Draxil on 10/10/2022 at 06:36
Quote Posted by Tocky
Because of this cite I made my first Wiki edit. I changed the word substantial to substantiate which was the correct word in the context it was used. "Jensen's campaign declined media requests to substantiate the litter box claim,". I feel unjustly proud, as if I have struck a blow for grammar that will resound around the world.
I is impotent.
But yeah, Starker, Hershel Walker is an ex Dallas Cowboy football player who knew he could capitalize on his race to be one of the few Republicans who are black and get support to run for office. It's no surprise he is a hypocrite who knocked up several women who bore his children and some whom he paid to abort while claiming to be pro- life or only cares about himself instead of women who may die from ectopic pregnancies. That's the Republican way.
What the hell are we going to do without Trevor? I know I said that about Stewart but what the hell THIS time?
Walker is a creep, and deserves to lose, but the "dying from ectopic pregnancies" thing is so
blatantly dishonest (not blaming you, the media have really run with it) that it deserves to be addressed. From the Georgia Code, section (
https://casetext.com/statute/code-of-georgia/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/chapter-12-offenses-against-public-health-and-morals/article-5-abortion/section-16-12-141-see-note-restrictions-on-the-performance-of-abortions-availability-of-records-civil-cause-of-action-affirmative-defenses?searchWithin=true&listingIndexId=code-of-georgia.title-16-crimes-and-offenses&q=ectopic&type=statute&sort=relevance&p=1) 16-12-141:
Quote:
a) As used in this article, the term:
(1) "Abortion" means the act of using, prescribing, or administering any instrument, substance, device, or other means with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy with knowledge that termination will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of an unborn child; provided, however, that any such act shall not be considered an abortion if the act is performed with the purpose of:
(A) Removing a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; or
(B) Removing an ectopic pregnancy. National Review ran an article that showed how every state in the union provided exceptions for ectopic pregnancies and missed abortions, Texas included. Yet since the
Dobb's decision you can't go a week without hearing some SOB story on NPR or reading some BS article about how OB's and hospitals afraid to remove an ectopic for fear of legal trouble. This means that either: the OB's and hospitals are lying to use it as political fodder, and the complicit media did exactly zero journalism to check their claims, or that they're so grossly, illiterately incompetent that they probably shouldn't be treating patients, anyway.
Cipheron on 10/10/2022 at 08:49
Well it's from right-wing site, so ... the thing you need to determine is what flavor of shit it is. Bullshit or dogshit.
In this case, if the story adds up, what they're probably lying about is that that's what the mainstream media articles are even focusing on.
I google "cnn abortion rights" and got months of articles, most don't even mention ectopic pregnancies. I'll cite when they do. This is the whole first page of search results:
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/13/politics/abortion-rights-what-matters/index.html)
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/03/world/us-abortion-law-global-comparison-scotus-intl-cmd/index.html)
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/25/politics/where-abortion-banned-states-court-legal-challenges/index.html)
Quote:
The law allows exceptions to prevent a “serious health risk” to the mother, for ectopic pregnancy and if the “unborn child has a lethal anomaly.”
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/17/politics/roe-v-wade-history-timeline-what-matters/index.html)
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/27/politics/americas-new-reality-abortion-political-divides/index.html)
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/25/politics/abortion-access-trigger-laws-idaho-tennessee-texas/index.html)
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/09/health/abortion-restrictions-texas/index.html)
(
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/26/us/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-sunday/index.html)
So this was the entire first page of google results on cnn articles mentioning abortion rights. There was ONE mention of ectopic pregnancy: but that specifically mentioned it as an exception to the ban.
So we can say for a start that CNN doesn't seem to be making this to be anything about ectopic pregnancies. If not them, then who?
Ok let me try it but with googling "MSNBC abortion rights" instead:
(
https://www.msnbc.com/know-your-value/out-of-office/roe-v-wade-overturned-rollback-reproductive-rights-ominous-sign-n1299432)
(
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/states-abortion-bans-can-weaponize-your-own-data-against-you-n1296591)
(
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/why-republicans-don-t-want-talk-about-national-abortion-ban-n1298885)
(
https://www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/watch/-people-are-seeing-what-it-really-means-to-ban-abortion-147140677686)
I found one single article, again, which mentioned ectopic pregnancy, but it didn't actually state that any state bans applied to them, just that it's listed as federally protected medical treatment:
(
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/merrick-garland-abortion-supremacy-clause-rcna39330)
Quote:
under the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, they are required to provide “stabilizing medical treatment” to any patient with an emergency medical condition, which includes several pregnancy-related developments, from ectopic pregnancies and preeclampsia to miscarriage complications. And it makes clear that such “stabilizing treatments” can include abortion and states that any conflicting state laws are “preempted,” or trumped, by the superior federal law.
It's not really claiming that there are any bans are on ectopic pregnancy treatment though, is it?
Now doing the same for NPR:
(
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/10/06/1127105378/66-clinics-stopped-providing-abortions-in-the-100-days-since-roe-fell)
(
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/23/1118846811/two-months-after-the-dobbs-ruling-new-abortion-bans-are-taking-hold)
(
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/06/1127158938/idahos-supreme-court-will-hear-challenges-to-restrictive-abortion-laws)
(
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/14/1122875164/anti-abortion-groups-are-getting-more-calls-for-help-with-unplanned-pregnancies)
(
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/10/1127224918/how-harris-is-listening-and-speaking-about-abortion-rights-before-the-midterms)
(
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/28/1107654396/roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-whats-next)
(
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/07/22/1112444508/three-abortion-myths)
(
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/1112014281/abortion-laws-college-campus)
(
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/19/1115641627/how-realistic-are-the-post-roe-abortion-workarounds-that-are-filling-social-medi)
Again, the entire first page of search results, and not one of these articles so much as mentions ectopic pregnancies. So if someone is making this "all about ectopic pregnancies" well it isn't CNN, MSNBC and NPR. If not them, who?
That why that "National Review" article is bullshit. It's a straw man, because ectopic pregnancies hardly ever seem to get mentioned in any abortion rights articles, not for the major outlets listed here.
EDIT2: being more generous, you can google "cnn abortion ban ectopic pregnancies". Surely, THAT would bring up the claimed articles fear-mongering about ectopic pregnancies? Surely? ... Hmm, what actual come up in the search are a lot of articles pointing out that ectopic pregancies are still legal in states with abortion bans. It's almost as if NO mainstream articles are claiming ectopic pregnancies are banned, and that this is entirely a red herring and beside the point.
Draxil on 10/10/2022 at 13:26
You're either being deliberately obtuse, or your google skills suck. From (
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-doctors-ectopic-pregnancy-risk/) CBS, (
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/16/abortion-miscarriage-ectopic-pregnancy-care/) The Washington Post, (
https://time.com/6194397/abortions-lifesaving-ectopic-pregnancy/) Time Magazine, (
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/doctors-fearing-legal-blowback-are-denying-life-saving-abortions) Bloomberg, (
https://abcnews.go.com/US/doctors-refusing-potentially-life-saving-abortion-treatment-legal/story?id=88791452) ABC, (
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/20/us/abortion-save-mothers-life.html) The New York Times, (
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/texas-hospitals-delaying-care-over-violating-abortion-law) PBS, and, yes, (
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/27/1107750224/kentucky-doctors-wonder-about-patient-care-since-roe-v-wade-was-overturned) NPR, which I heard live. That took me all of 5 minutes searching--I live here, I listen to NPR 5 days a week, I read the news. It's not a strawman article, it's actually an answer to a dishonest argument being made by the pro-abortion crowd in order to drum up fear and maximize political fallout from the
Dobb's decision.
Edit: The dishonesty comes from the likes of Planned Parenthood, AOC, and other shills who are attempting to equate a dilation and curettage or dilation and evacuation with a laparoscopic salpingectomy by lumping them all under "abortion care". It's blatantly and maliciously dishonest, and done in an attempt to increase vote turnout through misrepresentation and fear. It's disgusting.
Cipheron on 10/10/2022 at 14:00
Well, those arguments are justified. This is one of your citations. It's just a list of stuff that actually happened.
(
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/07/16/abortion-miscarriage-ectopic-pregnancy-care/)
Quote:
Confusion post-Roe spurs delays, denials for some lifesaving pregnancy care
Miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and other common complications are now scrutinized, jeopardizing maternal health
A woman with a life-threatening ectopic pregnancy sought emergency care at the University of Michigan Hospital after a doctor in her home state worried that the presence of a fetal heartbeat meant treating her might run afoul of new restrictions on abortion.
At one Kansas City, Mo., hospital, administrators temporarily required “pharmacist approval” before dispensing medications used to stop postpartum hemorrhages, because they can also be also used for abortions.
And in Wisconsin, a woman bled for more than 10 days from an incomplete miscarriage after emergency room staff would not remove the fetal tissue amid a confusing legal landscape that has roiled obstetric care.
In the three weeks of turmoil since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, many physicians and patients have been navigating a new reality in which the standard of care for incomplete miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and other common complications is being scrutinized, delayed — even denied — jeopardizing maternal health, according to the accounts of doctors in multiple states where new laws have gone into effect.
...
Carley Zeal, an OB/GYN in southern Wisconsin and a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health, said she recently treated a woman at risk of infection after a miscarriage. Zeal said providers at another hospital had wrestled with what services they could perform — with an 1849 law banning almost all abortions back in effect — and ultimately refused to remove the fetal tissue from the patient's uterus.
This is just stating facts bro, these things happened. Reality doesn't care about your feelings.
This is what you're supporting:
(
https://abc7news.com/abortion-denied-louisiana-woman-fetus-skull-trigger-laws/12171800/)
Quote:
'I had to carry my baby to bury my baby': Woman says she was denied abortion for fetus without skull
Nicker on 10/10/2022 at 17:58
Big Gubmint controlling a citizen's bodily autonomy is disgusting.
The GOP wants a ban on ALL abortions for any reason. There's no need to "scare monger" or "misrepresent" when the Christian Right has laid it's cards on the table for decades and now has confirmed its hand with Dobbs and various state legislation.
There's no room to misrepresent the GOP position. WTF are you even on about?
Draxil on 10/10/2022 at 22:57
And the law, which is clear as friggin' day in each of those states in regards to what does and does not constitute an abortion, doesn't care about providers' incompetence. Maybe suing them for medical malpractice would work to open their eyes as what is or isn't allowable by law. Maybe they could consult their medical dictionaries, which defines "abortion" (intentional) as the termination or removal of a viable pregnancy from
the uterus. A salpingectomy, which is what is generally done with an ectopic pregnancy, isn't an abortion. I've witnessed them firsthand a dozen times. A D&C, which can be an abortive procedure, is also routinely performed for abnormal uterine bleeding or even for excessive periods. A hospital or physician that refuses to perform the procedure in the setting of a missed abortion or incomplete abortion is engaging in medical malpractice.
Quote:
Big Gubmint controlling a citizen's bodily autonomy is disgusting.
The GOP wants a ban on ALL abortions for any reason. There's no need to "scare monger" or "misrepresent" when the Christian Right has laid it's cards on the table for decades and now has confirmed its hand with Dobbs and various state legislation.
There's no room to misrepresent the GOP position. WTF are you even on about?
I'm having a Deja vu moment. Big gubmint sanctioning or using tax payer dollars to snuff out human life is disgusting. Question for you, you hard-core bodily autonomist: would you support the right of a Haitian native to sell his kidney to Jeff Bezos for $20,000 if it was an agreement both parties found agreeable? And if not, why is that not a violation of a person's bodily autonomy? What right does a government have to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their bodies?
I don't think the GOP necessarily wants to ban all abortions, they're squishy. I do. But that wouldn't prevent anyone from having miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies treated.
Tocky on 10/10/2022 at 23:55
Quote Posted by Draxil
I'm having a Deja vu moment. Big gubmint sanctioning or using tax payer dollars to snuff out human life is disgusting. Question for you, you hard-core bodily autonomist: would you support the right of a Haitian native to sell his kidney to Jeff Bezos for $20,000 if it was an agreement both parties found agreeable? And if not, why is that not a violation of a person's bodily autonomy? What right does a government have to tell anyone what they can or can't do with their bodies?
I don't know if I'm allowed to weigh in but I vote yes. I think it would be great if organs were allowed to be sold. It would save a lot of people. It's not like doctors donate their time for transplants. I have no problem with bodily autonomy. And those who are dying could have their funeral paid for and not worry they are saddling their loved ones with a bill. Not going to use those eyes in a coffin.
Also do you have like a bat phone for whenever abortion is mentioned or is it more of a bat signal? I already know you will make a 13 year old rape victim have a baby for your belief so that ends any discussion I will do on the subject but I am curious why you feel the need to weigh in at any casual mention of abortion. You know how we believe that it should be based on science not religion. We know that logic does not apply to religion. That should end discussion between us so why comment?
If you also commented on other things this would not puzzle me.
Draxil on 11/10/2022 at 04:23
I read here all the time. And to be fair, I usually weigh in on gun control, too. And, to be fair it's indisputable scientific fact that the life of a human being begins at conception. All known life on earth can be taxonimcally categorized to the species--there is no known, uncategorized life form that I'm aware of. A zygote is indisputably homo sapiens. Science. "Personhood" is a philosophical concept, not scientific, and whether or not to value human life more than unbridled human autonomy is a matter of how you weigh values. So I disagree that the pro abortion position is the scientific position, because I disagree that science is in the business of promoting the destruction of any life.
Nicker on 11/10/2022 at 05:35
Quote:
nd, to be fair it's indisputable scientific fact that the life of a human being begins at conception.
That's an opinion, not a fact.
Quote:
Question for you, you hard-core bodily autonomist: would you support the right of a Haitian native to sell his kidney to Jeff Bezos for $20,000 if it was an agreement both parties found agreeable?
Yes.
I'd rather that wealth disparity were addressed but if the donor freely consents, then what's the problem and WTF does money have to do with it and WTF does this example have to do with reproductive choice?
IMHO, abortion is the lesser evil when compared to enforced pregnancy. Your disagreement represents an opinion, not, as you love to pretend, a fact.