Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "I Can't Believe There's No Abortion Thread" Part Deux: Electric Boogaloo

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Really well said Les.

    Something really bothers me about this. She was recording the appointment?

    Leave a comment:


  • leswp1
    replied
    Originally posted by French Rage View Post
    https://jezebel.com/childbearing-age...uit-1850899899



    Blessed be the purely-hypotethical fruit.

    "she told him she never planned to have kids and would have an abortion if she became pregnant; referencing the overturning of Roe v. Wade,he responded that getting the care she was seeking is “trickier now with the way things are going.” He also said she should bring her partner “in on the conversation” on her medical care. Rule asked if the issue preventing her from getting the “highly effective” medication was solely that she could become pregnant and, “If I was, like, through menopause, would [the medication] be very effective for cluster headaches?” The doctor affirmed it would. He also asked about her sex life and whether she’s “with a steady person.” Rule shared audio recordings of the appointment on TikTok at the time."

    -If her plan was have an abortion if she got pregnant it is legitimate to bring up R v W. What would she do if abortion was not available? She could potentially sue the Dr if she bore a child with defects. WOuld she have the resources or ability to care for a child with severe defects? This was something that was brought up even before Roe was overturned.
    -if her response was I would get an abortion it is reasonable to include her partner in the conversation. Not to make the choice for her but if you want the relationship to survive then things should be clear before a decision- it also lets the partner know it would be wise for them to be using precautions on top of what ever the woman is using
    - the steady person is also very important. It makes a huge difference if the woman is dealing with someone who she knows and is 'predictable' vs multiple partners, new partner all of whom may not be predictable or may not be aware of the risks if she should be pregnant.

    The whole tone of the quote gets under my skin- like the Provider was an adversary. The Provider did an excellent job addressing the very real issues of risk. Instead of whining she should have been dam grateful the Provider cared enough to actually address the issues instead of avoiding an uncomfortable subject. The Provider was not just protecting themselves. They were attempting to make sure the patient was not put in a position to have a nasty decision to make.

    This is not new. Certain medications are not given to women with a chance of pregnancy or women are required to sign lengthy consent and in some cases are only given the med if they contract to take the pill or some other very reliable method of birth control. Accutane is the med that comes to mind. Or not being able to have birth control pills if you are a smoker past a certain age.

    I fully believe a woman has a right to decide re her own body. That means she should be fully aware of the risks and consequences. If one of my patients responded they would 'just have an abortion' that would send up all sorts of red flags. Women say that a lot. They don't always feel that way when they are faced with decision for real. If they say that and are not in a steady relationship then it is even more of a crap shoot. The more experience you have caring for women, the more you know not to hear that statement with any sort of assurance.

    Life ain't fair. No matter how it would be nice to ignore risks because women have 'rights' there is no system that reliably ensures that the only person affected is the woman. Also not ensured is the woman having a clear idea of what she is gambling with. I would ask if it is ethical to let her gamble if it appears she is blowing off the risks because she wants what she wants.

    Leave a comment:


  • Swansong
    replied
    Originally posted by French Rage View Post
    https://jezebel.com/childbearing-age...uit-1850899899



    Blessed be the purely-hypotethical fruit.
    I'd be very interested in the opinions of our resident clinicians on this. Sometimes medical ethics are obvious and sometimes they're much more murky.

    Leave a comment:


  • French Rage
    replied
    https://jezebel.com/childbearing-age...uit-1850899899

    Last September, New York resident Tara Rule posted a raw, emotional video on Tiktok saying she had been denied a medication to treat a debilitating condition called cluster headaches, because her neurologist told her she was of “childbearing age” and the medication could cause birth defects to a hypothetical fetus.
    Blessed be the purely-hypotethical fruit.

    Leave a comment:


  • leswp1
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    They don't...it is just people trying to find a simple solution to a very complex problem. Picking up and leaving is just no feasible and never has been no matter what oppressed group is being discussed. It is (not here) often just passive aggressive victim shaming. Why don't Black People exit the South or the inner city, why didn't Jews leave Europe, why don't Palestinians leave Israel, why don't women leave Red States...etc. Those of us that might be able to make that work (I couldn't nor could my highly educated and decently well off significant other if Minnesota went Red) can sometimes be blind to the intricacies of these types of situations.

    Moving across town is a friggin chore...imagine moving across country with no job, no house and in some cases pregnant. That is not something you can just do even if everything breaks decent for you.
    I asked the question because I can't envision it. I notice no one has answered how they think it would play out.

    I took care of a lot of people who worked hard to figure out how to get away from places. It was extremely rare to meet anyone who just 'left'. Maybe in the movies but not in real life. Esp if there are children involved.

    What do you do for their education if they are on the move? You can't 'homeschool' without submitting a plan to the local board and get it approved. Most homeschooling requires outlay for materials.
    What do you do to access healthcare for those who are sick? How do you obtain medication? There are a number of meds that cause significant harm if stopped
    What do you do about getting a job Where does the money come from to keep a cell phone (almost universally required if applying for a job), you need an address for a library card and a library card can be required to use the computers in the library.
    How do you apply for a place to live? List too long to consider. In temperate times of the yr you can live outside but when weather is bad- too hot or cold- how do you protect the children?

    You can leave emergently to get to safety but once you are safe you have to survive

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    I just thought of the perfect name for the Plan B pill.

    Ctrl-Z.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    They don't...it is just people trying to find a simple solution to a very complex problem. Picking up and leaving is just no feasible and never has been no matter what oppressed group is being discussed. It is (not here) often just passive aggressive victim shaming. Why don't Black People exit the South or the inner city, why didn't Jews leave Europe, why don't Palestinians leave Israel, why don't women leave Red States...etc. Those of us that might be able to make that work (I couldn't nor could my highly educated and decently well off significant other if Minnesota went Red) can sometimes be blind to the intricacies of these types of situations.

    Moving across town is a friggin chore...imagine moving across country with no job, no house and in some cases pregnant. That is not something you can just do even if everything breaks decent for you.
    I mean, our friends just moved from rural Alaska without a house lined up, a tentative job agreement (had to sign when they got here), and only the one works. They just had to get away from Alaska.

    I'm not saying it's easy (or even possible!) in most cases. Sometimes it is.

    If it happened en masse, it would look exactly the same as the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    They don't...it is just people trying to find a simple solution to a very complex problem. Picking up and leaving is just no feasible and never has been no matter what oppressed group is being discussed. It is (not here) often just passive aggressive victim shaming. Why don't Black People exit the South or the inner city, why didn't Jews leave Europe, why don't Palestinians leave Israel, why don't women leave Red States...etc. Those of us that might be able to make that work (I couldn't nor could my highly educated and decently well off significant other if Minnesota went Red) can sometimes be blind to the intricacies of these types of situations.

    Moving across town is a friggin chore...imagine moving across country with no job, no house and in some cases pregnant. That is not something you can just do even if everything breaks decent for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • leswp1
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    The question is which sword is sharpest and closest to your neck.

    If you're fleeing a civil war, keeping up with the kardashians isn't a priority and you start walking. If you have a theoretical threat like lack of safe abortions, getting shot by police, being assaulted by bigots, etc. it's not the same. It's a risk your mind evaluates and weighs against your worldly possessions and lifestyle. A theoretical threat is not the same as a civil war.

    Could people drop everything and start walking? Yep. and if it comes to that, people will. There's always a choice. Which i think is Kepler's point, just presented... abrasively.

    At what level of danger are you willing to become a refugee? And what are the blue states doing to help them?
    My first thought? Well, our federal tax dollars are pretty much supporting what ever safety net, medical services the Red States have. They are not funding anything themselves. The disparity between what Red States use and what they pay in is ridiculous. They are parasites that whine they have to pay taxes.

    The Blue States are also doing a fair amount to support access to care for women - stats of out of State patients arriving for care is really, really scary. It reminds me of the underground railroad for women instead of slaves.

    How would you envision just drop everything and walk playing out? Where would they be aiming to go to? A true question.

    Have taken care of refugees that emigrated and war refugees. The stories of people attempting to emigrate to here are not usually drop and walk. Most of them took time to plan, attempted to marshal resources, paid money, have contact with someone here they know or who claims to offer assistance, have supplies and a semblance of a plan however unrealistic. If you are talking about war refugees their situation is more sudden but usually involves a group of people who need to move all at once and they have each other to help. They go to a waystation and then go from there. Again, the endpoint has some planning to it.

    I struggle to see how either of these things applies to folks in country.


    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    The question is which sword is sharpest and closest to your neck.

    If you're fleeing a civil war, keeping up with the kardashians isn't a priority and you start walking. If you have a theoretical threat like lack of safe abortions, getting shot by police, being assaulted by bigots, etc. it's not the same. It's a risk your mind evaluates and weighs against your worldly possessions and lifestyle. A theoretical threat is not the same as a civil war.

    Could people drop everything and start walking? Yep. and if it comes to that, people will. There's always a choice. Which i think is Kepler's point, just presented... abrasively.

    At what level of danger are you willing to become a refugee? And what are the blue states doing to help them?
    I genuinely was not trying to be abrasive. I was merely saying the apparently unsayable: as the Nazis turn up the heat, people have a choice.

    Now personally I wish they would make the easier choice and get to the polls.

    I'm advocating the blue states treat indigent red state emigrees as full scale refugees. They are fleeing a humanitarian crisis and political oppression. The red states are a lame CSA cosplay now. Come with us if you want to live. We're richer, smarter, healthier, more ethical, and more American. Your children have a future here; by staying in the red states you condemn them to poverty, ignorance, disease, hatred, and violence.


    Last edited by Kepler; 09-13-2023, 04:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    Originally posted by MissThundercat View Post

    In my case, if MI reverses course and becomes a hellscape like TX/FL/MO, then yes, I'm headed around Lake Michigan to MSP, where my community has a broad, thriving presence. I would love to attend a Twin Cities PRIDE event!
    Even if Minnesota goes red again, MSP will almost certainly be a good spot to land. There's almost zero chance they roll back LGBT protections. If that happens, it's ALL hit the fan and I'll be already heading to the northern border with a coyote.

    Leave a comment:


  • MissThundercat
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    The question is which sword is sharpest and closest to your neck.

    If you're fleeing a civil war, keeping up with the kardashians isn't a priority and you start walking. If you have a theoretical threat like lack of safe abortions, getting shot by police, being assaulted by bigots, etc. it's not the same. It's a risk your mind evaluates and weighs against your worldly possessions and lifestyle. A theoretical threat is not the same as a civil war.

    Could people drop everything and start walking? Yep. and if it comes to that, people will. There's always a choice. Which i think is Kepler's point, just presented... abrasively.

    At what level of danger are you willing to become a refugee? And what are the blue states doing to help them?
    In my case, if MI reverses course and becomes a hellscape like TX/FL/MO, then yes, I'm headed around Lake Michigan to MSP, where my community has a broad, thriving presence. I would love to attend a Twin Cities PRIDE event!

    Leave a comment:


  • Jimjamesak
    replied
    Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
    And what are the blue states doing to help them?
    This is the important question to all of this. Because the answer to this question right now is “not a GD thing”.

    Leave a comment:


  • dxmnkd316
    replied
    The question is which sword is sharpest and closest to your neck.

    If you're fleeing a civil war, keeping up with the kardashians isn't a priority and you start walking. If you have a theoretical threat like lack of safe abortions, getting shot by police, being assaulted by bigots, etc. it's not the same. It's a risk your mind evaluates and weighs against your worldly possessions and lifestyle. A theoretical threat is not the same as a civil war.

    Could people drop everything and start walking? Yep. and if it comes to that, people will. There's always a choice. Which i think is Kepler's point, just presented... abrasively.

    At what level of danger are you willing to become a refugee? And what are the blue states doing to help them?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
    Only 43% of Americans state that they could cover the cost of an emergency if it were $1,000.

    https://fortune.com/recommends/banki...gency-expense/

    I doubt those who can afford that low threshold are the people being discussed here.
    A state-forced pregnancy costs a lot more than $1000.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X