Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see the stats on that data please. What's the source besides some guy on the internet?

The data is probably right. The issue is how were things phrased. Most educated people know that you can completely steer results by how you phrase the question. And the summation and statistics given usually list slightly different phrasing than the long form question in the survey. So you ask leading questions, then paraphrase the results so that you lead the poll respondents in the direction you want.

They also probably didn’t ask about exceptions after 15 weeks. If you asked about the fetus with no brain or the one that will die hours after birth, I bet they’d agree with the abortion. But most would t want a wholesale exception for abnormalities because I don’t think the majority of Americans support the right to terminate a pregnancy for Downs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His name is Guy, why trust a random person on the internet who recites information from a non-mainstream news outlet, that opens with "Liberal Yale Professor". It just seems off, unless that's what the Professor calls themself. Why else mention their political views, when the Supreme Court is supposedly neutral and interpreters of the constitution. The case itself did away with the antiquated view of women as livestock, reducing them to beings without a choice over their own bodies. Yet, when regarding mandated vaccines, many conservatives don't hesitate to recite the same phrase, "My body, my choice." It simply is entitlement to have power over women. How is it that people forgot that Brett Kavanaugh was caught having r-worded a child. Yes, a child, a minor, and it wasn't consensual, yet the news articles refrain from using the proper term of SA and instead choose the term "sex" quite often. As though, to make it seem less of a disturbing matter, bc it's just "sex". No, it isn't. That's the problem. If that child were to have gotten pregnant with his child, he would've paid for an abortion as fast as possible. As though to not "ruin" his reputation, because to people like them, it doesn't matter what happens to these children, as long as they aren't directly affected. That's why they rather allow states to uphold their own laws, so that they can find other ways (like Texas) to extort/and exploit the marginalized instead of demanding legislation from congress. Congress' inefficiency is the most to blame, because the Supreme Court's ruling has no effect unless enforced. They have no power to enforce it by themselves, they must rely on Congress to do it, and yet, they couldn't. Dems and Republicans are both moderates, yet this false belief of having a free market of ideas/political beliefs whilst being constrained to bipartisan systems is embarrassing. The United States is quite literally the Texas of the World, demonizing any political views different from theirs and infiltrating places to "establish democracy" when the United States is quite the opposite itself. That's why they failed with the Vietnam War, it's this whole Savior Complex perpetuated by this false narrative of hope and freedom, that doesn't even allow people to make decisions on their own bodies. Forcibly sending men to fight a war, they had no say in. Who cares if there is disagreements between leaders? Why drag innocent civilians into the battlefield and fight other people's battles. Then they act like men didn't do this to themselves, like the founding "FATHERS" are men. They viewed women as lesser, and no equality won't suffice because nor do women want to fight other people's battles. It's ridiculous, and belittling. What they protest for, is equity. Fairness. If women aren't allowed to be drafted, why force men to? That's ofc a pacifists viewpoint, but you can put the pieces together in that oversimplified scenario. This ruling affects religious freedoms as well, leaving people to go to extremes like join religions that would allow for abortion or their basic human rights despite laws against it, whether or not they understand it's practices. Even so, doctors have their own opinions as well, and to be straight with y'all, even if abortion is legal, it is so hard to enforce while doctor's insert their own opinions on women's bodies as well. Whether they get their tubes tied, or even get contraceptives biologically installed (surgically). "Just go to another doctor?" It isn't that easy. Especially if you don't have insurance, or an insurance that the provider will take. People shouldn't have to be lucky to be born into fortunate households, just to receive medical care. It's humiliating, and saddening. If it wasn't for charities like St. Jude, children would be dying all the time in the US, simply because their families can't afford the treatments. It's immoral, yet the line stops with children, but not full-grown adults. Why's that? It's already hard for Black women to give birth in many hospitals not knowing if their child will survive, because of malpractice and the rampant racism within the medical field, and now Canada has to come out and say that "we'll receive the people who can't get the proper healthcare in their own country", it's giving refugees. It's giving NOT land of the free. The fact that only now, that the majority of white women are dumping their boyfriends due to misogynoir, but when it came to racism, homophobia, transphobia, the line wasn't drawn. Even when abortions become illegal, it will be much easier for white people to travel across state lines than poc. That's the worst of it all, even when intersectionality hits, there's still a bit of privilege they have, and that's not a gift or special right, it's the avoidance of specific hardships. Sorry to rant, but this forum seems so, lack there-of. Articles from twitter? Really. It's just so, bleh.

As soon as I saw that headline, I knew it would be Amar. He’s a total attention whore that is always looking for a new “spin” on con law to feed his next books or article and keep him in the press. He’s neither a liberal nor a conservative. He’s a “hey this is a different way to look at it” guy.
— YLS grad who took Con Law and Fed Courts from Amar

+1. Amar can label himself a liberal just like I can label myself Queen of the Nile. Neither is true. He’s a media whore, that’s it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see the stats on that data please. What's the source besides some guy on the internet?

The data is probably right. The issue is how were things phrased. Most educated people know that you can completely steer results by how you phrase the question. And the summation and statistics given usually list slightly different phrasing than the long form question in the survey. So you ask leading questions, then paraphrase the results so that you lead the poll respondents in the direction you want.

They also probably didn’t ask about exceptions after 15 weeks. If you asked about the fetus with no brain or the one that will die hours after birth, I bet they’d agree with the abortion. But most would t want a wholesale exception for abnormalities because I don’t think the majority of Americans support the right to terminate a pregnancy for Downs.

That depends on whether it’s for themselves or someone else. Lots of people claim to oppose abortion for Down syndrome, but when faced with the decision themselves, something like 80% of people with a Down syndrome diagnosis choose to terminate the pregnancy. Do you really think Down syndrome is disproportionately prevalent among people who admit to supporting abortion in those cases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see the stats on that data please. What's the source besides some guy on the internet?

The data is probably right. The issue is how were things phrased. Most educated people know that you can completely steer results by how you phrase the question. And the summation and statistics given usually list slightly different phrasing than the long form question in the survey. So you ask leading questions, then paraphrase the results so that you lead the poll respondents in the direction you want.

DP. There are also a lot of really ignorant people out there who don’t appreciate the risks of pregnancy and what these types of bans will mean for women. And then suddenly it’s their sister or their daughter or their wife who dies or has to have a total hysterectomy because she could not legally terminate when she needed to, and they will be shocked to realize abortion isn’t just for those hypothetical 20-something whores who refuse to use birth control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And another:

Did you see Michelle Lujan Grisham, Governor of New Mexico?

https://www.abqjournal.com/2511916/governor-issues-order-aimed-at-protecting-abortion-access-in-nm.html

Three days after the SCOTUS ruling, she signed an executive order protecting reproductive healthcare rights. It even orders that warrants not be served on healthcare providers who provide care.

[Anonymous]

What were you idiots saying about how he wanted a “reasonable” 15-week ban?

[Anonymous]

Where does he live in McLean?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see the stats on that data please. What's the source besides some guy on the internet?

The data is probably right. The issue is how were things phrased. Most educated people know that you can completely steer results by how you phrase the question. And the summation and statistics given usually list slightly different phrasing than the long form question in the survey. So you ask leading questions, then paraphrase the results so that you lead the poll respondents in the direction you want.

They also probably didn’t ask about exceptions after 15 weeks. If you asked about the fetus with no brain or the one that will die hours after birth, I bet they’d agree with the abortion. But most would t want a wholesale exception for abnormalities because I don’t think the majority of Americans support the right to terminate a pregnancy for Downs.

That depends on whether it’s for themselves or someone else. Lots of people claim to oppose abortion for Down syndrome, but when faced with the decision themselves, something like 80% of people with a Down syndrome diagnosis choose to terminate the pregnancy. Do you really think Down syndrome is disproportionately prevalent among people who admit to supporting abortion in those cases?

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see the stats on that data please. What's the source besides some guy on the internet?

The data is probably right. The issue is how were things phrased. Most educated people know that you can completely steer results by how you phrase the question. And the summation and statistics given usually list slightly different phrasing than the long form question in the survey. So you ask leading questions, then paraphrase the results so that you lead the poll respondents in the direction you want.

They also probably didn’t ask about exceptions after 15 weeks. If you asked about the fetus with no brain or the one that will die hours after birth, I bet they’d agree with the abortion. But most would t want a wholesale exception for abnormalities because I don’t think the majority of Americans support the right to terminate a pregnancy for Downs.

I can’t believe you imagine this is anyone’s business but the family who would raise said child. HFS.

[Anonymous]

HHS has told hospitals that they are required to perform abortions to save the mother's life under federal law, regardless of what the state law may be.

“If a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment,” the agency’s guidance states. “When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted.”

The department said emergency conditions include “ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features.”

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-government-and-politics-4221f9306a596904b9af2e0d1fad23b9?taid=62cc9451a540700001c5d288&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Whoops, here:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:HHS has told hospitals that they are required to perform abortions to save the mother's life under federal law, regardless of what the state law may be.

“If a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment,” the agency’s guidance states. “When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted.”

The department said emergency conditions include “ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features.”

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-government-and-politics-4221f9306a596904b9af2e0d1fad23b9?taid=62cc9451a540700001c5d288&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Being caught between federal laws, EMTALA, and state rules (nevermind the Texas bounty hunter law)? No hospital or ob wants that.

This is a terrible situation for doctors. Just terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HHS has told hospitals that they are required to perform abortions to save the mother's life under federal law, regardless of what the state law may be.

“If a physician believes that a pregnant patient presenting at an emergency department is experiencing an emergency medical condition as defined by EMTALA, and that abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve that condition, the physician must provide that treatment,” the agency’s guidance states. “When a state law prohibits abortion and does not include an exception for the life of the pregnant person — or draws the exception more narrowly than EMTALA’s emergency medical condition definition — that state law is preempted.”

The department said emergency conditions include “ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features.”

https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-government-and-politics-4221f9306a596904b9af2e0d1fad23b9?taid=62cc9451a540700001c5d288&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

Being caught between federal laws, EMTALA, and state rules (nevermind the Texas bounty hunter law)? No hospital or ob wants that.

This is a terrible situation for doctors. Just terrible.

Why continue as an OB? Will we see doctors leaving the field? Insurance is already an obstacle for many practitioners.