Roe v. Wade abandoned by Supreme Court

Published

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-eliminates-constitutional-right-to-abortion-11656080124

I guess even if some people end up going to jail over Trump's shenanigans the conservatives have won their long-sought prize and they will consider it worth the cost. 

39 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

There were limits in place with individual states customizing their laws within the limits set out by the law that conservatives just dumped... even after the 3 newest fundraiser justices reassured the country that Roe was secure, settled law.  
 

Yes This!  

What is bothersome and troubling about this overturning besides it being fundamentallly disruptive,  is the lack of concern it seems some members of SCOTUS have on the issues that are impacting our society in this day. I’m not one to believe  that people in higher positions (esteemed) can’t make bad decisions.
The problem I think many people are struggling with now is, If the people at the top really care about these issues affecting those of us at the bottom. This disconnect and  increasing disparity between those in power and the rest of us does nothing but breed mistrust hopelessness and Increasing exploitation.

 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, TB.

A Missouri health system is not offer Plan B contraception to rape victims out of fear of prosecution: 

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article262988028.html

Quote

A leading health system in Kansas City is no longer providing emergency contraception in Missouri after the state banned abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Saint Luke’s Health System confirmed the decision to The Star on Tuesday night after word of the change began circulating among advocates for sexual assault victims.

 

 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in This and that.
58 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

A Missouri health system is not offer Plan B contraception to rape victims out of fear of prosecution: 

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article262988028.html

 

It says right in the article you posted that the law by this health facility is being misinterpreted according to a "stanch anti-abortion" republican. Pharmacies and other health facilities will still provide birthcontrol and  Plan B...... 

"State Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, an Arnold Republican and one of Missouri’s staunchest anti-abortion legislators, said Saint Luke’s interpretation of the law is “clearly wrong.” Missouri’s ban didn’t change the definition of abortion, she said, only how abortion is regulated". 

The article is intentionally misleading that the "health system" is doing this when it's only that health facility. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Public Health, TB.
5 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

 

The article is intentionally misleading that the "health system" is doing this when it's only that health facility. 

It also says in the article :

Quote

Saint Luke’s has a significant presence across Kansas City, operating 16 hospitals and campuses across the region, in both Kansas and Missouri. In a statement, Saint Luke’s spokesperson Laurel Gifford said the health system continues to evaluate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade and Missouri’s abortion ban, which went into effect following the decision.

Bolding mine. 

3
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 6/28/2022 at 3:32 PM, heron said:

I did say it. 

And Roe v. Wade said it.  It didn't say that abortions were OK for convenience after 24 weeks.  JLFN  and Beerman have a glitch and can't delete this delusion that Roe v Wade provided the right to an abortion after 24 weeks - whenever and for whatever reason.  They are not open to reason or evidence.  We should just stop responding to this jibberish and move on to reasonable arguments.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
9 minutes ago, subee said:

And Roe v. Wade said it.  It didn't say that abortions were OK for convenience after 24 weeks.  JLFN  and Beerman have a glitch and can't delete this delusion that Roe v Wade provided the right to an abortion after 24 weeks - whenever and for whatever reason.  They are not open to reason or evidence.  We should just stop responding to this jibberish and move on to reasonable arguments.

I would support that.  

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
On 6/29/2022 at 3:58 PM, nursej22 said:

It also says in the article :

Bolding mine. 

I guess it must be hard to read beyond the first paragraph of any story.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
1 hour ago, subee said:

And Roe v. Wade said it.  It didn't say that abortions were OK for convenience after 24 weeks.  JLFN  and Beerman have a glitch and can't delete this delusion that Roe v Wade provided the right to an abortion after 24 weeks - whenever and for whatever reason.  They are not open to reason or evidence.  We should just stop responding to this jibberish and move on to reasonable arguments.

Jibberish or otherwise, I doubt you'll be able to keep your promise to withhold your responses, unfortunately.

Even I am sometimes compelled to respond when there is no good reason to.  Such as to those who lie about what I have said about Roe vs Wade, for example. 

Over the years, and even recently, some members have revealed themselves to be dispicable, vile humans who I have come to pity.

I find it very easy to ignore them.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.

After Roe, Pregnant Women With Cancer Diagnoses May Face Wrenching Choices https://nyti.ms/3IXX2qY

Quote

Some oncologists say they are not sure what is allowed if a woman lives in a state like Michigan, which has criminalized most abortions but permits them to save the life of the mother. Does leukemia qualify as a reason for an abortion to save her life?

“It’s so early we don’t know the answer,” said Dr. N. Lynn Henry, an oncologist at the University of Michigan. “We can’t prove that the drugs caused a problem for the baby, and we can’t prove that withholding the drugs would have a negative outcome.”

Quote

In other words, doctors say, complications from a pregnancy — a miscarriage, a premature birth, birth defects or death — can occur whether or not a woman with cancer takes the drugs. If she is not treated and her cancer gallops into a malignancy that kills her, that too might have happened even if she had been given the cancer drugs.

Does this seem OK?

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×

No it’s not okay. I think it is a very difficult decision to have to make  and it should solely be the woman’s choice.  What Roe v Wade did was added yet another level of stress to an already gut wrenching decision tree that many women in these inconceivable situations have to deal with. 
This paradigm shift has  propelled itself to the forefront or should I say crossroads, of how much autonomy, power, and respect that each and every woman truly has with respect to their own bodies. It’s truly appalling. 

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in CRNA, Finally retired.
8 hours ago, HiddenAngels said:

No it’s not okay. I think it is a very difficult decision to have to make  and it should solely be the woman’s choice.  What Roe v Wade did was added yet another level of stress to an already gut wrenching decision tree that many women in these inconceivable situations have to deal with. 
This paradigm shift has  propelled itself to the forefront or should I say crossroads, of how much autonomy, power, and respect that each and every woman truly has with respect to their own bodies. It’s truly appalling. 

I worked in chemo back in the late 70's. and never saw a breast cancer patient who elected to have an abortion to start chemo ( although all these were 1st babies and, at that time the pregnant patients never survived long.  It's an awful choice to make .  Even decades later I was sent to OB to start a difficult stick on a laboring Stage IV patient who had refused abortion and  chemo despite the fact that she had other children at home.  She was a nurse and had a good understanding of her situation.  So, my point is that it's a crock of crap that women will show up in their 3rd trimesters for abortions of convenience.  These mothers chose the health of the fetus over their own health.  It's misogyny to claim that if we lived in a world that was loose about 3rd trimester abortions, there would be a demand for them and a supply of doctors or nurses to even do the procedure.  This is totally a made up false narrative. 

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, subee said:

I worked in chemo back in the late 70's. and never saw a breast cancer patient who elected to have an abortion to start chemo ( although all these were 1st babies and, at that time the pregnant patients never survived long.  It's an awful choice to make .  Even decades later I was sent to OB to start a difficult stick on a laboring Stage IV patient who had refused abortion and  chemo despite the fact that she had other children at home.  She was a nurse and had a good understanding of her situation.  So, my point is that it's a crock of crap that women will show up in their 3rd trimesters for abortions of convenience.  These mothers chose the health of the fetus over their own health.  It's misogyny to claim that if we lived in a world that was loose about 3rd trimester abortions, there would be a demand for them and a supply of doctors or nurses to even do the procedure.  This is totally a made up false narrative. 

The Conservative agenda runs on false narratives today. Think about it...pizza parlor pedophiles, war on Christmas, stolen elections... too many Conservative voters are ready and willing to believe whatever their talking heads tell them. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion