Anonymous wrote:So where are the conservatives on this one? They've been awfully quiet minus one or two peeps earlier.

Furthering concentrating their cruelty in order to emerge like malicious, blood sucking moths.

So where are the conservatives on this one? They've been awfully quiet minus one or two peeps earlier.

The conservative “small government “, where people with zero medical qualifications tell doctors what qualifies as “life saving”. Dumb as rocks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Democrats don't use the hell out of this case all day every day for the next year, they are completely missing an opportunity

The fact that we know the woman's name is promising. She's in the middle of hell right now. But in a few months, I expect she will be ready to tell her story to anyone who will listen.

Almost all of us know someone that has difficult reproductive issues. I admire her courage but she represents all of us and the people we care about. most know it.

It is estimated that 1/3 to 1/5 of pregnancies end in miscarriage (the number is hard to nail down because women who miscarry early may not have seen an OB yet, or even have confirmed the pregnancy. A surprising percentage of births are preterm. 2% of pregnancies are ectopic. PROM and preeclampsia are not uncommon. Forget knowing someone with difficult reproductive issues. For someone with 2-3 live births, there is a significant likelihood that they have had a problem in pregnancy. I’m open about mine, so other women open up to me. I’d say easily half of the women I know with kids have miscarried, had a preterm birth, or had a more significant complication. This touches so many women with wanted pregnancies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas Supreme Court decision here:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf

The finding itself is self-contradictory. Says a doctor shouldn't need to consult a court for permission to perform an abortion they deem medically necessary in their judgement while simultaneously denying an abortion the doctor deemed medically necessary.

I assume that’s deliberate. They don’t want to clog up the courts with cases — so they’ll leave it up to each doctor’s discretion. Of course there will not be specific medical guidelines provided to the physicians, just less than clear legal ones. That way they can fine, arrest, harass, yank the licenses from the physicians AFTER they’ve performed abortions. Since there are no explicit guidelines, it will be quite easy for the non-medical people who will get to decide such things to deem anything they want to as being not “medically necessary” — especially if the patient survives the procedure. Of course if the patient doesn’t survive, then that’s a whole different set of potential fines and law suits. Either way, the OB-Gyns will be screwed. So many will move to other states, thus reducing the availability of medical professionals available to provide abortions. Of course it also reduces the number of professionals available to provide medical care for women’s needs. Oh well. I’m sure they thought this through.

Is there data reflecting an exit of OB-GYN doctors from Texas and the likes?

There is. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maternity-care-deserts-pregnancy-hospital-closures-provider-shortages/

I think there was also a thread (Idaho may have been in the thread title?) that tracked a few cases as the last remaining OB practices left some counties across the country. Rural areas have suffered for care for decades, but the forced birther laws aren’t just anti-women and antithetical to life, they’re anti-medicine.

Here’s an article about why some stay and some leave.
https://apnews.com/article/dobbs-anniversary-roe-v-wade-abortion-obgyn-699263284cced4bd421bc83207678816

Yes, multiple hospitals in states with bans have chosen to stop all OBGyn services. The big Roe struck down thread has been tracking all of these types of developments over the last year and a half and there are lots of links in there.

+1 hospitals also have an enormous amount of potential liability if they guess wrong on providing abortion. Wait too long and it’s a huge malpractice case. Abort too soon and fines and jail for medical personnel. And it’s not easy or cheap to have in house lawyers meeting to make determinations on pregnancy care while a woman is bleeding out in the ER. Or when future harm is unclear because no one except Ken Paxton has a crystal ball. It is so much easier and less risky to get out of the baby business.

Side note, hospital lawyers have an ethical duty to protect hospitals, their clients and not to preserve the health or life of women. Thus, ethically, they have to say no if there is any doubt. Lawyers making decisions on whether a woman is close enough to death to get an abortion is a terrible idea. Especially when projecting possible future harm, as with Kate Cox, whose life or fertility may be in jeopardy, or when someone in their first trimester has stage 1 or 2 breast cancer. Immediate treatment (chemo, surgery, radiation) is the standard of care, but would kill the fetus. But the cancer was caught early (yeah! Early detection saves lives— except in red states) but, it isn’t so advanced the woman’s life is threatened today and waiting until childbirth to get treatment may or may not that may or may not kill the woman. Depends on how far the cancer spreads while the woman is not treated. A lawyer has a duty to tell the hospital not to abort because the harm isn’t imminent. And as the Kate Cox written decision makes clear, speculative future harm is not enough to allow a woman to decide whether to delay treatment or abort. Abortion to begin treatment six months earlier isn’t an option. Better hope you aren’t a woman diagnosed with stage 1-2 cancer at 8 weeks in TX.

These are not situations hospitals want to be in. And I’m a lawyer and can assure you— no one wants me and my peers making complex decisions on medical care. Easier and safer just to close the maternity ward.

Hopefully, the local, blue DA, would charge everyone involved with manslaughter if they made that decision. The problem is that right now doctors have a situation where if they err on one side they ace relatively light consequences- at most a malpractice suit that is handled by insurance. If they err on the other side, they risk jail. A local DA charging doctors, or the whole ethics committee with a felony that results in jail time when they are too cautious and a woman dies changes the calculus for the hospital.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be an attempt to take these policies nationally. I don’t think the Supreme Court will go along, but you never know.

Poland’s Law and Justice Party tried this and now they’ve lost power. If competitive elections survive in the US, the backlash will arrive.

Until then, it’s going to be rough.

Contrary to what almost everyone thinks, the Dobbs decision did not “leave abortion up to the states.” It left abortion up to “the people and their representatives.” That leaves the door wide open for a national ban if the GOP gets a trifecta.

It doesn't even take a trifecta. The president can use the FDA to outlaw abortions by banning abortion pills and can direct DOJ to prosecute doctors under the Comstock Act. Even if Trump has a Democratic house and senate, he'll outlaw abortion nationally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas Supreme Court decision here:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf

The finding itself is self-contradictory. Says a doctor shouldn't need to consult a court for permission to perform an abortion they deem medically necessary in their judgement while simultaneously denying an abortion the doctor deemed medically necessary.

I assume that’s deliberate. They don’t want to clog up the courts with cases — so they’ll leave it up to each doctor’s discretion. Of course there will not be specific medical guidelines provided to the physicians, just less than clear legal ones. That way they can fine, arrest, harass, yank the licenses from the physicians AFTER they’ve performed abortions. Since there are no explicit guidelines, it will be quite easy for the non-medical people who will get to decide such things to deem anything they want to as being not “medically necessary” — especially if the patient survives the procedure. Of course if the patient doesn’t survive, then that’s a whole different set of potential fines and law suits. Either way, the OB-Gyns will be screwed. So many will move to other states, thus reducing the availability of medical professionals available to provide abortions. Of course it also reduces the number of professionals available to provide medical care for women’s needs. Oh well. I’m sure they thought this through.

Is there data reflecting an exit of OB-GYN doctors from Texas and the likes?

There is. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maternity-care-deserts-pregnancy-hospital-closures-provider-shortages/

I think there was also a thread (Idaho may have been in the thread title?) that tracked a few cases as the last remaining OB practices left some counties across the country. Rural areas have suffered for care for decades, but the forced birther laws aren’t just anti-women and antithetical to life, they’re anti-medicine.

Here’s an article about why some stay and some leave.
https://apnews.com/article/dobbs-anniversary-roe-v-wade-abortion-obgyn-699263284cced4bd421bc83207678816

Yes, multiple hospitals in states with bans have chosen to stop all OBGyn services. The big Roe struck down thread has been tracking all of these types of developments over the last year and a half and there are lots of links in there.

+1 hospitals also have an enormous amount of potential liability if they guess wrong on providing abortion. Wait too long and it’s a huge malpractice case. Abort too soon and fines and jail for medical personnel. And it’s not easy or cheap to have in house lawyers meeting to make determinations on pregnancy care while a woman is bleeding out in the ER. Or when future harm is unclear because no one except Ken Paxton has a crystal ball. It is so much easier and less risky to get out of the baby business.

Side note, hospital lawyers have an ethical duty to protect hospitals, their clients and not to preserve the health or life of women. Thus, ethically, they have to say no if there is any doubt. Lawyers making decisions on whether a woman is close enough to death to get an abortion is a terrible idea. Especially when projecting possible future harm, as with Kate Cox, whose life or fertility may be in jeopardy, or when someone in their first trimester has stage 1 or 2 breast cancer. Immediate treatment (chemo, surgery, radiation) is the standard of care, but would kill the fetus. But the cancer was caught early (yeah! Early detection saves lives— except in red states) but, it isn’t so advanced the woman’s life is threatened today and waiting until childbirth to get treatment may or may not that may or may not kill the woman. Depends on how far the cancer spreads while the woman is not treated. A lawyer has a duty to tell the hospital not to abort because the harm isn’t imminent. And as the Kate Cox written decision makes clear, speculative future harm is not enough to allow a woman to decide whether to delay treatment or abort. Abortion to begin treatment six months earlier isn’t an option. Better hope you aren’t a woman diagnosed with stage 1-2 cancer at 8 weeks in TX.

These are not situations hospitals want to be in. And I’m a lawyer and can assure you— no one wants me and my peers making complex decisions on medical care. Easier and safer just to close the maternity ward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will be an attempt to take these policies nationally. I don’t think the Supreme Court will go along, but you never know.

Poland’s Law and Justice Party tried this and now they’ve lost power. If competitive elections survive in the US, the backlash will arrive.

Until then, it’s going to be rough.

Contrary to what almost everyone thinks, the Dobbs decision did not “leave abortion up to the states.” It left abortion up to “the people and their representatives.” That leaves the door wide open for a national ban if the GOP gets a trifecta.

Dobbs took reproductive decisions out of the hands of women and their medical providers and said it was o.k. for the government to make those decisions instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Democrats don't use the hell out of this case all day every day for the next year, they are completely missing an opportunity

The fact that we know the woman's name is promising. She's in the middle of hell right now. But in a few months, I expect she will be ready to tell her story to anyone who will listen.

Almost all of us know someone that has difficult reproductive issues. I admire her courage but she represents all of us and the people we care about. most know it.

Anonymous wrote:If Democrats don't use the hell out of this case all day every day for the next year, they are completely missing an opportunity

The fact that we know the woman's name is promising. She's in the middle of hell right now. But in a few months, I expect she will be ready to tell her story to anyone who will listen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Democrats don't use the hell out of this case all day every day for the next year, they are completely missing an opportunity

This is not something the Democratic Party can do alone. The right wing has an entire media apparatus, the churches, billionaires. This is up to us, democracy loving American citizens. We need to do this work. We need to stop expecting the Democratic Party to do the work that we, democracy supporting citizens need to do.

Get involved, donate, talk to your friends and family, in short, we all need to get off the sidelines and act. And no, complaining on an anonymous thread is not enough.

Some ideas, Key states are Texas - voter registration groups, 2 Democratic Supreme Court candidates, unseating Cruz
Ohio - support sherrod Brown, Blue Ohio a grassroots, pro Democracy group lead by David Pepper, author of Laboratories of Democracy
Wisconsin Dem Party are kicking ass, need $
North Carolina Dem Party has need chair who is fierce. Give to Jeff Jackson for AG & try to keep MAGA from becoming Go Right now the main thing is to give money and give it on a monthly basis so these organizations can plan. It really is better to give $10 a month sustainably then to give $100 a month at one time. Starting in the new year there will be remote phone bank happening in any of the states. There will be postcard writing campaigns and there’s in person Canvassing.

I’ll start a new thread on ways to get involved in the new year. So clear your calendar for a few hours a week to take action. we can beat the MFs but we need to get off the sidelines.

+1

And FFS. Stop gaslighting us all. This is the problem and fault of the GOP and their fascist voters.

Ok and what are going to do about it? Ranting on DCUM may be satisfying but it changes nothing. The poster has some concrete suggestions of some actions to take.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Democrats don't use the hell out of this case all day every day for the next year, they are completely missing an opportunity

This is not something the Democratic Party can do alone. The right wing has an entire media apparatus, the churches, billionaires. This is up to us, democracy loving American citizens. We need to do this work. We need to stop expecting the Democratic Party to do the work that we, democracy supporting citizens need to do.

Get involved, donate, talk to your friends and family, in short, we all need to get off the sidelines and act. And no, complaining on an anonymous thread is not enough.

Some ideas, Key states are Texas - voter registration groups, 2 Democratic Supreme Court candidates, unseating Cruz
Ohio - support sherrod Brown, Blue Ohio a grassroots, pro Democracy group lead by David Pepper, author of Laboratories of Democracy
Wisconsin Dem Party are kicking ass, need $
North Carolina Dem Party has need chair who is fierce. Give to Jeff Jackson for AG & try to keep MAGA from becoming Go Right now the main thing is to give money and give it on a monthly basis so these organizations can plan. It really is better to give $10 a month sustainably then to give $100 a month at one time. Starting in the new year there will be remote phone bank happening in any of the states. There will be postcard writing campaigns and there’s in person Canvassing.

I’ll start a new thread on ways to get involved in the new year. So clear your calendar for a few hours a week to take action. we can beat the MFs but we need to get off the sidelines.

+1

And FFS. Stop gaslighting us all. This is the problem and fault of the GOP and their fascist voters.

Anonymous wrote:Tie Trump to this because if he wins, I’m not sure institutions can survive. Notice how he won’t support these kinds of laws though. He knows they are politically unpopular. But if he wins another term, it won’t matter and he can give his loyalists what they want.

For a political party, you’d think the Democrats would be better at politics but no.

Several pages with no R defending TX AG and their courts? But, they will still vote for Rs because.. taxes.. illegals... Hunter Biden.. whatever....

Hope you or your loved one never is never in the same position as this woman.. or maybe you should, and that is the only way you will see how barbaric your Rs leaders are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Texas Supreme Court decision here:
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1457645/230994pc.pdf

The finding itself is self-contradictory. Says a doctor shouldn't need to consult a court for permission to perform an abortion they deem medically necessary in their judgement while simultaneously denying an abortion the doctor deemed medically necessary.

I assume that’s deliberate. They don’t want to clog up the courts with cases — so they’ll leave it up to each doctor’s discretion. Of course there will not be specific medical guidelines provided to the physicians, just less than clear legal ones. That way they can fine, arrest, harass, yank the licenses from the physicians AFTER they’ve performed abortions. Since there are no explicit guidelines, it will be quite easy for the non-medical people who will get to decide such things to deem anything they want to as being not “medically necessary” — especially if the patient survives the procedure. Of course if the patient doesn’t survive, then that’s a whole different set of potential fines and law suits. Either way, the OB-Gyns will be screwed. So many will move to other states, thus reducing the availability of medical professionals available to provide abortions. Of course it also reduces the number of professionals available to provide medical care for women’s needs. Oh well. I’m sure they thought this through.

Is there data reflecting an exit of OB-GYN doctors from Texas and the likes?

There is. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/maternity-care-deserts-pregnancy-hospital-closures-provider-shortages/

I think there was also a thread (Idaho may have been in the thread title?) that tracked a few cases as the last remaining OB practices left some counties across the country. Rural areas have suffered for care for decades, but the forced birther laws aren’t just anti-women and antithetical to life, they’re anti-medicine.

Here’s an article about why some stay and some leave.
https://apnews.com/article/dobbs-anniversary-roe-v-wade-abortion-obgyn-699263284cced4bd421bc83207678816

Yes, multiple hospitals in states with bans have chosen to stop all OBGyn services. The big Roe struck down thread has been tracking all of these types of developments over the last year and a half and there are lots of links in there.