Roe vs Wade Overturned!

[teen persuasion]

I've been trying to understand why Evangelical Christians must make abortion illegal for everyone, instead of just choosing not to use it. I found this discussion on the Mr Money Mustache forum, and ohhh

chaskavitch said:

sadiesortsitout said:

Just said:

Any more I'm convinced all this is intentional on the GOP's part. Limit people's resources and earning potential. Keep the lowest rungs of society stocked with people desperate enough to do anything to make a living at poverty level wages. Meanwhile companies make solid profits.

No I don't have any proof but everything they do seems to reinforce these situations. Limited or no healthcare/childcare/housing/abortions. Limited oversight on high interest credit and other predatory business practices. Uneven school funding based on neighborhood property values instead of state wide equal public school funding. Keep the electorate scared, too busy to think, upset about the liberals, reinforce antique religious beliefs, keep people tied to their employers for insurance and their cars with few alternatives. Do as I say, not as I do.

I grew up in an evangelical fundamentalist household, so I think I have something to say about the state of desperation and what it's used for.

From my perspective, now, as an adult, given everything I have learned about human psychology, the point of church as I experienced it was to activate the internal threat system. One to three times a week, we filed in and sat down to be yelled at for an hour by an angry man about how bad something or other was. We had to DO something, or God would punish everyone.

• If we give money to the homeless, they will spend it on SIN and God will be pissed.
  
  If we allow children to learn about other worldviews, they will SIN and God will be pissed.
  
  If we give handouts to people in bad situations because of SIN, they will SIN MORE and God will be pissed. We were not to interfere in God's punishments, because it would create a sin surplus and then we'd all be fucked.
  

It creates a system where inequality is untouchable and winner-take-all is divinely ordained.

I see now that it doesn't make any sense, but it was the basis of my life and for all I can tell, most people continue to believe it and live the same high-stress, high-threat lifestyle their whole lives. It's the lens through which they view everything.

Being in a state of threat all the time makes you very exploitable, because you no longer have a clear idea of what is and isn't a threat to you, and any innocuous thing can be handily converted into a threat (Rock music! Dungeons & Dragons! Spaghetti-strap tank tops! Leggings as pants!). The only means by which you are really allowed to help someone, as a fundamentalist, is to try to convert them.

All religious people and all Republicans aren't like this, obviously. But there is a nice wide base of people like this who can be mobilized about more or less anything. It doesn't matter if it's abortion or the Dixie Chicks. When the threat system is active, there is no longer a concept of small matters vs. large matters.

Thanks for bringing this up. Someone earlier posted a link to Ana Kasparian talking about how she doesn't care if you want to live as a Christian, she just doesn't want to be told to live by Christian/Biblical values. I feel like people who weren't raised in an evangelical/conservative household don't understand that this isn't an argument to evangelicals.

The entire point of evangelical Christianity is to EVANGELIZE. If you don't spread the gospel, there are people out there who won't get saved and it's YOUR FAULT they're going to hell. If those people sin because they never heard the Good News, that's your fault too. You are pushed over and over and over again to "fix" the whole world, and it's on your shoulders if people sin and die and go to hell.

Christians are saving you from yourself, and saving other people from your mistakes/sins, when they push legislation that is aligned with Christian values. Saying "you go be a good Christian, just leave me alone" means literally NOTHING to a lot of people.

And yes, obviously not all Christians are like this. It's definitely how I was raised, though, and especially as a child and a young adult, it feels like it makes sense if that's all you've ever heard. It's really hard to get away from that viewpoint.

[NastyWoman]

Jun 28, 2022 9:34:38 GMT -5 Bonny said:

Jun 28, 2022 9:09:15 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

WTF counts as "legitimate rape"?!   JFC I hope she doesn't have daughters.

Probably "date rape" or getting drunk and not being able to give consent.

You know the blame the victim game. "She should have known better" or "she asked for it".  ! This is what I grew up hearing.

I would think her definition of " legitimate rape" is when I or my loved ones" are involved. Otherwise it is just a sl*t who was asking for it and she should carry the consequences of her behavior  

[chiver78]

this was much faster than I expected. link 

from the link, 

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can prohibit abortion, Alabama has seized on the decision to argue that the state should also be able to ban gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youths.



The case marks one of the first known instances in which a conservative state has tried to apply the abortion ruling to other realms, just as LGBTQ advocates and others were afraid would happen.

[happyhoix]

Jul 1, 2022 10:18:52 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

this was much faster than I expected. link 

from the link, 

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can prohibit abortion, Alabama has seized on the decision to argue that the state should also be able to ban gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youths.



The case marks one of the first known instances in which a conservative state has tried to apply the abortion ruling to other realms, just as LGBTQ advocates and others were afraid would happen.

Now they know they have a far right friendly court the states will be rushing to put many cases in front of them to roll back the changes from the last twenty years - or at least, let the states decide how they want to handle all these issues.

I wonder if they’ll challenge no fault divorce? My sis Thad a minister tell her once that he and his wife hated each other but God doesn’t want anyone to get a divorce.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Jul 1, 2022 11:00:56 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jul 1, 2022 10:18:52 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

this was much faster than I expected. link 

from the link, 

Now they know they have a far right friendly court the states will be rushing to put many cases in front of them to roll back the changes from the last twenty years - or at least, let the states decide how they want to handle all these issues.

I wonder if they’ll challenge no fault divorce? My sis Thad a minister tell her once that he and his wife hated each other but God doesn’t want anyone to get a divorce.

Yes, that is consistent with every church I've been a part of and DH has been a part of. God hates divorce. 
DH's first wife told their Christian marriage counselor that she prayed every day for DH to die. The counselor said to DH that he didn't know how to help them fix their marriage and recommended they live on opposite sides of the house for the remainder of their lives. DH chose divorce. He was excommunicated from that church. 

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Jul 1, 2022 10:18:52 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

this was much faster than I expected. link 

from the link, 

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can prohibit abortion, Alabama has seized on the decision to argue that the state should also be able to ban gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youths.



The case marks one of the first known instances in which a conservative state has tried to apply the abortion ruling to other realms, just as LGBTQ advocates and others were afraid would happen.

There are many cases of courts overturning parental medical decisions, but they're typically when parents deny their children life-saving medical procedures based religious legalism. I'll be pessimistically curious to see how this goes. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 1, 2022 11:09:31 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Jul 1, 2022 11:00:56 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Now they know they have a far right friendly court the states will be rushing to put many cases in front of them to roll back the changes from the last twenty years - or at least, let the states decide how they want to handle all these issues.

I wonder if they’ll challenge no fault divorce? My sis Thad a minister tell her once that he and his wife hated each other but God doesn’t want anyone to get a divorce.

Yes, that is consistent with every church I've been a part of and DH has been a part of. God hates divorce. 
DH's first wife told their Christian marriage counselor that she prayed every day for DH to die. The counselor said to DH that he didn't know how to help them fix their marriage and recommended they live on opposite sides of the house for the remainder of their lives. DH chose divorce. He was excommunicated from that church. 

“Pray to God, but row away from the rocks.”

― Hunter S. Thompson

Your DH took that good advice.

[Knee Deep in Water Chloe]

Jun 30, 2022 19:44:09 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

I've been trying to understand why Evangelical Christians must make abortion illegal for everyone, instead of just choosing not to use it. I found this discussion on the Mr Money Mustache forum, and ohhh

chaskavitch said:

This is where I stand. I have been pregnant twice--once at age 17 (unintended) and once at age 21 (intended). I did not have an abortion. That was my choice. I don't get to make the choice for others. I understand how it gets portrayed in the church and how people internalize that no one regardless of their religious beliefs or medical condition should have an abortion, but I don't agree with that stance.

[raeoflyte]

Jul 1, 2022 11:11:26 GMT -5 Knee Deep in Water Chloe said:

Jul 1, 2022 10:18:52 GMT -5 chiver78 said:

this was much faster than I expected. link 

from the link, 

There are many cases of courts overturning parental medical decisions, but they're typically when parents deny their children life-saving medical procedures based religious legalism. I'll be pessimistically curious to see how this goes. 

They'll win. Plenty of states still allow homo be gone camps to operate for youth.

[daisylu]

Oh yeah, it is going to get much worse. Now that the states know how this SCOTUS is operating, they will begin to add all sorts of laws that will battled to the court - only to be dismissed as "not a Constitutional issue, a state issue".

I find it hard to believe that the even people of the time expected the Constitution to be the end all. That it would never be changed or updated EVER. Look at how vastly different the world has become since it was written in 1787.

[daisylu]

On another note, there are states that are making it EASIER to get an abortion. link

Maryland law taking effect Friday will enable nurse practitioners, nurse midwives and physician assistants who receive special training to perform abortions, as some states seek to expand access to the procedure after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.



Medical professionals other than physicians with the training can begin providing abortions Friday, though it's unclear how many will immediately be eligible. Delaware, Connecticut and Washington also enacted laws this year allowing non-physician clinicians to perform abortions.



Dr. Kyle Bukowski, the chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood of Maryland, is training non-physician clinicians to perform safe abortions in Maryland. Bukowski, who also has done such training in California, believes providing abortion access is one of the most significant jobs he has done as a doctor.



“It feels so important,” said the board-certified OB/GYN, who also delivers babies. “That is the difference between them finishing school or not; leaving an abusive relationship or not; being able to take care of their kids or not, keep their job or not, and to be able to fully give back somebody their autonomy is probably the most important work that you can do as a doctor or as a medical provider.”

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Last night while we were at SLAP, there was a passing of Roe while at dinner.  It was pretty funny to watch, as all of the women at the table bristled at it and were clearly still pissed.  One guy (the anti vaxxer) was clearly for the ruling.  The subject quickly changed to something else, but the guy who was for the ruling has pretty much reached the point of being merely tolerated by the women in the group anyway.  The way he treats women is appalling anyway.  

[daisylu]

This is heartbreaking:


On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.



Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.



Could Bernard help?



Indiana lawmakers are poised to further restrict or ban abortion in mere weeks. The Indiana General Assembly will convene in a special session July 25 when it will discuss restrictions to abortion policy along with inflation relief.  


link

[raeoflyte]

I am wishing horrific things on these assholes. I was just reading that the Mississippi (I think) representative doesn't think they need to revisit exceptions for underage incest cases.

All this is going to do is trap these children (and I'm talking about the moms here) in abusive situations to repeat the cycle over and over. Found it. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/abortion-incest-mississippi-pregnancy-gunn/


I am so angry.

Dh has for the last few years refused to go to conferences held in states that have Trans bathroom laws and Texas for obvious reasons. This week he's seeing speakers refuse to work those conferences too. He shared a great post by a gentleman he's friends with that boils down to the fact that the majority of their profession is female and/or queer. They should be the first to boycott these states.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Jul 1, 2022 13:27:42 GMT -5 daisylu said:

This is heartbreaking:


On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.



Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.



Could Bernard help?



Indiana lawmakers are poised to further restrict or ban abortion in mere weeks. The Indiana General Assembly will convene in a special session July 25 when it will discuss restrictions to abortion policy along with inflation relief.  


link

There’s going to be more of this now.

[pulmonarymd]

20 dead first and second graders hasn't had any effect on them. I doubt situations like this will change them either. They either refuse to believe it is true, it is an isolated instance so the "good" that the law does is worth the "bad", or it happens to other people so they just do not care. Until someone(or many someones) who "matter" are negatively impacted by this, they will not change

[thyme4change]

Jul 1, 2022 14:20:31 GMT -5 pulmonarymd said:

20 dead first and second graders hasn't had any effect on them. I doubt situations like this will change them either. They either refuse to believe it is true, it is an isolated instance so the "good" that the law does is worth the "bad", or it happens to other people so they just do not care. Until someone(or many someones) who "matter" are negatively impacted by this, they will not change

Unfortunately, people who matter have the resources to make whatever they want to happen - happen. These laws will be an inconvenience, but not a tragedy.

[Deleted]

I am not currently active in any faith tradition. Over the decades I accumulated a lot of cross pendants, but I haven't worn them in a bit as I tried to reassess what the symbolism meant to me. I began to wear them again this year after processing and deciding for me it represented the intersection of the earthly and spiritual, but now I've been warned by some I know to avoid wearing as some locally see crosses as an exclusively Catholic Church symbol (NOT!) and will, in the wake of the overturn of Roe, attack the wearer. Perhaps I should not be surprised as attacks on people displaying symbols of their faith - hijab, beard, turban - have been going on for years.

[Tennesseer]

My understanding is Roman Catholics wear crucifixes and non-RC Christians wear crossenot.

Crucifixes have the body of Christ on them while crosses for not.

[teen persuasion]

Jul 2, 2022 18:05:15 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

My understanding is Roman Catholics wear crucifixes and non-RC Christians wear crossenot.

Crucifixes have the body of Christ on them while crosses for not.

I don't think it's that black and white.  I received a number of crosses, not crucifixes, at my Catholic grammar school graduation ceremony.  In terms of jewelry, a crucifix feels *off* - it belongs more on a rosary, not on my body.

Googling the question of cross vs crucifix, the discussions were more about the items in the church, on the altar.  There, it seems Protestant churches were uncomfortable with the crucifix, and mostly use crosses instead, while Catholic churches were more likely to have a crucifix.  But there was discussion of what each  should symbolize - sacrifice vs resurrection, and if the figure of the suffering Christ was an idol.  My church has a statue of the risen Christ, arms widespread, not a cross. During Lent that statue was traditionally hidden, and a plain cross brought out, which was draped in purple as Good Friday approached. Then the risen statue was uncovered again for Easter. (For some reason, since Covid, they haven't bothered to do this. Possibly the current priest doesn't know the routine here, and is entirely too frazzled keeping 4 different churches in two parishes in 2 counties running to deal with symbolic niceties like this, RN.)


It's interesting how much I've been researching lately about differences between branches of Christianity, and interpretations of biblical readings/terms. Earlier, I went down a rabbit hole about whether or not *thigh* was a euphemism for reproductive organs, and what that means when reading certain passages. Some *experts* insisted thigh was meant literally, when clearly it made no sense (talking about a religious *test* of a wife suspected of adultery - if she was guilty, her belly would swell and her thigh rot away). But the better known passages referencing thigh were about swearing oaths with your hand under the thigh of someone. Many explanations that *testify* and related words are derived from *testes*, so...euphemism is pretty likely.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 2, 2022 19:22:44 GMT -5 teen persuasion said:

Jul 2, 2022 18:05:15 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

My understanding is Roman Catholics wear crucifixes and non-RC Christians wear crossenot.

Crucifixes have the body of Christ on them while crosses for not.

I don't think it's that black and white.  I received a number of crosses, not crucifixes, at my Catholic grammar school graduation ceremony.  In terms of jewelry, a crucifix feels *off* - it belongs more on a rosary, not on my body.

Googling the question of cross vs crucifix, the discussions were more about the items in the church, on the altar.  There, it seems Protestant churches were uncomfortable with the crucifix, and mostly use crosses instead, while Catholic churches were more likely to have a crucifix.  But there was discussion of what each  should symbolize - sacrifice vs resurrection, and if the figure of the suffering Christ was an idol.  My church has a statue of the risen Christ, arms widespread, not a cross. During Lent that statue was traditionally hidden, and a plain cross brought out, which was draped in purple as Good Friday approached. Then the risen statue was uncovered again for Easter. (For some reason, since Covid, they haven't bothered to do this. Possibly the current priest doesn't know the routine here, and is entirely too frazzled keeping 4 different churches in two parishes in 2 counties running to deal with symbolic niceties like this, RN.)


It's interesting how much I've been researching lately about differences between branches of Christianity, and interpretations of biblical readings/terms. Earlier, I went down a rabbit hole about whether or not *thigh* was a euphemism for reproductive organs, and what that means when reading certain passages. Some *experts* insisted thigh was meant literally, when clearly it made no sense (talking about a religious *test* of a wife suspected of adultery - if she was guilty, her belly would swell and her thigh rot away). But the better known passages referencing thigh were about swearing oaths with your hand under the thigh of someone. Many explanations that *testify* and related words are derived from *testes*, so...euphemism is pretty likely.

Wearing the Crucifix among the Christian community also varies, among each denomination. For example, whilst Catholics display the Crucifix in their churches and often wear Crucifix's or carry them for prayer and protection, people of the Protestant faith wear a plain cross.

What is the difference between a Crucifix and a Cross?

[teen persuasion]

Is it inappropriate for Catholics to use a plain cross rather than a crucifix?

That depends entirely on what you are using the cross for. It is required that there be a Crucifix visible for the Mass to be celebrated, as the Rubrics insist. This is because the Mass is the representation of Our Blessed Lord’s Passion and Death for our justification.

Most Abbots I know, and Bishops wear a plain or jeweled Cross rather than a Crucifix as their Pectoral Cross. In current times, Pope Francis is wearing a silver pectoral cross that has an image of the Good Shepherd on it.

The previous Popes (of the 20th century) have all work rather simple Pectoral cross rather than Crucifixes.

Like I am finding about most religious questions lately, not a black and white issue with a clear answer.

[Deleted]

Ironically perhaps, many of my crosses came from an incredible artisan who has also produced a number of pectoral crosses for Episcopal bishops and archbishops across Texas. You can see her process at nancydenmark.com/section/55671.html

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

I saw something online….didn’t verify it, but it was posted by a OBGYN who said that they had been instructed by the hospital lawyers to NOT do any sort of surgery on an ectopic pregnancy until essentially the woman is bleeding out in order to cover their ass.

This is wrong.

[pulmonarymd]

Maybe the people writing the laws should have asked for input from Ob/Gyn physicians so the could have coherent laws, instead of relying on anti-abortion activists or their own misguided opinions. But that would require making an effort and caring, something that is in short supply in the republican party these days. Their will be too many bad outcomes as a result. Just the cost of "freedom" I guess. Just like dead elementary school children, these women will be sacrificed for the "greater good."  I feel for these physicians. I would not risk going to jail either. If these concerns are valid, you may see an exodus of these physicians to other states, or those who can retire will. Serves these "shithole" states right if that happens.

[teen persuasion]

Jul 3, 2022 10:13:12 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

I saw something online….didn’t verify it, but it was posted by a OBGYN who said that they had been instructed by the hospital lawyers to NOT do any sort of surgery on an ectopic pregnancy until essentially the woman is bleeding out in order to cover their ass.

This is wrong.

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.

[pulmonarymd]

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.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

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.

I've already seen this.  One woman who has RA and has been stable on methotrexate has been told by her rheumatologist that he will no longer prescribe it.  How much more destruction is her joint going to need to deal with before (or if) they can stabilize her RA again?  Methotrexate is an oldie but goodie with regards to controlling RA.  Usually, it is one of the first drugs prescribed as it's cheap, it works and it's tolerated.  Once you leave this, you start moving onto the biologics, where the cost increases considerably.  I wonder how insurance companies are going to handle this?

Speaking of which, methotrexate is also used in some cancer treatments.  Most chemotherapy for cancer is an abortifacient.  This is going to make things worse, if a woman is pregnant and has cancer, if she treats her cancer the treatment aborts the fetus.  The only alternative is to not treat the cancer - and the woman dies.  I had a friend who found out she was pregnant - and the following week, had a diagnosis of breast cancer.  She chose to avoid treatment in order to have her daughter.  When the daughter was about 8 months old, her mother died (ironically, I was holding the child at the time).  It was heartbreaking.  

I think that the heartbeat bill is a bunch of bunk.  If I take heart tissue, I can make the cells beat in a cell culture.  It's actually pretty cool to watch, but it clearly demonstrates you do not need a brain or nerve cells in order to generate an electrical impulse.  

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

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

Jul 3, 2022 10:13:12 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

I saw something online….didn’t verify it, but it was posted by a OBGYN who said that they had been instructed by the hospital lawyers to NOT do any sort of surgery on an ectopic pregnancy until essentially the woman is bleeding out in order to cover their ass.

This is wrong.

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.

Oh, doncha know that you can transplant that embryo to another uterus?  /s

[pulmonarymd]

Jul 3, 2022 13:36:26 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich 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.

I've already seen this.  One woman who has RA and has been stable on methotrexate has been told by her rheumatologist that he will no longer prescribe it.  How much more destruction is her joint going to need to deal with before (or if) they can stabilize her RA again?  Methotrexate is an oldie but goodie with regards to controlling RA.  Usually, it is one of the first drugs prescribed as it's cheap, it works and it's tolerated.  Once you leave this, you start moving onto the biologics, where the cost increases considerably.  I wonder how insurance companies are going to handle this?

Speaking of which, methotrexate is also used in some cancer treatments.  Most chemotherapy for cancer is an abortifacient.  This is going to make things worse, if a woman is pregnant and has cancer, if she treats her cancer the treatment aborts the fetus.  The only alternative is to not treat the cancer - and the woman dies.  I had a friend who found out she was pregnant - and the following week, had a diagnosis of breast cancer.  She chose to avoid treatment in order to have her daughter.  When the daughter was about 8 months old, her mother died (ironically, I was holding the child at the time).  It was heartbreaking.  

I think that the heartbeat bill is a bunch of bunk.  If I take heart tissue, I can make the cells beat in a cell culture.  It's actually pretty cool to watch, but it clearly demonstrates you do not need a brain or nerve cells in order to generate an electrical impulse.  

That happens frequently enough that we will hear about a case where that problem has happened soon. It is an absurd law that forces a women, who frequently has other children, to delay treatment of their breast cancer, potentially making treatment less successful due to a progression of the disease. So, now we have children whose mother has died, because she had no option to avoid that. The lack of caring about these scenarios is stunning. The idea that the medical profession is lying about the consequences of these laws is equally so. As I said, I do not envy physicians working in these states having to make already difficult decisions with this hangin gover their heads.