Wait...so they're putting a referendum on the ballot to increase the ratio of votes needed to pass referendums from 50% to 60%, and it'll pass if it gets over 50%?
Doesn't even have to be the promise of no state income tax. Just the promise of a little tax cut is enough to get virtually any Republican to throw any and all human rights (for others) under the bus.
Please review the rules, Item #7 Your attack on Enbastet became entirely too personal. We don't compare other commenters here to Nazis, that's kind of a given. And you appear to have deliberately misread their initial comment as well, although that's beside the point. Accusing others of being moral monsters who deserve to be imprisoned for cowardice is over the line.
No, I'm not going to argue the point, either.
— Dok Zoom, Yr Friendly Neighborhood Comments Moderator
A woman who chooses to prioritize her pregnancy over treatment should have that right but these laws force that onto women who do not want to make that choice and the oncologists who care for them.
There is no specialty other than geriatrics that cannot intersect with these laws - there are conditions that any doctor may detect or deal with that can warrant the termination of a pregnancy. The high profile stories are about ob-gyns leaving these states or refusing to enter them, but it will spread to oncologists, cardiologists, pulmonologists, nephrologists, infectious disease experts, emergency room doctors, intensivisits, radiologists, pediatricians, psychiatrists...
That is, indeed, the whole concept behind “choice” and bodily autonomy. If a woman chooses to postpone cancer treatment to give her fetus the best chance for survival, that should be her informed choice. Likewise, if a woman determines that abortion is necessary to give herself the best chance for survival, that should also be her informed choice.
Glad to see Dok addressed the troll above, who completely misconstrued what both you and I said.
Roe placed restrictions as pregnancy advanced. However, what made Roe critically different from the claimed "exceptions" in the current laws is that it presumed the ability of the doctor to come to a medical conclusion and advise their patient accordingly, while the current laws require the doctor to prove that they are not committing a criminal act.
Now, a hospital lawyer may advise the doctor to proceed but a DA may swoop in and disagree...and the cuffs go on.
Even the push in Texas to get a "good faith" standard for doctors doesn't solve this because a DA can still claim that there was no such good faith...and the cuffs go on.
At best, there is a ruinous trial - at worst there is up to life in prison plus crippling fines.
No one can practice under those conditions other than doctors who are themselves forced birthers.
In case it wasn’t clear, IAAL in Texas, so I’m absolutely familiar with Texas law, although I retired pre-Dobbs (and before SB8, which outlawed abortion after 6 weeks and implemented the bounty system, which SCOTUS allowed to go into effect even prior to Dobbs).
The Roe standard, IMHO, provided a workable system. The post-Dobbs legislation does not.
From what I’m seeing down here, hospital lawyers are advising doctors to NOT provide the pre-Dobbs standard of care, because of the significant risks involved. I don’t blame them. Lawyers almost always err on the side of providing legal advice that will reduce the risk involved.
The current system is untenable, which 100% the fault of lawmakers passing these ridiculous laws. Doctors and lawyers are doing the best they can, under impossible conditions.
Correct. So if The Referendum Referendum passes at 50%, Reproductive Rights will need 60%. Our Right Wing Legislature at work /S.Sorry for redundant redundant - I couldn't help myself.
Your last sentence is really, really scary. I'm 74 and live in Florida. I'm pretty adept at self-medication, out of necessity, but my surgical training is weak. I had to look up nephrologist. I self-treat with the occasional Guinness :)
Florida has plenty, plenty doctors, but with 20 million people and half of them over 65 we need them. (Two years ago my M.D. decamped for Nebraska, of all places. I found a D.O, whose assistants make house calls.)
You wrote "A woman who chooses to prioritize her pregnancy over treatment ..."
My niece was brainwashed Catholic and seemed to fight it all her life but when the chips were down she fell right back into the Flock.
regardless of how painful those measures are for the child, regardless of how unlikely they are to work
That's not faith, that's trying to emotionally blackmail God into doing something showy.
Worth repeating: If men carried the pregnancies, abortion would be a sacrament.
Wait...so they're putting a referendum on the ballot to increase the ratio of votes needed to pass referendums from 50% to 60%, and it'll pass if it gets over 50%?
NC people, please contact your legislators, especially if they are R, and make your voices heard ignored!
Doesn't even have to be the promise of no state income tax. Just the promise of a little tax cut is enough to get virtually any Republican to throw any and all human rights (for others) under the bus.
According to David Bowie, God is an American; so it’s worse than we think.
Please review the rules, Item #7 Your attack on Enbastet became entirely too personal. We don't compare other commenters here to Nazis, that's kind of a given. And you appear to have deliberately misread their initial comment as well, although that's beside the point. Accusing others of being moral monsters who deserve to be imprisoned for cowardice is over the line.
No, I'm not going to argue the point, either.
— Dok Zoom, Yr Friendly Neighborhood Comments Moderator
A woman who chooses to prioritize her pregnancy over treatment should have that right but these laws force that onto women who do not want to make that choice and the oncologists who care for them.
There is no specialty other than geriatrics that cannot intersect with these laws - there are conditions that any doctor may detect or deal with that can warrant the termination of a pregnancy. The high profile stories are about ob-gyns leaving these states or refusing to enter them, but it will spread to oncologists, cardiologists, pulmonologists, nephrologists, infectious disease experts, emergency room doctors, intensivisits, radiologists, pediatricians, psychiatrists...
That is, indeed, the whole concept behind “choice” and bodily autonomy. If a woman chooses to postpone cancer treatment to give her fetus the best chance for survival, that should be her informed choice. Likewise, if a woman determines that abortion is necessary to give herself the best chance for survival, that should also be her informed choice.
Glad to see Dok addressed the troll above, who completely misconstrued what both you and I said.
Thanks for the air support, Dok.
This was a pretty predictable pattern:
1. You didn't say what you said - you said what I said you said!2. My completely different experience is all that matters!3. You're a Nazi!
Call it a trollfecta... ;)
Roe placed restrictions as pregnancy advanced. However, what made Roe critically different from the claimed "exceptions" in the current laws is that it presumed the ability of the doctor to come to a medical conclusion and advise their patient accordingly, while the current laws require the doctor to prove that they are not committing a criminal act.
Now, a hospital lawyer may advise the doctor to proceed but a DA may swoop in and disagree...and the cuffs go on.
Even the push in Texas to get a "good faith" standard for doctors doesn't solve this because a DA can still claim that there was no such good faith...and the cuffs go on.
At best, there is a ruinous trial - at worst there is up to life in prison plus crippling fines.
No one can practice under those conditions other than doctors who are themselves forced birthers.
In case it wasn’t clear, IAAL in Texas, so I’m absolutely familiar with Texas law, although I retired pre-Dobbs (and before SB8, which outlawed abortion after 6 weeks and implemented the bounty system, which SCOTUS allowed to go into effect even prior to Dobbs).
The Roe standard, IMHO, provided a workable system. The post-Dobbs legislation does not.
From what I’m seeing down here, hospital lawyers are advising doctors to NOT provide the pre-Dobbs standard of care, because of the significant risks involved. I don’t blame them. Lawyers almost always err on the side of providing legal advice that will reduce the risk involved.
The current system is untenable, which 100% the fault of lawmakers passing these ridiculous laws. Doctors and lawyers are doing the best they can, under impossible conditions.
Correct. So if The Referendum Referendum passes at 50%, Reproductive Rights will need 60%. Our Right Wing Legislature at work /S.Sorry for redundant redundant - I couldn't help myself.
Your last sentence is really, really scary. I'm 74 and live in Florida. I'm pretty adept at self-medication, out of necessity, but my surgical training is weak. I had to look up nephrologist. I self-treat with the occasional Guinness :)
Florida has plenty, plenty doctors, but with 20 million people and half of them over 65 we need them. (Two years ago my M.D. decamped for Nebraska, of all places. I found a D.O, whose assistants make house calls.)
You wrote "A woman who chooses to prioritize her pregnancy over treatment ..."
My niece was brainwashed Catholic and seemed to fight it all her life but when the chips were down she fell right back into the Flock.
-- Jim
Red states have older populations and more health issues, so this pattern will not have a good outcome...
TaNaKh IS the Old Testament, but ordered somewhat differently.