, handed down by the Burger Court in 1973, established abortion as a national right. But with Roe overturned, abortion is no longer a national right, leaving the legality or illegality of abortion to be determined on a state-by-state basis. Republican-controlled Missouri is an anti-choice state.

“The state law, while old, gained renewed attention after the Supreme Court, on June 24, overturned Roe v. Wade, repealing the constitutional right to abortion,” Spoerre reports. “The decision immediately made abortion illegal in Missouri. While many call the restriction outdated, none of those interviewed, including advocates, survivors and attorneys, know of any efforts to change the law.”

Jess Piper, a Democrat who is running for a seat in the Missouri House of Representatives, has been speaking out about the Missouri law and warning that post-Roe, it could encourage women to stay in abusive relationships. On May 12 on Twitter, Piper posted, “Fact: you can’t get a divorce finalized if pregnant in Missouri. Forced pregnancies can prolong abusive situations.” And the following day, on May 13, Piper tweeted, “If you do get pregnant during a divorce, the husband is the presumed father which creates all kinds of issues. Women are often treated as property and patronized in my state.”

Spoerre observes that “many people” didn’t know about Missouri’s law until they read Piper tweets.

“Many people replied with disbelief,” Spoerre reports. “Others said they knew from personal experience. She did too. At 34, Piper divorced her husband. It was not an abusive relationship. Her attorney at the time warned her not to get pregnant.”

According to Spoerre, “eight questions” are “asked of everyone filing for divorce in Missouri.”

“One of them is whether ‘the wife is pregnant,’” Spoerre explains. “If the answer is yes, the divorce proceedings can continue if the attorney chooses, but cannot be finalized until the woman is no longer pregnant. That is because, according to Missouri statute, the court must first establish paternity of a child before a divorce can be finalized, said Shannon Gordon, a family law attorney practicing in the Kansas City metro.”

Spoerre adds, “Due to a statutory presumption that a baby born during a marriage is the child of the husband, a DNA test is often completed after the child is born in order to establish paternity in court. Then, divorce proceedings can continue. The reason for all this, ultimately, is child support considerations, Gordon said.”

According to Gordon, the Missouri law makes no exception for survivors of domestic violence.

“We oftentimes see an abused spouse not have the financial means to establish a home,” Gordon told the Star. “Being legally entitled to things like money — and actually having the money — are two very different things, particularly when a case is ongoing.”

Roe’s demise triggers Missouri law forbidding pregnant women from finalizing a divorce

[raeoflyte]

It's really hard not to feel utterly defeated realizing how deep these assholes have their claws in government. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/michigan-republican-tudor-dixon-abortion-ban-rape/

[Icelandic Woman]

[teen persuasion]

Jul 21, 2022 10:11:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Roe’s demise triggers Missouri law forbidding pregnant women from finalizing a divorce

Under an old Missouri law from 1973, a woman cannot get a divorce finalized if she is pregnant; she can file for divorce, but it won’t be finalized as long as she is pregnant. In 2022, abortion rights defenders are worried about the law’s ramifications now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court after 49 years.

Journalist Anna Spoerre, in an article published by the Kansas City Star on July 20, explains, “In Missouri, divorce cases cannot be finalized if a woman is pregnant, since a custody agreement must first be in place, multiple attorneys told The Star. That custody agreement cannot be completed until the child is born.”

Before the High Court struck down Roe v. Wade with its 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a divorce in Missouri could be finalized after a woman had an abortion. The Roe decision, handed down by the Burger Court in 1973, established abortion as a national right. But with Roe overturned, abortion is no longer a national right, leaving the legality or illegality of abortion to be determined on a state-by-state basis. Republican-controlled Missouri is an anti-choice state.

“The state law, while old, gained renewed attention after the Supreme Court, on June 24, overturned Roe v. Wade, repealing the constitutional right to abortion,” Spoerre reports. “The decision immediately made abortion illegal in Missouri. While many call the restriction outdated, none of those interviewed, including advocates, survivors and attorneys, know of any efforts to change the law.”

Jess Piper, a Democrat who is running for a seat in the Missouri House of Representatives, has been speaking out about the Missouri law and warning that post-Roe, it could encourage women to stay in abusive relationships. On May 12 on Twitter, Piper posted, “Fact: you can’t get a divorce finalized if pregnant in Missouri. Forced pregnancies can prolong abusive situations.” And the following day, on May 13, Piper tweeted, “If you do get pregnant during a divorce, the husband is the presumed father which creates all kinds of issues. Women are often treated as property and patronized in my state.”

Spoerre observes that “many people” didn’t know about Missouri’s law until they read Piper tweets.

“Many people replied with disbelief,” Spoerre reports. “Others said they knew from personal experience. She did too. At 34, Piper divorced her husband. It was not an abusive relationship. Her attorney at the time warned her not to get pregnant.”

According to Spoerre, “eight questions” are “asked of everyone filing for divorce in Missouri.”

“One of them is whether ‘the wife is pregnant,’” Spoerre explains. “If the answer is yes, the divorce proceedings can continue if the attorney chooses, but cannot be finalized until the woman is no longer pregnant. That is because, according to Missouri statute, the court must first establish paternity of a child before a divorce can be finalized, said Shannon Gordon, a family law attorney practicing in the Kansas City metro.”

Spoerre adds, “Due to a statutory presumption that a baby born during a marriage is the child of the husband, a DNA test is often completed after the child is born in order to establish paternity in court. Then, divorce proceedings can continue. The reason for all this, ultimately, is child support considerations, Gordon said.”

According to Gordon, the Missouri law makes no exception for survivors of domestic violence.

“We oftentimes see an abused spouse not have the financial means to establish a home,” Gordon told the Star. “Being legally entitled to things like money — and actually having the money — are two very different things, particularly when a case is ongoing.”

Roe’s demise triggers Missouri law forbidding pregnant women from finalizing a divorce

I saw discussion of this on Twitter yesterday.  Missouri is not the only state with this law, several other ones were named that had similar rules.

Perhaps more concerning - someone mentioned that in states allowing minors to marry, the minor cannot divorce until they reach the age of majority.  

[chiver78]

Jul 21, 2022 14:56:00 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Jul 21, 2022 10:11:57 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Roe’s demise triggers Missouri law forbidding pregnant women from finalizing a divorce

Under an old Missouri law from 1973, a woman cannot get a divorce finalized if she is pregnant; she can file for divorce, but it won’t be finalized as long as she is pregnant. In 2022, abortion rights defenders are worried about the law’s ramifications now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court after 49 years.

Journalist Anna Spoerre, in an article published by the Kansas City Star on July 20, explains, “In Missouri, divorce cases cannot be finalized if a woman is pregnant, since a custody agreement must first be in place, multiple attorneys told The Star. That custody agreement cannot be completed until the child is born.”

Before the High Court struck down Roe v. Wade with its 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a divorce in Missouri could be finalized after a woman had an abortion. The Roe decision, handed down by the Burger Court in 1973, established abortion as a national right. But with Roe overturned, abortion is no longer a national right, leaving the legality or illegality of abortion to be determined on a state-by-state basis. Republican-controlled Missouri is an anti-choice state.

“The state law, while old, gained renewed attention after the Supreme Court, on June 24, overturned Roe v. Wade, repealing the constitutional right to abortion,” Spoerre reports. “The decision immediately made abortion illegal in Missouri. While many call the restriction outdated, none of those interviewed, including advocates, survivors and attorneys, know of any efforts to change the law.”

Jess Piper, a Democrat who is running for a seat in the Missouri House of Representatives, has been speaking out about the Missouri law and warning that post-Roe, it could encourage women to stay in abusive relationships. On May 12 on Twitter, Piper posted, “Fact: you can’t get a divorce finalized if pregnant in Missouri. Forced pregnancies can prolong abusive situations.” And the following day, on May 13, Piper tweeted, “If you do get pregnant during a divorce, the husband is the presumed father which creates all kinds of issues. Women are often treated as property and patronized in my state.”

Spoerre observes that “many people” didn’t know about Missouri’s law until they read Piper tweets.

“Many people replied with disbelief,” Spoerre reports. “Others said they knew from personal experience. She did too. At 34, Piper divorced her husband. It was not an abusive relationship. Her attorney at the time warned her not to get pregnant.”

According to Spoerre, “eight questions” are “asked of everyone filing for divorce in Missouri.”

“One of them is whether ‘the wife is pregnant,’” Spoerre explains. “If the answer is yes, the divorce proceedings can continue if the attorney chooses, but cannot be finalized until the woman is no longer pregnant. That is because, according to Missouri statute, the court must first establish paternity of a child before a divorce can be finalized, said Shannon Gordon, a family law attorney practicing in the Kansas City metro.”

Spoerre adds, “Due to a statutory presumption that a baby born during a marriage is the child of the husband, a DNA test is often completed after the child is born in order to establish paternity in court. Then, divorce proceedings can continue. The reason for all this, ultimately, is child support considerations, Gordon said.”

According to Gordon, the Missouri law makes no exception for survivors of domestic violence.

“We oftentimes see an abused spouse not have the financial means to establish a home,” Gordon told the Star. “Being legally entitled to things like money — and actually having the money — are two very different things, particularly when a case is ongoing.”

Roe’s demise triggers Missouri law forbidding pregnant women from finalizing a divorce

I saw discussion of this on Twitter yesterday.  Missouri is not the only state with this law, several other ones were named that had similar rules.

Perhaps more concerning - someone mentioned that in states allowing minors to marry, the minor cannot divorce until they reach the age of majority.  

this is jaw-droppingly horrifying, but I get it. the parents sign over "custody" to the spouse, and apparently an emancipation isn't palatable. samesies with the meme I've seen this week with a 10-yo girl in a back seat booster seat and the caption of "she can't ride in the front seat of the car, but she can carry a pregnancy to term??" 

[justme]

Jul 21, 2022 11:36:41 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

It's really hard not to feel utterly defeated realizing how deep these assholes have their claws in government. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/michigan-republican-tudor-dixon-abortion-ban-rape/

It's horrible, but bans that give exceptions for only rape aren't really better when put into law. How do you codify the rape exception? If you have to wait for the rapist to be convicted the baby is already here. The number of rape reports that result in a timely arrest are laughable. The only way to let rape victims to get an abortion is to only need them to say "I was raped" but these people would never allow it because anyone could then say that to get a legal abortion.

Whatever they come up with would have so many hoops to jump though and basically impossible that it's a total ban they can just fool people into thinking they're minimally better.

[dannylion]

After the far-right twinkie legislators have finished with taking away women's right to bodily autonomy and contraception and have achieved their follow-up goal of eliminating everyone's right to determine their own identity and to marry who they chose, I will not be at all surprised if their next objective is to eliminate education and voting rights altogether for women and non-white males.  Call me alarmist, but I truly believe that it would not be outside the realm of possibility.  The Christian Taliban is determined to drag us into the 12th century.  

[NastyWoman]

I am only leaving because of the Covid travel restrictions the last few years, I am only leaving because of the Covid travel  restrictions, I am only leaving... DAMN who am I trying to kid? California feels like home and the travel restrictions/not being able to see my family were the only reason I planned on moving. But even without that pandemic mess I would now be planning my, admittedly slow, exit. This country is being taken over by its own version of the Taliban and it won't be that long before even the safe states will be swallowed up with the SC now in place. I want no part of this...

[Opti]

Jul 21, 2022 15:50:23 GMT -5 justme said:

Jul 21, 2022 11:36:41 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

It's really hard not to feel utterly defeated realizing how deep these assholes have their claws in government. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/michigan-republican-tudor-dixon-abortion-ban-rape/

It's horrible, but bans that give exceptions for only rape aren't really better when put into law. How do you codify the rape exception? If you have to wait for the rapist to be convicted the baby is already here. The number of rape reports that result in a timely arrest are laughable. The only way to let rape victims to get an abortion is to only need them to say "I was raped" but these people would never allow it because anyone could then say that to get a legal abortion.

Whatever they come up with would have so many hoops to jump though and basically impossible that it's a total ban they can just fool people into thinking they're minimally better.

Yes it will be tough but I'd go for a reasonable bar. If the person is under 18 yrs old; its rape, termination allowed. If they file a police report about being raped or otherwise report it (college hierarchy); classify it as rape. 

[TheOtherMe]

When picked up Amelia, the car next to mine in the parking lot had a bumper sticker that said "You can't be Catholic and be Pro-Choice".

She was sitting in the car near the exit doing something with her dog when I left.  I so wanted to have a discussion with this elderly woman.  My hair is as white as hers.

[chiver78]

Jul 21, 2022 17:19:39 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

When picked up Amelia, the car next to mine in the parking lot had a bumper sticker that said "You can't be Catholic and be Pro-Choice".

She was sitting in the car near the exit doing something with her dog when I left.  I so wanted to have a discussion with this elderly woman.  My hair is as white as hers.

and this is why I'm better classified as feral, since COVID. I've long since been that person that asked folks exiting cars with license plates a la, choose life, what they were doing to support these lives. I'd have pounded on her window and asked the same question.

[Opti]

Jul 21, 2022 17:19:39 GMT -5 TheOtherMe said:

When picked up Amelia, the car next to mine in the parking lot had a bumper sticker that said "You can't be Catholic and be Pro-Choice".

She was sitting in the car near the exit doing something with her dog when I left.  I so wanted to have a discussion with this elderly woman.  My hair is as white as hers.

We need a bumper sticker that says 'You can't be Pro-Life if you aren't for expanding SNAP, Medicaid, etc."

or simply -

You aren't Pro-Life if you always cut social programs

[raeoflyte]

Jul 21, 2022 15:50:23 GMT -5 justme said:

Jul 21, 2022 11:36:41 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

It's really hard not to feel utterly defeated realizing how deep these assholes have their claws in government. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/21/michigan-republican-tudor-dixon-abortion-ban-rape/

It's horrible, but bans that give exceptions for only rape aren't really better when put into law. How do you codify the rape exception? If you have to wait for the rapist to be convicted the baby is already here. The number of rape reports that result in a timely arrest are laughable. The only way to let rape victims to get an abortion is to only need them to say "I was raped" but these people would never allow it because anyone could then say that to get a legal abortion.

Whatever they come up with would have so many hoops to jump though and basically impossible that it's a total ban they can just fool people into thinking they're minimally better.

I agree with you. Abortion needs to be legal for everyone, full stop.

I'm just appalled at how far and how quickly this is going. There are too many people in power who see nothing wrong with requiring abused children to carry and deliver a baby. If they can't see how horrifically wrong that is, then we're fucked.

[dannylion]

Jul 21, 2022 18:22:48 GMT -5 raeoflyte said:

Jul 21, 2022 15:50:23 GMT -5 justme said:

It's horrible, but bans that give exceptions for only rape aren't really better when put into law. How do you codify the rape exception? If you have to wait for the rapist to be convicted the baby is already here. The number of rape reports that result in a timely arrest are laughable. The only way to let rape victims to get an abortion is to only need them to say "I was raped" but these people would never allow it because anyone could then say that to get a legal abortion.

Whatever they come up with would have so many hoops to jump though and basically impossible that it's a total ban they can just fool people into thinking they're minimally better.

I agree with you. Abortion needs to be legal for everyone, full stop.

I'm just appalled at how far and how quickly this is going. There are too many people in power who see nothing wrong with requiring abused children to carry and deliver a baby. If they can't see how horrifically wrong that is, then we're fucked.

I think they probably do know how horrifically wrong it is, but only if it were to happen to a child from a "good" or "decent" family, which they are convinced never happens.  They are happily supporting their "sanctity of life" position because they are firmly convinced the "right" people will never be affected.  Only people who they feel deserve to suffer will be affected -- poor women, women of color, non-Christian women, feminists, etc.; and, of course, children from those groups are the only ones vulnerable to sexual exploitation and rape.  It will never happen to them or anyone they know or respect, so only the "deserving" will be affected by their hatefulness.  It will be interesting to see whether any of them has any sort of epiphany once they start seeing "good" women suffering and possibly even dying because they are denied care for miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies or being forced to carry and deliver a baby that has died in utero.  Or when their own family pervert impregnates their little blonde, blue-eyed niece.  

[Deleted]

Jul 20, 2022 21:41:05 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

These situations have me a bit confused - because I was there, but in some ways the opposite.

An ultrasound showed my first pregnancy was not viable - they wouldn't show me the ultrasound - but the doctor gave me the option to let nature take its course, or have a D&C immediately.  I opted to wait, I now think because without seeing the evidence I wasn't quite sure the doctor was right.  I was never told there's any  potential problem with waiting, but I keep reading now about risks.  

So was I foolhardy to wait, or was my doctor negligent in not telling me of risks, or is this getting blown out of proportion?  Or am I way off base?  I don't know what to think.

I do know that MAKING people wait for treatment unnecessarily to CYA is wrong.  I was grateful to have the choice.

I'm not a doctor but I remember a coworker who was pregnant back in the 1980s who was told the fetus had died- probably second trimester since she was starting to show. She WAS given the option of waiting it out or inducing labor and she chose the latter. Waiting wouldn't make sense to me, either, although I'm sure she would have been monitored for signs that her health was at risk.

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

The full article discusses the author had previous miscarriages which had complications.

So this time she asked right away for a D&C.

Her choice was taken away by Texas.

I thought it was a good example against the pious "we'll if it's to save the mom" argument.

She was at risk but how much involves many variables. Doctors are afraid to make the medical call. You got a bunch of old white men in offices deciding.

People who support this can sit and claim they'd never have abortions and it's probably true.

But what about all the other issues like the letter writer's? I think it's good she shared.

It won't get the radicals but it may get the fence sitters to think.

[Tennesseer]

South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling that overturned the right to abortion in June, South Carolina state senators introduced legislation that would make it illegal to “aid, abet or conspire with someone” to obtain an abortion

The bill aims to block more than abortion: Provisions would outlaw providing information over the internet or phone about how to obtain an abortion. It would also make it illegal to host a website or “[provide] an internet service” with information that is “reasonably likely to be used for an abortion” and directed at pregnant people in the state.

Legal scholars say the proposal is likely a harbinger of other state measures, which may restrict communication and speech as they seek to curtail abortion. The June proposal, S. 1373, is modeled off a blueprint created by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), an antiabortion group, and designed to be replicated by lawmakers across the country.

As the fall of Roe v. Wade triggers a flood of new legislation, an adjacent battleground is emerging over the future of internet freedoms and privacy in states across the country — one, experts say, could have a chilling impact on First Amendment-protected speech.

“These are not going to be one-offs,” said Michelle Goodwin, the director of the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy at the University of California at Irvine Law School. “These are going to be laws that spread like wildfire through states that have shown hostility to abortion.”

Goodwin called the South Carolina bill “unconstitutional.” But she warned it’s unclear how courts might respond after “turning a blind eye” to antiabortion laws even before the Supreme Court overturned Roe.

Many conservative states’ legislative sessions ended before the Supreme Court’s decision, and won’t resume until next year, making South Carolina’s bill an anomality. But some tech lobbyists say the industry needs to be proactive and prepared to fight bills with communications restrictions that may have complicated ramifications for companies.

“If tech sits out this debate, services are going to be held liable for providing basic reproductive health care for women,” Adam Kovacevich, the founder and CEO of Chamber of Progress, which receives funding from companies including Google and Facebook, said.

Tech companies could soon be navigating a disparate patchwork of state laws, caught in the middle of a political tug of war between red states and blue states. Democrats are already considering new data privacy proposals to protect reproductive health data and other digital trails that could be used to prosecute people seeking abortion. Meanwhile, Republican states could attempt to preserve and collect that same data, which has been used as key evidence in cases against pregnant women.

South Carolina bill outlaws websites that tell how to get an abortion

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Jul 22, 2022 7:37:27 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

Jul 20, 2022 21:41:05 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

These situations have me a bit confused - because I was there, but in some ways the opposite.

An ultrasound showed my first pregnancy was not viable - they wouldn't show me the ultrasound - but the doctor gave me the option to let nature take its course, or have a D&C immediately.  I opted to wait, I now think because without seeing the evidence I wasn't quite sure the doctor was right.  I was never told there's any  potential problem with waiting, but I keep reading now about risks.  

So was I foolhardy to wait, or was my doctor negligent in not telling me of risks, or is this getting blown out of proportion?  Or am I way off base?  I don't know what to think.

I do know that MAKING people wait for treatment unnecessarily to CYA is wrong.  I was grateful to have the choice.

I'm not a doctor but I remember a coworker who was pregnant back in the 1980s who was told the fetus had died- probably second trimester since she was starting to show. She WAS given the option of waiting it out or inducing labor and she chose the latter. Waiting wouldn't make sense to me, either, although I'm sure she would have been monitored for signs that her health was at risk.

Choosing to not have dead fetal tissue removed poses a risk.  How much of a risk cannot be determined as there are too many factors which would determine this.  That is why it does make more sense to immediately remove the risk.  

When I was in TX, my post doc’s wife got pregnant.  She was quite far in her pregnancy….maybe 6 months?  The fetus was dead, strangled by the umbilical cord.  I do remember that she was induced to deliver, but I know that the post doc was pissed that he had to fight to get the OB to induce her, OB wanted to do it naturally and post doc (who was also a microbiologist) did NOT want his wife taking the risk of the fetus and his wife turning septic.    After this, his wife did get pregnant again, and she went back to Japan for the rest of her pregnancy.  I think the post doc only had a few months remaining in the US to fulfill his contract  He was not impressed with US OB care of his wife.

[gs11rmb]

Jul 22, 2022 9:55:06 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Jul 22, 2022 7:37:27 GMT -5 @athena53 said:

I'm not a doctor but I remember a coworker who was pregnant back in the 1980s who was told the fetus had died- probably second trimester since she was starting to show. She WAS given the option of waiting it out or inducing labor and she chose the latter. Waiting wouldn't make sense to me, either, although I'm sure she would have been monitored for signs that her health was at risk.

Choosing to not have dead fetal tissue removed poses a risk.  How much of a risk cannot be determined as there are too many factors which would determine this.  That is why it does make more sense to immediately remove the risk.  

When I was in TX, my post doc’s wife got pregnant.  She was quite far in her pregnancy….maybe 6 months?  The fetus was dead, strangled by the umbilical cord.  I do remember that she was induced to deliver, but I know that the post doc was pissed that he had to fight to get the OB to induce her, OB wanted to do it naturally and post doc (who was also a microbiologist) did NOT want his wife taking the risk of the fetus and his wife turning septic.    After this, his wife did get pregnant again, and she went back to Japan for the rest of her pregnancy.  I think the post doc only had a few months remaining in the US to fulfill his contract  He was not impressed with US OB care of his wife.

Do you mean, the doctor wanted her to carry the dead baby for another 3 months?  If so, that's appalling.