Society/Culture Reproductive Rights: Roe vs Wade, abortion, etc

[Gruffles]

I will admit to being naive in not being able to believe that at least 2 doctors, who should known better, failed to seek legal advice on the law when unnecessarily (and possibly negligently) sending a pregnant 10 year old girl interstate for a medical procedure that she could receive in her home state.

And this case sadly proves my point about the dangerous misinformation about the laws regarding abortion. The girl could have received the abortion in Ohio. That is clear enough from the law in question, and has been confirmed by the Attorney General. Assuming the child abuse doctor's motives were pure (which I certainly do), what other explanation is there as to why this occurred other than the child abuse doctor being grossly misinformed?

Will be interesting to see how this plays out for the doctors involved.

Now that it is a real patient, has the Indiana doctor violated an privacy or privilege requirements? Did they seek any legal advice themselves before discussing the patient with the child abuse doctor? What was the content of that conversation?

Did the child abuse doctor report the abuse when required (failure to do is a crime)? The suspect was only arrested yesterday, but it is possible an investigation was needed, had to find him etc, so they may have. But in the circumstance that they have failed to report, I could not believe that they would fail to report to protect the rapist. But is his (currently being reported) status as an illegal immigrant relevant in so far as the patient may be a family member, and therefore if the family involved are illegal immigrants reporting it could see them deported? But if it was reported, how did the Ohio AG not know about it? Once the story broke, and certainly once he decided to do a press conference on it, his office would have been scouring the state looking for the report.

Of course, none of this is as sad as slime raping 10 year olds.

I think the fact that you are asking all of these questions and speculating about whether the doctor did the right thing or not just shows that the current rules in place are a complete mess and that they are resulting in potential dangerous situations. From what I can see (and please anyone correct me if I'm wrong), at the time that this happened there was no clear security for the doctor in making their decision. Yes, there was an indication that an abortion would be allowed under a vague situational standard, but the problem being that the situations where it was allowed weren't clear and would only be assessed in court after the event, meaning the doctor would not be completely confident that they couldn't be charged with anything until being judged on the action. I wouldn't even be confident that seeking legal advice beforehand would have given clear guidance and assurances.

 

[Toump Ass]

This is utterly false and completely fails to get at the root of the problem.

the problem is religion. It has nothing to do with controlling women or white people or men.

I mean, religion is about controlling people so makes sense right.
Edit: whoops old post who cares.

 

[bourbons]

I think the fact that you are asking all of these questions and speculating about whether the doctor did the right thing or not just shows that the current rules in place are a complete mess and that they are resulting in potential dangerous situations. From what I can see (and please anyone correct me if I'm wrong), at the time that this happened there was no clear security for the doctor in making their decision. Yes, there was an indication that an abortion would be allowed under a vague situational standard, but the problem being that the situations where it was allowed weren't clear and would only be assessed in court after the event, meaning the doctor would not be completely confident that they couldn't be charged with anything until being judged on the action. I wouldn't even be confident that seeking legal advice beforehand would have given clear guidance and assurances.

Exactly.

Handing this back to states is a mess.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Do you know what the penalty is for trying to shame or influence a patient here?

I think as far as ahpra goes it would be professional misconduct which usually for first offence is a caution and maybe evidence of an education program attendance.
I don’t know if there are other penalties

 

[Seeds]

I mean, religion is about controlling people so makes sense right.
Edit: whoops old post who cares.

Thats only the people who run religious institutions. Not the majority of religious followers who actually believe in their gods.

 

[Toump Ass]

Thats only the people who run religious institutions. Not the majority of religious followers who actually believe in their gods.

Seems like one and the same thing to me, the followers are brainwashed by the people running the joint anyway.

 

[Seeds]

Seems like one and the same thing to me, the followers are brainwashed by the people running the joint anyway.

Well yes thats true so they aint in control then are they.

 

[Gralin]

Well yes thats true so they aint in control then are they.

Would you say religious people in positions of power like in Government or Business are in control?
Which is kind of the point, they are taught a system of patriarchal control, told it's a divine right that men rule and then they go and get jobs and do it, and they have a built in voter base

 

[Seeds]

Would you say religious people in positions of power like in Government or Business are in control?
Which is kind of the point, they are taught a system of patriarchal control, told it's a divine right that men rule and then they go and get jobs and do it, and they have a built in voter base

yes they are.

you get im in the one thats claiming religion is the problem right? Because of what they believe in regards to the nature of life and the soul. They believe it pops into existence in an instant. And that instant is conception. Unlike science which shows that life is a gradual process with no single point of beginning.

 

[Chief]

And the con men rock up and tell the sad religio men "hey you are supposed to be the head of a household, why aren't you? Because leftists and abortion mean your women don't bow down to you any more. Vote for me and I will make those things go away!"

 

[Engimal v3]

I'm pointing out that almost no one becomes 'right wing', because of 'left wing' positions.
They can be pushed further down those right wing positions, because of the left. But CHANGING position is almost a non event.

I disagree. I think you can become disillusioned with an ideology because of the culture or people in it.

 

[Satan]

Some one from news.com.au read my post and followed it up from sister publication ny post

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/man-charged-with-raping-impregnating-10yearold-ohio-girl-entered-us-illegally/news-story/47c2ed74ea33f51c8054940f6d7208bf

 

[Gruffles]

It's good that the story of this horrid event can now be discussed in the way it should have been without other noise. Kudos to the reporter for doing further investigation, however, this is when it should've been originally reported.

I noticed an article with anecdotes from women having push back from doctors when they've asked to have their tubes tied. Surely this is drifting away from the role of the doctor? Shouldn't they be focused on the ensuring the patient is aware of the risks associated with the procedure and then supporting their choice from there? Crankyhawk, I know you work in the field here, do you know if the US has similar systems in place like the one that you described from ahpra before? Would an Australian doctor be cautioned for similar behaviour?

 

[cartwright]

Some one from news.com.au read my post and followed it up from sister publication ny post

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/man-charged-with-raping-impregnating-10yearold-ohio-girl-entered-us-illegally/news-story/47c2ed74ea33f51c8054940f6d7208bf

I’ll repeat, forced birthers are okay with this.

 

[Gough]

I’ll repeat, forced birthers are okay with this.

They're rightly embarrassed by the consequences of their policy, hence the push back. It's easier to blame the media for reporting it than themselves for creating the circumstances where a ten year old rape victim has to travel interstate for a medical procedure. It's bog standard rwnj.

 

[Gruffles]

I'm interested in why you disagree with my post CM86. Are you not glad that it is now clear that the story can be discussed as it is?

 

[Gruffles]

I’ll repeat, forced birthers are okay with this.

The fact that anyone is OK with this is just baffling and scary.

 

[Gruffles]

I'm interested in why you disagree with my post CM86. Are you not glad that it is now clear that the story can be discussed as it is?

Ah, OK. So you are now just going for the petty dislike route because you can't actually discuss your opinion. I understand.

 

[CM86]

Do you accept that there are bad faith approaches to delegitimise articles?

Absolutely I do. This is not one of those times though.

You attacked the article, and blamed the media. I explained to you why you were wrong.

You insisted on calling me emotional, and combative etc.

Now you're pretending it's OK to discuss it. As if it couldn't be discussed before.


Don't complain about 'the noise', when you were a big part of it.

 

[Gruffles]

You attacked the article, and blamed the media. I explained to you why you were wrong.

You insisted on calling me emotional, and combative etc.

Now you're pretending it's OK to discuss it. As if it couldn't be discussed before.


Don't complain about 'the noise', when you were a big part of it.

You're either consistently misinterpreting my posts or purposefully misrepresenting them. If it's the first, then I apologise as maybe I'm not representing my intentions clearly.

I didn't attack the article, all I actually did was provide a link showing where there was discussion about doubt in the article (Cartwright even asked for a link in #2506 in reply to Big Birdy's original post) and comment that it shouldn't have been printed at the time it was. What do you think I blamed the media for? Poor reporting? The media is currently riddled with poor reporting, it's the norm rather than the exception, and we can't accept it in some cases but be critical of it in others. You yourself even agreed that it shouldn't have been reported when it was as it couldn't be verified at the time but apparently I'm "wrong" and not allowed to say that? It very much feels to me like you've just built a personal vendetta here trying to find hidden meaning in what I'm saying to create an argument. You've completely disregarded or ignored EVERYTHING I've said in this thread supporting women's right to their own choice, even in the post you disliked this morning! Instead, you've doubled/tripled/quadrupled down on, what seems to me, a weird mission to try and "out" me as an imposter.

I pointed out one statement that I felt was driven by emotion (not that you were outright emotional), and you have absolutely been combative in my eyes (even your spam disliking shows this). The noise existed already, I didn't create it and trying to pin the noise on me is just ridiculous. Stating that I'm pretending it's now OK to discuss it is outright insulting. Quit your vendetta and maybe read how the discussion between myself and Gralin panned out and use that as an example of reasonable discussion.

Do I solely blame the media for the fact that a 10yo was r*ped and had to go through a shocking process to get the abortion that she should have always had a right to? Absolutely not! The actions of the scotus, previous leadership, republican ideals, religion needing to control everyone, and a stack of horrendously selfish bigots and many others are to blame for that.

 

[faible]

You're either consistently misinterpreting my posts or purposefully misrepresenting them. If it's the first, then I apologise as maybe I'm not representing my intentions clearly.

I didn't attack the article, all I actually did was provide a link showing where there was discussion about doubt in the article (Cartwright even asked for a link in #2506 in reply to Big Birdy's original post) and comment that it shouldn't have been printed at the time it was. What do you think I blamed the media for? Poor reporting? The media is currently riddled with poor reporting, it's the norm rather than the exception, and we can't accept it in some cases but be critical of it in others. You yourself even agreed that it shouldn't have been reported when it was as it couldn't be verified at the time but apparently I'm "wrong" and not allowed to say that? It very much feels to me like you've just built a personal vendetta here trying to find hidden meaning in what I'm saying to create an argument. You've completely disregarded or ignored EVERYTHING I've said in this thread supporting women's right to their own choice, even in the post you disliked this morning! Instead, you've doubled/tripled/quadrupled down on, what seems to me, a weird mission to try and "out" me as an imposter.

I pointed out one statement that I felt was driven by emotion (not that you were outright emotional), and you have absolutely been combative in my eyes (even your spam disliking shows this). The noise existed already, I didn't create it and trying to pin the noise on me is just ridiculous. Stating that I'm pretending it's now OK to discuss it is outright insulting. Quit your vendetta and maybe read how the discussion between myself and Gralin panned out and use that as an example of reasonable discussion.

Do I solely blame the media for the fact that a 10yo was r*ped and had to go through a shocking process to get the abortion that she should have always had a right to? Absolutely not! The actions of the scotus, previous leadership, republican ideals, religion needing to control everyone, and a stack of horrendously selfish bigots and many others are to blame for that.

As I said;

I see Gruffles is meeting SRP, where even if you're not supporting something people disagree with, they'll find a way to make it seem like you do.

FWIW Gruffles is not a hidden troll, if you've seen him post elsewhere you'd know he's very much concerned with facilitating reasonable and respectful discussion. He's very consistent on that, and is a much more tolerant human being than I am to try to achieve it.

 

[bourbons]

I’ll repeat, forced birthers are okay with this.

More than ok, actively cheerleading it. Look at this shit

The 10-year-old Ohio girl who crossed state lines to receive an abortion in Indiana should have carried her pregnancy to term and would be required to do so under a model law written for state legislatures considering more restrictive abortion measures, according to the general counsel for the National Right to Life.
...
“She would have had the baby, and as many women who have had babies as a result of rape, we would hope that she would understand the reason and ultimately the benefit of having the child,” Bopp said in a phone interview on Thursday.

National Right to Life official: 10-year-old should have had baby

The story has sparked a national conversation over the consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and how far some states are willing to go to prohibit abortions.

www.politico.com

Oh, and Indiana's AG looking to charge the doctor who provided care

Republican AG says he'll investigate Indiana doctor who provided care to 10-year-old rape victim

The account about the girl has sparked intense dialogue in Washington, with some questioning its validity.

www.politico.com

Jim Jordan acknowledging reality as immaculately as you would expect

The clean-up followed shortly after the news of the arrest. Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan deleted a tweet in which he had called the story “another lie.” The Wall Street Journal editorial page had to walk back on an editorial titled “An Abortion Story Too Good To Confirm” that called the case a “fanciful” tale. And Yost, who originally cast doubt on the story, tweeted on Wednesday that his “heart aches” for the child and that he was grateful for the arrest — not acknowledging his previous skepticism.

 

[bourbons]

And Texas now suing Biden over the advice re: abortion in emergency circumstances

Texas sues Biden over new abortion guidance as conservative groups mull more challenges

The suit targets a Monday memo in which the the government warned health workers and hospitals that refusing to treat patients who need an abortion could put them in legal jeopardy.

www.politico.com

What a great idea to hand this back to states, well played SC

 

[Gough]

This is the sort of disgusting, disingenuous shit that people who favour women having autonomy over their bodies have to deal with.

 

[Saint]

And the con men rock up and tell the sad religio men "hey you are supposed to be the head of a household, why aren't you? Because leftists and abortion mean your women don't bow down to you any more. Vote for me and I will make those things go away!"

They've added rich to the grift.

You're also ordained by dog to be wealthy and if you're not, that's also somebody else's fault, not your own. But for a small donation, I'm sure Jesus can take care of it, Jesus will just need to fly his private jet to the Bahamas to get it done!