(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.

Do you have a problem reading up on laws before speaking about them?

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.

Now, the non-spicy take:

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.

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.

spicy

(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?

(01-16-2023 05:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If you demand an explanation... I'm busy as **** at work and really shouldn't even be reading the Quad but then my willpower is not great.

Didn't even request, much less demand an explanation. It was the 'knee jerk' defense I found odd.... and nothing in the above addresses that in any way.

Quote:The "like lots of abortion docs" was in the first line of your post and when I read it I asked myself "Really? Are lots of abortion docs not Ob/Gyns?" So then I did a quick google search and responded.

So again, you had time to do a google search on a choice of words of mine, but not to read a one page bill? That's fine. It's your time to do as you please... I just find that interesting.

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:

Quote:I hope that explanation meets your satisfaction and that you are not going to go down an OO-type path of accusing me of avoiding various topics.

Which is really nothing more than you accusing me of something.

(01-16-2023 06:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The definition of 'lots' can vary. Who cares how many it is? You spoke of OBs. Gosnell was not an OB. I'm trying to give deference to the high opinion that you have of OBs in general.

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.

You really just responded to what is basically a throw-away comment from my post. The 'meat' of the post is about the bill, which you didn't have time to look in to... in part I suspect because you chose to challenge truly meaningless words of mine.

[/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.

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:https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-g...ices%2019.

Other Abortion Providers
Family Medicine Physicians
Although obstetrician–gynecologists perform most abortions in the United States, family medicine physicians play an important role in the provision of these services 19. Family medicine physicians are more likely than physicians in other specialties to provide primary care to underserved women, and specifically to women in rural communities 20. Providing training in first-trimester abortion care to family practice physicians may help reduce disparities in abortion access.

The American Academy of Family Physicians recognizes termination of pregnancy up to 10 weeks of gestation as an advanced core skill for family physicians

Quote:I don't know about you... but just because MOST of them are OBs, in my mind that still leaves room for 'lots' of others... otherwise they would have said 'almost all' or 'the overwhelming number' or some other words that didn't leave much room for many others. MOST certainly does... at least in my mind. As I said, I thought it important to create distance between what I suspect are VERY upstanding OBs of your acquaintance and the potential targets of a bill like this.

If you disagree that's fine... I just again find it odd that such a trivial word jumped out at you that you had to investigate it... when you didn't really have time to get in to it.

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?

Quote:

Quote:

I asked you (though perhaps I reworded it in an edit) what you thought they would do with or for the baby if an abortion attempt failed and the baby was born. My suspicion is that they would follow the standard of care for a living infant.... regardless of their potential... which is all this law requires of them.... and precisely what they have been trained to do... and they likely do every day, unless they ONLY practice abortions. If they wouldn't have, they now know they're supposed to.

That seems logical. When I glanced the bill it seemed very vague. Perhaps that is why the Democrats didn't like it? As I already said, my suspicion is that they didn't want to "threaten" doctors in an already threatening environment for them if the bill didn't achieve anything new. I'm just guessing here as I haven't (as I said) dug into this much.

Vague?? It's about as specific as any doctor could ask for. Follow the standard of care that you were trained in for any other living infant. It's the same barrier as any malpractice suit.

[/quote]

You need to legislate that a doctor should follow the standard of care? Why?

Quote:So if as Lad says, it's already a crime to fail to do this... then why is anyone upset that this new bill sets a maximum (but not a minimum) penalty?? I suspect that the far right would want a failed abortion that results in a live birth, but the child 'dies', despite their best medical efforts from complications from the abortion be charged with MURDER.

Quote:So why/how are they threatened? And more to the point, what does this in ANY way have to do with whether or not abortions are legal??

If you don't have time to investigate or comment, that's fine... but you shouldn't be blindly defending people either.... just because they wear your team colors.

LOL... OK, dude. Who peed in your soup today? Unnecessary.

Okay, I'm literally laughing out loud at how you've turned your actions and comments around on me.... playing the victim when its YOU who have unnecessarily parsed my words.

If you don't have time to read up on this, that's fine... as I've repeatedly said... but you apparently feel qualified to draw a conclusion about your team's rationale... and you have the time to meaninglessly parse my words.

[/quote]

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.

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.

liar, liar, pants on fire

(01-17-2023 12:12 PM)Rice93 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?

(01-16-2023 05:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If you demand an explanation... I'm busy as **** at work and really shouldn't even be reading the Quad but then my willpower is not great.

Didn't even request, much less demand an explanation. It was the 'knee jerk' defense I found odd.... and nothing in the above addresses that in any way.

Quote:The "like lots of abortion docs" was in the first line of your post and when I read it I asked myself "Really? Are lots of abortion docs not Ob/Gyns?" So then I did a quick google search and responded.

So again, you had time to do a google search on a choice of words of mine, but not to read a one page bill? That's fine. It's your time to do as you please... I just find that interesting.

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:

Quote:I hope that explanation meets your satisfaction and that you are not going to go down an OO-type path of accusing me of avoiding various topics.

Which is really nothing more than you accusing me of something.

(01-16-2023 06:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  The definition of 'lots' can vary. Who cares how many it is? You spoke of OBs. Gosnell was not an OB. I'm trying to give deference to the high opinion that you have of OBs in general.

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.

You really just responded to what is basically a throw-away comment from my post. The 'meat' of the post is about the bill, which you didn't have time to look in to... in part I suspect because you chose to challenge truly meaningless words of mine.

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.

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:https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-g...ices%2019.

Other Abortion Providers
Family Medicine Physicians
Although obstetrician–gynecologists perform most abortions in the United States, family medicine physicians play an important role in the provision of these services 19. Family medicine physicians are more likely than physicians in other specialties to provide primary care to underserved women, and specifically to women in rural communities 20. Providing training in first-trimester abortion care to family practice physicians may help reduce disparities in abortion access.

The American Academy of Family Physicians recognizes termination of pregnancy up to 10 weeks of gestation as an advanced core skill for family physicians

Quote:I don't know about you... but just because MOST of them are OBs, in my mind that still leaves room for 'lots' of others... otherwise they would have said 'almost all' or 'the overwhelming number' or some other words that didn't leave much room for many others. MOST certainly does... at least in my mind. As I said, I thought it important to create distance between what I suspect are VERY upstanding OBs of your acquaintance and the potential targets of a bill like this.

If you disagree that's fine... I just again find it odd that such a trivial word jumped out at you that you had to investigate it... when you didn't really have time to get in to it.

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?

Quote:

Quote:

I asked you (though perhaps I reworded it in an edit) what you thought they would do with or for the baby if an abortion attempt failed and the baby was born. My suspicion is that they would follow the standard of care for a living infant.... regardless of their potential... which is all this law requires of them.... and precisely what they have been trained to do... and they likely do every day, unless they ONLY practice abortions. If they wouldn't have, they now know they're supposed to.

That seems logical. When I glanced the bill it seemed very vague. Perhaps that is why the Democrats didn't like it? As I already said, my suspicion is that they didn't want to "threaten" doctors in an already threatening environment for them if the bill didn't achieve anything new. I'm just guessing here as I haven't (as I said) dug into this much.

Vague?? It's about as specific as any doctor could ask for. Follow the standard of care that you were trained in for any other living infant. It's the same barrier as any malpractice suit.

[/quote]

You need to legislate that a doctor should follow the standard of care? Why?

Quote:So if as Lad says, it's already a crime to fail to do this... then why is anyone upset that this new bill sets a maximum (but not a minimum) penalty?? I suspect that the far right would want a failed abortion that results in a live birth, but the child 'dies', despite their best medical efforts from complications from the abortion be charged with MURDER.

Quote:So why/how are they threatened? And more to the point, what does this in ANY way have to do with whether or not abortions are legal??

If you don't have time to investigate or comment, that's fine... but you shouldn't be blindly defending people either.... just because they wear your team colors.

LOL... OK, dude. Who peed in your soup today? Unnecessary.

Okay, I'm literally laughing out loud at how you've turned your actions and comments around on me.... playing the victim when its YOU who have unnecessarily parsed my words.

If you don't have time to read up on this, that's fine... as I've repeatedly said... but you apparently feel qualified to draw a conclusion about your team's rationale... and you have the time to meaninglessly parse my words.

[/quote]

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.

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.

[/quote]

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.

(01-17-2023 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Quote:Almost every Democrat voted against it but two: Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, voted with Republicans for the bill, and Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas, voted present.

Interesting Demographics here.

Quote:In speeches delivered on the House floor Wednesday, Democrats described the legislation as “extremist, dangerous, and unnecessary,” claimed that they did not support the bill because it would require a “struggling baby” to go to a hospital that might be far away and thereby jeopardize the baby’s life, and more.

How stupid, to not want to take a STRUGGLING baby to a hospital. It MIGHT be far away? better get going then.

Quote:“This bill unnecessarily restates current law requiring a doctor to provide the same standard of medical care for an infant born during an abortion procedure as they would for any other infant,” Democratic Whip Katherine Clark said in an email to lawmakers ahead of the vote as she urged them to vote “no.”

She may be right that it is unnecessary, but in that case, why the frantic need to vote against it?

Quote:“It would also override a provider’s medical judgment, requiring them to transport a newborn infant to a hospital even in cases where that is not in the interest of the infant’s health,”

When is it NOT in the interest of a STRUGGLING INFANT TO GO TO THE HOSPITAL?

Not sure about the specifics but there could certainly be some situations where putting them in an ambulance might be a worse idea than keeping them in the current facility under the care of the doctor (long ambulance ride, etc). I am guessing here that some doctors are voicing displeasure as their medical care being somewhat dictated by legislation. As in "I think it's better for the baby to stay here rather than take a 5 hour ambulance ride but I don't want to go to prison over that decision.".

Not taking sides here... just trying to understand how both sides look at this bill.

(01-17-2023 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The question in my mind is: If this baby is obviously viable outside the womb, why are they trying to kill it in the first place. And why are Democrats defending the effort to kill it?

I'm going to try and be even handed in this...

I know that lots of people like (I think) 93 (and I'm putting words in his mouth that he can correct or amend, but I'm not trying to pin him into a corner) want decisions on things like abortion to be between a mother and her doctor... and that is fair... I disagree on some levels, but the position is not without merit.

but even those situations have laws and requirements. The doctor can't LEGALLY perform certain surgeries in certain settings and 90+% of them wouldn't want to because of the risks. Dems fairly routinely go back and forth between giving carte blanche to doctors and wanting to restrict them as quacks. One could argue that the right does as well, but I don't. Almost all of the rules I have supported, especially in this arena rely on the decades (and in some ways, centuries) old medical concept of 'standard of care', which is of course well defined to doctors in their trained areas... though it may seem vague to a layman....

I think you're potentially overstating the situation by saying the baby is OBVIOUSLY viable outside the womb... and I'd amend it to 'reasonably potentially' viable outside the womb... and the best example would be Gosnell, who sometimes had to literally cut the baby up to remove it.

Pretty obviously if you're talking about something where an 'exception' has been made for the life of the mother and/or we're talking about 16+ weeks... depending on the state statutes... the risk of a 'live birth' that you may have to deal with goes up exponentially as time passes.... and a live birth from an abortion (which is a complication in and of itself) is likely going to have complications galore for both the mother AND child....

I honestly feel that these regulations are entirely consistent with what MOST of us (on both sides) would feel that the doctors we know and respect would do. They wouldn't perform procedures that could result in these situations without having access to the sort of services and skills required. These rules are in place for the Gosnell's of the world... or people just short of them. Yes, they restrict the ability of some doctors to perform 'risky' procedures in places not designed for that purpose, but again, the doctors we know and respect wouldn't be taking those risks anyway.

We keep talking about how a civilized society would/should act... and a civilized society should not allow corners to be cut on 'safety' or 'dignity' for a mother OR her child (even an unwanted one) for what is essentially expedience and convenience.

(01-17-2023 01:06 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-17-2023 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  The question in my mind is: If this baby is obviously viable outside the womb, why are they trying to kill it in the first place. And why are Democrats defending the effort to kill it?

I'm going to try and be even handed in this...

I know that lots of people like (I think) 93 (and I'm putting words in his mouth that he can correct or amend, but I'm not trying to pin him into a corner) want decisions on things like abortion to be between a mother and her doctor... and that is fair... I disagree on some levels, but the position is not without merit.

but even those situations have laws and requirements. The doctor can't LEGALLY perform certain surgeries in certain settings and 90+% of them wouldn't want to because of the risks. Dems fairly routinely go back and forth between giving carte blanche to doctors and wanting to restrict them as quacks. One could argue that the right does as well, but I don't.

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?

Quote: Almost all of the rules I have supported, especially in this arena rely on the decades (and in some ways, centuries) old medical concept of 'standard of care', which is of course well defined to doctors in their trained areas... though it may seem vague to a layman....

I think you're potentially overstating the situation by saying the baby is OBVIOUSLY viable outside the womb... and I'd amend it to 'reasonably potentially' viable outside the womb... and the best example would be Gosnell, who sometimes had to literally cut the baby up to remove it.

Pretty obviously if you're talking about something where an 'exception' has been made for the life of the mother and/or we're talking about 16+ weeks... depending on the state statutes... the risk of a 'live birth' that you may have to deal with goes up exponentially as time passes.... and a live birth from an abortion (which is a complication in and of itself) is likely going to have complications galore for both the mother AND child....

I honestly feel that these regulations are entirely consistent with what MOST of us (on both sides) would feel that the doctors we know and respect would do. They wouldn't perform procedures that could result in these situations without having access to the sort of services and skills required. These rules are in place for the Gosnell's of the world... or people just short of them.

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.

Quote: Yes, they restrict the ability of some doctors to perform 'risky' procedures in places not designed for that purpose, but again, the doctors we know and respect wouldn't be taking those risks anyway.

We keep talking about how a civilized society would/should act... and a civilized society should not allow corners to be cut on 'safety' or 'dignity' for a mother OR her child (even an unwanted one) for what is essentially expedience and convenience.

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!").

(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.

(01-17-2023 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(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.

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: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 com

(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 to kill a likely NON viable baby who survives the abortion and is born alive... and this law says 'no'. 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!").

[b]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?

[/quote]

You've lost me. Who's not a doctor? Larry Nassar? Yes he is (was) a doctor.

Quote: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.

And that paid witness would get crushed by the credible witnesses from the prosecution. I don't see how legistlation helps this case.

Just quick response to this part of your long response.

(01-17-2023 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(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.

LOL - it's misleading to provide information that there is already a law on the books that defines a "born alive" baby as a person, thus making it illegal to kill it?

The law that I mention defines the "born alive" baby - it does not actually speak to killing that person as you say in the bold. There is nothing about an action mentioned in the 2002 law. Here is where you can read it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-cong.../2175/text

I like that you're saying I am providing misleading information when you're clearly incorrect.

As to your question not being spicy - you clearly were making an assumption about my opinion on this and phrased that as such. I literally added a comment to add context that was missing in the conversation.

I'll leave this at that.

(01-17-2023 03:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You've lost me. Who's not a doctor? Larry Nassar? Yes he is (was) a doctor.

My mistake. I thought he was a trainer, which in the terms I'm discussing is not an MD.

That portion doesn't apply, but he will STILL argue that his methods have merit and weren't meant to 'assault' the women.... avoiding CRIMINAL prosecution.

Quote:

Quote: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.

And that paid witness would get crushed by the credible witnesses from the prosecution. I don't see how legistlation helps this case.

The ALSO paid witnesses from the prosecution, just to be clear. Crushed? How are they going to testify that his 'experimental' procedures were meant to provide arousal to him? I suspect a big part of his defense will be his training videos... and no puch-back from his peers.

Once again though.... we're getting lost in the weeds of an aside. I need to stop giving you guys 'similar' situations.

The way this law (or actually a law like this for this situation) would help is that it would eliminate his defense. It wouldn't matter if he found someone who agreed with him and now we had a 'battle of experts' that he ultimately lost... the prosecution would simply say, the law doesn't require intent or what have you and his defense would be dismissed/ignored.

Again, if you want to argue that this law is overkill or a belt with suspenders, that isn't entirely without merit... but so is a lot else of what congress does... and NEITHER party lines up to kill those bills. Why is THIS the hill they want to die on?

(01-17-2023 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(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.

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.

[/quote]

As I said initially... I didn't find any data as to which specialties were performing the abortions in the USA. Of course, it was a 30 second search (i.e. not enough to read and evaluate a piece of legislation).

Quote: 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.

I thought I had time for the one and not for the other.

Quote:

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!

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]

Agree!

[/quote]

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]

I'm not in favor of passing a bill that is redundant and doesn't seem to have a specific upside or purpose. The less legislation the better, IMO.

Quote:

Quote: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.

[b]Right... but your implication is that I am SO LOYAL to "my team" that I will throw my support their way no matter what. My point it that by planning to not vote for them in the presidential election your implication seems quite suspect.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Hardly. You act as if I was trying to mount a defense when I obviously wasn't. The question came up multiple times "Why would Democrats vote against this bill?" and I thought it was obvious that I was trying to research why they didn't without taking a side. You are crazy if you call what I wrote a "defense" of Democrats. I was merely participating in the conversation and trying to figure out an answer to a question that came up. Here I am trying to help explain a position that I don't necessary hold and I end up getting **** for it.

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.

Thanks for the bolded lecture. Good God. Go read my posts on my research into why Democrats might have voted no and see if I am acting like I am an expert.

(01-17-2023 03:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-17-2023 03:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  You've lost me. Who's not a doctor? Larry Nassar? Yes he is (was) a doctor.

My mistake. I thought he was a trainer, which in the terms I'm discussing is not an MD.

That portion doesn't apply, but he will STILL argue that his methods have merit and weren't meant to 'assault' the women.... avoiding CRIMINAL prosecution.

He can't get up in court and say that his methods have merit (and have his shyster expert say the same thing) successfully when the other side will have the highest-regarded sports medicine doctors at their disposal to say "No way... that's not standard practice and, in fact, is abhorrent behavior". It won't fly.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote: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.

And that paid witness would get crushed by the credible witnesses from the prosecution. I don't see how legistlation helps this case.

The ALSO paid witnesses from the prosecution, just to be clear. Crushed? How are they going to testify that his 'experimental' procedures were meant to provide arousal to him? I suspect a big part of his defense will be his training videos... and no puch-back from his peers.

The trial came and went and he was found guilty. You are acting as if it on the horizon?

Quote:Once again though.... we're getting lost in the weeds of an aside. I need to stop giving you guys 'similar' situations.

The way this law (or actually a law like this for this situation) would help is that it would eliminate his defense. It wouldn't matter if he found someone who agreed with him and now we had a 'battle of experts' that he ultimately lost... the prosecution would simply say, the law doesn't require intent or what have you and his defense would be dismissed/ignored.

Again, if you want to argue that this law is overkill or a belt with suspenders, that isn't entirely without merit... but so is a lot else of what congress does... and NEITHER party lines up to kill those bills. Why is THIS the hill they want to die on?

Yes... I think the law is overkill and more legislation just for the sake of more legislation is not a good thing. Especially when it delves into the way that doctors are practicing medicine.

(01-17-2023 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  LOL - it's misleading to provide information that there is already a law on the books that defines a "born alive" baby as a person, thus making it illegal to kill it?

Yes. Because as I said, that law only applies to acts that KILL the baby. Not acts that 'disregard' or otherwise don't provide the 'standard of care' for the baby. The reality is that large percentages of these babies will die anyway.... and without that law, this ABSOLUTELY would be part of the defense of someone who didn't provide the standard of care to that baby.

Quote:The law that I mention defines the "born alive" baby - it does not actually speak to killing that person as you say in the bold. There is nothing about an action mentioned in the 2002 law. Here is where you can read it.

Dude... You yourself quoted above described it as 'making it illegal to kill the baby'... and now you say it doesn't mention killing it.... and you're upset with me for saying you are misleading??

You ALSO took issue with me asking if you had a problem with a bill that proscribed penalties for breaking the law... You called it spicy... but here you are once again pointing out that no such specific provisions existed.

So again... you have a problem with a bill that proscribes a maximum penalty?

Quote:I like that you're saying I am providing misleading information when you're clearly incorrect.

Nope. I'm right and you're wrong.

YOU said 'killing'. That was misleading. "the law' I was speaking about was the one you said made it 'homicide' to kill a human, NOT the 'born alive' bill. All the born alive bill does is to clarify that this applies to the the object of an abortion. Everything beyond that is still subject to interpretation... and the reality is that TONS of cases hinge on just these sorts of interpretations. I am 100% confident that the VIABILITY of a born-alive child would come into play in the event of a case like this... as in 'the baby would likely die anyway/there was nothing we could do to save them'. The law doesn't require that you save them. The law requires that you follow the standard of care, which may or may not (probably often not) involve saving them.

YOU said asking if you had a problem with a bill that proscribed penalties for breaking the law was 'spicy'... Yet that is the VERY clear difference between the two bills. That is also misleading/deflecting.... trying to make it 'personal' when the question is actually directly on point and legitimate.

Quote:As to your question not being spicy - you clearly were making an assumption about my opinion on this and phrased that as such. I literally added a comment to add context that was missing in the conversation.

Nope,... not at all. You just perfectly outlined the context for my question above. I made no assumption at all... I asked you a pertinent question DIRECTLY tied to the specific 'purpose' of the bill that is stated in the Congressional record. Not my opinion, not yours, not an interpretation... but the specific bill itself where it says 'the purpose of the bill is to.....'

Quote:I'll leave this at that.

as you should, to stop embarassing yourself.

If like 93, you find this bill redundant, that's fine. That's not what those voting against the bill said... and I'm not really interested in arguing your and my opinions. As I said, plenty of bills are mostly pointless... especially these one pagers... the difference between the bills is basically a proscribed penalty for failing to do your job, which MIGHT be on top of a penalty for anything else like a depraved action like 'killing' the baby.

To me, the earlier bill is at least as redundent. You shouldn't need to pass a bill that says that a living child is a living child... but here you are defending THAT one.... using it as part of your argument... so I guess it was more important than it might seem afterall

(01-17-2023 12:12 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  As I said initially... I didn't find any data as to which specialties were performing the abortions in the USA. Of course, it was a 30 second search (i.e. not enough to read and evaluate a piece of legislation).

Well then, my anecdotal opinion still mostly stands then. I think 'lots' of them aren't OBs. I don't know what 'lots' are, but I am aware of more than a few, mostly GPs.... and again, I was mostly trying not to be rude to the 90+% of those OBs who don't... acting as if OB=provides abortions.

Quote:I'm not in favor of passing a bill that is redundant and doesn't seem to have a specific upside or purpose. The less legislation the better, IMO.

And I generally agree... but that isn't what I asked.

Quote:Right... but your implication is that I am SO LOYAL to "my team" that I will throw my support their way no matter what. My point it that by planning to not vote for them in the presidential election your implication seems quite suspect.

Well, that is what you inferred, not what I implied. What I was implying was simply that you assumed that they had a good, non 'party first' reason. I still don't see one. Not that you can't have one, but that isn't what any of them said initially. They ALL spoke about this being something on the path to ending abortions... which is complete partisan BS... as it has almost nothing to do with regulating the abortion itself.

Quote:

Quote:

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.

Hardly. You act as if I was trying to mount a defense when I obviously wasn't. The question came up multiple times "Why would Democrats vote against this bill?" and I thought it was obvious that I was trying to research why they didn't without taking a side. You are crazy if you call what I wrote a "defense" of Democrats. I was merely participating in the conversation and trying to figure out an answer to a question that came up. Here I am trying to help explain a position that I don't necessary hold and I end up getting **** for it.

You seem to be making a big issue about the difference between 'mounting a defense' and 'trying to figure out a reason'.

Yes. I don't understand why you can't just accept that these guys are using this purely for political hay. As I've said repeatedly, I don't necessarily disagree that the bill is redundent... which means it is mostly 'hay' for the right... pandering to the pro-life crowd without really doing much... but Congress does this a lot... and honestly, based on Lad's argument... It seems that not all of it is merely 'hay'.

So again I'm left wondering... what constituency is the left appealing to with this? If its those who are against frivolous legislation, then shouldn't they be saying that up front?? Instead they said it was because it was part of a process to ban abortion.

One of you likened this to gun laws... This is like Congress passing a law that made it a federal offense punishable by a fine and up to 10 years in prison for a police officer to (not a great example) have his weapon on him while robbing a bank. It applies to a specific person of authority engaging in 'immoral/illegal' behavior under very rare circumstances. Those laws mostly exist already as well, but I'm confident that the left would find something like that they'd like to pass to appeal to their 'anti-gun' constituency.

Quote:

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.

Thanks for the bolded lecture. Good God. Go read my posts on my research into why Democrats might have voted no and see if I am acting like I am an expert.

Did I say you were acting like an expert?? Of course not. That word doesn't remotely appear in my comment. All I said was that if you hadn't read the issue, you shouldn't be surprised to find that your un-researched comment may not apply or make sense to the specific situation.... because you don't know what that situation is... because you didn't read up on it.

And yes, when people like you routinely claim things exactly like this... where someone makes numerous completely legitimate comments... and you accuse them of things they NEVER said.... forums like this suck. If instead, you read what people write and respond to that, they still fall short of personal conversation, but they have other advantages.

(01-17-2023 05:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-17-2023 03:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-17-2023 03:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  in re Larry Nassar

My mistake. I thought he was a trainer, which in the terms I'm discussing is not an MD.

That portion doesn't apply, but he will STILL argue that his methods have merit and weren't meant to 'assault' the women.... avoiding CRIMINAL prosecution.

He can't get up in court and say that his methods have merit (and have his shyster expert say the same thing) successfully when the other side will have the highest-regarded sports medicine doctors at their disposal to say "No way... that's not standard practice and, in fact, is abhorrent behavior". It won't fly.

Sure he can. That's his right. You're arguing that he won't WIN that argument.... hence my comment about trusting juries... but many vastly less egregious acts than his will not have the same outcome.

Quote:The trial came and went and he was found guilty. You are acting as if it on the horizon?

He plead guilty to child porn and tampering with evidence. I dont believe he was convicted of assault, though that will likely come in a civil, not criminal trial. He also plead guilty to rape....

So basically he didn't really fight the charges... and you're acting as if he (or really someone else LIKE him) couldn't.

I'm talking about it in the future because Nassar isn't the subject of this or any other new law. Laws don't apply retroactively... so you can only use them as an example of the sort of person who might be subject to a new law.

Quote:Yes... I think the law is overkill and more legislation just for the sake of more legislation is not a good thing. Especially when it delves into the way that doctors are practicing medicine.

Fine... but none of your leadership is saying this. That's not why THEY voted against it.... and THAT was the question. What consituency are they appealing to? It's not you, even though I've repeatedly said, that wouldn't be without merit.