What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

Assistedl8ving · Jul 21, 2022

15 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

In 1983, I was scheduled for my third Caesarean section (age 26) and my husband was asked to co-sign the consent. This was in a state where the predominant religion dictated that the husband was the head of the family. My hubby was puzzled, but he signed because he respected my autonomy.

What if your husband wasn't there if it was a emergency? Would they not have done it if you husband didn't sign? Did they do this for the previous 2?

I know when we require consent for a proceedure at my facility, sometimes the spouse is asked to sign as well. This isn't a requirement but does serve as a additional signature on the documentation.

toomuchbaloney · Jul 21, 2022

4 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:

Still waiting on that data to be posted. Since you seem to be TMBs handler maybe you can post that data for us. That’s what I thought. It’s sad TMB needs someone else to step in for them when they info they can’t back up. I guess libtard is an okay term on here if you can call someone a wingnut.

What data do you think you are you waiting for?

5 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:

You claim data showing your point yet post no data. Then you post a bunch of Knees Harris word salad about not making claims. Do you even read what you type before you post it?

Your reading comprehension challenges are not my concern.

toomuchbaloney · Jul 21, 2022

5 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:

Deflect much? We’ll just have to infer it’s a typical made up post that libs post on here.

Deflection? It's a standing request that you've simply ignored. We haven't forgotten. We just need you to tell us what "real conservatives" look or sound like so that your words have context.

toomuchbaloney · Jul 21, 2022

2 hours ago, Assistedl8ving said:

Well that's strange! Perhaps it is a policy to ensure there could be no law suits? A situation in which a husband tries to sue because he wasn't consulted and now the woman has changed her mind after the fact?

Sounds a bit fishy. I'm not doubting your credibility but since Row vs Wade was overturned, I've hear some pretty fantastic stories on social media especially.

The husband gets to decide whether or not the wife will use a permanent means of birth control like tubal ligation? Does that seem right in the 21st century?

1 hour ago, Assistedl8ving said:

I think you are referring to Roe vs Wade abortion limitation at 16 weeks? When you say protections?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, would it also mean that some states are now able to extend that 16 week limit?

Where as some states are more free to place more restrictions, does it not also allow some states to extend abortion limit to beyond 16 weeks?

Yes, Roe allowed abortions with restrictions. I live in a state that currently does not restrict abortion.

Please give me an example of a state that is working on legislation to expand abortion access that was previously limited by Roe.

The conservative members of the SCOTUS overturned what they said was settled law. That decision could result in fewer restrictions in some states. It IS resulting in significantly increased restrictions on access to services in many states right now.

Assistedl8ving · Jul 21, 2022

20 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

The husband gets to decide whether or not the wife will use a permanent means of birth control like tubal ligation? Does that seem right in the 21st century?

Yes, Roe allowed abortions with restrictions. I live in a state that currently does not restrict abortion.

Please give me an example of a state that is working on legislation to expand abortion access that was previously limited by Roe.

The conservative members of the SCOTUS overturned what they said was settled law. That decision could result in fewer restrictions in some states. It IS resulting in significantly increased restrictions on access to services in many states right now.

I do not think the woman in question who was found on social media who reported the story said they asked her husband to decide for her. Only to sign.

What I was alluding to is exactly that. It's hard to believe that such an occurrence would happen in the 21st century. Leading me to question the authenticity of the story found on social media. Without contexts it's hard to evaluate. Also leading me to believe it may be one of the many hyper- inflated claims and hyperbole found circulating on social media. Fear tactics. Insinuating because of the overturn of Row, that women will now need permission from a man to get birth control. The overturn is bad enough, silly stores on social media suggesting that we are reverting back to a time in which women needed permission from men for everything because this was overturned is not necessary and distracts from the very real and actual reproductive implications facing women now. Claims of anonymous people on social media doesn't help.

Hoosier_RN, MSN · Jul 21, 2022

7 hours ago, Assistedl8ving said:

Was the woman younger and in prime reproductive age? I know that in some cases when a women elects for tubal litigation when there is no medical pre-determination, has not any children and is requesting because they plan to not ever have children; do have to go through a process to ensure that the surgeon will not face malpractice law suite for rendering a healthy reproductive woman sterile. I could see a facility or a surgeon wanting the husband to "sign" consent as well to ensure the surgeon or facility cannot be sued later on. It is different to tie the tube of a healthy 25 year old with no children than it is to tie the tubes of a 38 year old woman with 4 children with multiple previous c-sections.

In my cousin's case, he wanted a vasectomy because he suffered from sever bi-polar and didn't want to pass it on. He was in his 20's and needed a full consult including a physc evaluation. This was what the surgeon required before he did the surgery. He wasn't married so the spouse wasn't a factor.

In my (then) 26 y/o sons case, the doctor wanted his wife to sign a consent. He was divorced. Dr told him to wait, he may want more. Son said nope, found another Dr to do, who did ask for wife to sign, but proceeded once son mentioned divorce. He was smart enough to take his divorce decree to prove as well, after that 1st Dr ticked him off. This was less than 5 years ago

Assistedl8ving · Jul 21, 2022

2 hours ago, Hoosier_RN said:

In my (then) 26 y/o sons case, the doctor wanted his wife to sign a consent. He was divorced. Dr told him to wait, he may want more. Son said nope, found another Dr to do, who did ask for wife to sign, but proceeded once son mentioned divorce. He was smart enough to take his divorce decree to prove as well, after that 1st Dr ticked him off. This was less than 5 years ago

Right. So it's a matter of Dr's wanting to dot their I's and cross their T's. Ensuring they do not perform a proceedure that would make someone sterile.

I could see a situation in which a surgeon has been or could be vulnerable to legal issues. However not because we are reverting back to a time when women needed a man's permission for everything because Roe was overturned.

toomuchbaloney · Jul 21, 2022

7 hours ago, Assistedl8ving said:

I do not think the woman in question who was found on social media who reported the story said they asked her husband to decide for her. Only to sign.

What I was alluding to is exactly that. It's hard to believe that such an occurrence would happen in the 21st century. Leading me to question the authenticity of the story found on social media. Without contexts it's hard to evaluate. Also leading me to believe it may be one of the many hyper- inflated claims and hyperbole found circulating on social media. Fear tactics. Insinuating because of the overturn of Row, that women will now need permission from a man to get birth control. The overturn is bad enough, silly stores on social media suggesting that we are reverting back to a time in which women needed permission from men for everything because this was overturned is not necessary and distracts from the very real and actual reproductive implications facing women now. Claims of anonymous people on social media doesn't help.

Geezus.

Men having to give permission for women to do... well pretty much anything... was the standard practice in the USA during my lifetime. It's unfortunate that you believe that 1) the history is "silly", and 2) history can't or won't repeat itself when we are living a number of examples of conservatives playing with history repetition right now.

toomuchbaloney · Jul 21, 2022

1 hour ago, Assistedl8ving said:

Right. So it's a matter of Dr's wanting to dot their I's and cross their T's. Ensuring they do not perform a proceedure that would make someone sterile.

I could see a situation in which a surgeon has been or could be vulnerable to legal issues. However not because we are reverting back to a time when women needed a man's permission for everything because Roe was overturned.

You might be missing the point that they seemed to want the man to say that he wanted the woman to be sterilized... as if it's his body or his choice. Think about that... they needed the MAN'S permission to perform a reproductive health procedure on the requesting WOMAN.

Why should the man get to choose whether or not the woman is rendered sterile? Could he also decide that she should be sterile if she didn't want to be sterile?

What legal issues really?

Assistedl8ving · Jul 21, 2022

1 minute ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Geezus.

Men having to give permission for women to do... well pretty much anything... was the standard practice in the USA during my lifetime. It's unfortunate that you believe that 1) the history is "silly", and 2) history can't or won't repeat itself when we are living a number of examples of conservatives playing with history repetition right now.

I'm not sure. I never intended my comment to say that history is silly. I was making a reference to silly claims going around social media.

Yes history can repete itself in certain ways. However I think it's a stretch to think that we will go back to a time when women had no rights. It is a general ideal in most of the world that women deserve equal rights. The majority of democrats and conservatives think so as well.

Roe being overturned is bad enough. But I do not think we will go as far as women needed permission from men as in history.

I believe a surgeons attemp to ensure that no possible legal implication could be brought against him for not ensuring the woman's choice to be sterile could not come back on him should there be a situation where the woman and husband claim the surgeon didn't do his diligence on ensuring a permanent proceedure is understood by all family members. I do not believe a surgeon would require permission for the tubal litigation, more that he understands as well.

I see allot of silly claims on social media. Like democrats want to kill babies and conservatives want to force women to have babies to ensure cheap labour or something.

Those claims are silly rhetoric you find on social media. That's what I was referring to. I apploligize if my comment sounded otherwise.

toomuchbaloney · Jul 21, 2022

21 minutes ago, Assistedl8ving said:

I'm not sure. I never intended my comment to say that history is silly. I was making a reference to silly claims going around social media.

Yes history can repete itself in certain ways. However I think it's a stretch to think that we will go back to a time when women had no rights. It is a general ideal in most of the world that women deserve equal rights. The majority of democrats and conservatives think so as well.

Roe being overturned is bad enough. But I do not think we will go as far as women needed permission from men as in history.

I believe a surgeons attemp to ensure that no possible legal implication could be brought against him for not ensuring the woman's choice to be sterile could not come back on him should there be a situation where the woman and husband claim the surgeon didn't do his diligence on ensuring a permanent proceedure is understood by all family members. I do not believe a surgeon would require permission for the tubal litigation, more that he understands as well.

I see allot of silly claims on social media. Like democrats want to kill babies and conservatives want to force women to have babies to ensure cheap labour or something.

Those claims are silly rhetoric you find on social media. That's what I was referring to. I apploligize if my comment sounded otherwise.

You might be describing the legal peril of performing a reproductive health procedure on a woman in a conservative state. Outside of a conservative setting where the woman's privacy and autonomy are set aside for the beliefs and desires of others, such a legal requirement to explain the sterilization procedure to all family members (presumably so they could object?) isn't standard practice. The patient is typically allowed to decide who shares in knowledge of their medical details... maybe not, eh?

Assistedl8ving · Jul 21, 2022

45 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You might be describing the legal peril of performing a reproductive health procedure on a woman in a conservative state. Outside of a conservative setting where the woman's privacy and autonomy are set aside for the beliefs and desires of others, such a legal requirement to explain the sterilization procedure to all family members (presumably so they could object?) isn't standard practice. The patient is typically allowed to decide who shares in knowledge of their medical details... maybe not, eh?

Okay.

I think a surgeon most likely has some self autonomy and it may be a requirement for them personally, or a facility policy to protect against being sued. The story on social media didn't say if the surgeon refused to do the tuba litigation unless the husband gave consent nor if it is a conservative state or the religious beliefs of the Dr. My facility we ask the spouse as well just as an extra. However of the spouse refuses to sign, doesn't mean we refuse the proceedure.

Is there a state that now requires a husband permission or a law being proposed by Republicans to make women get consent for permanent reproductive procedures?

My only point is that antedotal stories with no context on social media are not a reliable source. To me it sounds explotive to create a narrative to give the impression that all women's rights are going to be infringed upon. That all I was saying.