Newest attempted power grab by Ohio Republicans

[*Nately120*]

(06-05-2023, 05:47 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: IN Re your example: Who cares what the MAGA base thinks?  That's just another example of knuckle-dragging ignorance.  


I'm talking about what can be proven,  or disproven for that matter, in a court of law.  OBGYNs will have to keep great records to in fact prove their innocence in some of these states who'd rather see both mom and baby dead other than allow an abortion.  

 

This isn't about what I want or what can be scientifically proven.  There is a percentage of the population that has an undue amount of influence that isn't going to listen to your facts and figures, I'm just sayin'.

[*pally*]

(06-05-2023, 04:55 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree.  It is interesting when you make the same point about gun violence the exact people saying this refuse to hear it.



The underlined and bolded simply isn't true, and even pro abortion advocates acknowledge this.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/fact-sheet/abortions-later-in-pregnancy/

Reasons individuals seek abortions later in pregnancy include medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.

You are, of course, correct that late term abortions are a tiny fraction of overall procedures, but stating that all of them are due to fetal anomalies and maternal health is not accurate.




I would agree with both of these points, up to a point.  Which I'll get to shortly.


I agree with this as well.  But returning to my earlier statement, I have a question.  Would you support any limits on voluntary abortions, such as a three month time limit?


You just confirmed what he stated.  Reid changed the rules and was warned about the precedent he was setting.  He ignored the warnings and did it anyways.  I have made my opinion on McConnell's underhanded tactics well known, but the blame for the rule changes lies at the feet of Harry Reid.  To state otherwise is partisan, ignorant or both.

The limits set by Roe seemed to have worked well for decades.  I'd rather see legislatures addressing the issues that lead to abortions in the first place

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-05-2023, 06:09 PM)pally Wrote: The limits set by Roe seemed to have worked well for decades.

So no limits at all then?  Roe said the state "may restrict" abortion post viability.  Many states did not do so.  Even now there are several states with no abortion restrictions at all.

https://ballotpedia.org/Abortion_regulations_by_state

So, I have to ask again, are you in favor of abortion with no restrictions?

 

Quote: I'd rather see legislatures addressing the issues that lead to abortions in the first place

As would I, but that's not what I asked you.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(06-05-2023, 05:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: This isn't about what I want or what can be scientifically proven.  There is a percentage of the population that has an undue amount of influence that isn't going to listen to your facts and figures, I'm just sayin'.

So then the Red States will have many situations with both the mother and baby dead and they only have themselves to blame.  The GOP politicians with zero medical knowledge making the laws for our physicians regarding patient care or else they become criminals... SMDH WTF people?  

Also, from reading your posts from the prior year, I didn't think you felt that way at all. 

[*Nately120*]

(06-05-2023, 10:25 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: So then the Red States will have many situations with both the mother and baby dead and they only have themselves to blame.  The GOP politicians with zero medical knowledge making the laws for our physicians regarding patient care or else they become criminals... SMDH WTF people?  

Also, from reading your posts from the prior year, I didn't think you felt that way at all. 

I'm talking about their mindsets.  Covid showed us how many people will ignore medical advice, say everyone is lying and then say that people who died preventable deaths were called home to heaven and got their wings. 

And they'll blame doctors and the liberal media and democrats and vote red even harder.  

[*pally*]

(06-05-2023, 06:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So no limits at all then?  Roe said the state "may restrict" abortion post viability.  Many states did not do so.  Even now there are several states with no abortion restrictions at all.

https://ballotpedia.org/Abortion_regulations_by_state

So, I have to ask again, are you in favor of abortion with no restrictions?

 
As would I, but that's not what I asked you.

The less legislators are involved in deciding medical treatments the better off we are.  Especially when the driving factor in those medical treatments is based on partisan politics.  

But back to the original topic of the thread.  This power grab of Ohio Republicans is an attempt to force for eternity minority rule in our state.  As Harry Reid found out changing the rules for a single topic can come back and bite you in the ass.  This whole Issue 1 from inception to the date designated for the vote is sleazy ugly politics.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 12:14 PM)pally Wrote: The less legislators are involved in deciding medical treatments the better off we are.  Especially when the driving factor in those medical treatments is based on partisan politics.  

But back to the original topic of the thread.  This power grab of Ohio Republicans is an attempt to force for eternity minority rule in our state.  As Harry Reid found out changing the rules for a single topic can come back and bite you in the ass.  This whole Issue 1 from inception to the date designated for the vote is sleazy ugly politics.

It's obvious why you're not actually answering the question.  But fine, I certainly won't badger you about it.

[*pally*]

(06-06-2023, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's obvious why you're not actually answering the question.  But fine, I certainly won't badger you about it.

I did answer it...the parameters of Roe were to viability outside the womb

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(06-06-2023, 09:28 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm talking about their mindsets.  Covid showed us how many people will ignore medical advice, say everyone is lying, and then say that people who died preventable deaths were called home to heaven and got their wings. 

And they'll blame doctors and the liberal media and democrats and vote red even harder.  

Again, you can't fix stupid so if these red states want to allow their politicians to put a 15-week ban without exceptions, and a pregnancy isn't viable until 25-27 weeks, and the mom has a miscarriage during that gap---> we're going to see many situations where both end up dead.    If Mom is preeclamptic and has a stroke or a heart attack due to high blood pressure, the fetus before 25 weeks can not survive either, so now both will be in big trouble.  

Same with COVID vaccine, if people didn't want to get it, then stay out of the hospitals and leave room for those who are vaccine compliant.  If they refused the vaccine and died from COVID, then it was their own damn fault.

Abortion is a situational circumstance, it's never a blanket decision and there are always many factors at play.  The decision needs to be left between the physician, the expecting mother, and her beliefs.  With the health of the expecting mother being the utmost priority being the key component.    

Personally, I think after 15 weeks and if everyone involved is healthy, then the fetus needs a chance at life.  People who want to kill a perfectly healthy baby are sick, and people who want to force a 10-year-old who has been raped or a victim of incest to have a baby are also monsters.  People who want to force the mother to carry a fetal demise into a full miscarriage to the point it makes the mother septic are also monsters.

If there's a bona fida reason to protect the life of the mother, and abortion is the only option then the GOP politicians need to let our physicians do their job.

[*Nately120*]

(06-06-2023, 01:32 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Again, you can't fix stupid so if these red states what to allow their politicians to put a 15-week ban without exceptions, and a pregnancy isn't viable until 25-27 weeks, and the mom has a miscarriage during that gap---> we're going to see many situations where both end up dead.    If Mom is preeclamptic and has a stroke or a heart attack due to high blood pressure, the fetus before 25 weeks can not survive either, so now both will be in big trouble.  

Same with COVID vaccine, if people didn't want to get it, then stay out of the hospitals and leave room for those who are vaccine compliant.  If they refused the vaccine and died from COVID, then it was their own damn fault.

Abortion is a situational circumstance, it's never a blanket decision and there are always many factors at play.  The decision needs to be left between the physician, the expecting mother, and her beliefs.  With the health of the expecting mother being the utmost priority being the key component.    

Personally, I think after 15 weeks and if everyone involved is healthy, then the fetus needs a chance at life.  People who want to kill a perfectly healthy baby are sick, and people who want to force a 10-year-old who has been raped or a victim of incest to have a baby are also monsters.  People who want to force the mother to carry a fetal demise into a full miscarriage to the point it makes the mother septic are also monsters.

If there's a bona fida reason to protect the life of the mother, and abortion is the only option then the GOP politicians need to let our physicians do their job.

I agree with you, but I'm just pointing out the reality that the only situational aspect a lot of people take into account regarding abortion is "Do I need an abortion?"

And even if the answer to needing anything, abortion or a social safety net etc. is "YES" people can still say "Well, I need it but other people who want it or get it don't need it."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-06-2023, 12:25 PM)pally Wrote: I did answer it...the parameters of Roe were to viability outside the womb

Incorrect.  Roe stated the states "may restrict' at the point of viability, not "shall restrict."  There is a huge difference.  Just to make it easy for you though, are you saying that you are in favor of elective abortion to the point of viability and then only for medical reason thereafter?

Of course, this opens the viability can of worms as there are different opinions on when that point is reached, and even if agreed upon the time will change as medical science advances.

[BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI]

(06-06-2023, 01:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  Roe stated the states "may restrict' at the point of viability, not "shall restrict."  There is a huge difference.  Just to make it easy for you though, are you saying that you are in favor of elective abortion to the point of viability and then only for medical reason thereafter?

Of course, this opens the viability can of worms as there are different opinions on when that point is reached, and even if agreed upon the time will change as medical science advances.

Yes, I would agree with that statement, but I'd also include rape and incest.  Many victims are in denial of the assault and won't make it to their OBGYN before it is too late.


AGOC states it is 23-25 weeks before the baby is viable.  10-years ago it was 29-30 weeks. 

ACOG and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine’s Obstetric Care Consensus #6, Periviable birth, rates of neonatal survival to discharge at this time range dramatically from 23% to 27% for births at 23 weeks, 42% to 59% for births at 24 weeks, and 67% to 76% for births at 25 weeks of gestation. The consensus also notes that deliveries before 23 weeks have a 5–6% survival rate and that significant morbidity is universal (98–100%) among the rare survivors.


https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-and-navigating-viability

[GMDino]

(06-06-2023, 03:37 PM)BIGDADDYFROMCINCINNATI Wrote: Yes, I would agree with that statement, but I'd also include rape and incest.  Many victims are in denial of the assault and won't make it to their OBGYN before it is too late.


AGOC states it is 23-25 weeks before the baby is viable.  10-years ago it was 29-30 weeks. 

ACOG and the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine’s Obstetric Care Consensus #6, Periviable birth, rates of neonatal survival to discharge at this time range dramatically from 23% to 27% for births at 23 weeks, 42% to 59% for births at 24 weeks, and 67% to 76% for births at 25 weeks of gestation. The consensus also notes that deliveries before 23 weeks have a 5–6% survival rate and that significant morbidity is universal (98–100%) among the rare survivors.


https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-and-navigating-viability

We have two preemies.

Both born three months early at right around 26-27 weeks.

Our daughter is now 25 and was born at 12" long and 1lb 10oz.

Our son is now 21 and was born at 12" long and 2lb 10oz.

Both spent two months in the NICU.  Her because of her heart, him because of his lungs.

Then they each spent one month is a kind of step down called TIC where they stayed until they reached five pounds.  Our daughter didn't reach that but was allowed to come home anyway.

She had a heart monitor for a month.  He had oxygen for a month or two.

Both are healthy.  We were blessed with a great hospital and fantastic doctors.

But preemies have tremendous health risks from blindness to CP, to a multitude of other ailments.  

And I'm glossing over all the things that happened during pregnancy with each one that affected their health at birth and after.

I'm sure the science is even better now and the ability to have a "viable" child will get moved back further...but it does have serious risks.  And I don't mean to disregard the gestation age being a good cutoff point, only that "viability", to me, means that science COULD allow the child to survive with much effort.