What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Published

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
17 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Why don't you understand that fairly straightforward language? Should I explain what NECESSARY means or maybe GOOD-FAITH? Which words don't you understand? Or is it the medical judgment part that you think shouldn't be included? Maybe you are troubled by the notion that a pregnancy might be terminated to preserve the life of the woman? 

You need to be specific about what you don't understand because it seems like a simple bit of reading for a health professional. 

The bill isn't propaganda...holy hell...the content that has you riled up about the bill is right wing probirth propaganda. 

I bolden the words, I summarized underneath. Submit your evidence supporting what you think(you haven't yet...) or submit the evidence in contrary to my question. I know the bill isn't propaganda.  Came right from your donkeys mouth so it absolutely can't be anything but the superior truth. 

Can we say it needs to be more specific? If you are not going to have a conversation where you address the context of the bill, then don't.Repeting the same old name calling, propaganist etc etc(which is a function of propaganda)It doesn't mean you lost a point, only that you actually did not give one. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
26 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Why don't you understand that fairly straightforward language? Should I explain what NECESSARY means or maybe GOOD-FAITH? Which words don't you understand? Or is it the medical judgment part that you think shouldn't be included? Maybe you are troubled by the notion that a pregnancy might be terminated to preserve the life of the woman? 

You need to be specific about what you don't understand because it seems like a simple bit of reading for a health professional. 

The bill isn't propaganda...holy hell...the content that has you riled up about the bill is right wing probirth propaganda. 

I would agree with the other poster that the language "necessary " and "good faith" is very subjective.   I would have to believe that is on purpose.   It's pretty easy to see that there is potential for abortions "on demand".

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
20 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You just posted the portion of the legislation that troubles you and it's clear that the language doesn't do what you are afraid that it does.  Read it again.  It says what it says and it doesn't say that women can terminate a pregnancy at any time for convenience or some other imagined reason.  You believe something that isn't true and you cannot support your concerns with the legislation that you say contains the intention or language.  

Do you really not understand that you've failed to support your stance, or are you trolling?

How does it not do what I think it does? Im not sure exactly what it mean. How? What's your argument? You don't have one obviously. So why don't you just move on. Here is the opportunity to provide education. I'm almost begging you to school me. I want it to not mean what it does not specify? Font ask for deuces and then completely disregard the source, even when it comes from actual government and a party you support. I mean seriously? Wow!! 

You ask for sources then completely ignore them.You have not used one word from the bill to refute anything I have asked. Just on and on and on about radical right wing propaganda.....  

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:

I would agree with the other poster that the language "necessary " and "good faith" is very subjective.   I would have to believe that is on purpose.   It's pretty easy to see that there is potential for abortions "on demand".

Right? I'm not saying does say that it forsure set in stone that abortion for any reason but with the lack of definition, it could very well at least create a situation in which there could be abortion on demand. I do believe a ethical medical practitioner would not perform such an act and will be the saving grace if this get passed. 

I've been rude in the past but I can't go without mentioning the aggressive ad hominem attacks. That's standard with some members but not to the degree it has been in this topic. 

Seems to me that they have no answers for this. Which is fine but some can't conceded to agree to  disagree with a conservative. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:

I would agree with the other poster that the language "necessary " and "good faith" is very subjective.   I would have to believe that is on purpose.   It's pretty easy to see that there is potential for abortions "on demand".

Why do you extrapolate abortions on demand from language that uses common words to describe medical necessity which prioritizes the woman over the fetus when a life is at stake? I ask because that logic escapes me.  

First, is there some evidence that women seek late term abortion for other than dire medical conditions now or historically? I'm talking not about tabloid style horror stories, uncorroborated and sensational,  but data and statistics.  If not, then why are you logically imagining that as a potential? Please explain. 

We deal with subjective concepts all of the time.  Do you have difficulty with medical necessity decisions generally or mostly when they involve a fetus?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
1 minute ago, Cclm said:

Right? I'm not saying does say that it forsure set in stone that abortion for any reason but with the lack of definition, it could very well at least create a situation in which there could be abortion on demand. I do believe a ethical medical practitioner would not perform such an act and will be the saving grace if this get passed. 

I've been rude in the past but I can't go without mentioning the aggressive ad hominem attacks. That's standard with some members but not to the degree it has been in this topic. 

Seems to me that they have no answers for this. Which is fine but some can't conceded to agree to  disagree with a conservative. 

I'm not clear what you're arguing.  You seem to be saying that you agree with the current criteria for legal abortions, which the Congressional bill reafirms, the reason why it reaffirms the already existing legal criteria is that the Texas "heartbeat bill" does away with that criteria.

Instead of prohibiting abortions past the point of fetal viability it bans them only six weeks after the last menstrual cycle.  

More importantly it moves enforcement from the state to civilians.  So while there is established legal and medical criteria for protecting the health of the mother when the fetus is not likely to survive that effectively no longer applies since those precedents don't cross over into civil law.  Physicians who performed an abortion to save the mothers life where the fetus was not viable would face years of civil litigation and possibly never practice again.

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Hospice.
1 hour ago, Beerman said:

I would agree with the other poster that the language "necessary " and "good faith" is very subjective.   I would have to believe that is on purpose.   It's pretty easy to see that there is potential for abortions "on demand".

There’s also potential for the moon to break up and rain down on our heads, but is it likely?

If y’all were serious about preventing abortion, you would be campaigning for reality-based sex education and easy access to effective contraception. 

Resurrecting all these lies, distortions and tired rhetorical tricks are a waste of time. If a person opposes abortion, then they shouldn’t have one … or they could stop having heterosexual sex.

Come to think of it, if legal abortion was such an abomination, why has the rate of abortions gone down since Roe v. Wade was handed down fifty years ago? I think it’s a distinct possibility that the availability of legal abortion has saved more lives than all the lobbying, demonstrating, bombings and murders by the forced pregnancy fanatics.

4
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
16 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Right? I'm not saying does say that it forsure set in stone that abortion for any reason but with the lack of definition, it could very well at least create a situation in which there could be abortion on demand. I do believe a ethical medical practitioner would not perform such an act and will be the saving grace if this get passed. 

I've been rude in the past but I can't go without mentioning the aggressive ad hominem attacks. That's standard with some members but not to the degree it has been in this topic. 

Seems to me that they have no answers for this. Which is fine but some can't conceded to agree to  disagree with a conservative. 

You've used emotional language to make a point about legislation that is a FALSE NARRATIVE.

YOU can't support YOUR claim about the legislation as proven by the very legislative language that YOU CHOSE.

Your extrapolations are not the same as fact. Your unfounded guesses about what might possibly happen next are not the same as fact.  All you have done here is tell us what you feel and believe about the legislation, and the document that you linked to doesn't support your beliefs in any way.  The excerpt that you've provided doesn't support your feelings and beliefs...it requires subjective interpretation and extrapolation to get to your beliefs from that cited text.  

You feel like that legislation contains the language of dangerous precedent. You have yet to provide any direct evidence of that.  

I am going to move on because you either aren't capable of understanding or you are trolling. 

2
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
2 hours ago, MunoRN said:

I'm not clear what you're arguing.  You seem to be saying that you agree with the current criteria for legal abortions, which the Congressional bill reafirms, the reason why it reaffirms the already existing legal criteria is that the Texas "heartbeat bill" does away with that criteria.

Instead of prohibiting abortions past the point of fetal viability it bans them only six weeks after the last menstrual cycle.  

More importantly it moves enforcement from the state to civilians.  So while there is established legal and medical criteria for protecting the health of the mother when the fetus is not likely to survive that effectively no longer applies since those precedents don't cross over into civil law.  Physicians who performed an abortion to save the mothers life where the fetus was not viable would face years of civil litigation and possibly never practice again.

There is an exception in the Texas Law that does not impose the ban on terminating a  pregnancy in a situation after viability that is a risk to the mothers life. I posted that actual exception right from the bill. 

It is false that the Texas abortion bill bans this practice. Someone claimed that the Texus bill will try and ban a termination even if the mothers life is in danger. That is 100% false. 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in LPN/Pallative Hospice.
2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You've used emotional language to make a point about legislation that is a FALSE NARRATIVE.

YOU can't support YOUR claim about the legislation as proven by the very legislative language that YOU CHOSE.

Your extrapolations are not the same as fact. Your unfounded guesses about what might possibly happen next are not the same as fact.  All you have done here is tell us what you feel and believe about the legislation, and the document that you linked to doesn't support your beliefs in any way.  The excerpt that you've provided doesn't support your feelings and beliefs...it requires subjective interpretation and extrapolation to get to your beliefs from that cited text.  

You feel like that legislation contains the language of dangerous precedent. You have yet to provide any direct evidence of that.  

I am going to move on because you either aren't capable of understanding or you are trolling. 

You can't refute my claim and it appears you are not going to. By actually using the words themselves. You made no attempt to explain what the words mean. You have no argument or you would have posted already! This one you can't manipulate so you have a tantrum!! 

Yes move on please but somewhere down the future you will claim I lost this argument because of some conservative troll Trumper propaganda  and say I do not understand abortion or whatever. Do not. You inability to offer a counter argument, explaining what the words mean by your superior sources and knowledge would suggest that you have none! 

Up Vote Up Vote ×
3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Why do you extrapolate abortions on demand from language that uses common words to describe medical necessity which prioritizes the woman over the fetus when a life is at stake? I ask because that logic escapes me.  

It's pretty simple logic, really.  You're being disingenuous.

3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:
3 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

First, is there some evidence that women seek late term abortion for other than dire medical conditions now or historically? I'm talking not about tabloid style horror stories, uncorroborated and sensational,  but data and statistics. 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6457018/

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.
1 hour ago, Cclm said:

There is an exception in the Texas Law that does not impose the ban on terminating a  pregnancy in a situation after viability that is a risk to the mothers life. I posted that actual exception right from the bill. 

It is false that the Texas abortion bill bans this practice. Someone claimed that the Texus bill will try and ban a termination even if the mothers life is in danger. That is 100% false. 

What protects Physicians currently is legal precedence that defines what that exemption means.  This means that in a particular scenario they are not putting themselves at risk because that scenario has already been established to fit the legal requirements of the law.

When it comes to enforcement of laws related to abortion Texas has now switched from Common Law to Civil Law, precedents don't apply in Civil Law which leaves no reliable or predictable precedent for Physicians to follow, each scenario is a much larger risk to them and even if they successfully argue that their scenario fit the definition that may only occur after extensive court deliberations, as opposed to the current process where there is nothing that needs deliberating.

You seem to disagree that Common Law and Civil Law are two different things, but I'm not sure what you're basing that on.

1
Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Join the Discussion