(01-17-2023 12:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (01-17-2023 11:26 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (01-16-2023 04:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I may have missed it in the posts above, but it should be noted that federal law already made this act illegal.
Quote: Live births during an abortion procedure are exceedingly rare, experts said, and federal law already requires that a baby who survives an attempted abortion receive emergency medical care. The new bill would clarify the standard of care to which doctors are held and lay out penalties for violators.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/11/us/po...ticleShare
Do you have a problem with assigning penalties for breaking laws?
Spicy response, so here is one in return.
My question was not remotely 'spicy'.
You quoted:
The new bill would clarify the standard of care to which doctors are held
and lay out penalties for violators.
I asked if you had a problem with a bill that would 'lay out penalties for violators'.
Quote:Do you have a problem reading up on laws before speaking about them?
Nope. I have and have made that clear... so your comment is just ignorant.
Quote:When you said the following, you clearly had no idea about existing law and what specifically this changed.
"My question is... what constituency is Jeffries appealing to that want to make it legal to kill a baby after it is born, just because it was so 'alive' that the abortion failed... and make it LEGAL to engage in violence against other Americans whose views on abortion differ from yours??"
The 2002 federal law on the books defines a babu "born alive" as being a person, which makes killing a person homicide and illegal. Nothing about Jeffries' position or statement is supportive of legally being able to kill a baby after it is born.
I addressed this numerous posts ago.
The law you mention speaks about KILLING that person. Killing someone is an action, not a lack of action. If you don't save someone and they die, you have not killed them. A doctor though generally has a duty to care for someone, even if they are going to die. Assisted suicide is an example of KILLING someone. Following 'comfort measures' for someone who is dying but is DNR is not. Obviously one of us not only read, but UNDERSTANDS the law.
Now what BS do you have, smart-ass?
Quote:I added information that appeared to be missing in the back and forths and potentially misunderstood - that the action being discussed was already federally illegal. I didn't see a discussion focused on the change in penalties, but rather the act itself becoming illegal.
And you're wrong... even by your own quotes. So what?
Quote:I don't currently have an urge to wade into the current debate about whether Dems want to kill babies, or whether Reps want to force women to have babies. Just making sure a full set of information was in hand for those who did want to wade in.
Then don't provide misleading or incorrect information< and especially don't claim that someone who has specifically addressed this issue is.
I was curious as to how many non-Obs are performing abortions because you brought it up and it surprised me. I'm bolding because Borked formatting and I don't have time to tweak it.
[/quote]
No worries on the format. All I said was that I found it a bit odd that you had time to google that, but not time to google the bill. More significantly, I'd like to know what you found. My impression is that it's 'lots', which again was mostly out of respect to the 90+% of OBs that don't provide abortions at all.... even though they may mostly support them.
Quote:You were the one that brought up that x number of abortionists are not Ob-Gyns. It seemed to be important in some way to you. I'm not sure why... I just responded to your post.
I just said 'lots'. That's not 'x-number' in my mind. It just means 'more than a few' or something. I have no idea why you thought it was important.... especially not important enough to investigate, but that the issue at hand (the bill) wasn't.
Quote:Again... you wrote it and I got curious. Didn't mean it as a "challenge". I don't know why you took it as such.
Didn't... just found the difference between what WAS worth your time and what wasn't to be odd
Quote:apparently, more than 90% of OBs don't perform abortions at all... 75% of them are male... and only about 50% are board certified. I don't know what source you used to argue against my incredibly specific comment of 'lots', but according to the American College of Ob and Gyn....
I didn't argue against you! I said that I was surprised and that I couldn't find any data with my quick search!
[/quote]
I guess the sarcasm in the 'incredibly specific' was lost. My bad.
Quote:You have said many times that you found that odd. Here's more explanation... I didn't think I'd have time to dig into the bill but I was curious about who is performing abortions so I did a quick search on it. Cool?
Sure. what did you find? Maybe then we can debate the definition of 'lots'. How many would that be (by percentage?)
That's tongue-in-cheek... I think we've beaten this dead horse.
Quote:You need to legislate that a doctor should follow the standard of care? Why?
As I've repeatedly said, because the standard of care at least ARGUABLY doesn't apply to the object of an abortion. This makes it clear that it does. Is it necessary? Probably not... but only because of my ultimate faith in juries. Is it the most useless piece of legislation passed? Absolutely not. The government rather routinely passes 'proclamations' and other phot-op drivel that has no legislative point whatsoever.
Quote:[b]My team? LOL. You recall that I've been saying that I'm very likely voting Republican in 2024 if Biden is the nominee? LOL. My team. Give me a break.
That's a player, not a team.
Quote:At no point have I defended the Dem's no vote on this. All I have done is try to understand the bill and suggest possible reasons that they opposed it. I have yet to give an opinion on the bill if you actually read what I wrote rather than assumed what I think based on "my team". Ridiculous.
Actually, at the time I made the comment, you said you hadn't really looked at the bill at all... yet you still were willing to comment on 'why' you thought they might be against it... For some reason, you take offense at this being described as 'blindly defending them'. I think its literally the textbook definition of the term.
[/quote]
(01-17-2023 12:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I've found that this forum does a really great [s] job with making it clear when someone is speaking to potential rationales for why something might have happened versus what someone's opinion on the matter is or what someone would like to see happen.
A similar back and forth happened between Ham and I when I speaking to what Dems were likely to do for the Speaker vote versus what I thought they should do or even what I would like for them to do. I was accused of, IIRC, being part of the problem for speaking to their current strategic thinking.
Not surprising, that isn't how I recall it at all. FTR though, if you're comfortable speaking to potential rationales for why something might have happened without having researched the issue, you should be willing to accept that you don't know what you're talking about and that the suggestions you gave may not remotely apply or make sense. It doesn't make your comment 'wrong' per se, it just means it doesn't apply to this situation.
You guys keep bringing up arguments that have either already been addressed (its already CLEARLY the law... no it isn't) OR you're making arguments that none of the people we're talking about have articulated... and if it were that simple, you'd think they would. This is done specifically at the end of this post.
(01-17-2023 01:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote: Aren't we literally discussing a Republican bill that suggests the need to spell out to doctors that they aren't allowed to kill viable babies outside of the womb?
Yes, because your very comment here demonstrates to me that you don't understand the issues and terms.
The law in question applies to a 'live' baby, whether or not that child is viable... you said abovem viable babies... because as I asked you to inquire, even for a WANTED baby with its heart external to its body or no brain or what have you (meaning it is not viable), there are rules of medical engagement.
There IS no specific law dealing with the situation at hand. Some might argue that because the intent of the procedure was to 'end' the child, that such efforts should be allowed to be continued/corrected. It's not clear in the law as it wasn't for death row inmates that survived the shooting or hanging or electrocution or what have you.
As I said, we wrote laws to manage people who survive those death row attempts... so how is this any different? It's legal to kill a death row inmate under certain conditions. It's legal to kill even a VIABLE baby, while it is still in the womb under certain conditions. The question at hand is, is it legal not to kill, but to 'not deliver the standard of care' to a likely NON viable baby who survives the abortion and is born alive... and this law says 'no'. Said simply, you must at least provide comfort care as you would for a non viable baby who was not the object of an abortion attempt.... aka the 'standard of care'.
Quote:I'll again bring up the right-winger gun law argument that criminals (like Gosnell) aren't going to follow the rules any way. Is this valid for guns but not for doctors? 99% of the doctors are going to make moral choices and the monsters of the world (like Gosnell) will not.
A laughably poor argument. Almost embarassingly so. 99% of doctors aren't subject to this.... by your own admission. The Gosnell's of the world will try and live in the grey space. This eliminates that specific grey space.
A better example of the above would be a law that denied a medical license to someone who performs illegal back alley abortions without a license.
Quote:I'll go back to your Larry Nassar example. You seemed to suggest that a law that forbids the type of exam/procedure that he was doing was an obvious no-brainer. Again... I would ask if one really needs the federal government to spell out in legislation exactly what doctors are allowed and not allowed to do. I thought right-wingers were for small government? Exactly how big of a government would this look like? Why do we need federal legislation for that type of exam when you have hundreds of doctors who would testify against Nassar? Not to mention it would be very easy for a crooked doctor to get around the wording of the law if they chose ("Oh... I wasn't manipulating the coccyx. I was manipulating the SI joint. The law doesn't forbid that!").
First, you don't think he'll raise that very claim? Second, he's not a doctor... is he even bound by those rules if the athletes signed a waiver? There IS no 'standard of care'. Third, I don't see anyone in the leadership of the left making this argument... so why are we? I've already said that if you want to have that discussion, that's not crazy... but that isn't what these guys are saying. They're saying it is somehow an assault on abortion rights.
My comment about Nassar wasn't that it was a no-brainer... it is that because they are not laws that really address this, that you're going to have to show 'intent'... and of course in his example, the sheer volume can get you there. That said, I understand he made training videos showing people how to do this and nobody said anything. I suspect you will find SOME 'expert' to argue his side.... though that person would have to be crazy to say it out loud... SOMEONE will for the right price.
ETA>... the reason for the 'vague' use of 'standard of care' is that the standard depends on lots of things that would differ from situation to situation... and doctors know this and is the arena in which they operate every day. Its the reason for a specialty like ER or Pediatric intensivist or OB or what have you.