Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We will see doctors leaving the enslaved women states, yes.

[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?

Also, the vast majority of Americans have no understanding of DS and base their perception on the handful of people they have seen/met with the least complications. 40% of people with DS have congenital heart disease. We were told that based on first trimester screening we had a higher than typical risk of DS for DC1. I had prior repeat miscarriages, so I was nervous about an amnio. And I was very torn about what I would do with confirmation of the trisomy. What DH and I decided is that with the higher resolution ultrasound we'd find out if there was a likelihood of heart disease and then make a decision about the amnio. There was not, so we did not do amnio and didn't know 100% until DC1 was born if they had a trisomy. But I absolutely would have wanted the full spectrum of choices if I found out I was about to bring a child into the world who would undergo a lifetime (shortened at that) of heart surgeries and complications. I could give a f* what the majority of people who've never been in that situation think they would do. I 10,000% guarantee you that you will not do what you think you would do when confronted with a situation like that for real. I didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Also, the vast majority of Americans have no understanding of DS and base their perception on the handful of people they have seen/met with the least complications. 40% of people with DS have congenital heart disease. We were told that based on first trimester screening we had a higher than typical risk of DS for DC1. I had prior repeat miscarriages, so I was nervous about an amnio. And I was very torn about what I would do with confirmation of the trisomy. What DH and I decided is that with the higher resolution ultrasound we'd find out if there was a likelihood of heart disease and then make a decision about the amnio. There was not, so we did not do amnio and didn't know 100% until DC1 was born if they had a trisomy. But I absolutely would have wanted the full spectrum of choices if I found out I was about to bring a child into the world who would undergo a lifetime (shortened at that) of heart surgeries and complications. I could give a f* what the majority of people who've never been in that situation think they would do. I 10,000% guarantee you that you will not do what you think you would do when confronted with a situation like that for real. I didn't.

This is so true. It’s very easy to say what you would do in a situation until you are faced with it. Then all of a sudden things become a lot less black and white. The 12 week scan for my oldest showed a high nuchal translucency measurement. I knew something was wrong when the technician spent a LOT of time measuring over and over. She brought the doctor in and the first thing he said was “what would you do if your baby has Down syndrome”. He was trying to gauge my position so as to advise on next steps for testing. He had a terrible bedside manner and it was horribly stressful. We ended up doing that noninvasive test that looks at fetal DNA in the maternal blood, with a plan to do amino if it had come back positive. Waiting for that test result was torture. I felt like I was already in the position of having to decide whether to terminate or keep. Most people with DS develop Alzheimer’s very early because one of the major AD genes is on chromosome 21. That was what freaked me out the most. I think I went back and forth 10 times on what I would do and had decided I wouldn’t be able to go through with terminating. The test came back negative so it was a moot point. But the whole experience made me appreciate that there was a choice. Had it been something like trisomy 13 or 18 I most likely would have terminated. It’s an agonizing situation to even sort of be in. No one really knows how they will feel or what they will do when it’s no longer hypothetical.

[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.

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

I was t stating my beliefs. I was commenting on whether the survey data showing wife support for a ban after 15 weeks was accurate data.

[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.

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

+1. I aborted a fetus with Down’s syndrome and had zero doubts. 10 years later I still have zero regrets, only gratitude that I had the option to choose what made sense for my family. I proceeded to have a healthy baby after that pregnancy who is the light of our lives and who would have never been born otherwise.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We will see doctors leaving the enslaved women states, yes.

I think that's honestly what they want. They want at home births where the woman dies half the time and then the man can remarry his younger mistress I guess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Also, the vast majority of Americans have no understanding of DS and base their perception on the handful of people they have seen/met with the least complications. 40% of people with DS have congenital heart disease. We were told that based on first trimester screening we had a higher than typical risk of DS for DC1. I had prior repeat miscarriages, so I was nervous about an amnio. And I was very torn about what I would do with confirmation of the trisomy. What DH and I decided is that with the higher resolution ultrasound we'd find out if there was a likelihood of heart disease and then make a decision about the amnio. There was not, so we did not do amnio and didn't know 100% until DC1 was born if they had a trisomy. But I absolutely would have wanted the full spectrum of choices if I found out I was about to bring a child into the world who would undergo a lifetime (shortened at that) of heart surgeries and complications. I could give a f* what the majority of people who've never been in that situation think they would do. I 10,000% guarantee you that you will not do what you think you would do when confronted with a situation like that for real. I didn't.

Down syndrome comes with it. A whole host of other physical and mental disabilities that a lot of people don't think of. There are some good poster children for down syndrome that show a fun lovable adolescent or child. But most individuals with down syndrome develop dementia by age 40 and debilitating dementia by age 50. It's due to the plaques and tangles associated with the 21st chromosome which they have two of so they have a much higher rate of dementia than the regular population. With dementia in down syndrome comes physical and verbal aggression, loss of independence and need of more around the clock care. With social service budgets getting cut every year, more and more parents are going to have to care for their adult down syndrome. Children, especially since many of these people are now living well into their 60s and '70s instead of dying in their 40s and '50s like they used to. Most often have poor eyesight trouble with speech and hearing and heart conditions

[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.

Docs and pregnant women. Affluent women will probably go to blue states to deliver.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

GOP lawmaker: Womb has ‘no specific purpose’ to a woman’s ‘life or well-being’
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/15/abortion-women-womb-gop-montana-tschida/

Tschida, a former Montana House majority leader who is running for the state Senate, wrote an email this week to more than 100 legislators citing a podcast featuring a woman who is an antiabortion advocate, according to the Daily Montanan.
“The womb is the only organ in a woman’s body that serves no specific purpose to her life or well-being,” Tschida wrote on Monday, according to MTN News, the first to report the news. “It is truly a sanctuary.”

How can women vote for people who think so little of them?!

[Anonymous]

Barf. I don't think a lot know how these idiots really feel and explain what they say away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Next, child support from conception. Pay up parents of high school boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOP lawmaker: Womb has ‘no specific purpose’ to a woman’s ‘life or well-being’
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/15/abortion-women-womb-gop-montana-tschida/

Tschida, a former Montana House majority leader who is running for the state Senate, wrote an email this week to more than 100 legislators citing a podcast featuring a woman who is an antiabortion advocate, according to the Daily Montanan.
“The womb is the only organ in a woman’s body that serves no specific purpose to her life or well-being,” Tschida wrote on Monday, according to MTN News, the first to report the news. “It is truly a sanctuary.”

How can women vote for people who think so little of them?!

Altogether now: “women aren’t people in the GOP.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That didn’t take long, did it?

Where are all those drooling goobers who said this was now being “decided correctly” (by hateful misogynists at the state level instead a woman and her doctor)? Suddenly now it’s a national issue?