1. #7141
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,278
    I sincerely hope every woman and girl moves out of Idaho as soon as they're able. This is fucking stupid. The politicians are not even being remotely subtle about how misogynistic they are there.

  2. #7142
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ortion-access/

    Lawyers in the Texas attorney general’s office on Tuesday said women should sue their doctors, not the state, over a lack of access to abortion in defending the state’s strict law.

    Beth Klusman of the Texas Attorney General’s Office made that point in oral arguments before the state Supreme Court in a case challenging Texas’s abortion ban, which bars doctors from providing abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected — typically around six weeks into pregnancy — with exceptions only for cases in which the life of the mother is at risk.

    “If a woman is bleeding, if she has amniotic fluid running down her legs — then the problem is not with the law,” Klusman said. “It is with the doctors.”

    Klusman was responding to plaintiffs in the case, who had charged the legislation had plunged the state into a “health care crisis.”
    Just a reminder of the kind of casual cruelty and dishonesty of the Republican party on this topic, including in Texas.

    The doctors would love to perform the procedure. Their hospital's legal department says otherwise.

    Everyone, having correctly identified the draconian, poorly written laws as the source of the problem, is apparently wrong and it's the doctors that could be criminally charged under state law who are the ones who are the problem. Them and their hospital's legal department whose job it is to shield them from unnecessary liability like potentially performing illegal medical procedures.

    In court, the state argued that the 22 women suing the state were the wrong plaintiffs going after the wrong target.

    First, Klusman argued that the women had no standing to challenge the 2021 law — because it targeted doctors, not pregnant women themselves.

    Second, she argued that women with complicated and dangerous pregnancies should have no problem obtaining abortions under the law, and that they should be taking up their grievances with the doctors who had denied them the procedures they now argued were medically necessary rather than the state.

    A woman risking death if she doesn’t get an abortion, Klusman argued, would clearly “qualify for a medical emergency exemption. And so if she has to come to court to make that happen, that is not the state’s fault.”
    I'll once again remind some on this thread that these issues could easily be resolved via a legislative session seeking to tighten up the language in the bill to address hospital concerns and be able to provide care while complying with the law, with far less ambiguity.

    Republicans continue to choose not to.

  3. #7143
    Reforged Gone Wrong The Stormbringer's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Premium
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ...location, location!
    Posts
    15,278
    I guess Republicans just thought doctors would break the law and suffer the consequences until there were no more doctors left to help women...? And that women would blame doctors for not wanting to go to prison, rather than understand Republicans are the real problem?

    Also, imagine having to come to court to quality for a medical emergency exemption. Court, which often takes weeks or months or years. Is Klusman fucking stupid?

  4. #7144
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...ortion-access/



    Just a reminder of the kind of casual cruelty and dishonesty of the Republican party on this topic, including in Texas.

    The doctors would love to perform the procedure. Their hospital's legal department says otherwise.

    Everyone, having correctly identified the draconian, poorly written laws as the source of the problem, is apparently wrong and it's the doctors that could be criminally charged under state law who are the ones who are the problem. Them and their hospital's legal department whose job it is to shield them from unnecessary liability like potentially performing illegal medical procedures.



    I'll once again remind some on this thread that these issues could easily be resolved via a legislative session seeking to tighten up the language in the bill to address hospital concerns and be able to provide care while complying with the law, with far less ambiguity.

    Republicans continue to choose not to.
    Casual reminder @tehdang enjoys this.
    “There you stand, the good man doing nothing. And while evil triumphs, and your rigid pacifism crumbles to blood stained dust, the only victory afforded to you is that you stuck true to your guns.”

  5. #7145
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,035
    Quote Originally Posted by The Stormbringer View Post
    I guess Republicans just thought doctors would break the law and suffer the consequences until there were no more doctors left to help women...? And that women would blame doctors for not wanting to go to prison, rather than understand Republicans are the real problem?

    Also, imagine having to come to court to quality for a medical emergency exemption. Court, which often takes weeks or months or years. Is Klusman fucking stupid?
    Working. As. Intended.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok


    If you look, you can see the straw man walking a red herring up a slippery slope coming to join this conversation.

  6. #7146

  7. #7147
    Given what the Republican legislature in Florida has done the last time that citizens passes ballot measures they really didn't like - like enfranchisement for former felons who have since served their time - I'm fully expecting them to be gaming out how to counter such a vote should those results come to pass.

    Because Republicans have, especially on this topic, consistently made it clear that they do not care about "the will of the voters" in the slightest.

  8. #7148
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Given what the Republican legislature in Florida has done the last time that citizens passes ballot measures they really didn't like - like enfranchisement for former felons who have since served their time - I'm fully expecting them to be gaming out how to counter such a vote should those results come to pass.

    Because Republicans have, especially on this topic, consistently made it clear that they do not care about "the will of the voters" in the slightest.
    I have no doubt that they will try their best to muck it up. All the talks about letting the voters decide are nothing more than a bunch of BS.

  9. #7149
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    I have no doubt that they will try their best to muck it up. All the talks about letting the voters decide are nothing more than a bunch of BS.
    Let the voters decide! Unless what the voters decide isn't what the Republicans want, in which case the voters elected the Republicans so the Republicans should decide.

  10. #7150
    La la la la~ LemonDemonGirl's Avatar
    3+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Location
    Vancouver Island, BC
    Posts
    2,936
    Yet another reason for me to be glad that I live in Canada. It's the 21st Century, and women are having to let others tell them what to do with their bodies? I call bulls&@t.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also, why is it called Roe v Wade?
    Last edited by LemonDemonGirl; 2023-12-01 at 05:52 PM.
    I don't play WoW anymore smh.

  11. #7151
    Quote Originally Posted by LemonDemonGirl View Post
    Also, why is it called Roe v Wade?
    Because Roe v. Wade was the original Supreme Court decision that effectively legalized abortion, that has now been overturned.

    Court cases are named after the parties involved, and that original decision was a lawsuit brought by Jane Roe against district attorney Henry Wade, on the basis that Texas's law preventing her from having an abortion was unconstitutional.
    Last edited by DarkTZeratul; 2023-12-01 at 08:29 PM.

  12. #7152
    Titan Lenonis's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    14,386
    Quote Originally Posted by LemonDemonGirl View Post
    Also, why is it called Roe v Wade?
    Just to add some additional information to the reply you got:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
    Forum badass alert:
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    It's called resistance / rebellion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rochana Violence View Post
    Also, one day the tables might turn.

  13. #7153
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...ban-rcna128092

    Four Republican legislators in New Hampshire will introduce a bill that would ban abortion at “15 days" gestational age, according to a copy of the bill they prefiled.

    The bill, which is unlikely to pass, amounts to an outright abortion ban. Gestational age is calculated from the first day of the woman’s period; at 15 days gestational age, a fertilized egg — if it exists yet — has most likely not implanted in the uterine wall. Implantation is the point when pregnancy begins, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

    Doctors often estimate that women ovulate around two weeks after their period begins — at about 14 days gestational age — and fertilization is thought to occur shortly afterward, though these times vary. A fertilized egg is nonviable until it implants on the uterine wall, which is thought to typically occur a week or more after fertilization.
    Four non-doctors with no medical training propose one of the most extreme restrictions on bodily autonomy for girls and women yet, in the state of New Hampshire.

    At 15 days of "gestational age", they'd ban abortion services.

    Now as the quoted text notes, even if you used that metric, after 15 days the girl/woman would not actually be pregnant. This kinda highlights how Republicans don't understand a single bit of the actual science and medical understandings of pregnancy, we see impossible legislation proposed like this that shows that the sponsors have no actual understanding of the issue of the science underlying it. Despite cloaking their bill in that science and trying to weaponize it for their own ends.

    Also, just another reminder that despite what some moderate Republicans desperately wish to be true, the Republican party still consistently takes fairly extremist views on this topic.

  14. #7154

  15. #7155
    Elemental Lord unfilteredJW's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    8,770
    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Amadeus View Post
    Yes it is. Breaking into someone’s home and sanctuary is a violation of someone’s person. When I said rape yes I meant it. Not just having your stuff taken which is disturbing enough. Breaking into someone’s home were they and their family sleeping. Yeah rape is the appropriate comparison.
    Mall Cop thinks Home Invasion ='s Rape

  16. #7156
    "But it's the doctors being cruel." no it's the hospital legal departments that don't want to deal with the liability of getting sued to hell due to poorly written legisation.

    Which remains the problem since this thread was created over a year ago, and we've not seen a single Republican legislature take action on to my knowledge.

  17. #7157
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    "But it's the doctors being cruel." no it's the hospital legal departments that don't want to deal with the liability of getting sued to hell due to poorly written legisation.

    Which remains the problem since this thread was created over a year ago, and we've not seen a single Republican legislature take action on to my knowledge.
    The last part of the article.

    “I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy. I do not want to put my body through the risks of continuing this pregnancy,” Cox said in a written statement released by the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit in Travis County.

    Cox is asking the judge to issue a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction preventing the state from enforcing its abortion ban against her, her husband and her doctor.

    “While Ms. Cox’s life may not be imminently at risk, she is at high risk for many serious medical conditions that pose risks to her future fertility and can become suddenly and unexpectedly life-threatening,” the lawsuit says.

    It states Cox’s OB-GYN, Dr. Damla Karsan, has a “good faith belief” that Cox falls under the legal exception to the abortion ban, but can’t provide the abortion without a court order because she “cannot risk loss of her medical license, life in prison, and massive civil fines” if her belief is not accepted by the courts.

  18. #7158
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The last part of the article.
    If "qualified immunity" needs to be a thing, this is the kind of thing I'd think/hope it'd be used for. Not that I wish it be necessary or anything, but if the tool gets the job done and all...

  19. #7159
    Over 9000! Milchshake's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Shitposter Burn Out
    Posts
    9,917
    I don’t think the Alito/Barrett argument that reproductive rights are obsolete because in some jurisdictions you can drop a new baby off at the post office is going to do much for Cox here ....


    If she's really lucky, some christo-fascists posters will have laid-hands on said baby mail box.




    Totally no side effects....
    Government Affiliated Snark

  20. #7160
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    If "qualified immunity" needs to be a thing, this is the kind of thing I'd think/hope it'd be used for. Not that I wish it be necessary or anything, but if the tool gets the job done and all...
    If they are not careful, anti choice states risk losing a whole generation of health care workers.

    Abstract

    Residency selection is a challenging process for medical students, one further complicated in the USA by the recent Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs) decision over-ruling the federal right to abortion. We surveyed medical students to examine how Dobbs is influencing the ideological, personal and professional factors they must reconcile when choosing where and how to complete residency.

    Between 6 August and 22 October 2022, third-year and fourth-year US medical students applying to US residency programmes were surveyed through social media and direct outreach to medical schools. Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from 494 responses was performed to assess downstream effects of Dobbs on residency applicants’ family, health and career choices.

    Most respondents said changes in abortion access would likely or very likely influence their decision regarding location of considered residency programme (76.9%), where to start a family (72.2%) and contraceptive planning for them or their partner (57.9%). Cis-gender females were more influenced by Dobbs regarding where (5 (4, 5) p<0.001) and when (3 (3, 5) p<0.001) to start a family. In qualitative responses, medical trainees highlighted the importance of abortion access for their patients, themselves and their loved ones.

    Medical trainees are incorporating state abortion access into their residency programme choices. Future physicians care about both the quality of care they will be able to provide and their own health. For personal and professional reasons, reproductive healthcare access is now a key factor in residency match decisions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •