What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 20, 2022

8 hours ago, Beerman said:

But, but by not wanting any restrictions, they need to face the realization that they will happen.

You seem very stuck on that idea because you've mentioned it a half a dozen times. Clearly, someone that is advocating for a law of abortion at any time in pregnancy understand that late term abortions are going to occur since this is what they want to happen.

What I'm saying is that I'm not hearing politicians that this is their agenda in keeping abortion legal, nor am I seeing this from protesters for the most part.

"There's a lot of nuance on abortion restrictions

A quarter of respondents said abortion should be available at any point during a pregnancy. That's up from 18% in 2019.

Just 9% said it should never permitted, which is unchanged from 2019.

But then there's the very gray middle — about 1-in-5 favor allowing abortion in the first three months only; another 13% say it should be allowed in the first six months; another quarter say it should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant person; and 10% say it should be allowed only to save that life.

Big majorities support the following changes to state laws:

82% would like to see abortion permitted at any time during pregnancy to protect the life or health of the pregnant person;

63% support providing safe haven for people seeking abortions from out of state;

63% support allowing abortion any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest.

Big majorities oppose the following:

80% don't want to allow private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who assists a pregnant person in getting an abortion;

75% oppose making abortion a crime requiring fines and/or prison time for doctors who perform abortions;

69% oppose allowing abortions only up to the time cardiac activity (about six to eight weeks) is detected;

60% are against allowing abortion only up to the time of viability outside the womb at about 24 weeks. Majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans feel this way, but obviously for different reasons."

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1099844097/abortion-polling-roe-v-wade-supreme-court-draft-opinion

subee, MSN, CRNA · May 20, 2022

11 hours ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I have made no suggestion to killing a born baby. In fact something about killing babies was said before by another member, maybe you. Not sure.

I am transparent in what my beliefs are. Some on here, not so much.

Since we are making assumptions, I have half the mind to consider that there is in fact members on this thread that would consider later term abortion for convenience. Probably to keep the bad religious people and politicians out of their uterus or to protect women's right to body autonomy.... Or something.

I think you are referring to me. As usual, you are distorting because I have never posted that late term abortions should be available on demand. They should be available only under the extreme circumstances. I don't think you will find doctors or nurses even willing to participate in late abortion on demand. Nor do I believe that patients would even present themselves for the procedure. After 35 years of delivering anesthesia in multiple hospitals, I have never encountered one. except for the fetal trisomy malady that I mentioned before. It was extremely sobering to have to be present for such a procedure. I imagine that everyone else in the room was as traumatized as I was to share such an emotionally painful procedure this young woman had to endure. I couldn't even look at the fetus since I had experienced a fetal demise at 9 months myself. The silence was what I remember the most. This patient was early in the 3rd trimester...about 26 weeks along. I also participated in a lady partsl delivery of a live, full-term infant who had no bony chest wall and thus, no way of breathing. It lived only for a few minutes but again, a terrible thing to have to watch. The mother was high on crack (they usually get high just before presenting to the hospital so they won't have to be aware for the delivery) and I hope she has no memory of that event. If she wanted one, she should have been able to get a late term abortion but a crack addiction isn't conducive to good decision=making. So no, nobody is going to show up to actually provide this service on demand.

Home Health Columnist / Guide · May 20, 2022

"Lying Ted" just might get proven and face law license sanction over role in PA Republicans 2020 election lawsuit that he lost,

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is the target of a bar association complaint over his role in undermining the 2020 election results

Quote

A group of lawyers says Cruz played an outsized role in the efforts to void the 2020 election results and accuses him of repeatedly making false claims about voter fraud.

Lawyers with the 65 Project, an organization aiming to hold attorneys accountable for trying to keep former President Donald Trump in power despite his reelection loss, filed an ethics complaint with the association Wednesday. It cites Cruz’s role in a lawsuit seeking to void absentee ballots, numerous claims he made about voter fraud, plus an attempt to stop four states from using 2020 election results to appoint electors — all of which failed.

“Mr. Cruz knew that the allegations he was echoing had already been reviewed and rejected by courts. And he knew that claims of voter fraud or the election being stolen were false,” the complaint says....

,,,Cruz represented Pennsylvania Republicans in their efforts to cast out nearly all 2020 absentee ballots in their state, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected. Cruz accused the state court of being “a partisan, Democratic court that has issued multiple decisions that were just on their face contrary to law.”

The complaint wants to see Cruz disciplined

subee, MSN, CRNA · May 20, 2022

Two Texas Republicans vote no on bill to help poor mothers get formula | The Texas Tribune. Roy and Gohmert - two old men who have a bunch of demands that need fulfilling before restoring formula re-manufacturing ASAP. My representative was also one of the nine. These guys.....they don't see anything wrong in holding infants hostage.

Justlookingfornow · May 20, 2022

6 hours ago, subee said:

I think you are referring to me. As usual, you are distorting because I have never posted that late term abortions should be available on demand. They should be available only under the extreme circumstances. I don't think you will find doctors or nurses even willing to participate in late abortion on demand. Nor do I believe that patients would even present themselves for the procedure. After 35 years of delivering anesthesia in multiple hospitals, I have never encountered one. except for the fetal trisomy malady that I mentioned before. It was extremely sobering to have to be present for such a procedure. I imagine that everyone else in the room was as traumatized as I was to share such an emotionally painful procedure this young woman had to endure. I couldn't even look at the fetus since I had experienced a fetal demise at 9 months myself. The silence was what I remember the most. This patient was early in the 3rd trimester...about 26 weeks along. I also participated in a lady partsl delivery of a live, full-term infant who had no bony chest wall and thus, no way of breathing. It lived only for a few minutes but again, a terrible thing to have to watch. The mother was high on crack (they usually get high just before presenting to the hospital so they won't have to be aware for the delivery) and I hope she has no memory of that event. If she wanted one, she should have been able to get a late term abortion but a crack addiction isn't conducive to good decision=making. So no, nobody is going to show up to actually provide this service on demand.

I wasn't directly referring to you about supporting abortions on demand. However I do think some would for the fact to prevent religious people and politicians making decisions about women's reproductive health. Or not to seem as though they are telling women what to do with their bodies.

It's hard to determine as very few will clarify their position. Which also translates into our political leaders.

Would you agree that a woman at some point does not have the choice to terminate a pregnancy on a viable fetus/baby ? ( Not including congenital abnormalities or risk to her life)? Even if it is her body? I'm not trying to catch you in a trap, but the idea is what do people actually think and feel. What are they saying or not in order not to offend some people. This a particularly important with our politicians.

Those situations you described above are tragic and sad. However they would not be considered termination of a viable fetus/baby for convenience or demand. Was the fetus/baby, for lack of a better word, ended in the womb? Those precious babies(as they were because they were born) allowed to die peacefully naturally? Then as stated above, this was not an abortion. And not what I am referring to.

When you say the crack mother should of been able to have a late term abortion, does that mean because she was a crack addict or because of the congenital defects of the fetus/baby? I cannot imagine she had any prenatal care.

I take no issue with the scenarios above. I am happy that you have not experienced any proceedure that was done or requested on a viable fetus/baby for convenience. I would also conceed that there would be no espectable medical professionals that would preform a termination of pregnancy on a viable fetus/baby nor many that would seek it.

That being said, even in the slightest chance that it could occure, there needs to be a restriction added to any abortion law specifically addressing that issue. Vague terminology such as "life or health of the mother" isn't acceptable. 1 termination for convenience is too much. In my opinion.

Murder is illegal or to sound less triggering, fraud. Do you think that if it wasn't illegal, that the numbers would not go up? Do some of our laws function with deterent?

I feel that republicans would be more lenient with abortion laws if this was addressed. I know it's the deciding factor for myself. Where as the Texas abortion law is ridiculous and way too restrictive and the liability clause is despicable, I could not support any law that does not include some very defined restriction. And if that leaves me with no restrictions, or vaguely defined restrictions and something like the Texas bill, and these are the only choices..... I would have to support the latter. And I do not want to do that.

Some Republicans do not want to say abortions are okay sometimes(lose their when life begins stance), and some Democrats do not want to say that some restriction should be in place (probly in fear of retaliation of the my body my choice no acceptions radicals).

If we could get past this, I think women's reproductive health could finally go back to the woman.

Justlookingfornow · May 20, 2022

11 hours ago, Tweety said:

You seem very stuck on that idea because you've mentioned it a half a dozen times. Clearly, someone that is advocating for a law of abortion at any time in pregnancy understand that late term abortions are going to occur since this is what they want to happen.

What I'm saying is that I'm not hearing politicians that this is their agenda in keeping abortion legal, nor am I seeing this from protesters for the most part.

"There's a lot of nuance on abortion restrictions

A quarter of respondents said abortion should be available at any point during a pregnancy. That's up from 18% in 2019.

Just 9% said it should never permitted, which is unchanged from 2019.

But then there's the very gray middle — about 1-in-5 favor allowing abortion in the first three months only; another 13% say it should be allowed in the first six months; another quarter say it should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the pregnant person; and 10% say it should be allowed only to save that life.

Big majorities support the following changes to state laws:

82% would like to see abortion permitted at any time during pregnancy to protect the life or health of the pregnant person;

63% support providing safe haven for people seeking abortions from out of state;

63% support allowing abortion any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest.

Big majorities oppose the following:

80% don't want to allow private citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who assists a pregnant person in getting an abortion;

75% oppose making abortion a crime requiring fines and/or prison time for doctors who perform abortions;

69% oppose allowing abortions only up to the time cardiac activity (about six to eight weeks) is detected;

60% are against allowing abortion only up to the time of viability outside the womb at about 24 weeks. Majorities of Democrats, independents and Republicans feel this way, but obviously for different reasons."

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1099844097/abortion-polling-roe-v-wade-supreme-court-draft-opinion

The problems is, the politicians are not saying much about this topic or avoid direct clarification.

subee, MSN, CRNA · May 20, 2022

If you put restrictions on the time an abortion, then you deny the one in true need that service. When legislators are allowed to dictate medical care, we are all in trouble. Since I have NEVER seen a request for a late-term abortion of convenience after a career that lasted 41 years (nursing was a second career), I assume there is no demand. When the fetus is labeled "viable", then it is deemed to be a baby capable of survival (will they ever be able to breathe on their own or have a gag reflex is another topic) but at that point is would be a criminal act. So many people live where obstetrical care deserts now (rural hospital closures) that I could really see that someone could show up with a fatal fetal abnormality in the 3rd trimester or have some other legit medical reason for needing the abortion (I can't think of one off my head but it's not my specialty) and at that point no woman should be forced to choose between say, continuing the pregnancy or becoming cardiac cripple. Besides, the most dangerous period of pregnancy for people who are receiving medical supervision is not the 3rd trimester so it's a very unlikely scenario that a patient needing an urgent life-saving procedure would show up in the last third of pregnancy; Uteri rupture. The c-section is done in with the patient in street clothes. The baby is delivered. We don't kill the baby!! When I worked in chemo, I saw a few pregnant women with disseminated breast cancer diagnosed during the pregnancy. They elected to carry their babies to term before taking their chemo knowing that they were jeopardizing their own lives. But that's what most pregnant women do. Mother nature turns us into animals that want to protect their young.

To address the question about the crack addict: It would be criminal to perform an abortion on a crack addict unless they requested the procedure but they don't. They are addicted to a drug with a very short half-life so as soon as they take one hit, they have to start worrying about how to buy the next one. They want to avoid any physical pain at all costs but at the point where they are going to deliver, even they know it is in their interests to come to the ER. If she had any prenatal care, she would have been offered the choice of delivering a baby incapable of life or having an abortion. Take your pick. It's your personal decision.....the way it should be.

toomuchbaloney · May 20, 2022

35 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

I wasn't directly referring to you about supporting abortions on demand. However I do think some would for the fact to prevent religious people and politicians making decisions about women's reproductive health. Or not to seem as though they are telling women what to do with their bodies.

It's hard to determine as very few will clarify their position. Which also translates into our political leaders.

Would you agree that a woman at some point does not have the choice to terminate a pregnancy on a viable fetus/baby ? ( Not including congenital abnormalities or risk to her life)? Even if it is her body? I'm not trying to catch you in a trap, but the idea is what do people actually think and feel. What are they saying or not in order not to offend some people. This a particularly important with our politicians.

Those situations you described above are tragic and sad. However they would not be considered termination of a viable fetus/baby for convenience or demand. Was the fetus/baby, for lack of a better word, ended in the womb? Those precious babies(as they were because they were born) allowed to die peacefully naturally? Then as stated above, this was not an abortion. And not what I am referring to.

When you say the crack mother should of been able to have a late term abortion, does that mean because she was a crack addict or because of the congenital defects of the fetus/baby? I cannot imagine she had any prenatal care.

I take no issue with the scenarios above. I am happy that you have not experienced any proceedure that was done or requested on a viable fetus/baby for convenience. I would also conceed that there would be no espectable medical professionals that would preform a termination of pregnancy on a viable fetus/baby nor many that would seek it.

That being said, even in the slightest chance that it could occure, there needs to be a restriction added to any abortion law specifically addressing that issue. Vague terminology such as "life or health of the mother" isn't acceptable. 1 termination for convenience is too much. In my opinion.

Murder is illegal or to sound less triggering, fraud. Do you think that if it wasn't illegal, that the numbers would not go up? Do some of our laws function with deterent?

I feel that republicans would be more lenient with abortion laws if this was addressed. I know it's the deciding factor for myself. Where as the Texas abortion law is ridiculous and way too restrictive and the liability clause is despicable, I could not support any law that does not include some very defined restriction. And if that leaves me with no restrictions, or vaguely defined restrictions and something like the Texas bill, and these are the only choices..... I would have to support the latter. And I do not want to do that.

Some Republicans do not want to say abortions are okay sometimes(lose their when life begins stance), and some Democrats do not want to say that some restriction should be in place (probly in fear of retaliation of the my body my choice no acceptions radicals).

If we could get past this, I think women's reproductive health could finally go back to the woman.

Well then, maybe you are referring to me.

I wonder if you think there is a good time in a woman's pregnancy cycle for politicians and religious leaders to be given a voice that has more authority than hers.

It seems to me that you are imagining a problem and then elevating that imagined problem as the reason that abortion is a topic of discussion across the country. There are many more people killed by triggered gun owners every year than there are 3rd trimester pregnancy terminations.

Abortion is a hot topic for discussion because conservative law makers are passing a host of laws intended to deprive women access to abortion. The SCOTUS is poised to ignore established precedent that they know will disproportionately affect young, poor and vulnerable women.

We can't get past this because the pro-pregnancy activists are expert at misinformation, changing the public narrative and emotional manipulation of their target audience.

The court should leave Roe alone. There are laws already in place. Doctors should decide what health issues qualify... not politicians or preachers.

Justlookingfornow · May 20, 2022

2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Well then, maybe you are referring to me.

I wonder if you think there is a good time in a woman's pregnancy cycle for politicians and religious leaders to be given a voice that has more authority than hers.

It seems to me that you are imagining a problem and then elevating that imagined problem as the reason that abortion is a topic of discussion across the country. There are many more people killed by triggered gun owners every year than there are 3rd trimester pregnancy terminations.

Abortion is a hot topic for discussion because conservative law makers are passing a host of laws intended to deprive women access to abortion. The SCOTUS is poised to ignore established precedent that they know will disproportionately affect young, poor and vulnerable women.

We can't get past this because the pro-pregnancy activists are expert at misinformation, changing the public narrative and emotional manipulation of their target audience.

The court should leave Roe alone. There are laws already in place. Doctors should decide what health issues qualify... not politicians or preachers.

Religion doesn't dictate policy. Unless you take issue with the individual politicians personal religion. Which is irrelevant because currently we are free to whichever religion we chose.

I feel there needs to be restrictions and parameters that prevent the termination of a viable fetuse/baby. Even if unlikely.So in this sense, yes, politicians, lawmakers should have a voice in a woman's menstrual cycle as you so crudely and purposely described. Especially when another life/potential life is involved other than the womans. We are not discussing gun laws but.....Should they have a voice not in gun laws?politicians? Even those that want restrictions on gun ownership? Or how about the ones that want to eliminate guns all together? How about their voice? Many gun owners do not use their guns to cause harm unless in defense, so should we just trust in the judgment of the individual and place no gun restrictions? Because more gun owners do not seek to cause harm?

So what is the motive to " disproportionately effect young disadvantaged women" ? For fun? Sounds simular to the disinformation experts "changing the public narrative and emotional manipulation of their target audience".

Do you think that a woman and her Dr should be the only deciding entities in relation to reproductive matters including termination of a viable fetus? If a women decides she doesn't want to continue the pregnancy post viability we should get involved in her reproductive heath?

What if the Dr decided that they are not in favor of abortions at any stage, do we listen to them? Allow them to impose this on women? Keep politicians out of that too?

Roe should remain, current restrictive abortion laws like Texas are for lack of a better word, stupid.

Is it really that "made up"? When we see parents, mothers and fathers that do kill their newborns and children? Is is so far fetched that one might chose to terminate a viable fetus/baby before birth if it was legal and had no restrictions? When we know many cases of infanticide? (But you know, most parents do not murder their children so we shouldn't make a law against it).

Might I also suggest as another reason why we can't get past this is because of the avoidance of specifics and the habit of misrepresenting others intentions like " trying to disadvantage poor vulnerable women"?

Justlookingfornow · May 20, 2022

2 hours ago, subee said:

If you put restrictions on the time an abortion, then you deny the one in true need that service. When legislators are allowed to dictate medical care, we are all in trouble. Since I have NEVER seen a request for a late-term abortion of convenience after a career that lasted 41 years (nursing was a second career), I assume there is no demand. When the fetus is labeled "viable", then it is deemed to be a baby capable of survival (will they ever be able to breathe on their own or have a gag reflex is another topic) but at that point is would be a criminal act. So many people live where obstetrical care deserts now (rural hospital closures) that I could really see that someone could show up with a fatal fetal abnormality in the 3rd trimester or have some other legit medical reason for needing the abortion (I can't think of one off my head but it's not my specialty) and at that point no woman should be forced to choose between say, continuing the pregnancy or becoming cardiac cripple. Besides, the most dangerous period of pregnancy for people who are receiving medical supervision is not the 3rd trimester so it's a very unlikely scenario that a patient needing an urgent life-saving procedure would show up in the last third of pregnancy; Uteri rupture. The c-section is done in with the patient in street clothes. The baby is delivered. We don't kill the baby!! When I worked in chemo, I saw a few pregnant women with disseminated breast cancer diagnosed during the pregnancy. They elected to carry their babies to term before taking their chemo knowing that they were jeopardizing their own lives. But that's what most pregnant women do. Mother nature turns us into animals that want to protect their young.

To address the question about the crack addict: It would be criminal to perform an abortion on a crack addict unless they requested the procedure but they don't. They are addicted to a drug with a very short half-life so as soon as they take one hit, they have to start worrying about how to buy the next one. They want to avoid any physical pain at all costs but at the point where they are going to deliver, even they know it is in their interests to come to the ER. If she had any prenatal care, she would have been offered the choice of delivering a baby incapable of life or having an abortion. Take your pick. It's your personal decision.....the way it should be.

I've never seen a child in my practice that has died from homicide by their parents. So there shouldn't be a law against it?

I have seen cases of infanticide on the news(an actual born healthy baby/child).

We have seen may cases of this so why is it so hard to believe that some may very well seek to end a viable fetus/baby before birth? When we've seen it after,many times. Especially if it isn't illegal or restricted.

We already ascertained that interventions post viability for the health/life of the mother are not the issue at had. So the situations you described are irrelevant.

The crack addicted mother should have recieved early pregnancy care in which the abortion could be an option. However if the fetus/baby is at a gestational age in which viability is usually present, then no. The baby should be delivered at that point and allowed to die naturally. In which you said it did. She went into labour.This is not what we are discussing.

There is no medical indication that exist that a fetus/baby has to be terminated before delivery (induced, c section) to protect a woman's health or life. This fetus/baby will be delivered and die naturally. So again,not what wevare discussing.

Tweety, BSN, RN · May 20, 2022

posted in error. sorry

Beerman, BSN · May 21, 2022

"Former Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook testified Friday that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton approved the dissemination of materials alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank to the media, despite campaign officials not being "totally confident" in the legitimacy of the data."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-approved-trump-russian-bank-allegations-sussmann-trial