Roe vs Wade Overturned

#3,126
#3,126
evillawyer said:
Lies? You think what I posted is a lie?

Republican basic response to these stories

Click to expand...


Yes. Just like the lie above from AOC. You do agree what she stated was a dangerous lie about healthcare right?

And yes, so is your “story”. Texas law allows for abortion if the mother’s life is at stake or if the child is non viable. So if an abortion was needed to save her life, it could legally be performed.

However lies like the one from AOC and yourself can make providers hesitant to do what’s needed due to misunderstandings of new laws
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, ButchPlz and SpaceCoastVol
#3,127
#3,127
Vol8188 said:
Yes. Just like the lie above from AOC. You do agree what she stated was a dangerous lie about healthcare right?

And yes, so is your “story”. Texas law allows for abortion if the mother’s life is at stake or if the child is non viable. So if an abortion was needed to save her life, it could legally be performed.

However lies like the one from AOC and yourself can make providers hesitant to do what’s needed due to misunderstandings of new laws
Click to expand...

You don't understand the way criminal law works, from a practical perspective. If I'm a doctor and I don't want to run afoul of the law and the line between criminal and non-criminal is not bright line (such as where abortions are permitted up to a certain point in the pregnancy), I'm not even getting close to the edge for fear that some cross-eyed leg-humper nutcase like Paxton is going to use me as a political prosecution to show his knuggledraggers his bone fides.
 
#3,128
#3,128
BowlBrother85 said:
The Attorney General can issue guidance, but it's not binding. No doctor in Ohio is going to take a chance like that right now. What is gained by placing themselves at risk of prosecution? If they examine the patient, and determine that the pregnancy doesn't represent a risk to the life of the mother, regardless of her age, they aren't going to perform the abortion. No doctor is ever going to be prosecuted in Ohio for refusing to perform an abortion.

It is "shameful" that the Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, claimed on Fox News on Monday night, in an interview with Jesse Watters, that he hadn't heard a whisper about an investigation into this case. Dave Yost also claimed that he had a close working relationship with local sheriffs in the state.

However, Dave Yost's office is only six blocks away from the Columbus Police Department Headquarters who had, in fact, been investigating the case since June 22nd. They made an arrest in the case less than 48 hours after Dave Yost had publicly doubted that there was a pregnant 10 year old rape victim in the state of Ohio. All Yost ever had to do was check the logs in the Columbus Police Department... or he could have called the Sheriff. Even Sean Hannity (who is normally very reluctant to criticize anybody with an 'R' next to their name) called Yost's competency into question last night ... but you keep on defending Yost. It makes perfect sense.

And it's not just doctors who are questioning Yost's interpretation of the law, it is Republican attorneys in Ohio as well.
Click to expand...

Then this is a good test case - without actually having been a legal case - to indicate to the legislature that greater specificity would aid the law. Again, "a physician's reasonable medical judgment" is damned broad language. It precludes even something resembling a consensus or accepted medical judgment and is essentially the judgment of ANY physician in question.

I'm waiting for someone to show he did know, or why he did not know. Did his office not attempt discovery, did someone keep this close to the vest for some reason and obscure visibility? Unlike you, I don't know and will wait for something firmer than your lurid dot connecting.

I know nothing about Yost other than his two public statements regarding this case. Disagreeing with your agenda-driven perspective is not the same as "defending" him.
 
#3,129
#3,129
evillawyer said:
You don't understand the way criminal law works, from a practical perspective. If I'm a doctor and I don't want to run afoul of the law and the line between criminal and non-criminal is not bright line (such as where abortions are permitted up to a certain point in the pregnancy), I'm not even getting close to the edge for fear that some cross-eyed leg-humper nutcase like Paxton is going to use me as a political prosecution to show his knuggledraggers his bone fides.
Click to expand...

Then maybe you and AOC shouldn’t openly lie about the law so doctors don’t falsely believe they’re running afoul of the law?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRUEFANVol
#3,130
#3,130
Vol8188 said:
Then maybe you and AOC shouldn’t openly lie about the law so doctors don’t falsely believe they’re running afoul of the law?
Click to expand...
Specifically, what about that post do you disagree with in detail. There wasn't anything ideologically progressive about it. Sounded like prudence to me, and I very rarely agree with his take on things. He's as far left like many of the conservative posters here as far right
 
#3,131
#3,131
BowlBrother85 said:
The Attorney General can issue guidance, but it's not binding. No doctor in Ohio is going to take a chance like that right now. What is gained by placing themselves at risk of prosecution? If they examine the patient, and determine that the pregnancy doesn't represent a risk to the life of the mother, regardless of her age, they aren't going to perform the abortion. No doctor is ever going to be prosecuted in Ohio for refusing to perform an abortion.

It is "shameful" that the Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, claimed on Fox News on Monday night, in an interview with Jesse Watters, that he hadn't heard a whisper about an investigation into this case. Dave Yost also claimed that he had a close working relationship with local sheriffs in the state.

However, Dave Yost's office is only six blocks away from the Columbus Police Department Headquarters who had, in fact, been investigating the case since June 22nd. They made an arrest in the case less than 48 hours after Dave Yost had publicly doubted that there was a pregnant 10 year old rape victim in the state of Ohio. All Yost ever had to do was check the logs in the Columbus Police Department... or he could have called the Sheriff. Even Sean Hannity (who is normally very reluctant to criticize anybody with an 'R' next to their name) called Yost's competency into question last night ... but you keep on defending Yost. It makes perfect sense.

And it's not just doctors who are questioning Yost's interpretation of the law, it is Republican attorneys in Ohio as well.
Click to expand...

If your fear is that doctors won’t perform abortions when they should, perhaps your side should stop lying about when they can/cannot
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and SpaceCoastVol
#3,132
#3,132
Vol8188 said:
If your fear is that doctors won’t perform abortions when they should, perhaps your side should stop lying about when they can/cannot
Click to expand...
I guarantee you that he didn't comprehend a word of what you just wrote. He doesn't grasp the gravity of what the NY Tamale said vis a vis ectopic pregnancies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Vol8188
#3,133
#3,133
TRUEFANVol said:
Specifically, what about that post do you disagree with in detail. There wasn't anything ideologically progressive about it. Sounded like prudence to me, and I very rarely agree with his take on things. He's as far left like many of the conservative posters here as far right
Click to expand...

The basic problem is that his side is openly lying because they want this. If a provider should perform an abortion and the law would allow for it, but the providers is fearful, he wants to be able to present it as evidence of how bad the laws are. Which is why he has nothing to say about AOC openly lying about abortion laws and ectopic pregnancies. Lying is the goal. Create hesitancy, maybe hesitancy leads to poor outcomes for the patient, then proclaim "look the other side is evil". That's the basic goal.

On top of that every practice has attorney's and clear operating procedures to define when an abortion can/cannot be performed. The idea that they're working blindly and hoping for the best is nonsense. If his problem was that he fears doctors would make bad decisions out of fear, he too would be calling out the fact that AOC's tweet and the Texas doctor in question are both misunderstandings of the law. He wants the fear. He wants the poor outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, Vol423 and McDad
#3,134
#3,134
SpaceCoastVol said:
I guarantee you that he didn't comprehend a word of what you just wrote. He doesn't grasp the gravity of what the NY Tamale said vis a vis ectopic pregnancies.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how many times I've seen that same nonsense repeated on social media without any flags, fact checks, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#3,143
#3,143
When a pregnant male gets an abortion..please let me know.
Otherwise...you are of one warped radical mind.
Until we can come to some conclusion, not even worth debating
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#3,144
#3,144
Vol8188 said:
If your fear is that doctors won’t perform abortions when they should, perhaps your side should stop lying about when they can/cannot
Click to expand...
You should read the law. As it is currently written, it is too ambiguous. Nobody is lying. Too much room is allowed for differing individual interpretations. It has nothing to do with political partisanship, either. This is what doctors are saying; not politicians.

Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, cited the girl's age as a justifiable reason to perform the abortion, but the law makes no allusion to age. It only addresses whether or not the life of the mother is at risk from the pregnancy. A doctor in Columbus examined the 10 year old, and determined that it was not. That has nothing to do with politics.
 
#3,145
#3,145
BowlBrother85 said:
You should read the law. As it is currently written, it is too ambiguous. Nobody is lying. Too much room is allowed for differing individual interpretations. It has nothing to do with political partisanship, either. This is what doctors are saying; not politicians.

Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, cited the girl's age as a justifiable reason to perform the abortion, but the law makes no allusion to that. It only addresses whether or not the life of the mother is at risk from the pregnancy. A doctor in Columbus examined the 10 year old, and determined that it was not. That has nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...

Can you show me where the doctor determined her life was not at risk?

Maternal health has always been a factor in abortion laws (at least since the 70s). So you can’t pretend they just now became ambiguous
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and Rickyvol77
#3,146
#3,146
BowlBrother85 said:
You should read the law. As it is currently written, it is too ambiguous. Nobody is lying. Too much room is allowed for differing individual interpretations. It has nothing to do with political partisanship, either. This is what doctors are saying; not politicians.

Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, cited the girl's age as a justifiable reason to perform the abortion, but the law makes no allusion to age. It only addresses whether or not the life of the mother is at risk from the pregnancy. A doctor in Columbus examined the 10 year old, and determined that it was not. That has nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...

How is her age supposed to get around the statute?
 
#3,147
#3,147
RockyTop85 said:
How is her age supposed to get around the statute?
Click to expand...

Heightened risk. On top of that, the girl could’ve also received an abortion because she was only 6 weeks pregnant. Which is legal in Ohio. So the more you read into the story it becomes clear that this lefty activist provider sent a girl to Indiana as a publicity stunt when she could’ve provided care for her
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, Orangeslice13, marcusluvsvols and 2 others
#3,148
#3,148
Vol8188 said:
The basic problem is that his side is openly lying because they want this. If a provider should perform an abortion and the law would allow for it, but the providers is fearful, he wants to be able to present it as evidence of how bad the laws are. Which is why he has nothing to say about AOC openly lying about abortion laws and ectopic pregnancies. Lying is the goal. Create hesitancy, maybe hesitancy leads to poor outcomes for the patient, then proclaim "look the other side is evil". That's the basic goal.

On top of that every practice has attorney's and clear operating procedures to define when an abortion can/cannot be performed. The idea that they're working blindly and hoping for the best is nonsense. If his problem was that he fears doctors would make bad decisions out of fear, he too would be calling out the fact that AOC's tweet and the Texas doctor in question are both misunderstandings of the law. He wants the fear. He wants the poor outcomes.
Click to expand...
You're quick to point out, "his side", when his post wasn't about his "side". It was neutral as to ideology. You assume and project based on his general ideological manner. How do you know what "he wants"? You've seen enough of his posts to have him figured out? Sometimes reactions are indifferent to ideological tendencies. What about his post made you angry? If you can't answer in detail, you're part of the problem with your divisive responses. Damn, our country used to reflect a more positive discourse
 
#3,149
#3,149
TRUEFANVol said:
You're quick to point out, "his side", when his post wasn't about his "side". It was neutral as to ideology. You assume and project based on his general ideological manner. How do you know what "he wants"? You've seen enough of his posts to have him figured out? Sometimes reactions are indifferent to ideological tendencies. What about his post made you angry? If you can't answer in detail, you're part of the problem with your divisive responses. Damn, our country used to reflect a more positive discourse
Click to expand...

evillawyer said:
MAGA, b*tches!

Click to expand...


This was the literal first post in our exchange. Notice the lack of ideological neutrality? Do better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRUEFANVol and Rickyvol77
#3,150
#3,150
Vol8188 said:
Can you show me where the doctor determined her life was not at risk?

Maternal health has always been a factor in abortion laws (at least since the 70s). So you can’t pretend they just now became ambiguous
Click to expand...
Not directly. The doctor who examined the 10 year old in Columbus is restricted from disclosing individually identifiable health care information. Dr. Caitlin Bernard, who performed the abortion in Indianapolis, has said that was the case. Dr. Bernard says she obtained a HIPAA waiver from the girls mother.

I didn't say that maternal health wasn't a factor. Of course, it is. I said that the law in Ohio leaves too much room for differing individual interpretations. The language used in the Ohio law is too ambiguous. The age of the patient isn't addressed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top