I traditionally have a thread heading to the election, here we go.
Get out the popcorn for this one.
Quote
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to formally announce next week he is running for president in 2024, NBC News reported Thursday, citing two sources familiar with the matter.
The governor's official entry into the Republican primary field will put him head-to-head with former President Donald Trump, the party's current frontrunner for the nomination. Trump has already spent months treating DeSantis as his primary campaign rival, thrashing him with torrents of criticism over his gubernatorial record, his political skills and his personality.
Baloney. What we said was that most pro-choice people were satisfied with the Roe v Wade guideline. I remember being quite specific in my answer, too. Perhaps not being a democrat means I don't count.
I do now recall you saying this before. My apologies.
However, obviously there are others who think differently.
I am not a Democrat, but I believe the decision to have an abortion is protected health information between a woman and her provider. I do not think the state has any business involving itself in this. I cannot believe that any licensed, ethical provider is going to perform an abortion on a woman with a viable fetus and not do everything to save its life. That is of course, unless the fetus has a condition that is not compatible with life. In that case, after discussion with the mother/parents, the decision can be made to allow natural death.
I live in the state of Washington, so this is similar to the law.
You've never heard of a physician acting unethically or doing something illegal?
Did you notice why induction abortions are sometimes needed?
Did you know that things like 6 week abortion bans in republican led states result in more induction abortions? Those restrictive laws also result in more medical complications and even death in pregnant women.
When you had your OB rotation in nursing school, did you ever work with induced abortions or women with high risk pregnancies.
Roe v. Wade was a wise decision. If we were to align with Europe's 16 weeks, that would be OK with me if the religious zealots would agree to shut up. However, eve. that would t work because the Europeans are more generous with their exceptions.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
You've never heard of a physician acting unethically or doing something illegal?
Of course we have. When they are unethical or doing illegal things they get into legal trouble. In Texas, right now, doctors are worried about getting into legal trouble for providing reproductive care to women that is considered standard and necessary - not because they are unethical or doing something illegal.
Beerman said:
The person I asked this to didn't refute it in his reply.
Since you've chimed in, what is your opinion? Should there be any kind of restriction on when someone can get an abortion?
That's because you get to describe freedom from government intrusion into medical decisions in the words that make sense to you. That is how YOU described my stance. Would there be some point in disputing your words with you?
My stance is that we are supposed to have privacy in our health matters and decisions and I trust women and their doctors to make those decisions without government interference in those private matters. You can spin that as you prefer.
You've never heard of a physician acting unethically or doing something illegal?
If a physician does something illegal, then that means there is already an applicable law. Unethical behavior may result in loss of licensure. So both of your scenarios are already covered.
Is there any other medical procedure you think needs to be regulated by the government? Perhaps we need a law to outlaw DNR orders. I mean, what if an unethical provider refuses to initiate heroic measures?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
I do now recall you saying this before. My apologies.
However, obviously there are others who think differently.
Yep. Trump supporters think differently.
Most of us were content with Roe even though it was far from perfect. That reminds me, Trump also lies about that public sentiment before Roe was dumped.
You've never heard of a physician acting unethically or doing something illegal?
Or never heard of a parent that comits infantcide? Or murder their children? I can name off the teen in New Mexico (no abortion restrictions) that gave birth in a bathroom a threw her baby in the garbage. Alexi Travisio (may be spelt wrong). It's unknown if he was alive or she killed him first. Casey Anthony. The list is long. But yeah, no woman would ever abort her full term baby. And a Dr would never be unethical. I think we all have seen Dr being unethical in our careers.
And if it doesn't happen or wouldn't happen, put a Restriction. It's easy. Government regulates all types of medical policy so that's BS right there. This is one of the primary reason I moved away from the democrats.
Of course we have. When they are unethical or doing illegal things they get into legal trouble. In Texas, right now, doctors are worried about getting into legal trouble for providing reproductive care to women that is considered standard and necessary - not because are unethical or dying something illegal.
That's because you get to describe freedom from government intrusion into medical decisions in the words that make sense to you. That is how YOU described my stance. Would there be some point in disputing your words with you?
My stance is that we are supposed to have privacy in our health matters and decisions and I trust women and their doctors to make those decisions without government interference in those private matters. You can spin that as you prefer.
What did you think about medical privacy when you had to prove your vaccine status to go to work? Due to government regulations?
If a physician does something illegal, then that means there is already an applicable law. Unethical behavior may result in loss of licensure. So both of your scenarios are already covered.
Is there any other medical procedure you think needs to be regulated by the government? Perhaps we need a law to outlaw DNR orders. I mean, what if an unethical provider refuses to initiate heroic measures?
I think vaccines during a pandemic should be regulated. Even childhood immunization.
Or the use of opioids. Or the practice of prescribing non evidence based medications and treatments.
A DNR is signed by a capable adult usually towards the later years of life.
I cannot speak for beerman but I think he most likely has no issue with abortion up to viability and exceptions for life saving measures.
What do you mean that "there is no condition that causes a risk to the mother where fetal demise is required before whatever method of abortion is used after that"? What are you saying? I think you are saying that no laws require the fetus to die before the doctor can perform an abortion by whatever means necessary. Is that what you are saying? Restrictive abortion laws hurt women and families. That's the bottom line.
Women's medical decisions should not require interference from politicians because some other people don't like their choices.
I don't have any idea what it is you are thinking about in your last comment.
Quote
Injected into the amniotic sac surrounding the fetus (instillation) or injected into the fetus. Substances injected include salt water (saline), digoxin, or potassium chloride.
heron, ASN, RN
4,670 Posts
Your straw man is leaking.