1. #7601
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,339
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/12332...-ivf-treatment



    I believe this is the first time we've ween Republicans in one of these states actually respond to a court ruling like this or stories of girls and/or women suffering due to unclear laws.

    So I guess it's possible that Republicans can respond to address the problems that are resulting in women suffering needlessly, they're just continuing to choose not to.

    But this is, ultimately, a good move by the Alabama Legislature in clarifying. Because the consequences of fetal personhood continues to be vast, like whether or not storing dozens of embryos in Alabama as a resident would allow you to qualify to claim them as dependents on your state taxes.
    Its courts intentionally or unintentionally called their bullshit. Suddenly their wives and theor friends wives are directly impacted. They send their daughters 'on vacation' to have an abortion but IVF is too expensive and delicate to be doing all of that.

    "Now hold uo Melson, you know we froze my wife froze her eggs, wtf?"


    But more importantly a change should mean they can't go after Plan B.


    Melson, who is also a medical doctor, says his proposal would make clear that "a human egg that is fertilized in vitro shall be considered a potential life," but should not be legally considered a human life until it is implanted in a uterus."
    Emphasis on potential. Those words are going to eat their argument.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  2. #7602
    Herald of the Titans
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dual US/Canada
    Posts
    2,598
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.npr.org/2024/02/22/12332...-ivf-treatment



    I believe this is the first time we've ween Republicans in one of these states actually respond to a court ruling like this or stories of girls and/or women suffering due to unclear laws.

    So I guess it's possible that Republicans can respond to address the problems that are resulting in women suffering needlessly, they're just continuing to choose not to.

    But this is, ultimately, a good move by the Alabama Legislature in clarifying. Because the consequences of fetal personhood continues to be vast, like whether or not storing dozens of embryos in Alabama as a resident would allow you to qualify to claim them as dependents on your state taxes.
    This is still an absolute disaster though. IVF attempts have somewhere between a high of 40% and a low of around 8% success rate depending on the age and other factors of the woman undergoing the procedure. That's why they freeze a multitude of eggs and not just a single one. If it is considered a protected life the moment it is implanted in the uterus, that's still over 50% chance of involuntary manslaughter under the law.

  3. #7603
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    This is still an absolute disaster though. IVF attempts have somewhere between a high of 40% and a low of around 8% success rate depending on the age and other factors of the woman undergoing the procedure. That's why they freeze a multitude of eggs and not just a single one. If it is considered a protected life the moment it is implanted in the uterus, that's still over 50% chance of involuntary manslaughter under the law.
    But you see this isn't about science or facts given the ruling was a sermon about "god" and his "image". These same nut jobs are going to be "shocked" when IVF clinics and other scientific research institutions flee their state losing billions of dollars.

  4. #7604
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,100
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Emphasis on potential. Those words are going to eat their argument.
    Paraphrasing George Carlin, That would make women serial killers, killing once a month. Men are mass murderers with every orgasm.
    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.

  5. #7605
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    79,137
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopymonster View Post
    Paraphrasing George Carlin, That would make women serial killers, killing once a month. Men are mass murderers with every orgasm.
    I really hate the term "potential life". You're alive. Your gametes are alive. When your gametes meet the gametes from the opposite sex and fertilize, the fertilized ovum/zygote is alive. There is never a point in this entire process for the last several billion years where any life ever "began". Life beginning is abiogenesis. Reproduction is just life continuing.

    The fetus is alive. That's also meaningless, because so are bacteria. So is a tumor. So is the ficus in the pot in your office. So is your left toe. Being "alive" isn't a useful distinguishing factor.

    If they mean "potential human", well, thanks for admitting it's not a human being yet, case closed, you lose, fuck off thataway thankyouverynot.


  6. #7606
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynarii View Post
    This is still an absolute disaster though. IVF attempts have somewhere between a high of 40% and a low of around 8% success rate depending on the age and other factors of the woman undergoing the procedure. That's why they freeze a multitude of eggs and not just a single one. If it is considered a protected life the moment it is implanted in the uterus, that's still over 50% chance of involuntary manslaughter under the law.
    I was listening to an interview with an IVF doctor and her current patient. The embryo implanted in the uterus is a 5-day embryo from an egg extracted from the woman which was then artificially inseminated. You already covered the success rate for the embryo to grow into a fetus. However, the chances of an egg becoming an embryo is also quite low at 1 in 3. With such high failure rates, IVF providers in Alabama face high liability from frivolous lawsuits.

    Currently, all IVF providers in Alabama have suspended operations. Except for women that already started the procedure. Stopping in the middle of the procedure apparently can have some dire consequences.

    - - - Updated - - -

    She needs a surrogate to have a baby. After Alabama's IVF ruling, her embryo transfer was canceled

    “(My doctor) called me like 20 minutes later and said, ‘It’s canceled. We had meetings with lawyers all day. We can’t move forward knowing that we might be open to some sort of liability or criminal prosecution if something were to happen to the embryo before it’s transferred,’” Meghan Cole, an attorney in Birmingham, recalled. “I said, ‘I’ll sign a release. I am not going to sue you. I just want this to move forward.’ And obviously, she felt terrible. It’s out of her control.”

    Initially after hearing the news, Meghan Cole hoped she could move her seven embryos to the state where her surrogate lives. But she soon learned that cannot happen.

    “(The clinic is) afraid something will happen to them in transit, that one of them might die or something,” Meghan Cole said. “I’m just kind of stuck until something changes down here. Who knows how long that’s going to take?"

    Even if they can move the embryos out of state, their surrogate will have to start preparing for the transfer anew. At the instruction of their doctor, she said she has stopped taking the medications.

    “She has to basically have her body reset to natural,” Meghan Cole's husband, Walker Cole, said. “If we ever get good news again, we’ve got to have another ultrasound and then pay for more medication. And then she’s got to start these medications again and go through the crazy hormone-filled three weeks.”

    “It’s frustrating. Obviously, we spent so much money to get here,” Meghan Cole said. “Even to prep for this transfer, we had to pay out of pocket for all of her monitoring visits to do ultrasounds. We paid out of pocket for her medication. We’re not going to get that money back.”

    IVF comes with a lot of out-of-pocket costs that the Coles covered thanks to donations from family and friends and a loan against their home. Already they've spent a lot of money to get to their transfer, and the cancelation is likely to add more to the price tag.

    “It is astonishing,” Walker Cole said. “The surrogacy process is more expensive, but it’s close to $250,000.”

    The Coles have been on their fertility journey for a year, which has included two IVF cycles.

    “It’s been a long year and a bumpy year with lots of ups and downs,” Meghan Cole said. “The financial aspect of it is difficult.”

    While storing the embryos is free for the first year, the Coles will likely have to pay for it starting in May. They don't know how much that might cost, but the thought of paying for embryos they can't implant feels maddening.

    “I can’t use them, and you won’t release them to me, so why should I have to indefinitely pay for them?” Meghan Cole said. "Even though these are apparently my children, I don't have access to them. I can’t just go down there and visit them."

    “I never thought this would be what we were doing this week,” she added. “I thought it was going to be one of the best days of our lives tomorrow, and now we’re just devastated.”

  7. #7607
    https://newrepublic.com/post/179228/...-embryo-ruling

    Former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is frantically trying to quell the controversy over comments she made about IVF after an Alabama court’s recent ruling that frozen embryos are children.

    “We don’t want fertility treatment to shut down, we don’t want them to stop doing IVF treatment, we don’t want them to stop doing artificial insemination,” Haley said on CNN on Thursday. “But I think this needs to be decided by the people in every state. Don’t take away the rights of these physicians and these parents to have these conversations.”

    It was Haley’s second such attempt to explain away her controversial stance on the issue. On Wednesday evening, Haley blurted out a much more gibberish response.

    “Well first off all, this is, again, I didn’t say that I agreed with the Alabama ruling. The question that I was asked is, ‘Do I believe an embryo is a baby?’” Haley said on CNN Wednesday evening. “I do think that if you look in the definition, an embryo is considered an unborn baby. And so yes, I believe, from my stance, that that is.”

    But calling an embryo—the stage before the microscopic cellular mass is labeled a fetus—an unborn baby is not exactly correct.

    In Handmaid’s Tale–esque fashion, Haley has tried to toe the line on the issue of third-party fertility in a futile effort to keep voters from turning away from her floundering campaign, even though she conceived her son via artificial insemination.

    Last week, the Alabama Supreme Court decided that embryos created through in vitro fertilization would be protected under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, effectively classifying single-celled, fertilized eggs as children. The decision has spelled certain doom for IVF clinics across the state, three of which have already announced that they will no longer be offering the procedure for fear of being hit with wrongful death suits.

    So when Haley initially claimed that embryos “are babies” and that she could see where the court was “coming from” on the issue, people were stunned.

    “Embryos, to me, are babies,” Haley told NBC News. “When you talk about an embryo, you are talking about, to me, that’s a life. And so I do see where that’s coming from when they talk about that.”
    Republicans continue to find themselves in the weeds commenting on this issue, unsurprisingly. Because when your opinion is informed by fiction and you've never once bothered to actually learn about the biological processes and how they work, or listened to any doctors or obstetricians who do this for a living and studied all this stuff and whatnot, you're left struggling to find a consistent position. Especially when you're trying to appease a base of extremists while trying not to alienate more moderate voters who don't agree with an extremist base.

    Embryos aren't babies. If they were babies they'd be called babies. That they're called embryos should make that self-explanatory, but whatever.

  8. #7608
    An ectopic pregnancy put her life at risk. A Texas hospital refused to treat her.

    After the first of two OB/GYNs at Arlington Memorial refused to treat Norris-De La Cruz, her mother, Stephanie Lloyd, immediately thought about Texas’s abortion ban.

    “Does this have anything to do with the abortion law?” she remembered asking the doctor.

    When he didn’t answer, Lloyd recalled, she had to restrain Norris-De La Cruz as her daughter tried to launch herself at him.

    “Whenever I f---ing rupture,” Norris-De La Cruz said, “I’m giving my lawyers your f---ing name.”


    She should do that.

  9. #7609
    Texas could clarify the laws and address this problem.

    Republicans in the Texas legislature continue to choose not to, and continue to choose to voluntarily allow women to suffer and risk death during potential pregnancy complications.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.businessinsider.com/hous...ception-2024-2

    Most House Republicans have cosponsored a bill declaring that life begins from the moment of conception, a position under increased scrutiny after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are "unborn children."

    This Congress, 125 House Republicans — including Speaker Mike Johnson — have cosponsored the "Life at Conception Act," which states that the term "human being" includes "all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."

    The bill does not include any exception for in vitro fertilization (IVF), a reproductive treatment that allows mothers to fertilize several eggs outside the womb in order to increase the chances of a viable pregnancy.
    Meanwhile, over half of House Republicans in DC have signed on to a bill supporting fetal personhood.

    Just a reminder that the extremism is very much central to the Republican party nowadays.

  10. #7610
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Meanwhile, over half of House Republicans in DC have signed on to a bill supporting fetal personhood.

    Just a reminder that the extremism is very much central to the Republican party nowadays.
    I sometimes wonder are they so sure the bill won't pass so they don't care how stupid the stuff is they make up... or are they actually that stupid and believe it should pass.

  11. #7611
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    I sometimes wonder are they so sure the bill won't pass so they don't care how stupid the stuff is they make up... or are they actually that stupid and believe it should pass.
    I'm sure there's a mix in there. Some who are honestly dumb enough to think passing it is a good idea or has a chance, but probably plenty who are aware this is just empty virtue signaling for their respective constituents in an election year.

  12. #7612
    Immortal Poopymonster's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    7,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Texas could clarify the laws and address this problem.

    Republicans in the Texas legislature continue to choose not to, and continue to choose to voluntarily allow women to suffer and risk death during potential pregnancy complications.

    - - - Updated - - -

    https://www.businessinsider.com/hous...ception-2024-2



    Meanwhile, over half of House Republicans in DC have signed on to a bill supporting fetal personhood.

    Just a reminder that the extremism is very much central to the Republican party nowadays.
    Well, that's one way to get around lowering the age of consent, make everyone 9 months older.
    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.

  13. #7613
    I asked Alabama Sen Tommy Tuberville for his response to the AL Supreme Court's ruling that has resulted in clinics there pausing IVF treatments.

    TT: We need to have more kids...And I thought this was the right thing to do.

    DB: But IVF is used to have more children...

    WATCH:


    Yes Watch. Vid in link

    Yeah this is a stupid mother bleeper. He totally doesn't understand what IVF is.

    I'm sure there this goes on for 3 minutes but only 1:46 here. So he stammers and acts more dumb for another almost 1:50.
    Democrats are the best! I will never ever question a Democrat again. I LOVE the Democrats!

  14. #7614
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    I asked Alabama Sen Tommy Tuberville for his response to the AL Supreme Court's ruling that has resulted in clinics there pausing IVF treatments.

    TT: We need to have more kids...And I thought this was the right thing to do.

    DB: But IVF is used to have more children...

    WATCH:


    Yes Watch. Vid in link

    Yeah this is a stupid mother bleeper. He totally doesn't understand what IVF is.

    I'm sure there this goes on for 3 minutes but only 1:46 here. So he stammers and acts more dumb for another almost 1:50.
    And after expounding on the topic for nearly two minutes, the video ends with the following:
    "Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision or not?"
    "I'd have to look at what they're agreeing to or not agreeing to, I haven't seen it."

  15. #7615
    That IVF ruling is political gold for Democrats. I fully expect the "purple" spots in most red states to go bright blue in November.

  16. #7616
    Quote Originally Posted by Paranoid Android View Post
    I asked Alabama Sen Tommy Tuberville for his response to the AL Supreme Court's ruling that has resulted in clinics there pausing IVF treatments.

    TT: We need to have more kids...And I thought this was the right thing to do.

    DB: But IVF is used to have more children...

    WATCH:


    Yes Watch. Vid in link

    Yeah this is a stupid mother bleeper. He totally doesn't understand what IVF is.

    I'm sure there this goes on for 3 minutes but only 1:46 here. So he stammers and acts more dumb for another almost 1:50.
    A politician having a retarted opinion on reproductive medicine? Careful, you'll get run over by @tehdang chasing in here to tell you it's the fault of doctors for not explaining it to him.

  17. #7617
    The Lightbringer
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Look behind you.
    Posts
    3,325
    Quote Originally Posted by Twdft View Post
    I sometimes wonder are they so sure the bill won't pass so they don't care how stupid the stuff is they make up... or are they actually that stupid and believe it should pass.
    It's probably a mix of both, though the split would be more 60/40 Virtue Signalling to actually believing it ratio if this was put forth ten or so years ago. But the crazy window has shifted that the skew is probably more 25/75 and even a chunk of folks who know it's virtue signalling actually believe the merits of the bill.

  18. #7618
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    36,843
    The unborn are a convenient issue for conservatives where they have to put in very little time, work, or money into and makes them feel good about themselves:

    Quote Originally Posted by David Barnhart
    “'The unborn' are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.”
    2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
    2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"

  19. #7619
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    That IVF ruling is political gold for Democrats. I fully expect the "purple" spots in most red states to go bright blue in November.
    Good chance to say "we told you that they weren't going to stop with Roe vs. Wade."

  20. #7620
    So, meanwhile in Ohio, a state rep resigned because they decided that they cannot go by the new amendment in the Ohio Constitution.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...7632fcbd&ei=33

    Oaths and pledges have been routine for political officials. That's changing in a polarized America

    COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — The resignation letter was short and direct.

    “I can no longer be under an oath to uphold the New Constitution of Ohio," wrote Sabrina Warner in her letter announcing she was stepping down from the state's Republican central committee.

    It was just days after Ohio voters resoundingly approved an amendment last November to the state constitution ensuring access to abortion and other forms of reproductive health care. For many, the vote was a victory after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to abortion in 2022.

    For Warner, a staunch abortion opponent, it meant she could no longer stand by the Ohio Constitution she had proudly sworn an oath to uphold just over a year before.
    Throughout modern American history, elected officials have sworn oaths to uphold constitutions and said the Pledge of Allegiance without much controversy. In a handful of cases recently, these routine practices have fallen victim to the same political divisions that have left the country deeply polarized.

    Disagreements over abortion rights, gun control and treatment of racial minorities are some of the issues that have caused several political leaders to say they cannot take an oath or recite the pledge.

    Some Republicans, including Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a candidate for governor, point to amendments enshrining abortion rights in state constitutions. Ohio's protections passed last fall, and advocates are proposing an initiative for the Missouri ballot this year.

    Warner signed off her resignation letter, effective two days after Ohio's vote, with a biblical reference to “the cowardly, the vile, the murderers” and more being “consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur.” She did not return messages seeking comment.

    In Tennessee this month, Democratic Rep. Justin Jones declined to lead the pledge during a legislative session. He gained national attention after being one of two Black lawmakers whom Republicans briefly expelled from the state House last year after he and two other Democrats participated in a demonstration advocating for gun control from the House floor, outraging GOP members because it violated the chamber's rules.

    Tennessee House members are tapped to find a minister to lead a prayer before the start of a session and then to lead the chamber in the pledge to the American flag. Just before he was to do so, Jones submitted a handwritten note to the House clerk that read, “I prefer not to lead the pledge of allegiance.”

    His refusal came as he has criticized his Republican colleagues for being racist and focusing on what he said are the wrong issues, such as targeting the LGBTQ+ community rather than addressing gun control nearly a year after six people, including three children, were killed in a school shooting in Nashville.

    While another Democratic lawmaker, an Army veteran, led the pledge without commenting on Jones' refusal, Republicans quickly expressed their outrage at Jones' decision. GOP Rep. Jeremy Faison called Jones' refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance a “disgrace.”

    “In my opinion, he should resign. That is an embarrassment to veterans and to people who have come before us," Faison said.

    Jones, responding later to the Republican criticism, said he “couldn’t bring myself to join their performative patriotism as they continue to support an insurrectionist for president and undermine liberty and justice for all.”

    Jones' stance recalled a similar one in 2001, when then-Tennessee Rep. Henri Brooks said she was chastised by Republican leaders for refusing to join her fellow lawmakers in the pledge. Brooks, who is Black, told media outlets at the time that she hadn’t recited the pledge since being in the third grade and declined to do so because the American flag represented the colonies that enslaved her ancestors.

    Earlier this year, former President Donald Trump refused to sign a loyalty oath in Illinois, a pledge that has been in place since the McCarthy era.

    The part Trump left unsigned confirms that candidates “do not directly or indirectly teach or advocate the overthrow of the government” of the United States or the state or "any unlawful change in the form of the governments thereof by force or any unlawful means.” Trump, who signed the voluntary oath during his presidential runs in 2016 and 2020, has yet to say why he didn't sign it this time.

    He has faced a number of state lawsuits seeking to bar him from the ballot related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an issue that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    His spokesman, Steven Cheung, did not return an email seeking comment but told news outlets in a statement in January: “President Trump will once again take the oath of office on January 20th, 2025, and will swear ‘to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

    Unlike with the Pledge of Allegiance, declining to take an oath of office often carries the higher price of being unable to hold an elected position.

    In Missouri, Ashcroft drew attention in October when he suggested he might not be able to take the oath of office as governor if voters protect a right to abortion in the state Constitution.

    “Any time a statewide official is sworn in, we swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and of the state of Missouri,” he told reporters after an abortion-related court hearing. “If I cannot do that, then I would have to leave my position. I cannot swear an oath and then refuse to do what I’d said I would do.”

    The issue also has roiled Republicans in the Missouri Senate. State Sen. Rick Brattin, head of the state’s chapter of the Freedom Caucus, said if voters in November approve a proposed ballot initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution, “You would have to swear an oath to protect and to defend the death of the unborn.”

    Similar concerns were expressed at the federal level in the landmark Dobbs case, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

    The Foundation to Abolish Abortion argued that the high court's decision in the case would play a crucial role in how much people respected the Constitution. “American public officials are oath-bound to follow the Court insofar as the Court follows the Constitution, but not farther,” the group and other abortion opponents wrote in a friend of the court brief.

    Chris Redfern said the Republican concerns over adding abortion rights to a state constitution is a marked contrast to how Democrats handled a previous flashpoint. He was elected chair of the Ohio Democratic Party in 2005 after voters inserted a ban on same-sex marriage in the state Constitution. He said he doesn't recall any of the amendment's opponents considering forgoing their oaths or resigning over it.

    “In the old days, before the Tea Party and then Trump, there was a seriousness about the Constitution and taking the oath on swearing-in day," said Redfern, a former state lawmaker. "Especially with the polarization that Donald Trump has brought on, I don’t think that there’s a respect for these kinds of instruments. There's certainly no adherence, but I don’t believe that legislators really care all that much. They do know that they have to be sworn in to get paid every couple of weeks.”
    Last edited by gondrin; 2024-02-25 at 09:08 AM.

Posting Permissions

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