CA Sues Hospital for Refusing Abortion

[CdnFox]

12 minutes ago, Rebound said:

So a law that says you MUST have a vaccine is bad, but a law that says you have to die from, say, a uterine rupture is good.  Cause you want the government to stay out of your body but not a woman’s. 

This isn't complex dude.  It's fine for a woman to have a say in her OWN body - but not the body of another person.  And at some point between egg and student debt the 'thing' becomes a person.  And that person has rights. 

And it has always been recognized that the parents have a duty to provide the 'necessaries' of life.   Sorry ladies, shouldn't have eaten that apple but here we are. Nothing to be done about it now. 

And therefore there has to be a serious and imminent threat to the mother to justify the killing of the child after whatever point we've decided it becomes a child. And where that point would be is NOT up to the mother or doctor. 

You're trying to obfuscate by pretending it's complex. It isn't. After a point it's a baby - no kill da baby. 

If there is a serious and immediate threat that the mother's life is in danger then if one of them is likely to die anyway there's no choice. Otherwise  - no kill da baby. 

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

MEDICAL:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/medical

Now you know. We already know what "medical" means. Physical health.

It's not that I can't fathom your concers...it's just that we all know, if given the opportunity to abort viable babies and indeed babies outside the womb and still living from botched abortions...some people will do exactly that and THAT...to me...is sickening.

You Libbies have a very loose relationship with the concept of "compromise"...among other concepts. The art of diplomacy. Raw politics. You seem to think that if you scream loud enough and often enough, people will give you what you want, just to shut you the fck up. And it has worked of late, all too often. But you've run into a wall of folks who have just decided to put you babies in bed, close the door and let you scream yourselves to sleep.

 

So you believe YOU are the parent and anyone who disagrees with YOU is "babies." That's NOT compromise.

Allowing the woman and her doctor to decide IS ALL THE COMPROMISE the priority of freedom allows.

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

This isn't complex dude.  It's fine for a woman to have a say in her OWN body - but not the body of another person.  And at some point between egg and student debt the 'thing' becomes a person.  And that person has rights. 

And it has always been recognized that the parents have a duty to provide the 'necessaries' of life.   Sorry ladies, shouldn't have eaten that apple but here we are. Nothing to be done about it now. 

And therefore there has to be a serious and imminent threat to the mother to justify the killing of the child after whatever point we've decided it becomes a child. And where that point would be is NOT up to the mother or doctor. 

You're trying to obfuscate by pretending it's complex. It isn't. After a point it's a baby - no kill da baby. 

If there is a serious and immediate threat that the mother's life is in danger then if one of them is likely to die anyway there's no choice. Otherwise  - no kill da baby. 

So a person who’s graduated medical school is unqualified because it’s up to the likes of you?

And what medical decision does the government get to decide about YOU? Hmm? 
 

For starters, not getting vaccinated puts the lives of others at risk. Not that you care about the lives of others, unless it’s somebody else who gets impacted instead of you.  

Edited October 5, 2024 by Rebound

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, Rebound said:

So a person who’s graduated medical school is unqualified because it’s up to the likes of you?

LOL Well I guess that's your way of admitting that you're wrong  making up crap i never said  

But if you think they teach "when does something become a person' in medical school, you're wrong. And why would they, it's not really a medical question. 

Nice attempt to change the subject tho  

51 minutes ago, Rebound said:

And what medical decision does the government get to decide about YOU? Hmm? 

Well quite a few in canada sadly.   But the gov't DOES get a say in whether or not i'm a person and they've had to rule on that before. 

Let me give you an example.  A doctor can say 'medically this is a female".  it took a court to say "human females are a person (1929 in canada).  THat lead to them being recognized as having rights and being allowed to participate in public office etc. 

It's kind of amusing how you pick and choose because if a doctor says "This person who identifies as a girl is physically a boy" the left is like "WOAH WOAH WOAH!!!!"  

58 minutes ago, Rebound said:

For starters, not getting vaccinated puts the lives of others at risk.

Not really. They can choose not to go out. They can choose to be vaccinated so that they are not at risk. They can choose to take other precautions as well.

59 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Not that you care about the lives of others, unless it’s somebody else who gets impacted instead of you.  

LOL ohhhh look, it's the woke lefties favorate argument for when they're losing.    "You disaree with me so You're a terrible person, that's why you're wrong, not because of logic or reason but because you WANT everyone to die, you'll be HAPPY if you infect and kill people,  you WISH you were killing chlidren!!!!!

Please.. What a load of bullcrap. 

But if you're pulling THAT bullsnit out at least we both know you're wrong. 

[BeaverFever]

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

And as we all know, amateur comic book writers are some of the most knowledgeable and astute experts on politics, theology, health and medicine  

If this is where you've been getting your education on complex social and health issues I think we've spotted your problem.  

[Black Dog]

On 10/4/2024 at 8:42 PM, CdnFox said:

All right, give us three. Three examples that we can look up the details for to see that you're right.

I mean it should be easy, you have apparently seen all of these red state hospitals where the staff are afraid to perform an abortion that should have been allowed.

I get the funny feeling that you're not going to be able to provide any.

Here's 21 examples from Texas.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/07/politics/texas-women-abortion-lawsuit-health/index.html

Some more from Tennessee

https://reproductiverights.org/blackmon-v-tennessee-abortion-ban-more-plaintiffs/

 

[Black Dog]

On 10/5/2024 at 11:53 AM, CdnFox said:

This isn't complex dude.  It's fine for a woman to have a say in her OWN body - but not the body of another person.  And at some point between egg and student debt the 'thing' becomes a person.  And that person has rights. 

And it has always been recognized that the parents have a duty to provide the 'necessaries' of life.   Sorry ladies, shouldn't have eaten that apple but here we are. Nothing to be done about it now. 

Sure there is: abortion.

[CdnFox]

54 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Here's 21 examples from Texas.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/07/politics/texas-women-abortion-lawsuit-health/index.html

Some more from Tennessee

https://reproductiverights.org/blackmon-v-tennessee-abortion-ban-more-plaintiffs/

 

First one, big nope.  Not one seems to involve anyone actually being in imminent risk. (and obviously all survived).  from the article it sounds like they're saying it PUTS them at risk THEORETICALLY but not that they actually individually were at risk. IF they were suing for that it wouldn't be a combined case. 

Fail. 

Second one is an even harder fail. They admit straight out that they weren't in any danger at that time, they just didn't want to wait until they possibly were in danger before taking action. Their lives were never at risk. And if they had become at risk then Texas would have performed the operations.

So no women actually at risk from the sounds of it. 

BUT WAIT. THERE'S MORE!!!  

NONE of that addresses what you SAID. 

You said: "There's been plenty of examples of hospitals (usually those in backwards Red states) "screwing up" and not performing abortions because the staff are afraid of being prosecuted"

Those were the 'three' you were supposed to give and NONE of those storied included ANYTHING about that!

 

Did you think we wouldn't notice you trying to switch the subject again because you knew  you were full of shit ?  LOLOLOL

Obviously you couldn't find an example of that happening despite saying there were tons, and you were just talking out of your ass completely. So you attempted to change the subject hoping that I wouldn't notice and you wouldn't have to admit that you are a complete loser who can't even bullshit his way out of his own lies   

Gotcha kiddo 

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

First one, big nope.  Not one seems to involve anyone actually being in imminent risk. (and obviously all survived).  from the article it sounds like they're saying it PUTS them at risk THEORETICALLY but not that they actually individually were at risk. IF they were suing for that it wouldn't be a combined case. 

Fail. 

Just a reminder that you said the same thing about the woman in the OP who was hemorrhaging, so i don't trust you have the medical knowledge to make that assessment here. Fail.

Quote

Second one is an even harder fail. They admit straight out that they weren't in any danger at that time, they just didn't want to wait until they possibly were in danger before taking action. Their lives were never at risk. And if they had become at risk then Texas would have performed the operations.

So no women actually at risk from the sounds of it. 

The woman who almost died from a sepsis infection after her water broke at 18 weeks and she was denied abortion care would probably beg to differ.

In any case, once a significant medical problem has been identified it makes no sense to delay taking action until someone's life is actually hanging in the balance, which is what you are advocating. That's like finding out someone has a cancerous growth but putting off treating it until they hit Stage 4.

Quote

BUT WAIT. THERE'S MORE!!!  REEEEEEEEEE

NONE of that addresses what you SAID. 

You said: "There's been plenty of examples of hospitals (usually those in backwards Red states) "screwing up" and not performing abortions because the staff are afraid of being prosecuted"

Those were the 'three' you were supposed to give and NONE of those storied included ANYTHING about that!

lol you didn't read any of these links at all did you.

Blackmon v. State of Tennessee was originally filed by the Center in September 2023 to clarify the scope of the medical necessity exception to Tennessee’s criminal abortion ban. The case was filed on behalf of three Tennessee women who, like the plaintiffs joining the case today, were denied abortion care despite dangerous pregnancy complications, and two Tennessee physicians who have been prevented from offering their patients the medically indicated treatment during obstetrical emergencies.

Doctors in Tennessee face loss of licensure, fines, and up to 15 years in prison for violating the ban, yet its vague language and non-medical terminology have left doctors uncertain about when they are legally able to provide abortion care without being prosecuted.

Quote

Did you think we wouldn't notice you trying to switch the subject again because you knew  you were full of shit ? REEEEEEEEEE

I didn't switch the subject I assumed you'd be at least smart enough to understand the underlying reasons why these women were denied care was the abortion laws, but I'll never make that mistake again. 

Quote

 

Obviously you couldn't find an example of that happening despite saying there were tons, and you were just talking out of your ass completely. So you attempted to change the subject hoping that I wouldn't notice and you wouldn't have to admit that you are a complete loser who can't even bullshit his way out of his own lies REEEEEEEEEEEE 

Gotcha kiddo 

 

Sorry spazzy, the evidence is there for all to see. Abortion laws are completely unnecessary and draconian violation of individual rights to obtain medically necessary healthcare.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Just a reminder that you said the same thing about the woman in the OP who was hemorrhaging, so i don't trust you have the medical knowledge to make that assessment here. Fail.

 

LOL no i did not   

 

Quote

The woman who almost died from a sepsis infection after her water broke at 18 weeks and she was denied abortion care would probably beg to differ.

 

You're referring to the original story? That is not what happend. Sorry. She didn't "almost die" at all. 

 

Quote

In any case, once a significant medical problem has been identified it makes no sense to delay taking action until someone's life is actually hanging in the balance, which is what you are advocating. That's like finding out someone has a cancerous growth but putting off treating it until they hit Stage 4.

No and is usually you have to lie to make your point. I'm not actually advocating for anything.You made a comment which I know to be false and I called you on it and asked you to demonstrate where it had happened and you so far have been unable to do so.

 

lol you didn't read any of these links at all did you.

Quote

Blackmon v. State of Tennessee was originally filed by twhe Center in September 2023 to clarify the scope of the medical necessity exception to Tennessee’s criminal abortion ban. The case was filed on behalf of three Tennessee women who, like the plaintiffs joining the case today, were denied abortion care despite dangerous pregnancy complications, and two Tennessee physicians who have been prevented from offering their patients the medically indicated treatment during obstetrical emergencies.

Quote

Doctors in Tennessee face loss of licensure, fines, and up to 15 years in prison for violating the ban, yet its vague language and non-medical terminology have left doctors uncertain about when they are legally able to provide abortion care without being prosecuted.

Sorry  kiddo, still nothing about how they "Screwed up" due to this confusion.  Which is what your claim was.

 

Quote

I didn't switch the subject I assumed you'd be at least smart enough to understand the underlying reasons why these women were denied care was the abortion laws, but I'll never make that mistake again. 

That is changing the subject. THe subject was that medical staff were "screwing up" and making mistakes out of fear of the laws

Strike two kiddo  

 

Quote

Sorry spazzy, the evidence is there for all to see.

Lots of evidence but none that applies to what you were talking about   

It's an old trick of yours and it just doesn't work.  You said there were essenitally many medical mistakes made because the medical staff were afraid of lawsuits

Nothing here shows that. No mistakes or 'screw ups' in evidence, and in fact no women who's lives were in danger due to mistakes or otherwise. 

Frankly i don't support abortion bans like this.  I dont' feel that they can be justified by the facts and i feel its putting people's morality on others by force of law, something i always disagree with. 

But  your reasons and claims are just purely false. At least so far as we can tell, you coudn't provide a single case where a woman's life was actually in jeopardy or where mistakes were made.

Edited October 7, 2024 by CdnFox

[BeaverFever]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And as we all know, amateur comic book writers are some of the most knowledgeable and astute experts on politics, theology, health and medicine  

If this is where you've been getting your education on complex social and health issues I think we've spotted your problem.  

And yet every panel reflects an actual current or proposed republican policy in addition to donald trumps perverted lurking in teen change rooms and grabbing women by the ****

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

And yet every panel reflects an actual current or proposed republican policy in addition to donald trumps perverted lurking in teen change rooms and grabbing women by the ****

Nonsense. It's not even remotely close to any trump policy. 

Trump's policy is that abortion issues should be left to the states to work out however the people want. Not 'help women by taking over their decisions".  Same for the rest.

This is just a propaganda attempt by someone without talent.  It's only appeal is it's dogwhistle to trump haters. 

Again for the thousandth time - if you've got to lie to make a point. you don't have a point. 

[Rebound]

10 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Nonsense. It's not even remotely close to any trump policy. 

Trump's policy is that abortion issues should be left to the states to work out however the people want. Not 'help women by taking over their decisions".  Same for the rest.

This is just a propaganda attempt by someone without talent.  It's only appeal is it's dogwhistle to trump haters. 

Again for the thousandth time - if you've got to lie to make a point. you don't have a point. 

If Congress passes a national abortion ban, Donald Trump will sign it into law. Unless Republicans are defeated this November. 

Edited October 8, 2024 by Rebound

[Black Dog]

18 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL no i did not   

 

You said "she was fine" about a woman who was hemmoraghing.

Quote

You're referring to the original story? That is not what happend. Sorry. She didn't "almost die" at all. 

No I'm referring to one of the examples from the link i gave you and that you obviously didn't read lol.

Quote

No and is usually you have to lie to make your point. I'm not actually advocating for anything.You made a comment which I know to be false and I called you on it and asked you to demonstrate where it had happened and you so far have been unable to do so.

See, again, you have bvery poor logic skills. If you think abortions should only be provided when "medically necessary but don't think any of the examples i provided count, then you favour waiting until the complications are serious and potentially fatal to act.

Quote

 

lol you didn't read any of these links at all did you.

Sorry  kiddo, still nothing about how they "Screwed up" due to this confusion.  Which is what your claim was.

That is changing the subject. THe subject was that medical staff were "screwing up" and making mistakes out of fear of the laws

Strike two kiddo REEEEEEEEE

 

See I put "screw up" in scare quotes initially to convey that I doubt they were making mistakes, so much as acting as anyone would act given the intentional ambiguity of these laws. Again, I forget you're socially retarded and incapable of picking up such context clues. 

Quote

Lots of evidence but none that applies to what you were talking about   

If that's a lie you need to tell yourself because you've been proven wrong again, there's nothing i can do to stop you.

Quote

It's an old trick of yours and it just doesn't work.  You said there were essenitally many medical mistakes made because the medical staff were afraid of lawsuits

Nope.

Quote

Nothing here shows that. No mistakes or 'screw ups' in evidence, and in fact no women who's lives were in danger due to mistakes or otherwise. 

Do you not understand someone's life can be at risk if they continue a pregnancy even if that danger is not immediate. 

Quote

Frankly i don't support abortion bans like this.  I dont' feel that they can be justified by the facts and i feel its putting people's morality on others by force of law, something i always disagree with. 

But  your reasons and claims are just purely false. At least so far as we can tell, you coudn't provide a single case where a woman's life was actually in jeopardy or where mistakes were made.

You support abortion bans.

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Rebound said:

If Congress passes a national abortion ban, Donald Trump will sign it into law. Unless Republicans are defeated this November. 

Cite?

[Rebound]

On 10/5/2024 at 1:53 PM, CdnFox said:

This isn't complex dude.  It's fine for a woman to have a say in her OWN body - but not the body of another person.  And at some point between egg and student debt the 'thing' becomes a person.  And that person has rights. 

And it has always been recognized that the parents have a duty to provide the 'necessaries' of life.   Sorry ladies, shouldn't have eaten that apple but here we are. Nothing to be done about it now. 

 

Do you tell your daughter to “eat that apple” very often? Just cause you think she wanted to, maybe she didn’t actually want to eat your apple.

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Do you tell your daughter to “eat that apple” very often? Just cause you think she wanted to, maybe she didn’t actually want to eat your apple.

?????

It was a biblical reference to eve, i think you're confused. 

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Do you tell your daughter to “eat that apple” very often? Just cause you think she wanted to, maybe she didn’t actually want to eat your apple.

Ooookay  i just got it.  I forget that whenever you lefties feel you're losing a discussion or there's something you can't answer you turn to weird sex fantasies of pedophilia or homosexual anal sex. 

You didn't strike me as the pedophiliac type but here we are.  A little disappointed in you to be honest. i thought maybe SOME on the left weren't weirdo pervs. 

[Rebound]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

?????

It was a biblical reference to eve, i think you're confused. 

So women aren’t allowed to control their own bodies because Eve ate an apple in the Garden of Eden?  Are you insane?

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

So women aren’t allowed to control their own bodies because Eve ate an apple in the Garden of Eden?  Are you insane?

You're certainly insane for  suggesting that's what I said.     We can talk about that further if you insist on looking stupid but i'll give you the chance to pretend you didn't say that  

 

On 10/7/2024 at 8:50 AM, Black Dog said:

Sure there is: abortion.

Not if it's murder.  Sorry kiddo, once a fetus is a human the rights of a human attach and it's not 'abortion' any more it's murder, an murdering children has never been a lawful solution in our society. 

[BeaverFever]

On 10/7/2024 at 9:15 PM, CdnFox said:

Nonsense. It's not even remotely close to any trump policy. 

Trump's policy is that abortion issues should be left to the states to work out however the people want. Not 'help women by taking over their decisions".  Same for the rest.

This is just a propaganda attempt by someone without talent.  It's only appeal is it's dogwhistle to trump haters. 

Again for the thousandth time - if you've got to lie to make a point. you don't have a point. 

It accurately represents Republican policies already in place or being proposed at both the state and federal level, which would likely be approved by Trump if congressional Republicans were able to get a bill passed and presented to him. 
 

. Trump has advocated for restrictive abortion policies in the past and is now trying to pivot away and flip flop because it’s so unpopular but he and the abortion banners are on the same side and are allies. He is perfectly comfortable with them enacting these policies. I doubt he would be the champion to stop them if Republicans in congress try to get passed on his watch. 
 

Also Trump is the most prolific liar in western political history so just because he’s not campaigning on it doesn’t mean he doesn’t support it. He literally told republicans to keep quiet on the issue during the election 

[BeaverFever]

Meanwhile in Floriduh, Governor DeFascist is going after tv stations for airing  ads calling for the abortion ban to be overturned. 
 

Florida threatens to criminally charge TV stations airing pro-abortion ad

The Florida health department is demanding stations pull the ad, which urges voters to defeat the state’s six-week abortion ban at the polls.
 

At least two stations received cease-and-desist letters Thursday written by John Wilson, general counsel from the Florida Department of Health, demanding they pull the advertisement. Management for WCJB in Gainesville and WFLA in Tampa were not immediately available for comment Wednesday. The health department and office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) did not respond to requests for comment.

Wilson wrote that running the 30-second spot was a violation of Florida’s “sanitary nuisance” law, which is commonly used to charge people with overflowing septic tanks or unclean slaughterhouses. He ordered the stations to remove the ads within 24 hours or open themselves up to a second-degree misdemeanor charge, which in Florida carries a sentence of imprisonment up to 60 days and a fine up to $500.
 

…

Wilson’s letter did not explain who at the station would be subject to punishment or provide details about the charging process.

Story continues below advertisement

 

The letter prompted harsh reaction from FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel on Tuesday.

“The right of broadcasters to speak freely is rooted in the First Amendment. Threats against broadcast stations for airing content that conflicts with the government’s views are dangerous and undermine the fundamental principle of free speech,” Rosenworcel wrote in a statement.

Wilson’s letter said the stations have the right to broadcast political advertisements under the First Amendment and the Florida Constitution, but not the right to spread an ad that is not only “false” but “dangerous.”

Women who have “pregnancy complications posing a serious risk of death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment” should seek medical treatment in Florida, he wrote, adding: “If they are led to believe that such treatment is unavailable under Florida law, such women could foreseeably travel out of state to seek emergency medical care, seek emergency medical care from unlicensed providers in Florida, or not seek emergency medical care at all.”

Story continues below advertisement

 

Williams said she would have had to travel to another state if faced with her decision now. But she said she was too ill to fly and couldn’t stray far from the hospital.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/10/09/florida-abortion-tv-ad-caroline/

So it seems you’re no longer allowed political free speech in Florida if the Republican government disagrees with your opinion and in this case women who need life-saving care can always try theirs best to flee the state if theyre able, get an illegal back alley abortion or choose to die. See?  All reasonable options according to republicans so free speech attempt is unnecessary and denied, upon threat of arrest and imprisonment under a totally unrelated random law.