Jump to content

Official Thread for Abortion Demagoguery

bad_teammate

By bad_teammate
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

elfenix

elfenix 34,314

Posted
Posted
Quote

While I understood these new restrictions would have dire consequences for human rights, pregnancy safety and miscarriage care, it took a moment for me to realize the harm they could also place on IVF, which my husband and I had hoped to pursue again soon.  

Now, our plans are on hold. 

Of concern is that some new state laws characterize life as beginning at fertilization or conception. The new abortion ban in Texas defines an “unborn child” as “an individual living member of the homo sapiens species from fertilization until birth, including the entire embryonic and fetal stages of development.” This language could cause issues for IVF.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/was-using-ivf-get-pregnant-texas-abortion-law-made-stop-trying-rcna44416

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bama Chick
Bama Chick

No. Fuck off with that. Not every abortion is about trauma and tragedy and using that framing plays into the christofascist’s hands. Women are humans. Humans have bodily autonomy. Ergo, women have b

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

I do love this argument. I really do. It’s as convenient a way to label yourself a drooling moron as exists, outside of towing around a giant neon “I’M A MORON” sign. No, they didn’t teach us that

hayden_horn
hayden_horn

of course you do. thing is, i would support that. if they choose that. and the real thing is, i'm actually pro life. both my sons were very premature, and had they been born in the 80s, they

Posted Images

scottsins

scottsins 1,968

Posted
Posted
Have to wonder what if any impact that might have on stem cell research. 

When I researched the actual statute, IVF still appears to be legal. The statute applies to terminating a pregnancy, so the destruction of viable embryos that are not implanted is not prohibited.
I’m also fully confident that “TOSSING TINY BABIES IN THE TRASH!!!” will be some new rallying cry to justify a ban on that part of the process too with future legislation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27,578

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Have to wonder what if any impact that might have on stem cell research. 

Articles like this are not helpful in my opinion. I don’t think any legal argument could be made that an in vitro embryo that has not yet been implanted in the uterus could be protected by any current laws. Certainly not to the point that anyone could be prosecuted for disposal.

30 minutes ago, scottsins said:

I’m also fully confident that “TOSSING TINY BABIES IN THE TRASH!!!” will be some new rallying cry to justify a ban on that part of the process too with future legislation.

I mean yeah. They want to outlaw rubbers

Edited by Sawbonz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,788

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Articles like this are not helpful in my opinion. I don’t think any legal argument could be made that an in vitro embryo that has not yet been implanted in the uterus could be protected by any current laws. Certainly not to the point that anyone could be prosecuted for disposal.

I was just thinking about how George W. Bush banned federal funding of stem cell research that would result in the destruction of an embryo because it was destroying a human life. It seems like that would be a logical next target of religious nutcases who think a microscopic speck of goo is a human life deserving of the same rights as a living, breathing person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,978

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

Articles like this are not helpful in my opinion. I don’t think any legal argument could be made that an in vitro embryo that has not yet been implanted in the uterus could be protected by any current laws. Certainly not to the point that anyone could be prosecuted for disposal.

I'm pretty sure the argument will be made, regardless.  I wouldn't expect a hard-core pro-life advocate to recognize any difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and one that has been implanted in the uterus.  What's to keep any state from passing such a restriction, and what would make anyone think SCOTUS would rule such laws unconstitutional?

 

Quote

I mean yeah. They want to outlaw rubbers

This is the extension of the purity law push that boggles the mind.  Far right Americans may be dangerous people who want to codify their twisted view of the Bible as law, but they still like to fuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27,578

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I was just thinking about how George W. Bush banned federal funding of stem cell research that would result in the destruction of an embryo because it was destroying a human life. It seems like that would be a logical next target of religious nutcases who think a microscopic speck of goo is a human life deserving of the same rights as a living, breathing person. 

 

40 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm pretty sure the argument will be made, regardless.  I wouldn't expect a hard-core pro-life advocate to recognize any difference between a fertilized egg in a lab and one that has been implanted in the uterus.  What's to keep any state from passing such a restriction, and what would make anyone think SCOTUS would rule such laws unconstitutional?

 

This is the extension of the purity law push that boggles the mind.  Far right Americans may be dangerous people who want to codify their twisted view of the Bible as law, but they still like to fuck.

That op Ed is specifically referring to being scared to proceed with IVF due to existing laws. It’s not a reasonable fear

Edited by Sawbonz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,788

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

That op Ed is specifically referring to being scared to proceed with IVF due to existing laws. It’s not a reasonable fear

Maybe not under existing law right now. But I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about some Bible thumpers meddling wherever there’s an embryo to stump for. The embryos Dubya didn’t want to see used for stem cell research came from IVF procedures. I don’t know how much damage he ultimately did as private funding of research expanded, some researches relocated abroad, new technologies were developed to produce undifferentiated cells that didn’t come from embryos, and Obama rolled back Bush’s ban. But now that Roe has been overturned, it wouldn’t surprise me to see some activists who are looking for a new cause go after IVF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27,578

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Maybe not under existing law right now. But I think it’s reasonable to be concerned about some Bible thumpers meddling wherever there’s an embryo to stump for. The embryos Dubya didn’t want to see used for stem cell research came from IVF procedures. I don’t know how much damage he ultimately did as private funding of research expanded, some researches relocated abroad, new technologies were developed to produce undifferentiated cells that didn’t come from embryos, and Obama rolled back Bush’s ban. But now that Roe has been overturned, it wouldn’t surprise me to see some activists who are looking for a new cause go after IVF. 

Sure. That’s not the concern voiced in the op ed that I am criticizing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,788

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I think the Kansas vote argues against that

How many states are going to have the opportunity to vote on it like Kansas did? Wasn’t that a special case since it was already in their constitution and Republicans wanted to take it out? I assume they’d never let it come to a vote if the issue was amending a constitution to make abortion legal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 27,578

Posted
Posted
Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

How many states are going to have the opportunity to vote on it like Kansas did? Wasn’t that a special case since it was already in their constitution and Republicans wanted to take it out? I assume they’d never let it come to a vote if the issue was amending a constitution to make abortion legal. 

Every state has the right to vote for their representatives. Dobbs is going to have a big effect on how those votes go. Nothing is certain of course. Go vote in November. And convince as many people as you can to do the same. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45,978

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

I didn’t say that. It’s a fight. You can be scared or concede I guess. 

Jesus, who pissed in your Cheerios?  I haven't conceded jack, and i promise I am currently and will continue to be firmly in the pro-choice activist camp, fighting all of this bullshit. 

Move along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28,596

Posted
Posted
That op Ed is specifically referring to being scared to proceed with IVF due to existing laws. It’s not a reasonable fear

Pfffft. Women have also been told for decades that the overturning of Roe was “not a reasonable fear” too.

I’ll keep on being afraid of these fucks and who they keep telling us they are.
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89,732

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, UncleCharlie said:

Why the trigger laws?  It should be put it on every state ballot like Kansas.

1 hour ago, trauma babe said:

Because the cruelty is the point.

Curb Your Enthusiasm Bingo GIF by Jason Clarke
 

The fundies are assholes and they want people to suffer, and the Republican politicians know they can’t win without the fundies, so they are cruel as well, because you have to own the baby-killing libtards to win elections. What has to happen is enough Republican politicians have to lose, even if they have the fundie vote, and know they lost because of the right-wing/fundie stances.  It’s the same concept with Trump-supporting politicians. They have to know Trump cost them elections in order to move away from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585

Posted
Posted

Well, I guess enough time has passed since the Dobbs decision and the media has lifted it's YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT ELON THINKS ABOUT THIS!!! blackout and has resumed its force feeding of the rootin', tootin' Texan's thoughts, feelings, and dreams about anything and everything. Except for one. 

Capture+_2022-08-28-18-01-55-1.png

Capture+_2022-08-28-18-01-12-1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45,691

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/28/2022 at 2:38 PM, trauma babe said:

Because the cruelty is the point.

and to drive home the point, from a colleague at work today:

Quote
Greg Abbott is the cause of my misery today. quite literally
the procedure i had done yesterday can be 'significantly more tolerable' if i had taken a specific medicine. but that medicine can cause a miscarriage so they're not allowed to prescribe it even if i prove I am not pregnant because 'maybe ill get the pill and give it to someone else'
Quote
literally screamed and sobbed in the doctors. fucking barbaric
 
actually traumatized

 

Edited by Biff Tannen
  • Rage+1 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
StassneyHorn

StassneyHorn 6,616

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Veterans Affairs says it will provide abortions — even in Texas

 

The VA follows the Department of Defense in providing access to abortion as several states, including Texas, essentially ban the procedure following the U.S. Supreme Court decision ending nationwide protection.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/02/va-abortions-veterans-texas/amp/

  • Hook 'Em 10
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4,062

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

The worst fucking people.

Aside from the fact that again, this is an issue between a woman and her doctor, or a child and her parents and the doctor they choose for her… aside from the fact that parsing out whether or not the pregnancy in question really is a result of a rape is not as simple as the girl says so and the doctors have to believe her…aside from the complete indecency of this argument, it’s fraught with gaps in how to deal with certain scenarios.

So say a female (pick the age, don’t care) does get raped and is beaten so severely as to render her unconscious and she’s out for a couple days. Plan B only works when administered 3 days or closer to the sexual event in question. You show me a female that was beaten and raped so severely that she was out for 4 days in a hospital and I’ll show you a female who has no use for Plan B. Or, how about she doesn’t lose consciousness but she is admitted to, let’s say, a Catholic hospital and they refuse to give her a plan B. What’s she supposed to do? Flee from her room and run down to a CVS in her gown to buy it?

Furthermore, plan B isn’t as simple as this…simpleton makes it sound. The way it works is it stifles ovulation. But if you’re already ovulating, it won’t work, which is one of the big reasons it’s considered 57-93% effective. And one would be a shitty person to assume “well no rapist would rape a girl who’s ovulating.” But see, that’s just the thing. None of this is as simple as these idiots think that it is, which is just another reason that the conversations themselves are totally inappropriate. This is like a bunch of women debating at what age a man has to undergo a government forced vasectomy. 

Oh and “just feed ‘em a plan B” might not even be an option if those 6 morons on the SCOTUS have things the way Uncle Ruckus suggested. So again, fuck off to people who see brilliance and talent in arguments like that.

Edited by hpslugga
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8,031

Posted
Posted

Until we enact an Amendment reaffirming the Right to privacy, we are likely to see the rights of women further deteriorate.

https://www.al.com/news/2022/09/pregnant-women-held-for-months-in-one-alabama-jail-to-protect-fetuses-from-drugs.html

 

I’d spoiler the article, but the font size posts as three words a line. 
 

TL/dr: Women who are pregnant, or postpartum, are not granted the same rights as other citizens accused of crimes.

csb/ My mom claimed that during my delivery, she woke up long enough to ask for a Scotch and a cigarette. Claims she was afforded both. Her meaning was not dependent on fact.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,314

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

No such animal.

weird, works for me.  a couple windows pop up asking me to subscribe but i just close them. 

Quote

Kristina Cruickshank knew she had lost her unborn baby.

In her 15th week of pregnancy, a large fluid-filled sac surrounded the fetus, most prominently around the head and neck. Massive cysts, some filled with blood, covered her enlarged ovaries in a “spoke wheel pattern,” according to her medical records. Additional fluid had filled parts of her abdomen.

The 35-year-old Rosenberg woman was frail, vomiting and in pain when she and her husband, John, arrived at Houston Methodist Sugar Land on Friday, June 3. She needed an abortion. But according to Dr. Lauren Swords, the maternal medical director at the hospital’s childbirth center, no one at the hospital was equipped to perform the necessary procedure, known as dilation and evacuation. It also was not clear whether Kristina was exempt from Texas abortion laws, which threaten providers with felonies and lawsuits for performing abortions except to treat a miscarriage or a loosely defined “medical emergency.” Her fetus still had a heartbeat, and she did not yet need life-saving care.

So over the next three days, a sick and distraught Kristina was stuck in limbo, waiting in vain for a transfer to Texas Children’s Hospital, where Swords said Methodist doctors commonly transfer pregnant patients who need a higher level of treatment. Swords, the on-call doctor who cared for Kristina during the wait, believes the laws “had something to do with this unfortunate delay of care.”

Texas Children’s Hospital declined to comment.

“There's so much about these laws that people just do not really understand outside of healthcare,” Swords said. “This is a perfect example of how these laws that are in place can directly impact maternal health and care. And it's very frustrating to be a gynecologist in Texas.”

After Kristina was admitted Friday, her medical records show that Texas Children’s initially “declined” a transfer request early Saturday and left subsequent requests “pending” while an ethics committee reviewed the case. Before abortion restrictions tightened last year, a transfer request for similar cases “would not have taken this long,” said Swords, who could not comment on the specific reason why Texas Children’s did not immediately accept the transfer.

The wait gave Kristina a sense of powerlessness. Worry consumed her and John before they could even begin grieving for the loss of their desperately wanted child.

“You have to lay there and wait and have your life in the hands of an ethics committee, or a doctor that wants to help but can't,” Kristina said. “Not knowing what was going to happen, or how long I was going to have to be in the hospital, or if you're going to have to travel somewhere — that was the hardest part.”

Devastating news

A month and a half earlier, John and Kristina enjoyed a blissful Easter. It was their one-year wedding anniversary — the perfect time to surprise their family by announcing the pregnancy. Parents and siblings shed tears of joy as they opened Easter eggs filled with confetti and tiny baby bottles.

Early ultrasounds thrilled the couple. During one appointment, Kristina saw what looked like the baby moving its arms and waving.

“I will always remember that,” she said.

Concern arose in week 12, on May 16, when heavy bleeding sent Kristina to the ER at Methodist Sugar Land. Tests revealed that the fetus had developed a large cystic hygroma, a birth defect that causes a fluid-filled sac to form, usually around the unborn baby’s head and neck.

The diagnosis increases the risk of miscarrying, but the fetus can survive. Often, cystic hygromas are associated with other genetic abnormalities, such as Trisomy 21, also known as Down syndrome, or Turner syndrome, which can cause heart defects and, for women born with it, infertility.

Kristina’s cystic hygroma was so large, however, that doctors told her the fetus was unlikely to survive. At the time, her obstetrician-gynecologist suggested she come in for weekly appointments to monitor to the fetus’ heartbeat. Senate Bill 8, which went into effect last year, bans abortion at the first sign of embryonic cardiac activity, which usually starts at around six weeks after the person’s last menstrual period. Only if the heart stopped could the hospital intervene and treat the miscarriage.

“Getting that news is completely devastating,” she said. “And you’re not able to go on with your life and move past it at all. You’re just waiting. You don't know how long. Your whole life comes to a standstill, basically.”

More complications

Over the next two weeks, Kristina developed severe nausea and so much abdominal pain that she couldn’t walk on her own. The fetus’ heart continued beating. It wasn’t until her appointment on June 3 that further testing revealed a partial molar pregnancy — a rare genetic condition in which fluid-filled, grape-like cysts form in the placental tissue alongside an abnormal embryo. It is not survivable for a fetus.

MRI images showed an enlarged placenta with “variable size cysts,” according to Kristina’s records, which also note “massive cysts” around her enlarged ovaries. In addition to her abdominal pain, the partial molar also triggered hyperthyroidism, which caused her to lose about 15 pounds.

Experts say partial molars can lead to more serious complications, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, hypertension and, in few cases, a rare form of cancer. They typically require early treatment, said Dr. Lorie Harper, chief of the Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine in the Department of Women's Health at Dell Medical School.

“In my lifetime of training, until the last year, there would never have been a delay in care,” Harper said. “There would be: Identify the problem, diagnose it and then treat it.”

The presence of a heartbeat complicated efforts to treat Kristina sooner. Before laws banning most abortions went into effect last year, Swords said doctors could have offered a more commonly used type of abortion, known as dilation and curettage, in the first trimester. But as the heartbeat continued, and Kristina’s condition deteriorated, she needed an abortion that Swords’ colleagues — and the majority of OBGYNs in Houston — are not trained to perform. Without a transfer to a higher level of care, all doctors could do was keep her stable, Swords said.

“In the past, Kristina’s situation would have been dealt with much earlier in pregnancy with a dilation and curettage,” the doctor said. “… What we're going to see as a result of these laws is abnormal pregnancies going much beyond what used to be the standard of care.”

Waiting

As Kristina lay in an antepartum room at Methodist, minutes felt like months.

She feared she would start hemorrhaging before she could find treatment. Meanwhile, John tried to glean what little answers he could from the medical staff. All the Cruickshanks knew was that Methodist had asked Texas Children’s Hospital to review their case.

John became increasingly confused. He and Kristina are devout Catholics and wanted to start a family. They never considered abortion as an option, but the procedure had become the only way to stop Kristina’s pain. Even so, they had to consider leaving their state for treatment.

To him, the laws did not reflect the nuance of pregnancy complications.

“It was just really hard,” he said. “They’re telling us this is not a viable pregnancy. We’re not making an ethical choice here. We’re making the only decision the doctors are telling us we can make, but because the procedure includes a heartbeat, it’s an abortion.”

For pregnancies that do not end on their own, state law only allows a doctor to intervene when the patient is “in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” When Kristina sought care, the penalties included fines and lawsuits. Three weeks later, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, opening the door to state’s “trigger law,” which threatens doctors with five years to life in prison.

The chilling effect has been widespread in the medical community. Just days before Kristina was first admitted with excessive bleeding, another Houston-area woman, 26-year-old Elizabeth Weller, was forced to sit at home, waiting for her condition to worsen, after being diagnosed with a dangerous pregnancy complication. At the time, Houston Methodist said Texas law prevented the hospital from immediately treating her because the fetus still had a heartbeat.

In a recent study of 28 pregnant patients at two North Texas hospitals, researchers found that state laws forcing providers to wait for life-threatening complications were associated with worse health outcomes.

Healing

By Monday morning, June 6, Methodist doctors were still waiting to hear back from the Texas Children’s Hospital ethics committee, records show.

Texas Children’s had also asked Methodist to convene its own ethics committee, but hospital officials said “it would be inappropriate” for them to approve Kristina’s treatment, noting they would not be the ones performing the procedure, records show.

Later, Methodist doctors reached out to a physician at Memorial Hermann, which accepted the case the same day. Kristina was quickly transferred. Her pregnancy was terminated two days later, on June 8, after further tests, including x-rays to check for cancerous tumor growth, she said. Memorial Hermann declined to comment.

Three months later, Kristina is still physically recovering. She battles a persistent rapid heart rate, shortness of breath and anxiety. She also attends regular follow-up appointments at Memorial Hermann to ensure her cysts are breaking down. Doctors are still looking for traces of cancer.

She continues to process the emotional weight of the loss.

“Once I’m healthy again,” she said, “I can concentrate more on that part of the healing.”

 

Edited by elfenix
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...