What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Cclm, LPN · Dec 4, 2021

16 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

So you are okay with stopping the function of the US government, because of a lie about election integrity? Good to know. That sort of anti-American sentiment is dangerous, as evidenced by the acceptance of the violence as simple protest. Next those same conservative voices will applaud the actual over throwing of official election results because someone didn't like the results and claimed a rigged election.

I don't believe that you read the entire bill just like you don't believe that I read your citations. The difference is that I provide you evidence that I read your citations by quoting from them when I ask you questions about the content or context and you provided noting but the right wing rhetoric that you heard or read somewhere. Perhaps that reality was too uncomfortable for you to acknowledge and so you decided to talk crap instead.

I don't need to prove you wrong, you regularly prove yourself wrong with little assistance from others in your zeal to make a conservative point rather than to simply discuss a topic.

"Stoppingthe function of the US government"? LOL. Geez, have some faith in your government! Did not even come close. It was a perfect situation for dems to vilify Trump and his supporters. So when the capital was breached during the Kavanagh hearings that wasn't "stopping a function of the US government"? See, there's that hypocrisy again. Still worse than 9/11 tho.....

No. You prove me wrong and if you could you would. The stock files on your computer selectively deemed not propaganda by you of course is a little low on the megabytes in regard to this "women Protection Act" concerning when and for what reasons an abortion can be done at which point of pregnancy. Hint.... Health conveniently left very vague.

Don't think anyone on here whether they admit it or not doesn't know if you had some sort of info refuting that, you wouldn't post it faster than flied on Sht

toomuchbaloney · Dec 4, 2021

57 minutes ago, Cclm said:

"Stoppingthe function of the US government"? LOL. Geez, have some faith in your government! Did not even come close. It was a perfect situation for dems to vilify Trump and his supporters. So when the capital was breached during the Kavanagh hearings that wasn't "stopping a function of the US government"? See, there's that hypocrisy again. Still worse than 9/11 tho.....

No. You prove me wrong and if you could you would. The stock files on your computer selectively deemed not propaganda by you of course is a little low on the megabytes in regard to this "women Protection Act" concerning when and for what reasons an abortion can be done at which point of pregnancy. Hint.... Health conveniently left very vague.

Don't think anyone on here whether they admit it or not doesn't know if you had some sort of info refuting that, you wouldn't post it faster than flied on Sht

Yes. The function of government was stopped on January 6 for several hours...it simply didn't result in the overthrow of the election the way Trump hoped that it would.

The Capitol wasn't breached during the Kavanagh hearings, that's right wing propaganda.

No one needs to prove you wrong when you misrepresent facts. You are proved wrong when you can't support your regurgitated right wing rhetoric with credible or reliable reporting. Hint...your complaints are equally as vague as you claim the legislation is AND you still haven't linked to the language to support your opinion. You don't seem to understand that you haven't offered any facts to be refuted...you've posted your opinions with zero substantiation...repeating stuff that you've been told.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Dec 4, 2021

2 hours ago, Cclm said:

It was a perfect situation for dems to vilify Trump and his supporters.

Yes it was. He lost the election and some supporters, a huge amount of them, not sure what the percentage is these days but then it was a majority of Republicans couldn't accept it, and they marched and people died. You think Democrats were just going to be silent and say "well it was mostly peaceful, lets not make a big deal about it, who knows Trump might have won, too bad about the deaths though"

Please. They walked right into being vilified.

Tweety, BSN, RN · Dec 4, 2021

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Yes. The function of government was stopped on January 6 for several hours...

I agree. Below is a picture after it was announced that our leaders were safe in an undisclosed location while the protest was going on. Doesn't look like much functioning going on.

However, much off the government can function on autopilot so to say "the function of the government was stopped" might not ring true. But obviously the functioning of the governing people was stopped.

Cclm, LPN · Dec 5, 2021

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Yes. The function of government was stopped on January 6 for several hours...it simply didn't result in the overthrow of the election the way Trump hoped that it would.

The Capitol wasn't breached during the Kavanagh hearings, that's right wing propaganda.

No one needs to prove you wrong when you misrepresent facts. You are proved wrong when you can't support your regurgitated right wing rhetoric with credible or reliable reporting. Hint...your complaints are equally as vague as you claim the legislation is AND you still haven't linked to the language to support your opinion. You don't seem to understand that you haven't offered any facts to be refuted...you've posted your opinions with zero substantiation...repeating stuff that you've been told.

So you do not have any source that the dem abortion bill is worded so that a woman could get an abortion at any stage of pregnancy because of the very vague definition of "threat to health"? Having a baby out of your lady parts is a risk to health so perhaps that will qualify under this bill. Sounds ridiculous? Yes. No more that trying to pass a bill to allow abortion(where as the fetus dies) to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy including post viability? For "health" when that's already in place?

Nothing?

That's what I thought.....

toomuchbaloney · Dec 5, 2021

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

So you do not have any source that the dem abortion bill is worded so that a woman could get an abortion at any stage of pregnancy because of the very vague definition of "threat to health"? Having a baby out of your lady parts is a risk to health so perhaps that will qualify under this bill. Sounds ridiculous? Yes. No more that trying to pass a bill to allow abortion(where as the fetus dies) to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy including post viability? For "health" when that's already in place?

Nothing?

That's what I thought.....

I didn't make crazy claims about abortion legislation...you did...you are the one who cannot support her claims after saying that she read the legislation. Your credibility suffers when you try to use hyperbole as an argument.

Why not just source your beliefs about the legislation that you keep mentioning? Why not just stick to facts and tell us specifically what abortion legislation has you triggered as the SCOTUS is prepared to return American women's reproductive health care to the 1960s?

I wonder why you mock the risks associated with gestation. It's almost like you don't have any empathy or compassion for others while cultivating a belief system based upon bias and bulls**t.

You've still offered no facts...just your opinions.

Just as I thought, unable to support your claims and projecting that failure onto others. Ho hum.

Cclm, LPN · Dec 5, 2021

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I didn't make crazy claims about abortion legislation...you did...you are the one who cannot support her claims after saying that she read the legislation. Your credibility suffers when you try to use hyperbole as an argument.

Why not just source your beliefs about the legislation that you keep mentioning? Why not just stick to facts and tell us specifically what abortion legislation has you triggered as the SCOTUS is prepared to return American women's reproductive health care to the 1960s?

I wonder why you mock the risks associated with gestation. It's almost like you don't have any empathy or compassion for others while cultivating a belief system based upon bias and bulls**t.

You've still offered no facts...just your opinions.

Just as I thought, unable to support your claims and projecting that failure onto others. Ho hum.

So you do not have anything? I mean because if you do you can prove me wrong right now and feel like the great propagandist detector you think you are. A chance to disprove a Trump supporting poc nazi! That would be awesome!!

Here's my source. Have at it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

It's a long read but we'll worth it.

Now find something In that that refutes what I said!! Or is this propaganda as well?

Do you have some sort of discrimination against Canadians? You have mentioned my nationality before, like it's a deficit of some sort??? I assure you it's a great place to live because for the most part we don't have radical left wing nut job in the hight numbers that the US does. And free Healthcare and strict gun laws too!! Oh less freedom of speech and some compelled speech. You would love it I'm sure!

MunoRN, RN · Dec 5, 2021

3 hours ago, Cclm said:

So you do not have any source that the dem abortion bill is worded so that a woman could get an abortion at any stage of pregnancy because of the very vague definition of "threat to health"? Having a baby out of your lady parts is a risk to health so perhaps that will qualify under this bill. Sounds ridiculous? Yes. No more that trying to pass a bill to allow abortion(where as the fetus dies) to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy including post viability? For "health" when that's already in place?

Nothing?

That's what I thought.....

5 minutes ago, Cclm said:

So you do not have anything? I mean because if you do you can prove me wrong right now and feel like the great propagandist detector you think you are. A chance to disprove a Trump supporting poc nazi! That would be awesome!!

Here's my source. Have at it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

It's a long read but we'll worth it.

Now find something In that that refutes what I said!! Or is this propaganda as well?

Do you have some sort of discrimination against Canadians? You have mentioned my nationality before, like it's a deficit of some sort??? I assure you it's a great place to live because for the most part we don't have radical left wing nut job in the hight numbers that the US does. And free Healthcare and strict gun laws too!! Oh less freedom of speech and some compelled speech. You would love it I'm sure!

For some reason you've quoted "threat to health" even though that phrase occurs nowhere in the bill you've then linked to as the source of that quote.

The definitions of when a risk to the pregnant mom justifies the medical necessity of aborting the pregnancy is actually very well defined in both medical practice and legal standards.

As both the husband and father of a wife and children who have been impacted by these practices and definitions I don't have a lot of tolerance for your attempts to may political hay of the lives of my wife and children.

Cclm, LPN · Dec 5, 2021

1 hour ago, MunoRN said:

For some reason you've quoted "threat to health" even though that phrase occurs nowhere in the bill you've then linked to as the source of that quote.

The definitions of when a risk to the pregnant mom justifies the medical necessity of aborting the pregnancy is actually very well defined in both medical practice and legal standards.

As both the husband and father of a wife and children who have been impacted by these practices and definitions I don't have a lot of tolerance for your attempts to may political hay of the lives of my wife and children.

(2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.

This is currently the practice. A mother needs to terminate the pregnancy in order to preserve her life and or health. This already is standard procedure as you stated above. However the viable fetus(baby) life will be preserved as well. In cases like this they do not deliver the viable fetus and then just let it die. All intervention to save its life are made as well.. Except in cases of severe deformity or disease it may be decided that allowing a natural death is the best.

There is no republican abortion law that says the above cannot happen, it's already standard procedure. It is different than abortion in this context as the fetus life isn't ended or the primary goal. Unless there is some condition that risks the mothers life that require the fetus heart to be stopped before removal. Pretty sure there isn't.

therefor this provision with the vague definition of "preserve health" doesn't apply to women needing to deliver early. Unless of course it is there for a abortion to take place at anytime during pregnancy for any reason that is determined by the woman and the mother. So what is that exactly? Too vague. This is really my only issue.

I'm not sure how abortion has effected your family but commenting on a political hearing on a bill in congress on a political forum doesn't really apply to me trying to politicize hay your family. A congress bill put forth by a political party on a political forum. Okay then......

MunoRN, RN · Dec 5, 2021

17 minutes ago, Cclm said:

(2) Since 1973, the Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability, and to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability where it is necessary, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care professional, for the preservation of the life or health of the person who is pregnant.

This is currently the practice. A mother needs to terminate the pregnancy in order to preserve her life and or health. This already is standard procedure as you stated above. However the viable fetus(baby) life will be preserved as well. In cases like this they do not deliver the viable fetus and then just let it die. All intervention to save its life are made as well.. Except in cases of severe deformity or disease it may be decided that allowing a natural death is the best.

There is no republican abortion law that says the above cannot happen, it's already standard procedure. It is different than abortion in this context as the fetus life isn't ended or the primary goal. Unless there is some condition that risks the mothers life that require the fetus heart to be stopped before removal. Pretty sure there isn't.

therefor this provision with the vague definition of "preserve health" doesn't apply to women needing to deliver early. Unless of course it is there for a abortion to take place at anytime during pregnancy for any reason that is determined by the woman and the mother. So what is that exactly? Too vague. This is really my only issue.

I'm not sure how abortion has effected your family but commenting on a political hearing on a bill in congress on a political forum doesn't really apply to me trying to politicize hay your family. A congress bill put forth by a political party on a political forum. Okay then......

The Democratic Bill came about not because it changes the current practice, but because the Texas law changes the current practice.

Currently, abortion is not legal if the fetus is potentially viable, as you pointed out, this is the same standard that the Democratic abortion bill sets into law.

The Texas law effectively prohibits abortions to save the life of the mother by using terminology that doesn't translate to any sort of medical or legal standards, essentially requiring physicans to allow both the mother and the fetus to die even in situations where one of the lives could be saved.

This is why the democratic bill came about; to more clearly define the criteria in which an abortion is appropriate, criteria which you clearly agree with.

toomuchbaloney · Dec 5, 2021

16 hours ago, Cclm said:

Here's my source. Have at it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text

It's a long read but we'll worth it.

I read your source and it doesn't support your rhetoric or opinion. If you believe that your opinion is supported somewhere in that language, then you should produce that excerpt for discussion. Until then, you are simply spouting divisive right wing baloney.

Edited to note that you did make an attempt to do just that...and you were provided a cogent and concise explanation of your error in understanding. Maybe you should listen to less right wing inflammatory propaganda.

Cclm, LPN · Dec 5, 2021

14 hours ago, MunoRN said:

The Democratic Bill came about not because it changes the current practice, but because the Texas law changes the current practice.

Currently, abortion is not legal if the fetus is potentially viable, as you pointed out, this is the same standard that the Democratic abortion bill sets into law.

The Texas law effectively prohibits abortions to save the life of the mother by using terminology that doesn't translate to any sort of medical or legal standards, essentially requiring physicans to allow both the mother and the fetus to die even in situations where one of the lives could be saved.

This is why the democratic bill came about; to more clearly define the criteria in which an abortion is appropriate, criteria which you clearly agree with.

No that's not correct.

https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SB8/id/2395961

Sec.A171.205.AAEXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS.
(a)AASections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician
believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with
this subchapter.
(b)AAA physician who performs or induces an abortion under
circumstances described by Subsection (a) shall make written
notations in the pregnant woman ’s medical record of:
(1)AAthe physician ’s belief that a medical emergency

This is pertaining to the already in place standard of care in which a termination is required for the life of the mother. There is no where in the Texas bill that says an abortion can not take place to save the mother. However it's a little more specific in terms if what "health" and life means.