ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

what gets me is how the bleeding hearts only focus on the sad, isolated cases that seem to indict conservatives and their harsh, heartless laws, while ignoring the common sense application of existing law that helps prevent the sad from happening. Like ignoring existing law and allowing millions of illegals into the country, some bringing drugs that addict and kill people while others of them murder outright or kill in car accidents. What gets me is that one of these apparent illegals can slaughter five people, and the issue isn't that he shouldn't have been here but that he did it with an AR-15.

Life isn't perfect, and therefor neither is any system of law and order and justice. Laws that prevent murder, including the murder of abortion, will sometimes put an innocent in an unfair position. That's the price we pay for opposing anarchy and chaos.

Meanwhile, new laws tend to be tweaked over time to iron out the wrinkles. I'm not sure what the actual problem is, or if there is one other than ignoring laws that exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bleeduncblue
How bout reading the article before typing?

Apparently the entire article discusses this.

I have a hard time believing you are really too lazy to read the article, but it is easy to see you are brainwashed and lack the ability to see facts thru a neutral lens.

Key parts of the article:

Florida law allows abortions after 15 weeks if two doctors confirm the diagnosis of a fatal fetal abnormality in writing, but doctors in Florida and states with similar laws have been hesitant to terminate such pregnancies for fear someone will question whether the abnormality was truly fatal. The penalties for violating the law are severe: Doctors can go to prison and face heavy fines and legal fees.

The obstetrician referred Dorbert to a high-risk pregnancy expert.
....
The Dorberts told the specialist that they wanted to induce birth, terminating the pregnancy, to spare the baby, themselves and their older son from suffering. They said the doctor agreed that this was a sound decision.
....
But the doctor said he would need to check with his administration because of the Florida law that had gone into effect a few months before, banning most abortions after 15 weeks.
....
About a month passed without a decision. Finally, Dorbert’s obstetrician informed her that she wouldn’t terminate the pregnancy.




#tryLiteracy

Uhh, I read the article. I simply don't believe CNN's commentary that doctors are hesitant to terminate a pregnancy where the baby is going to die. You tried to pass off a terribly written and biased article as some legit source. Take your beating like a man and stop making it worse by trying to explain it away. You f*cked up. We're used to it by now from you.

#failX2
 
Uhh, I read the article. I simply don't believe CNN's commentary that doctors are hesitant to terminate a pregnancy where the baby is going to die. You tried to pass off a terribly written and biased article as some legit source. Take your beating like a man and stop making it worse by trying to explain it away. You f*cked up. We're used to it by now from you.

#failX2
wait, you're saying his lens isn't as neutral as he wants you to believe it is? Are you trying to shatter my illusions?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: gunslingerdick
Florida law allows abortions after 15 weeks if two doctors confirm the diagnosis of a fatal fetal abnormality in writing, but doctors in Florida and states with similar laws have been hesitant to terminate such pregnancies for fear someone will question whether the abnormality was truly fatal. The penalties for violating the law are severe: Doctors can go to prison and face heavy fines and legal fees
A lack of kidneys seems like a no doubt decision, so no one should have been hesitant. I didn't go to medical school, but I do know that kidneys are needed to live. This sounds like the doctors were just afraid to do their job and people are blaming the doctor's fear on the law. I would suggest that they seek another profession if they can't make an obvious decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hark_The_Sound_2010
Two arguments:

1. Doctors shouldn't let bad laws intimidate them.

2. There shouldn't be bad laws.

Sign me up for #2.
I would say sign me up for both, but there's always going to be someone who thinks a law is bad. I'm sure there's plenty of people that think it's a bad law because 15 weeks is too long. Best to make sure we can find doctors who will do their job.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluetoe
Best to make sure we can find doctors who will do their job.
Impossible, the drs have a moral dilemma. The laws punish people trying to get abortions as well as the medical staff performing the procedures/healthcare. You aren't going to find many people in this world that are going to do some routine job-duty that could cause them to lose their license, lose their money and go to jail.
This sounds like the doctors were just afraid to do their job and people are blaming the doctor's fear on the law. I would suggest that they seek another profession if they can't make an obvious decision.
Of course they're afraid to do their job. They should be, from the article:
The penalties for violating the law are severe: Doctors can go to prison and face heavy fines and legal fees

And this particular event in FL isn't surprising, it has been predicted, and has been happening in many states.
 

The Revised Hippocratic Oath​

"I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know.
Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty.
Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter.
May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help."
 
Clarence Thomas took legal custody of his grand-nephew, Harlan Crow then paid tween 100k and 150k worth of boarding school tuition. More conflict of interest.

Thomas did not report the tuition payments from Crow on his annual financial disclosures. Several years earlier, Thomas disclosed a gift of $5,000 for Martin’s education from another friend. It is not clear why he reported that payment but not Crow’s.

 
You aren't going to find many people in this world that are going to do some routine job-duty that could cause them to lose their license, lose their money and go to jail.
As I say this, remember that I am pro-choice, but I find it rather sad and yet very revealing that you would suggest that performing an abortion would be considered "some routine job-duty".

Second, doctors are subject to all kinds of situations that could cause them to have legal and criminal exposure. I just have a hard time believing that this can't be dealt with through some standardized criteria in terms of meeting the requirements of the law. The rest is just games being played to advance the abortions at all costs, under any circumstances, on demand agenda.
 
Second, doctors are subject to all kinds of situations that could cause them to have legal and criminal exposure. I just have a hard time believing that this can't be dealt with through some standardized criteria in terms of meeting the requirements of the law.
You raise a good point. Will the standard liability or malpractice insurance cover abortions? I'm guessing not. If that's the case, docs could face both legal and financial ruin under some of these laws.
 
You raise a good point. Will the standard liability insurance still cover abortions? I'm guessing not. If that's the case, docs could face both legal and financial ruin under some of these laws.
Well, liability insurance is different from health insurance, if that's to what you are referring. But, the only financial ruin any of them would be exposed to from lack of health insurance coverage would be the abortion mills. Almost any hospital or sugicenter is always going to confirm insurance coverage or alternate form of payment regardless of service or procedure before it is performed. If it is on an emergent basis, most hospitals in most states are under an obligation to provide services regardless of payment ability, but that's not the case in 99% of the procedures performed regarding this particular subject. In those uncovered emergent services, we all cover the costs regardless because hospitals don't stay open for free and other services are marked up to cover those unpaid costs.
 
Second, doctors are subject to all kinds of situations that could cause them to have legal and criminal exposure.
I get the "legal" part. Please give me an example of the "criminal" part?

Again, we're talking also talking about FINES, no liability.
I just have a hard time believing that this can't be dealt with through some standardized criteria in terms of meeting the requirements of the law.
I've posted several links discussing the challenging nature of these SPECIFIC abortion laws which are causing docs to have fear or CRIMINAL probs. Most of the recent laws are quite ambiguous, putting drs in a quagmire.
 
I find it rather sad and yet very revealing that you would suggest that performing an abortion would be considered "some routine job-duty".
The obstetrician of the Florida woman referred the woman to a specialist. Guess what - helping with problematic pregnancies is what the specialist does, and we know miscarriages happen on close to a THIRD of all fertilizations. Many miscarriages don't require medical assistance, but some do. So for the specialist the duty of assisting with still-births, miscarriages, etc is definitely routine.
 
I get the "legal" part. Please give me an example of the "criminal" part?

Again, we're talking also talking about FINES, no liability.
I don't have time this afternoon to look up specific statutes and specific problematic situations which I understand is what you are asking about. The problem is you are scarfing down the narrative of everyone who just can't stand the fact that you no longer can get an abortion because the wind decided to blow in a different direction. The medical field is full of landmines that could arguably cross some line. Whether something qualifies as assisted suicide is one off the top of my head.

I've posted several links discussing the challenging nature of these SPECIFIC abortion laws which are causing docs to have fear or CRIMINAL probs. Most of the recent laws are quite ambiguous, putting drs in a quagmire.
Yes, you have linked plenty of articles where the proabortionists have made predictions and had some anecdotal, singular examples of what they claimed were evidence of their predictions. Not so coincidentally, the links were from sites like CNN, NPR, and so on. And even some of those are highly doubtful when one digs into the facts of each so called example.
 
The obstetrician of the Florida woman referred the woman to a specialist. Guess what - helping with problematic pregnancies is what the specialist does, and we know miscarriages happen on close to a THIRD of all fertilizations. Many miscarriages don't require medical assistance, but some do. So for the specialist the duty of assisting with still-births, miscarriages, etc is definitely routine.
But this is just the point, no one is questioning the ability to assist a mother with a still-birth or miscarriage. Actually, to not do so would arguably be criminal. However, it is a great example of the twisting of the facts to support the agenda. Well done sir.
 
  • Love
Reactions: gunslingerdick
But this is just the point, no one is questioning the ability to assist a mother with a still-birth or miscarriage. Actually, to not do so would arguably be criminal. However, it is a great example of the twisting of the facts to support the agenda. Well done sir.
Sorry, I was just referring to how you were saddened that i referred to this as routine.
 
But this is just the point, no one is questioning the ability to assist a mother with a still-birth or miscarriage. Actually, to not do so would arguably be criminal.
Actually people ARE questioning the ability to assist a mother with a still-birth. This effectively WAS a still-birth. It began dying upon separation from womb. as expected. The medical experts thought the baby wouldn't live long at all after being removed from umbilical. The problem is the legal community is defining these things without proper input from the medical community.
 
As I say this, remember that I am pro-choice
Sometimes I wonder if pro-choice people are actually pro-stork. You think a swaddled baby is delivered to a doorstep. Pregnancy is dangerous. Birth is dangerous. Pre modern medicine almost 25/1000 moms died and 300/1000 babies died. Pregnancies and births causes non-fatal problems to baby and mama at an even higher rate, even today.

It isn't some trivial matter, and adding complications (like forcing someone to carry an essentially stillborn fetus) is morally wrong because you are endangering the mom.
 
Last edited:
I don't have time this afternoon to look up specific statutes and specific problematic situations which I understand is what you are asking about. The problem is you are scarfing down the narrative of everyone who just can't stand the fact that you no longer can get an abortion because the wind decided to blow in a different direction. The medical field is full of landmines that could arguably cross some line. Whether something qualifies as assisted suicide is one off the top of my head.


Yes, you have linked plenty of articles where the proabortionists have made predictions and had some anecdotal, singular examples of what they claimed were evidence of their predictions. Not so coincidentally, the links were from sites like CNN, NPR, and so on. And even some of those are highly doubtful when one digs into the facts of each so called example.
Let's see: Pre-law, no problems. Post-law, the Doctors fear doing their job due to being charged with crimes and fines because the laws are ambiguous.
 
Impossible, the drs have a moral dilemma. The laws punish people trying to get abortions as well as the medical staff performing the procedures/healthcare. You aren't going to find many people in this world that are going to do some routine job-duty that could cause them to lose their license, lose their money and go to jail.

Of course they're afraid to do their job. They should be, from the article:
The penalties for violating the law are severe: Doctors can go to prison and face heavy fines and legal fees

And this particular event in FL isn't surprising, it has been predicted, and has been happening in many states.
tl;dr
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
giphy.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: tarheel0910
Sometimes I wonder if pro-choice people are actually pro-stork. You think a swaddled baby is delivered to a doorstep. Pregnancy is dangerous. Birth is dangerous. Pre modern medicine almost 25/1000 moms died and 300/1000 babies died. Pregnancies and births causes non-fatal problems to baby and mama at an even higher rate, even today.

It isn't some trivial matter, and adding complications (like forcing someone to carry an essentially stillborn fetus) is morally wrong because you are endangering the mom.
wow, those potential mommies and daddies don't know how risky having a baby is I guess. Good thing we're here to bail them out and preserve their innocence.

Or we could tell them, and then they could try to not have a baby and not take those risks. Naaa, what was I thinking. Cause their decision to have or not have a baby is somehow on my shoulders, and I forgot that for a second. Let them keep on having risky sex and the risky babies that sometimes result.

If only we could go back to snuffing the little fvckers at will we could be civilized and progressive again.
 
As I say this, remember that I am pro-choice, but I find it rather sad and yet very revealing that you would suggest that performing an abortion would be considered "some routine job-duty".
For obestetrician-gynecologists who perform over a hundred abortions in any given year, I would say the procedure is pretty much routine for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blazers
1 down. Many more to go but this is encouraging.



good news but then look how egregiously this prosecutor had to abuse her position in order to be drummed out. It doesn't work that way for the untold numbers of prosecutors (and other public officials) who abuse their office somewhat less egregiously. Hell, we even elected one such abuser to the office of vice-president of the U.S.A..
 
So, all that time spent having your panties wadded up your crotch about Thomas and his failure to disclose on reporting forms about debatable requirements apparently took away your laser focus from your girl who was actually sitting on, ruling, and voting on cases that were actual conflict of interest apparently. She should have recused herself.


"Amid an ongoing ethics controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a new report says liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to recuse herself from several copyright infringement cases involving a book publisher that paid her over $3.5 million."


Nothing to see here, I guess. Can't wait to see ProPublica's crack reporting on this one. . . . of course, I won't be holding my breath.
 
So, all that time spent having your panties wadded up your crotch about Thomas and his failure to disclose on reporting forms about debatable requirements apparently took away your laser focus from your girl who was actually sitting on, ruling, and voting on cases that were actual conflict of interest apparently. She should have recused herself.


"Amid an ongoing ethics controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a new report says liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to recuse herself from several copyright infringement cases involving a book publisher that paid her over $3.5 million."


Nothing to see here, I guess. Can't wait to see ProPublica's crack reporting on this one. . . . of course, I won't be holding my breath.
this Supreme Court justice thing is starting to sound like a pretty good gig.
 
Let's see: Pre-law, no problems. Post-law, the Doctors fear doing their job due to being charged with crimes and fines because the laws are ambiguous.
I'm not going through every single post you made to give a response, but will comment accordingly here. Sorry for length. tl;dr

I'll start with the end first and simply say this is agenda driven crap. If you read the entire article, the couple was offered money to travel and go get their abortion. They claim they didn't because "the couple worried that they would get arrested" and "we didn’t know if we’d go to jail. We didn’t know if we’d be fined." Bull ****ing shit. The article even says the law doesn't provide such provisions. So, they are completely in the clear and the rest is a lesson in creative writing to push a perspective.

The key to this particular couple are the specifics and what's not said. Of course, CNN finds an article to write about a very, very narrow, exceptional set of facts and circumstances, as opposed to the real goal of being able to demand an abortion at anytime up to the moment of birth.

First, this has nothing to do with the mom's health because everything written about her referenced the potential problems she could have developed but didn't. So that's not part of the discussion. This was all about the fetus and its medical situation.

This fetus/baby had a condition known as Potter syndrome. The problem in terms of the law is, and to be fair to CNN as was laid out in the article, Potter syndrome is not always fatal. That's the very grey and murky area of this one particular example.

In other words, this was an incredibly narrow set of facts regarding one example of medical debate. There are examples of babies being born with Potter syndrome that live, while many or most only live for some period of time (this one lived for an hour and a half), even if it is a very poor quality of life and short existence. Thus, this was NOT an example of a still born or a miscarriage, etc. And this is when the abortion debate gets into line drawing. You find out late in the pregnancy that the child will have some type of lifelong medical condition (at one end of the spectrum) or has brown eyes instead of blue (at the other end of the spectrum)? Get an abortion. How and where do you draw that line???? The abortion on demand crowd's answer is that there is no line: it's always the mother's body and always the mother's choice.

One last thing I want to point out that CNN makes a jump on and plays creatively. The ultrasound revealed this issue and the Dorberts' obstetrician referred them to a specialist. According to the parents, the specialist agreed with their desire to induce delivery and not wait to go full term, but had to check with the administration. Again, according to the parents, at 27 weeks, the obstetrician (the original doctor, not the specialist) said he/she would not perform an abortion. So, they carried to term, delivered, and the child died shortly after birth.

Everything about this sequence and who said what is per the Dorberts. There is not a single statement from the ob, the specialist, or the hospital. We have no idea what the doctors actual position was on all of this and whether it was hospital officials/bean counters/lawyers who dictated this (as opposed to it all being pinned on doctor's fear/inability and having their hands tied). We also don't know how or if an "inducement" is the same as an abortion under Florida law because the article fails to address it. The only quote besides the parents is mom's GP (not the ob or specialist) who went on social media about them and had nothing to do with actually performing an abortion/inducement.

In short, this was CNN playing to the base the same as Fox or anyone else does to keep driving clicks. Incidentally, anyone who wants to learn more about this condition, here is an informative link that isn't driven by abortion politics.

 
this Supreme Court justice thing is starting to sound like a pretty good gig.
I'm guessing it always has been. I just get annoyed over all the sanctimonious hand wringing taking place that, surprise, only attacks the justices with originalist ideas that won't judicially create law that the left can't get passed through congress or an amendment to the Constitution. We made up a constitutional provision out of thin air that created a right to abortion and now it's been overturned because there was no such provision? Let's get rid of the bad, bad people who dared to do such a thing.
 
I'll start with the end first and simply say this is agenda driven crap. If you read the entire article, the couple was offered money to travel and go get their abortion. They claim they didn't because "the couple worried that they would get arrested" and "we didn’t know if we’d go to jail. We didn’t know if we’d be fined."
Without an attorney it is probably hard to decipher these laws which are being written on the fly lately.
First, this has nothing to do with the mom's health because everything written about her referenced the potential problems she could have developed but didn't. So that's not part of the discussion. This was all about the fetus and its medical situation.
So "potential" problems should be ignored? What part of healthcare preaches that? And what about mental health? Again ALL pregnancy and births are risky.
This fetus/baby had a condition known as Potter syndrome. The problem in terms of the law is, and to be fair to CNN as was laid out in the article, Potter syndrome is not always fatal. That's the very grey and murky area of this one particular example.
There is nothing grey or murky.
"just Potter" was the early diagnosis, but a later exam revealed the child didn't have kidneys.

There is not a single statement from the ob, the specialist, or the hospital. We have no idea what the doctors actual position was on all of this
We have a very strong idea. Since last summer and prior doctors, on record, have been voicing their fears over this type of problem. This isn't the first instance of this type of occurrence in which doctors are torn and unsure and mom & fetus suffer.
 
So, all that time spent having your panties wadded up your crotch about Thomas and his failure to disclose on reporting forms about debatable requirements apparently took away your laser focus from your girl who was actually sitting on, ruling, and voting on cases that were actual conflict of interest apparently. She should have recused herself.



"Amid an ongoing ethics controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a new report says liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor failed to recuse herself from several copyright infringement cases involving a book publisher that paid her over $3.5 million."
Are you saying we should ignore her just like you're saying we should ignore Clarence?
Nothing to see here, I guess. Can't wait to see ProPublica's crack reporting on this one. . . . of course, I won't be holding my breath.
Sounds like several have beaten propublica to the punch.
 
So, all that time spent having your panties wadded up your crotch about Thomas and his failure to disclose on reporting forms about debatable requirements apparently took away your laser focus from your girl who was actually sitting on, ruling, and voting on cases that were actual conflict of interest apparently. She should have recused herself.
First of all, if Sonia Sotomayor is found to be in violation of Court rules on ethics then I believe, just like Clarence Thomas, she should be held accountable and treated thusly. No hypocrisy here.

But I say if Sonia Sotomayor is found to be in violation because her situation may be exceptional compared to Thomas's. You might recall reading this in the seventh paragraph under the Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices in the letter you linked in your post on Monday (remember insisting that you actually read that letter?):

Justices may not have outside earned income— including income from teaching—in excess of an annual cap established by statute and regulation. In calendar year 2023, that cap works out to less than 12 percent of a Justice’s pay. Compensation for writing a book is not subject to the cap.

While it appears the amount she earned isn't an issue, I'm not saying the book deal necessarily mitigates her guilt; there may still be a proven conflict of interest. So why don't we wait for the Judicial Conference to make that determination, eh?
 
Last edited:
First of all, if Sonia Sotomayor is found to be in violation of Court rules on ethics then I believe, just like Clarence Thomas, she should be held accountable and treated thusly. No hypocrisy here.
100%

And btw, this quote from @pooponduke 's article is interesting:
"There is no rule saying that a judge must recuse themselves from unrelated cases involving a publisher they used. Some judges have recused themselves in these situations, while others have not," he continued. "This is not the same as receiving money from a large political donor and then hiding it by not declaring it, like Thomas allegedly did."

If there is a conflict of interest, Sotomayor needs to recuse, resign, or at a minimum new code of conduct needs to be established.

But at least she hasn't been caught HIDING stuff yet.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT