SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Cthulhu 2020]

"I never thought leopards would eat MY face," sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People's Faces Party.

[Adamas102]

If you think the decision should be solely between a mother and a doctor, really the mother making an informed decision, then it is up to you to inform me the circumstances where that changes. I'm not going to put words in your mouth to say you really meant up to 39 weeks, or up to 35 weeks. If you think the unborn baby deserves no legal protections at any stage of the pregnancy, then that's a pretty extensive time period. If you think it will never happen after a certain gestational age except for something life-threatening, then you really have no argument for making it illegal except for life-threatening situations. I'm trying not to put words in your mouth, so let me know if you wish to prohibit any kinds of elective abortions after viability, or at any point late in the pregnancy.

I spent quite a bit of time in my last posts regarding how we discuss the issue regarding "How rare is too rare to talk about" and "Elective abortions never happen and it's too much work to outlaw them after certain points" ("The life of the unborn baby is never a consideration when talking about the burdens of pregnancy").

Well first off, "if no one is doing it then what's wrong with making a law stopping it" is just such a terrible way of coming up with legislature...

Limitations are NOT middle-ground. They're just part of the malicious, multi-phase attempt to force women to carry pregnancies. First you set an arbitrary limit on the number of weeks; 10, 16, 20, doesn't matter. Then you make it harder and harder for women to actually get abortions within that time frame; outlaw certain medications, drive away clinics that will do the procedure, put in a few more roadblocks and now only wealthy families with the money and time to travel can get a timely abortion. On top of that, these sorts of laws also serve to delay those who need the procedure due to medical issues (sometimes with dire consequences when risking infection and/or putting off necessary treatments). So no, it's not about it being "too much work". It's about laws like this being both detrimental and malicious in nature.

Secondly, I'll clear this up so that you don't have to guess between 30, 35, 39 weeks or whatever. I said NO limitation (see above for several reasons why). The ONLY reason anyone would bring up these sorts of late term weeks is because they're either being dishonest with their argument by fabricating scenarios that don't exist, or they're ignorant of how, when, and why abortions are performed. No one is getting an abortion that late UNLESS there is imminent danger to the baby and/or the mother IF delivery is attempted.

You obviously have NO idea what women go through when pregnant. If you did, this fantasy of someone waking up one morning at 30+ weeks pregnant and deciding to get an abortion for no reason wouldn't even cross your mind. Women who simply do not want to have a child WILL try to terminate the pregnancy AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ALWAYS. The only people you're be trying to legislate against are victims of your own making that were unable to terminate as soon as they learned they were pregnant because of laws YOU pushed for. Again, part of the malicious plan to just force as many women as possible to give birth with no consideration for the lives at stake.

[Rasulis]

This is getting complicated.

Generic abortion pill maker GenBioPro sues FDA over its response to orders halting drug’s approval

GenBioPro is seeking a court order that would require the FDA to go through certain procedural steps laid out under federal law before declaring its mifepristone product unapproved. The company is also asking the court to bar the federal government from taking enforcement actions against the company before the FDA had gone through statutory process of withdrawing or suspending the drug.

The new lawsuit was filed in federal court in Maryland and sets up a third legal battlefront over access to abortion pills.

Meanwhile, on the other bat channel.

US Supreme Court extends block on abortion pill curbs until Friday

Proof that Texas truly cares about the well-being of parents.

Texas Republicans Are About To Kill A Paid Parental Leave Bill

[cubby]

You obviously have NO idea what women go through when pregnant. If you did, this fantasy of someone waking up one morning at 30+ weeks pregnant and deciding to get an abortion for no reason wouldn't even cross your mind. Women who simply do not want to have a child WILL try to terminate the pregnancy AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ALWAYS. The only people you're be trying to legislate against are victims of your own making that were unable to terminate as soon as they learned they were pregnant because of laws YOU pushed for. Again, part of the malicious plan to just force as many women as possible to give birth with no consideration for the lives at stake.

@tehdang - if a woman is contemplating an abortion at 30 weeks, it's for medical reasons, not indecision.

If you knew anything about the history of abortions and why they are being banned by the religious right, you'd know it has nothing to do with the baby and everything to do with men controlling women. I know you don't like to face some of the realities of modern and complicated politics, but remember that one of the current SCOTUS Justices was a Handmaid. I'm not saying that to be snarky or score points or anything like our past interactions - I want to actively engage you in this conversation so you can consider the full picture of the debate and dialogue. Even the notion of a baby being alive in the womb came from the religious right, not from medical professionals - again all in the name of controlling women's bodies.

- - - Updated - - -

This is getting complicated.

Generic abortion pill maker GenBioPro sues FDA over its response to orders halting drug’s approval

GenBioPro is seeking a court order that would require the FDA to go through certain procedural steps laid out under federal law before declaring its mifepristone product unapproved. The company is also asking the court to bar the federal government from taking enforcement actions against the company before the FDA had gone through statutory process of withdrawing or suspending the drug.

The new lawsuit was filed in federal court in Maryland and sets up a third legal battlefront over access to abortion pills.

Meanwhile, on the other bat channel.

US Supreme Court extends block on abortion pill curbs until Friday

Proof that Texas truly cares about the well-being of parents.

Texas Republicans Are About To Kill A Paid Parental Leave Bill

The case will be interesting, because the court is in reality considering banning the sale of prescription medicines based on a minority religious belief, rather than any factual evidence. Really, all the factual evidence (as if there were another kind - even if some groups would like you to think that ) points to more abortion options for women creating a healthier environment and life for the women and the baby (yes, abortion options allow for healthier babies).

[Edge-]

https://www.kctv5.com/2023/04/19/2nd...nsas-governor/

Kansas’ governor has vetoed legislation that would mandate clinics to tell patients that a medication abortion can be interrupted using an unproven drug regimen.

Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed the bill Wednesday, again pushing back state GOP efforts to restrict abortion despite a decisive statewide vote affirming abortion rights last year.

The governor’s action marked the second time this month that she vetoed an anti-abortion bill approved by the GOP-controlled Legislature.

Last week, she rejected a measure that could subject doctors to criminal charges and lawsuits if they are accused of not providing enough care for infants delivered alive during certain abortion procedures, even if they are expected to die within seconds outside the womb because of a severe medical issue.

...

But Republican lawmakers may be able to override the bill vetoed on Wednesday in a vote later this month. If they do, patients asking for a medical abortion would get a state-mandated, written notice that they can interrupt their abortion, even though the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology says there is no scientific evidence that the “reversal” approach promoted by abortion opponents is safe or effective.

Abortion rights supporters contend both measures break faith with voters.

Reminder: It's never been about reality. It's never been about the "child". It's never been about "protecting life". It's always been about controlling the bodies of girls and women, hence why Kansas Republicans are trying to force doctors to promote an untested, unproven drug regimen that has not been tested or evaluated through studies to see if it's even safe for the pregnant person to take.

Which, as Democrats point out -

“We were told that we must listen to the people,” Kansas Senate Democratic Leader Dinah Sykes said before her chamber passed the bill earlier this month, recalling the campaign ahead of the statewide vote in August 2022. “Nearly 60% of Kansans — Democrats, Republicans and independents — voted ‘no’ on giving elected representatives and state senators more power to pass laws regarding abortion.”

Continues to stand in direct contradiction to the actual will of the voters within the state, who already spoke on the issue.

[Nymrohd]

I have to ask, doesn't the federal government have the authority to conduct an advisory referendum? Obviously cannot be done now since the House would refuse to budget it, but if they get the House back in 2024 can it be done? Note, advisory, not binding.

[Shadowferal]

Too funny not to quote;

"COMPROMISE SOLUTION ON ABORTION! Ban abortion for registered Republicans only," Ann Coulter wrote.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Too funny not to quote;

"COMPROMISE SOLUTION ON ABORTION! Ban abortion for registered Republicans only," Ann Coulter wrote.

Would probably be one of the fastest ways to end the Republican party as a political organization.

Also not exactly a big surprise that a lot of women Republicans are starting to jump ship. While all of the "good American Christian" white women who have planned, stable families are still on board, it seems a lot of conservative women were paying lip service for the sake of appearing loyal to the party affiliation, not thinking that they'd ACTUALLY go after abortion. And now that they are the women are like "Man, I didn't know the leopards eating people's faces party would eat MY face!"

[fwc577]

Would probably be one of the fastest ways to end the Republican party as a political organization.

Also not exactly a big surprise that a lot of women Republicans are starting to jump ship. While all of the "good American Christian" white women who have planned, stable families are still on board, it seems a lot of conservative women were paying lip service for the sake of appearing loyal to the party affiliation, not thinking that they'd ACTUALLY go after abortion. And now that they are the women are like "Man, I didn't know the leopards eating people's faces party would eat MY face!"

That's because the White "Good American Christian" woman has been lucky enough to not yet have to deal with a difficult pregnancy.

It's crazy when I look at some of my friends as I have a few who fall into that category and they've got multiple, healthy kids with non-difficult pregnancies. Meanwhile, I've got other friends who either used to be Republican or who will never vote Republican who have had to either deal with difficult pregnancies and/or had multiple miscarriages.

One of my friends who is mostly liberal absolutely despises Republicans has a 2-year old now who would not have been possible without invitro which is something that is potentially in jeopardy because of these chuckle fucks. She literally had like 3-4 miscarriages before having a successful, yet difficult, pregnancy. She really wanted to be a mom. She could see how this stuff could've played out very differently for her with these archaic laws. She is healthy and active. Eats well. Yet her body just kept rejecting pregnancies. Imagine having a murder investigation opened on you because, to no fault of your own, your body rejected a pregnancy? That shit makes her tremble with fear because dealing with the miscarriages was ALREADY stressful enough for her.

[Twdft]

Too funny not to quote;

"COMPROMISE SOLUTION ON ABORTION! Ban abortion for registered Republicans only," Ann Coulter wrote.

Things I did not have on my bingo card: agreeing with Ann Coulter

[Darththeo]

Miscarriage and abortion is close in kind to dying from a sudden sickness and dying from an intentional act of murder.

The name for a miscarriage, the technical name, is spontaneous abortion. And the majority of abortions are done via pills ... they are induced miscarriages.

It is akin to comparing someone dying from a fall vs being pushed off and then dying from the fall. How the person dies is for all intents and purposes, the same. The only differences is intent.

People who are anti-abortion always bring up what happens in 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions as the "default" abortion ... it isn't.

Anytime an anti-abortion activist gets pissy at comparing abortion to miscarriage is merely showing they do not understand either. Abortion literally comes from the Latin word for miscarriage.

[Shadowferal]

Things I did not have on my bingo card: agreeing with Ann Coulter

I know, right!

My world just got a tad strange.

[Edge-]

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white...pill-rcna80631

You want to talk about the ultimate bait and switch? I feel like I got duped. I feel like voted for somebody based on what had been presented to me. And you do this? That is totally, totally wrong

Lisa Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska, complaining that she was mislead by now judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Acting shocked and offended and surprised that those in her own party and the activist conservative judges trained and groomed by the Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society might lie to their own members in their pursuit of achieving the extremist goals of wealthy conservatives.

Really, she and Susan Collins need to get together to talk about just how concerned they are about reproductive health care and how it's just so unthinkable that their own party would lie to them. They could even set up a podcast to try to reach the hip young kids.

Fuck these absolutely airheaded, dishonest, ignorant, wilfully stupid cunts.

[tehdang]

To the first part. I'm 100% for medically assisted suicide. So to me if someone wants to voluntarily end their life, that isn't a big gotcha, and is more what I'd compare it to.
Again, I do not see it as murder when it's elective. Late abortions are practically never elective. A thing you keep disregarding.

And as for "Where I would do something as brutal etc as abortion?" I'm borderline forced medical donations of organs. Or rather. I think Sweden should have an "Opt-Out" system and not the current "Opt-In". Someone who died in a car crash but has kidneys one can recover has no freaking need of them.

Am I brutal enough for you? I see the above as the humane action. (All of my organs are up for donation, and my family knows that I want to donate my body to science/medical students after I die).

I've already said enough on the differences between "practically never elective" and "legally permissible" for any and all reasons.

When looking at post-viability stages, I think you give too little thought to a developing human that would be endowed with full rights after a sudden, emergency delivery. That's where I see value in ensuring that this only legally happens for the most necessary reasons. Yes, by law. And I'm sympathetic to arguments that medically assisted suicide should be available for adults that wish they had never been born, with high attention directed towards transitory mental health episodes or anyone or thing else trying to encourage it.

For obvious reasons, the unborn child cannot be asked the same thing as an adult if the choice has already been made in the negative for him/her. It would be quite something to hold a poll of the nearly-aborted children, or survivors of botched abortion procedures, and see what percentage view nonexistence as the preferred option.

As for claiming me stating all the shit a body goes through is appeals to emotion? I entirely disagree. The fact that pretty much every organ under the ribcage is squished during pregnancy tells me enough. For me to become "forbid the ending of the potential life of pregnancy" would need artificial wombs where transplating was safe and easy.
Again, it's not about the potential child in cases of elective abortion. It's about the person carrying that child. Same as that's why any laws should be made so that getting abortions in case of medical necessity is easy.
Is it hard for a parent to abort in the 4th month? It's devastating! I've got some relatives who did it. However it was far better for them than to carry a non-viable fetus that'd get sepsis. Or for them to give birth to a fetus without a head.

Your stance is that they should. Because that's what the laws your party are making are doing. Laws you seem to either have no issue with, or celebrate.

If we're doing sci-fi, I'd love to have a third option for artificial wombs. The pure effect on miscarriage in the mother's body would be amazing.

I'm in favor of exceptions for fatal fetal deformities. We're in some strange agreement, but you can't acknowledge it because of other things. I don't quite understand the logical end-around that stops partial agreement from being fully admitted.

I don't get paid by the number of words I copy and paste like you, so my responses will only contain what I feel necessary. I don't need to add superfluous sentences just to pad a paycheck.

Feisty now, aren't we? I try to be clear and communicate exactly my full views on what I believe, why I believe it, the evidence supporting it, and what I find missing and illogical from others. My interlocutors have some very particular problems that take some explaining, and sometimes analysis and logical conclusions. Sorry for the length.

I linked the actual poll results FROM GALLUP, meaning I was in, fact responding to your poll results. The GALLUP POLL (not some other random poll you've decided to reference without citing) does not provide a definition for that term.

Your previous post cited % in "favor as being legal under certain circumstances" and you have thus far showed no interest on what those circumstances are. Guess what: they asked the same cohort a bunch of different circumstances question to help elaborate on their beliefs. You're choosing to ignore it. There's no reason to choose to believe a general question about circumstances, then choose to ignore the set of particular questions about circumstances.

You're lying about how high the support for Abortion in general is to try to justify your own shitty values.

I'm just establishing the groundwork for what Americans believe on the subject. I had seen several posters making absurd declarations of what's extreme or not. They can declare half or two thirds or 71% of Americans extreme, and I have a better idea of how they're not calculating "extreme."

I will admit that I was incorrect regarding the sample size.

Thank you.

the all times pollsters have been wrong

Their ability to predict candidate wins and losses is worse, on average. Here's a reminder that social viewpoints can be tracked throughout time for stability among cohorts, but each politician matchup gets one point of history and *boom* gone. And then there's the trouble on generating the likely electorate that you never see until the actual election; not everybody registered to vote votes, not everybody that says they're gonna vote in this election does vote. Not so in social views.

This is actually what we have been saying; that even if a majority of people think that abortion should be illegal that would be still be the wrong law to enact. Slavery was specifically brought as a similar example, since, you know, at one point THE POPULAR OPINION WAS PRETTY ONBOARD WITH THAT.

I will also 100% state that most people are terrible. Do you think the state of our world is this way because of some law of physics? Our reality sucks because we AS A PEOPLE have allowed it to be this way. I fully believe that the average person is not at all great. In this case, though, since your OWN POLL states that 85% of the population support abortion in some way, I can give my fellow citizens a pass on this particular issue.

The post where I introduced the polling data specifically said that "you don't actually have to care what US citizens think about the issue, if you think their reasoning is wrong!"

I have some qualified concerns with ultimately calling two thirds or three quarters of the population "misogynist," combining that perspective with the reasoning that "it's obvious" what a non-misogynist would think about the issue. That's not an argument that you have to yield to polling. If you think Americans are as wrong today on abortion as Americans were wrong on slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries, then you can certainly make that claim. I must say that I argue points that almost 100% of this sub-forum disagrees on, so I have a personal stake in allowing them to be wrong and myself right!

The California case against anti-abortion clinics was very narrowly decided on a 5-4 decision with a heavily conservative court on the basis that the law violated the anti-abortion clinics First Amendment rights. That is because it is actually legal to lie or mislead in most cases. This is not at all the defense of their actions that your software thinks it is.

The evidence the CA lawyers brought to persuade justices is not just what 5 justices allowed them to present in the case. This is called oral argument and amicus briefs.

I think that abortion should be legal at any point. Pretty easy. As other posters have REPEATEDLY pointed out to you; this is not something that women are going around doing for funsies. These are serious events that are already extremely traumatic for the mother involved regardless of whether or not an abortion is performed.

The man declared that "All states, including ultra blue states, only had allowances for voluntary abortions up to 16 weeks at the latest." Please, do comment on that if he will not. You're quoting my reaction to that statement.

you're a dishonest poster, posting dishonest things, making utterly dishonest takes about others.

You've stated a claim about blue-state abortion law you refused to correct or explain, and tried to paint others as more dishonest than you. So kindly back up your previous post. If you're going to abandon claims in your previous post, then the most logical conclusion is that you're likely to do the same in this post as well.

-word salad snip-

Let me know if you're going to quote and respond to things I write in the future.

Well first off, "if no one is doing it then what's wrong with making a law stopping it" is just such a terrible way of coming up with legislature...

If an unborn child dies at the end of it, I see an actual reason to double-check the claim that the mother is only choosing to do it for the best reasons. If this procedure had a 95% survival rate for the baby, I'd see no reason to worry.

Limitations are NOT middle-ground. They're just part of the malicious, multi-phase attempt to force women to carry pregnancies. First you set an arbitrary limit on the number of weeks; 10, 16, 20, doesn't matter. Then you make it harder and harder for women to actually get abortions within that time frame; outlaw certain medications, drive away clinics that will do the procedure, put in a few more roadblocks and now only wealthy families with the money and time to travel can get a timely abortion. On top of that, these sorts of laws also serve to delay those who need the procedure due to medical issues (sometimes with dire consequences when risking infection and/or putting off necessary treatments). So no, it's not about it being "too much work". It's about laws like this being both detrimental and malicious in nature.

If your only gripes are contained in your private mental picture of who I am and what I believe, then I'll allow you that engagement style within yourself. If you're engaging with me, then you'll have to just speak to what I advocate for. In the post you're quoting and the couple before it. Conspiracies do not become you.

Secondly, I'll clear this up so that you don't have to guess between 30, 35, 39 weeks or whatever. I said NO limitation (see above for several reasons why). The ONLY reason anyone would bring up these sorts of late term weeks is because they're either being dishonest... ...

My previous post still applies. You want it legal for any circumstance, so that's what I'm arguing against. The unborn baby is endowed with a whole suite of rights upon exit, so I'd say that's plenty of reason to legally insure against anything but the best reasons are made illegal.

Which, if you're to be believed, means that no abortion is actually made illegal. "Part of the malicious plan," as you wrote, to make sure your assertions of truth are actually backed by the force of law since there's a baby capable of life outside the womb that's a second patient in that doctor-and-mother conversation. That's absolutely worth a doctor's note about need.

one of the current SCOTUS Justices was a Handmaid. I'm not saying that to be snarky or score points or anything

I'm afraid that I think this is precisely your intention from what you've just wrote, and our past interactions rather sustain the impression. ACB is a handmaid might as well be KBJ doesn't know what a woman is or JK Rowling wants a trans genocide. However, if there's ever some DMZ portion of this website where we go to the gutters of Breitbart and Daily Kos, PM me because I can stand a little gutter disinformation fighting from time to time.

[Gestopft]

For some circumstances on post-viability dilemmas, the question becomes, "We must deliver the baby now, but why would you also demand to first kill it?"

How many times do you have to reminded that this is not actually a thing that happens?

[Edge-]

How many times do you have to reminded that this is not actually a thing that happens?

It will never matter. They'll find one story about it that's unverified, or one time something similar actually happened, and use it as proof that this happens literally every time. Because it's the mental image that matters, not actual reality.

[Elder Millennial]

How many times do you have to reminded that this is not actually a thing that happens?

He knows. He's just lying.

[Gestopft]

That's where I see value in ensuring that this only legally happens for the most necessary reasons. Yes, by law.

The issue here is that legislators and politically motivated DAs generally know basically nothing about medicine, and that the result of legislating based on "only most necessary" scares doctors into making "cover my ass" decisions instead of "best medical practice" decisions, and the result is that more women die.

[fwc577]

I've already said enough on the differences between "practically never elective" and "legally permissible" for any and all reasons.

When looking at post-viability stages, I think you give too little thought to a developing human that would be endowed with full rights after a sudden, emergency delivery. That's where I see value in ensuring that this only legally happens for the most necessary reasons. Yes, by law. And I'm sympathetic to arguments that medically assisted suicide should be available for adults that wish they had never been born, with high attention directed towards transitory mental health episodes or anyone or thing else trying to encourage it.

For obvious reasons, the unborn child cannot be asked the same thing as an adult if the choice has already been made in the negative for him/her. It would be quite something to hold a poll of the nearly-aborted children, or survivors of botched abortion procedures, and see what percentage view nonexistence as the preferred option.

snip

Well, well, well, looks like we have a real philosopher over here. You've already said enough, have you? Well, I hate to break it to you, but this is an essay, not a tweet. We need a little more substance than that.

But let's get into it. You seem to think that post-viability abortions should only happen in the most necessary of circumstances. And what might those circumstances be, pray tell? Are you the ultimate arbiter of what constitutes a "necessary" abortion? Or do you just like to pretend that you have some kind of moral high ground to stand on?

And don't even get me started on your sympathy for medically assisted suicide. Oh, how kind and generous of you to be "sympathetic" to people who want to end their own lives. How about instead of being "sympathetic," you actually try to understand why someone might feel that way? Or, better yet, how about you advocate for better mental health resources and support systems so that people don't feel like they have to resort to such drastic measures?

But the real kicker here is when you start talking about holding a poll of nearly-aborted children and survivors of botched abortions to see if they would prefer nonexistence. Are you serious? That is quite possibly the most ridiculous and offensive thing I've ever heard. You think it's appropriate to ask traumatized and vulnerable individuals if they would rather not exist? Do you have any idea how insensitive and harmful that is?

Look, I get it. You have opinions. But you can't just throw them out there without any real thought or consideration. And you certainly can't make sweeping statements and expect everyone to just nod along in agreement. So how about next time you actually put some effort into your argument and try to engage with the complex issues at hand, instead of just spouting off some half-baked ideas and calling it a day.

[Adamas102]

My previous post still applies. You want it legal for any circumstance, so that's what I'm arguing against. The unborn baby is endowed with a whole suite of rights upon exit, so I'd say that's plenty of reason to legally insure against anything but the best reasons are made illegal.

Why do you think either you or politicians have any idea what "the best reasons" even are?

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about at all since your proposal for saving unborn babies is to essentially legislate against circumstances where the baby cannot be safely delivered. But why don't you tell us the scenario that you've concocted in your head for the "NOT best reasons" why someone would want a late term abortion. What fantastical scenarios are you wanting to curtail with limiting abortions after 20 weeks?

Which, if you're to be believed, means that no abortion is actually made illegal. "Part of the malicious plan," as you wrote, to make sure your assertions of truth are actually backed by the force of law since there's a baby capable of life outside the womb that's a second patient in that doctor-and-mother conversation. That's absolutely worth a doctor's note about need.

If the baby is capable of life outside the womb then there is no abortion. The procedure at that point is an induced delivery. But more to the point, it's not really a scenario that happens since a woman who is that far along isn't going to ask that her perfectly healthy baby is aborted. This has been explained to you COUNTLESS times now. Abortions at that stage only happen if there are severely debilitating medical issues or delivery will lead to death for either the mother or baby.

But to address your "well at least it's worth a doctor's note" suggestion, a note to whom? Who is meant to review these notes? Some government official with zero medical knowledge? Some evangelical politician who is going to deny every request because "it's all part of god's plan"? How long does that review process take? Less time than it takes to renew your passport? Long enough for the mother (and baby) to die of organ failure due to preeclampsia while the doctors twiddle their thumbs waiting for permission from the government to perform a medical procedure?