Roe vs Wade Overturned

[Vol8188]

Not directly. The doctor who examined the 10 year old in Columbus is restricted from disclosing individually identifiable health care information. Dr. Caitlin Bernard, wo 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.

HIPAA doesn't really have anything to do with this. You can provide basic patient demographics. "I treated a 42 year old white male for heart attack"-not a HIPAA violation. "I did not treat a 10 year old pregnant patient, because I deemed the pregnancy would not present a great threat to her life"-Still not a violation.

Everything I've bolded there is unchanged. Meaning abortion laws have always been vague about what is deemed life threatening and I can name 0 abortion laws that give age guidance. That's really more the role of the hospitals and medical associations to define "high risk". The problem here is not the Ohio law. No abortion law lays out the things you're asking for.

 

[BowlBrother85]

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

Dr. Caitlin Bernard has said that girl was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant at the time her other took her to a clinic in Columbus to have the abortion.

As far as the "heightened risk" of an abortion for a child is concerned. if that is the case, then the age of the patient should be addressed in the language of the law, but it's not.

 

[TRUEFANVol]

This was the literal first post in our exchange. Notice the lack of ideological neutrality? Do better.

I get it, but why do people hate him for it? Because they disagree fundamentally
with him? Our nation wasn't founded on the notion that everyone should agree about the issues. It was founded on the extreme opposite of that idea. We're supposed to be a continuous melting pot. At one time, I remember the ideological compromises our leaders made for us. When most of them cared about the country more than their "side"

Edit: Take note @SpaceCoastVol

 

[Vol8188]

Dr. Caitlin Bernard has said that girl was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant at the time her other took her to a clinic in Columbus to have the abortion.

As far as the "heightened risk" of an abortion for a child is concerned. if that is the case, then the age of the patient should be addressed in the language of the law, but it's not.

Dr. Caitlin Bernard is a known abortion advocate. The Indiana doctor simply stated 6 weeks.

Heightened maternal risk has always been a part of abortion laws. Can you name a single abortion law that defines the age? The answer is no. The idea that this is a problem of the Ohio law is ignorant at best, given no law today or prior defines that.

 

[Vol8188]

I get it, but why do people hate him for it? Because they disagree fundamentally
with him? Our nation wasn't founded on the notion that everyone should agree about the issues. It was founded on the extreme opposite of that idea. We're supposed to be a continuous melting pot. At one time, I remember the ideological compromises our leaders made for us. When most of them cared about the country more than their "side"

Seems you're moving the goal posts. First you claimed there was nothing partisan about what he was saying and now it's "well, yeah, he's being partisan, but why hate him for it?"

Which is an odd stance after referring to me "part of the problem" in your last post.

Our leaders used to have duels. I'm not sure what fantasy you're living in.

 

[BowlBrother85]

[

HIPAA doesn't really have anything to do with this. You can provide basic patient demographics. "I treated a 42 year old white male for heart attack"-not a HIPAA violation. "I did not treat a 10 year old pregnant patient, because I deemed the pregnancy would not present a great threat to her life"-Still not a violation.

Everything I've bolded there is unchanged. Meaning abortion laws have always been vague about what is deemed life threatening and I can name 0 abortion laws that give age guidance. There's really more the role of the hospitals and medical associations to define "high risk". The problem here is not the Ohio law. No abortion law lays out the things you're asking for.

More than demographics would have needed disclosure to explain why the girl was turned away from the clinic in Ohio.

That didn't matter as much before Roe v. Wade was overturned, and these strict anti-abortion laws imposed by the states came into effect. Roe v Wade changed a lot of things.

... and not all abortion laws are as ambiguous as Ohio's. The problem has everything to do with how the Ohio law has been written. There is too much room for differing interpretations (from health care providers).

 

[TRUEFANVol]

Seems you're moving the goal posts. First you claimed there was nothing partisan about what he was saying and now it's "well, yeah, he's being partisan, but why hate him for it?"

Which is an odd stance after referring to me "part of the problem" in your last post.

Our leaders used to have duels. I'm not sure what fantasy you're living in.

Seems you lack reading comprehension. I've never backed off the exact statement he made regarding a proactive approach to a specific, apolitical scenario. Details, details. Applying some nuance is key to debating an issue. That is, in?an intelligent manner

 

[BowlBrother85]

Dr. Caitlin Bernard is a known abortion advocate. The Indiana doctor simply stated 6 weeks.

Heightened maternal risk has always been a part of abortion laws. Can you name a single abortion law that defines the age? The answer is no. The idea that this is a problem of the Ohio law is ignorant at best, given no law today or prior defines that.

Yes, but not exclusive to the patient's age.

Doctors in Ohio, have said that their law is too ambiguous. Because their professional opinion differs from yours, doesn't make them ignorant.

 

[Vol8188]

[

More than demographics would have needed disclosure to explain why the girl was turned away from the clinic in Ohio.

That didn't matter as much before Roe v. Wade was overturned, and these strict anti-abortion laws imposed by the states came into effect. Roe v Wade changed a lot of things.

... and not all abortion laws are as ambiguous as Ohio's. The problem has everything to do with how the Ohio law has been written. There is too much room for differing interpretations (from health care providers).

No, she could have disclosed that. On top of that, you already said the mother signed a waiver so she could tell the story.

States had their own abortion laws before Roe v Wade. Everyone of those laws contained a maternal health clause. This isn't new. No, Roe v Wade, nor the overturning of Roe v Wade changed that. Both now and then, maternal health clauses existed.

Go ahead. Provide me an example of a law that clearly defines the age of a mother who would be considered too young to care safely. I'll wait. Find me the state law that clearly explains this.

 

[Vol8188]

Yes, but not exclusive to the patient's age.

Doctors in Ohio, have said that their law is too ambiguous. Because their professional opinion differs from yours, doesn't make them ignorant.

Right. No state sets exclusive age limitations. Rather they ambiguously say "maternal health". Find me any state that has it defined. I'll wait.

 

[Vol8188]

Seems you lack reading comprehension. I've never backed off the exact statement he made regarding a proactive approach to a specific, apolitical scenario. Details, details. Applying some nuance is key to debating an issue. That is, in?an intelligent manner

Have no clue what the bold means. It seems you're just trolling at this point, because there doesn't appear to be any real logic behind anything you're saying. Do you have a point you are trying to make?

 

[BowlBrother85]

No, she could have disclosed that. On top of that, you already said the mother signed a waiver so she could tell the story.

States had their own abortion laws before Roe v Wade. Everyone of those laws contained a maternal health clause. This isn't new. No, Roe v Wade, nor the overturning of Roe v Wade changed that. Both now and then, maternal health clauses existed.

Go ahead. Provide me an example of a law that clearly defines the age of a mother who would be considered too young to care safely. I'll wait. Find me the state law that clearly explains this.

I didn't say it was! Damn.

The Ohio law makes no mention of a patient's age young age being a "heightened risk," by itself. Opinions will vary.

 

[Vol8188]

I didn't say it was! Damn.

The Ohio law makes no mention of a patient's age young age being a "heightened risk," by itself. Opinions will vary.

No law makes that distinction. Before Roe v Wade was overturned, no law made that distinction. So what's your point?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Right. No state sets exclusive age limitations. Rather they ambiguously say "maternal health". Find me any state that has it defined. I'll wait.

And that will sometimes lead to differing interpretations.

 

[Vol8188]

And that will sometimes lead to differing interpretations.

Cool. The point remains that your girl could have treated this patient. She decided not to, so she could go to the media. Even her claim of 6 weeks and 3 days, that's not really how an hcg blood test works. There's no test any provider can do and tell you if the fetus is 5 weeks and 6 days or 6 weeks and 3 days old.

Meaning if she wanted to, she could have treated this child. She decided she'd rather make a scene at the child's expense.

 

[TRUEFANVol]

Have no clue what the bold means. It seems you're just trolling at this point, because there doesn't appear to be any real logic behind anything you're saying. Do you have a point you are trying to make?

Yes, I was fairly specific. You're admitting you don't get it? I'm not sure as to how I could dumb it down for you. You seem to be moderately intelligent. Sorry

 

[Vol8188]

Yes, I was fairly specific. You're admitting you don't get it? I'm not sure as to how I could dumb it down for you. You seem to be moderately intelligent. Sorry

So more talking in circles without substance? If you have a point, make it. I'll gladly address it. If not, I'm going to move on.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Cool. The point remains that your girl could have treated this patient. She decided not to, so she could go to the media. Even her claim of 6 weeks and 3 days, that's not really how an hcg blood test works. There's no test any provider can do and tell you if the fetus is 5 weeks and 6 days or 6 weeks and 3 days old.

Meaning if she wanted to, she could have treated this child. She decided she'd rather make a scene at the child's expense.

It should be perfectly understandable as to why a doctor who has examined the patient, and determined that the pregnancy is not currently a threat to the life of the mother, would be reluctant to perform an abortion in a state with such strict abortion laws. Why would they want to take that chance, when they have already concluded that the mother is not at risk? No doctor will ever be prosecuted for not performing an abortion in the state of Ohio. It makes more sense, to err on the side of not performing the abortion, and letting a doctor somewhere else deal with it.

There is nothing to indicate that a doctor in Ohio went to the media. It looks like it was just Dr. Caitlin Bernard in Indianapolis.

 

[Vol8188]

It should be perfectly understandable as to why a doctor who has examined the patient, and determined that the pregnancy is not currently a threat to the life of the mother, would be reluctant to perform an abortion in a state with such strict abortion laws. Why would they want to take that chance, when they have already concluded that the mother is not at risk? No doctor will ever be prosecuted for not performing an abortion in the state of Ohio, It makes more sense, to err on the side of not performing the abortion, and letting a doctor somewhere else deal with it.

There is nothing to indicate the a doctor in Ohio went to the media. It looks like it was just Dr. Caitlin Bernard in Indianapolis.

That's fine. I was incorrect about which doctor went to the media.

The points still remain. You cannot tell the difference between 5 weeks and 6 days and 6 weeks and 3 days of pregnancy. There's no test that is that accurate. This procedure could have been performed.

Doctors have always dealt with the "maternal health clause". It's not new. Yet doctors have always performed abortions beyond the weekly limits set by law due to maternal health. None of this new.

 

[TRUEFANVol]

So more talking in circles without substance? If you have a point, make it. I'll gladly address it. If not, I'm going to move on.

Posts #3130 and 3148 spell out my position specifically.

 

[Vol8188]

Posts #3130 and 3148 spell out my position specifically.

I've already responded to all of that. He's telling you about things that haven't changed with the law (the ambiguous nature of maternal health) and attempting to present it as a scare tactic for partisan points.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That's fine. I was incorrect about which doctor went to the media.

The points still remain. You cannot tell the difference between 5 weeks and 6 days and 6 weeks and 3 days of pregnancy. There's no test that is that accurate. This procedure could have been performed.

Doctors have always dealt with the "maternal health clause". It's not new. Yet doctors have always performed abortions beyond the weekly limits set by law due to maternal health. None of this new.

Maybe so, but there is a doctor in Columbus, Ohio who wasn't taking any chances, and it's hard to fault them for that.

 

[Vol8188]

Maybe so, but there is a doctor in Columbus, Ohio who wasn't taking any chances, and it's hard to fault them for that.

Maybe. Or maybe they wanted the story. Like I said, this isn't new. This is the case in all 50 states. And you can't actually proclaim someone is 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant. No test is that specific. So it's really hard to believe that this wasn't a political stunt.

On top of that it's not a very long drive at all. 2.5-3 hours. Plenty of people in this country drive 2-3 hours for medical care. Just like the Kenosha scenario the media never mentions the actual distance, just "over state lines" as a scare tactic.

 

[TRUEFANVol]

I've already responded to all of that. He's telling you about things that haven't changed with the law (the ambiguous nature of maternal health) and attempting to present it as a scare tactic for partisan points.

I actually don't know for sure what he meant with that one post. It sounded proactive and prudent for a sensitive legal matter. I'm fairly educated, but I don't have a J.D., so I can't reasonably decipher the hidden meaning. I suppose you're smarter than me. You probably went to one of the top law schools in the country. Hats off to you!

 

[Vol8188]

I actually don't know for sure what he meant with that one post. It sounded proactive and prudent for a sensitive legal matter. I'm fairly educated, but I don't have a J.D., so I can't reasonably decipher the hidden meaning. I suppose you're smarter than me. You probably went to one of the top law schools in the country. Hats off to you!

Do you mean the same legal matter that has always existed yet he just now wants to bring up while mentioning MAGA? Yeah....troll on.