Her name was Amber Nicole Thurman ...

[mikkel_the_dane]

The second quote dances around the "apparent" confusion of an instrument and its purpose, and when a procedure is "not considered an abortion". The source, particularly when applied to Ms Thurman, is flawed since it makes no attempt to address or discuss the details of the law including

(1) LIfe and physical health exemptions for the mother, regardless of the age of the fetus AND
(2) Reasonable medical judgement

This is the case in both Georgia and North Carolina, hence why I support the first source and not the second source you quoted, for the reasons I gave in comment #198.

Yeah, we don't agree. Now unless you can actually show that you are a relevant person for the actual legal process, I consider that we hold different individual personal subjective opinions.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yeah, we don't agree. Now unless you can actually show that you are a relevant person for the actual legal process, I consider that we hold different individual personal subjective opinions.

That's a shame, I actually expected more from you.

Perhaps another will accept the challenge of explaining the "subjectivity" of the lack of information in a source, without the request to provide "qualifying" personal information.

Thanks for the discussion nevertheless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's a shame, I actually expected more from you.

Perhaps another will accept the challenge of explaining the "subjectivity" of the lack of information in a source, without the request to provide "qualifying" personal information.

Thanks for the discussion nevertheless.

Well, to understand that something is subjective, you have to subjectively understand it as subjective. Not all people can do that in all cases.

So in effect, I subjectively admit that it is subjective in regards to the sources for how I subjectively understand their respective bias and subjectively rate their claims.
And if you want to claim that you are objective in your process, you can do so. I am still subjective in how I rate it as it is about how I trust other humans for how they make claims.

 

[GoodAttention]

Well, to understand that something is subjective, you have to subjectively understand it as subjective. Not all people can do that in all cases.

So in effect, I subjectively admit that it is subjective in regards to the sources for how I subjectively understand their respective bias and subjectively rate their claims.
And if you want to claim that you are objective in your process, you can do so. I am still subjective in how I rate it as it is about how I trust other humans for how they make claims.

Here is what I mean by objectivity.

The first source provides a source within it that refers to abortion laws within each state in the US, correct as of 29th July 2024. I agree with this source's (below) claim to be independant, since it is giving factual information, and not any opinion regarding the laws.

Abortion Policy: Gestational Limits and Exceptions | KFF

www.kff.org

Now if you attempt to search the words "exempt", "exemption", "reasonable", and "judgement" in the source you support, all come back as zero instances of those words being used.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here is what I mean by objectivity.

The first source provides a source within it that refers to abortion laws within each state in the US, correct as of 29th July 2024. I agree with this source's (below) claim to be independant, since it is giving factual information, and not any opinion regarding the laws.

Abortion Policy: Gestational Limits and Exceptions | KFF

www.kff.org

Now if you attempt to search the words "exempt", "exemption", "reasonable", and "judgement" in the source you support, all come back as zero instances of those words being used.

Correct, but it doesn't address the relevance to the second quote:
The first quote:
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."
The second one:
"It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth."

So since her abortion is not covered as a spontaneous miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, the first quote doesn't apply. And the second one raises doubt about what the doctors can do.

 

[GoodAttention]

Correct, but it doesn't address the relevance to the second quote:
The first quote:
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."

Sure.

However this one quote of the souce establishes first that there are, in fact, scenarios where such a procedure can be considered. Here are other pertinent quotes relating to the "institute" mentioned.

(1b) “All pro-life state laws allow doctors to exercise their medical judgment to treat women with pregnancy emergencies. No law requires ‘imminence’ or ‘certainty’ before a doctor can act to save the patient’s life,” read the Sept. 13 Charlotte Lozier Institute fact sheet by Tess Cox, Dr. Ingrid Skop and Mary Harned.

The second one:
"It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth."

The second source does quote this, but also fails to discuss exemptions, which I have mentioned.

So since her abortion is not covered as a spontaneous miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, the first quote doesn't apply.

Correct it doesn't. However, I can add a third and fourth quote from the first source

(1c) There were also no fetal heartbeats detected in the 9-week-old unborn twins, meaning it would not have been an abortion.

(1d) “Amber Thurman’s (State of Georgia) clearly allows physicians to intervene in medical emergencies or when there is no detectable fetal heartbeat, both of which applied to her,” Francis said. “Don’t be misled by those who advocate for induced abortion over the health and safety of women.”

As I note previously, I see no difference between the North Carolina and Georgia state laws in Amber Thurman's case.

And the second one raises doubt about what the doctors can do.

I disagree. The second source, in my subjective opinion, is garbage.

It barely discusses the law that applies in this circumstance, does not qualify how "doubt" is assessed, and most importantly, what the exemptions could be. The source attempts to portray a "fearful" medical profession, in the context of a procedure that was considered but not performed. It attempts to put the spotlight on litigation, and what a jury could think, and not what is considered reasonable medical judgement.

Let is be known I am pro-choice, BUT the law is clear. This is medical negligence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure.

However this one quote of the souce establishes first that there are, in fact, scenarios where such a procedure can be considered. Here are other pertinent quotes relating to the "institute" mentioned.

(1b) “All pro-life state laws allow doctors to exercise their medical judgment to treat women with pregnancy emergencies. No law requires ‘imminence’ or ‘certainty’ before a doctor can act to save the patient’s life,” read the Sept. 13 Charlotte Lozier Institute fact sheet by Tess Cox, Dr. Ingrid Skop and Mary Harned.



The second source does quote this, but also fails to discuss exemptions, which I have mentioned.



Correct it doesn't. However, I can add a third and fourth quote from the first source

(1c) There were also no fetal heartbeats detected in the 9-week-old unborn twins, meaning it would not have been an abortion.

(1d) “Amber Thurman’s (State of Georgia) clearly allows physicians to intervene in medical emergencies or when there is no detectable fetal heartbeat, both of which applied to her,” Francis said. “Don’t be misled by those who advocate for induced abortion over the health and safety of women.”

As I note previously, I see no difference between the North Carolina and Georgia state laws in Amber Thurman's case.



I disagree. The second source, in my subjective opinion, is garbage.

It barely discusses the law that applies in this circumstance, does not qualify how "doubt" is assessed, and most importantly, what the exemptions could be. The source attempts to portray a "fearful" medical profession, in the context of a procedure that was considered but not performed. It attempts to put the spotlight on litigation, and what a jury could think, and not what is considered reasonable medical judgement.

Let is be known I am pro-choice, BUT the law is clear. This is medical negligence.

Yeah, let us stop here. You trust the sources differently than me. That is where it ends.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yeah, let us stop here. You trust the sources differently than me. That is where it ends.

I will always trust the source that is more objective, and between one which quotes the law and named medical practitioners, versus the other which is written by a journalist who quotes no-one specific except herself, I will go with the former every day of the week.

Thanks again.

 

[crossfire]

What is critical reading or applied skepticism to you?

Abortion Pills and Medical Negligence Killed Woman, Not Pro-Life Laws, Doctor Says

Abortion pills have four times as many complications as surgical abortions, according to a 2023 report by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which also found that all pro-life states allow doctors to treat women with pregnancy emergencies according to their medical judgment.

www.ncregister.com

In the National Catholic Register article you linked I found this:
"Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) and a board-certified OB-GYN who has practiced for two decades, said that Thurman’s death “was caused by legal abortion drugs” as well as medical negligence."
"In Francis’ opinion, it was the doctors’ negligence and the abortion-pill complications that killed Thurman — not the state’s pro-life laws, which allow abortions and other lifesaving medical procedures in cases where the woman’s physical health or life is at risk."
Further there is this claim from this source: About Lozier Institute - Lozier Institute
“Every state with a strong pro-life law permits doctors to treat women suffering from spontaneous miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies, and the treatment of these conditions is not considered an abortion under any law,” the institute noted."

So how do you rate the bias of the article you linked and the relevance of the opinions given?

If she was able to get the D&C she was seeking in the first place, she wouldn't have died.

 

[F1fan]

And I am really bothered by those women who don't take it and get pregnant on purpose.

Yeah, because women are getting pregnant on purpose so they can have the thrill and fun of having an abortion.

I am on the hormonal pill. Frequent nausea, inappetence, migraine. They have to endure these things, as we all do.

As I understand it women are not all the same biologically, and reactions to the pill, and any medication, will vary. You continue to write posts as if you are the absolute representative of the rest of the world. I find it odd that you seen unable to recognize that there are differences in the world, and that your own views and beliefs are only relevant to you. Your opinions end with you, and are not necessarily relevant to anyone else. I don't know if it is being naive, or arrogant, that you think your opinions carry a significance they don't have.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, because women are getting pregnant on purpose so they can have the thrill and fun of having an abortion.

Yes, some do...because the use of contraceptives may hinder the maximization of pleasure.

As I understand it women are not all the same biologically, and reactions to the pill, and any medication, will vary.

Nausea, migraine, gain of weight are all endurable side effects.

Your opinions end with you, and are not necessarily relevant to anyone else. I don't know if it is being naive, or arrogant, that you think your opinions carry a significance they don't have.

I am speaking of the case when a woman deliberately refuses to use contraceptives because she prefers to have an abortion.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, some do...because the use of contraceptives may hinder the maximization of pleasure.

Where are the facts? Show us some women avoid contraceptives for the thrill of getting an abortion.

Nausea, migraine, gain of weight are all endurable side effects.

Sounds awesome. So that’s why you take contraceptives?

I am speaking of the case when a woman deliberately refuses to use contraceptives because she prefers to have an abortion.

Where are the facts this happens?

 

[crossfire]

Yes, some do...because the use of contraceptives may hinder the maximization of pleasure.

Nausea, migraine, gain of weight are all endurable side effects.

Having an ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke is not an endurable side effect.

I am speaking of the case when a woman deliberately refuses to use contraceptives because she prefers to have an abortion.

Do you have any studies that demonstrate that such women exist in any significant numbers?

 

[Nakosis]

The following video makes some good points about the logistics of getting one of these exceptions OK'ed. Apparently, it's not the doctor that decides when the life of the mother is at risk, at least not with legal impunity, as they were afraid to act.

Also, who says, "Yes, this was rape (or incest)" and grants the right to the procedure? Who do we suppose the states like Georgia that criminalize abortion (and now even a D and C) would empanel to make such judgments?

At 1:50, (the video runs 15 min 41 sec) Lawrence O'Donnell begins discussing the case of a girl who became pregnant at age 12 - apparently an actual case of a 12-year old raped by her stepfather that predated these new antiabortion laws, but in this context, it is a hypothetical 12-year old post-Dobbs in a state like Georgia - and why those legal exceptions in writing might not be enough to translate to action when action is needed:

The point is that these Christian theocrats are probably not really interested in any exception or the life of the mother. Individuals might vary, but collectively, when decisions are made, one shouldn't expect many if any compassionate exceptions. Notice that we haven't heard any expression of concern or regret coming from the right regarding the needless death in Georgia. Nobody in charge in these states with severe abortion restrictions seems to care that these laws are killing people. We haven't heard anything about reforming them from the people who created them and their allies.

In my opinion, O'Donnell is one of the better political commentators on mainstream media. He did another show on the story in the OP I believe the day before the video above outlining how George W. Bush and Trump filled the Court with theocrats, and now that they "got what they wanted," we see the fallout (19 min 12 sec):

Unfortunately ,a lot of misinformation here. No one is being required to go before a judge to prove their life was in danger or that they were raped. In the case of a medical emergency it is totally up to the doctor to determine. In the case of rape, it does require a police report be filed. It never has to go before a judge.

The culprit here is media outlets like MSNBC putting out misinformation like this causing folks to fear seeking out medical help.

 

[Nakosis]

Lawmakers are not healthcare professionals. Heck, it wasn't that long ago when one argued that an ectopic pregnancy could be "reimplanted" for crimey's sake. (There is no medical procedure for such a thing.) The language of the laws can be quite vague from a medical standpoint. If they are brought to trail, will the jury understand the medical situation well enough to come to a fair conclusion? From the article:

​

In interviews with more than three dozen OB-GYNs in states that outlawed abortion, ProPublica learned how difficult it is to interpret the vague and conflicting language in bans’ medical exceptions — especially, the doctors said, when their judgment could be called into question under the threat of prison time.​

​

​

Take the language in Georgia’s supposed lifesaving exceptions.​

​

​

It prohibits doctors from using any instrument “with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.” While removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove “a dead unborn child” that resulted from a “spontaneous abortion” defined as “naturally occurring” from a miscarriage or a stillbirth.​

​

​

Thurman had told doctors her miscarriage was not spontaneous — it was the result of taking pills to terminate her pregnancy.​

​

​

There is also an exception, included in most bans, to allow abortions “necessary in order to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.” There is no standard protocol for how providers should interpret such language, doctors said. How can they be sure a jury with no medical experience would agree that intervening was “necessary”?​

In Georgia, this is left to the determination of the doctors. ProPublica is a pro abortion platform. If you look into the law, it is pretty clear. No need to rely on some media outlet for your information.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, some do...because the use of contraceptives may hinder the maximization of pleasure.

Oh come on.

Nausea, migraine, gain of weight are all endurable side effects.

The pill took away those symptoms for me. Plus my horribly unbearable cramps that I'm stuck with now that I'm off the pill.

I am speaking of the case when a woman deliberately refuses to use contraceptives because she prefers to have an abortion.

And I think you're making that up out of thin air.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Unfortunately ,a lot of misinformation here. No one is being required to go before a judge to prove their life was in danger or that they were raped. In the case of a medical emergency it is totally up to the doctor to determine. In the case of rape, it does require a police report be filed. It never has to go before a judge.

The culprit here is media outlets like MSNBC putting out misinformation like this causing folks to fear seeking out medical help.

It's already hard enough getting anyone to take us seriously when we're raped, so now these poor women have yet another hurdle in their way. Yay.

Looks like Roe v. Wade protections were pretty darn near perfect. We didn't see all this kind of crap happening to people when that was in place.
This is what we said would happen when it was overturned. And here we are.

Women's reproductive health isn't some game to be played with.

 

[Nakosis]

So the doctors are supposed to be the experts on the law now and get legal opinion before acting. That is part of the problem, the hospital legal departments are saying no, our insurance does not cover this.

I don't know where you have been for the last two years, but this is happening all over the place. It was expected and these stories are just the demonstration that warnings about these laws were correct.

Certainly the fear created by misinforming the public about these stories is causing folks not to seek out medical help.

Insurance is another issue altogether. There was never a requirement for an insurance plan to cover abortions. That's irrespective of any state laws. Even in states where abortion is unrestricted, there is no guarantee an abortion will be covered by your insurance.

I'll agree our health care industry has a lot of problem. Biden/Harris has had three and a half years to address these. I would expect much to be done in the next four years regardless of which party is in power.

 

[crossfire]

In Georgia, this is left to the determination of the doctors. ProPublica is a pro abortion platform. If you look into the law, it is pretty clear. No need to rely on some media outlet for your information.

The doctors in Georgia are not lawyers. She would not have died if Georgia had not implemented this law. She could have gotten her desired D&C closer to home, as there is no shortage of OB/GYNs in Georgia. (Yet)

 

[F1fan]

In Georgia, this is left to the determination of the doctors.

Whose lawyers and insurers warned them not to give medical care that prosecutors could interpret as illegal.

ProPublica is a pro abortion platform.

Pants on fire false. Their mission is to investigate and expose abuses of power by government, businesses, and other organizations.

If you look into the law, it is pretty clear. No need to rely on some media outlet for your information.

Reputable media sources will report in depth details about matters. And no these laws are ambiguous to a degree that the lawyers and insurers of medical professionals advise them not to care for pregnant women in distress. These professionals are caught between the laws republicans wrote and their duties to help those in medical distress.