Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Roe v. Wade.

Lookinagain said:
To me states that ban abortion also have other policies I do not like so I would not want to move to any of them for a host of reasons, abortion being one of the most important, but not the only one. I’m fortunate that where I live, this is not an issue. Yet. But if a National ban is somehow enacted, as some are calling for, then what? I shudder to think what that would mean.
Click to expand...

I know my state would never go for it. I don't think any of the North would.
As to why these others are so adamant, is myriad. I think it's also very important to remember: The cruelty is the point. It ties directly with their Theocratic (Dominionist) ambition.
 
I too believe the cruelty is the point, that and controlling women.

I also feel the state I live in would never go for it but all it takes is other issues taking center stage (the majority of people aren’t one issue voters with abortion being that one issue) and the wrong person getting elected.

If we have learned anything in the past five years it’s that anything is possible, even the unthinkable. I also would have never believed we would have ever seen a Charlottesville in my lifetime. It’s a scary time on many different levels.
 
Last edited:
Okay, this seems tangential but it really isn't. These issues are intertwined as part and parcel.
This is the danger we face.
This is no longer 'fringe', this is part of their platform. Remember- this is what voting for Republicans is in our current climate. There is no distinction or delineation to be made. There is no rationalizing. This isn't a joke, this is what millions honestly believe.
Behold, here be their prophet
www.mediamatters.org

Doug Mastriano campaign "prophet" Julie Green: Political executions are coming, Biden “is no longer alive,” Pelosi drinks “children’s blood”

www.mediamatters.org www.mediamatters.org
 
missy said:
I’d make it my priority to do all I could not to live in one of those states at least.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The effect of the Roe v. Wade demolition will make this country even more uneven and polarized than is already, because the places that ban or severely limit abortion will become pariah states over time, I believe.
 
Calliecake said:
This is not a great time to be a women in this country.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It makes me glad to have said goodbye to my youth, and how sad is that? What kind of country is it which makes you think, "Whoa! So glad not to be a healthy young fertile person!"
 
ItsMainelyYou said:
Okay, this seems tangential but it really isn't. These issues are intertwined as part and parcel.
This is the danger we face.
This is no longer 'fringe', this is part of their platform. Remember- this is what voting for Republicans is in our current climate. There is no distinction or delineation to be made. There is no rationalizing. This isn't a joke, this is what millions honestly believe.
Behold, here be their prophet
www.mediamatters.org

Doug Mastriano campaign "prophet" Julie Green: Political executions are coming, Biden “is no longer alive,” Pelosi drinks “children’s blood”

www.mediamatters.org www.mediamatters.org
Click to expand...
Well, I hope that he's not stupid enough to not separate himself from this kind of garbage rhetoric. Not that I would ever support him, but that's just nuts (okay, I said in another thread that if I thought a post was nuts, I'd shut up and walk away, but these aren't statements made by a PSer so I claim an exception to my own rule)
 
Lookinagain said:
Well, I hope that he's not stupid enough to not separate himself from this kind of garbage rhetoric. Not that I would ever support him, but that's just nuts (okay, I said in another thread that if I thought a post was nuts, I'd shut up and walk away, but these aren't statements made by a PSer so I claim an exception to my own rule)
Click to expand...

Oh no, he's whole hog for Q. This is someone he specifically showcases.
All of them, the whole party, to one degree or another. There isn't a choice at this point or you become ostracized a la Cheney.
 
Perspective from the NEJM August 27, 2022

What Dobbs Means for Patients with Breast Cancer​

List of authors.
  • Nicole T. Christian, M.D.,
  • and Virginia F. Borges, M.D.



As physicians who take care of patients with breast cancer, our days are routinely filled with questions from patients about matters of personal choice: Did I ignore this symptom too long? Should I have breast-fed longer? Should I have gotten a mammogram sooner?


Our patients have to make difficult choices about whether to continue working through chemotherapy, how much time to take off while recovering from surgery, and how to manage the impact cancer care will have on everything from their personal finances to their sex lives. They also have to think about the potential repercussions for their existing children and future fertility. We are oncologists; we do not perform abortions. And yet the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization will harm some of our patients — indeed, the harmful effects will become a reality for all clinicians who care for women of childbearing age.

Breast cancer is the most common type of cancer among women younger than 45 years of age, affecting about 27,000 women in that age group in the United States each year. Approximately 4% of these young women’s breast cancers are diagnosed during pregnancy, and the incidence is increasing.1 Treatment of breast cancer involves both local and systemic interventions, aiming to remove existing tumor and avert recurrence and metastases. Historically, abortion was recommended for all women with breast cancer, since the toxic effects associated with treatment were deemed incompatible with a healthy pregnancy. We now counsel that, in many circumstances, continuation of pregnancy is an option that won’t substantially compromise the long-term survival of the patient or the health of the fetus.


There remain situations, however, in which we cannot offer complete or safe treatment to a pregnant person with a breast cancer diagnosis. And even when we can, it may be overwhelming or impossible for the patient to manage breast cancer treatment in addition to pregnancy — and then care for a newborn. For some patients, therefore, abortion is most likely the best option. Under Dobbs, some U.S. patients will be forced to carry a high-risk pregnancy and will have limited choices for treating their cancer. Making this compromise could result in worse oncologic outcomes and a greater risk of death for these patients — risks that apply to pregnant patients with any type of cancer.
Therapeutic decision making for patients with breast cancer is complex, multidisciplinary, and frequently tailored to balance the escalation and de-escalation of various modes of treatment, including surgery, systemic therapies, and radiation. The added complexity of a pregnancy affects the timing of therapies, their duration, and which ones are options for a given patient. How a pregnancy influences these decisions also depends on whether the patient is in the first, second, or third trimester; the impact of chemotherapy on embryologic development is different from that on a near-term fetus.


Surgery is a necessary component of successful curative treatment of breast cancer. Patients who are pregnant when undergoing surgery face additional risks. Large studies have shown that nonobstetric surgery in pregnant patients is associated with small, but real, increases in the risks of stillbirth, preterm delivery, and the need for cesarean section. Most patients with breast cancer have the option of breast conservation (a smaller surgery with radiation) rather than mastectomy with or without reconstruction. When a patient is pregnant, decisions about surgery must include consideration of challenging factors such as the gestational timeline, the potential need to delay radiation therapy for breast conservation, and the risks to both the patient and the fetus posed by longer operating times and anesthesia for reconstruction. We believe that all patients with breast cancer should have the right to decide which therapies are right for them, even if that means termination of a pregnancy.


Similarly, oncologists often recommend starting with systemic therapy in order to avoid mastectomy or removal of all the axillary lymph nodes. Pregnancy dramatically limits the systemic therapies that can be used to achieve these goals. In general, systemic therapy for breast cancer has shifted toward new medications that target specific cellular pathways; these treatments often lead to excellent outcomes and have fewer and less severe toxic effects than classic chemotherapy. But many targeted systemic therapies for breast cancer are explicitly contraindicated in pregnancy, which leaves traditional chemotherapy as the only option for many pregnant patients. Tamoxifen, for example, targets hormone-receptor–positive breast cancer, the most common subtype, but exposure to tamoxifen during pregnancy is associated with significantly higher rates of fetal anomalies.2 The medications that target the more aggressive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive subtype of breast cancers — and have revolutionized the treatment of these cancers — are also contraindicated in pregnancy and are associated with serious adverse events.3
Some of the newest medications that improve cancer outcomes, such as immunotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer, have so far not been definitively shown to adversely affect pregnancies, but they interact with critical pathways that directly moderate the maternal–fetal immune relationship.4 Some chemotherapies are routinely used in pregnancy because they are considered to pose an acceptable risk to the developing fetus, but they are associated with low birth weight, stillbirth, or premature labor.5


In caring for pregnant patients with breast cancer, we routinely develop a modified strategy for systemic therapy, adapted to the timing of the pregnancy, that will maximize safety for the fetus and permit the best achievable outcome for the patient. But whether to pursue a recommended course of therapy and whether to continue the pregnancy, given the associated risks, need to be decisions made by the patient.


Forcing a patient with breast cancer to carry a pregnancy to term means exposing the fetus to chemotherapy and delaying treatment with appropriate targeted therapies — inherently restricting patients and physicians to a single pathway, even if termination of the pregnancy would permit the pursuit of better therapeutic options in a particular case. Moreover, breast cancer is not the only type of cancer that can affect pregnant patients; similar difficult choices are necessary in treating a pregnant patient with any cancer or similar diagnosis. Shared decision making is a cornerstone of medical practice, and physicians routinely work with patients to balance their beliefs and values with their therapeutic options. Weighing the risks and benefits of de-escalation of systemic therapy, the interplay between these choices and surgery and radiation, and the effects of these treatments on the survival of the patient and the health of the fetus defies the blunt instrument of legal regulations that antiabortion forces are now passing in numerous state legislatures.


Termination of a pregnancy in a patient with breast cancer is not a recommendation or a decision made easily. As with many other decisions in cancer care, the process of informed consent involves weighing the risks and benefits of any given path; then the patient and the health care team collaboratively make decisions on the basis of the patient’s beliefs, values, and priorities.

As physicians, our goal is to help patients make the best choice in their individual circumstances. For some women, that may mean termination of a desired pregnancy to allow pursuit of the best treatment options for their breast cancer. For others, it may mean continuation of pregnancy. Our concern is that, emboldened by Dobbs, states are imposing restrictions that eliminate an option that is important for all women and essential for patients who are diagnosed with breast cancer when they’re pregnant.


These difficult decisions should be informed by physicians’ extensive training and understanding of the scientific literature, and they should be made as part of the meaningful dialogue of a patient–physician relationship. They are not decisions that should be made by the state. Though our team is multidisciplinary, there is no role in it for the government.


All physicians have a responsibility to advocate for our patients. New restrictions on reproductive choices will have adverse effects across the spectrum of medical care and should be of concern to any physician who has a patient who could be, could become, or is pregnant.


Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available at NEJM.org.
This article was published on August 27, 2022, at NEJM.org.
 
If a woman is pregnant, has breast cancer, and needs cancer treatment, wouldn't continuing the pregnancy come under the "risk to life and health of the mother" exceptions? Since bc is often hormone-driven and pregnancy pumps out those hormones.
 
You would think this to be the case @Jambalaya but in my opinion this is where things get really murky. It appears in some of the articles I‘ve read some states are viewing it more in line with there would need to be an immediate cause of death to the mother.

Years ago I worked with a man whose daughter was diagnosed with cancer when she was three months pregnant. Her doctors recommended aborting and beginning treatment immediately. She refused. She was still alive two years afterward. I can see doctors in these states saying “well she can survive so we don’t need to terminate“.

Louisiana refused to allow an abortion for a woman who‘s child will die shortly after birth. I believe she is going to another state to have an abortion. They are also dragging cases in court. Its all about controlling women and the crueler they are, the better for these people. It’s so sick.

The one area I have heard no mention of is the mother’s mental health. When abortion isn‘t allowed in cases of rape and incest I would guess suicide rates will increase in these states.
 
^ I agree with all the above, Callie.

There are no words. Just no words.

Never have I been so glad to be past childbearing age.
 
State's rights, my ass.
www.rawstory.com

Senate Republicans to introduce nationwide abortion ban: Reports

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will lead Senate Republicans in a push to pass a nationwide ban on abortion in a press conference Tuesday, less than two months before the November midterms, according to multiple reports.Despite wording in an apparent press release calling it a "late-term"...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
ItsMainelyYou said:
State's rights, my ass.
www.rawstory.com

Senate Republicans to introduce nationwide abortion ban: Reports

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) will lead Senate Republicans in a push to pass a nationwide ban on abortion in a press conference Tuesday, less than two months before the November midterms, according to multiple reports.Despite wording in an apparent press release calling it a "late-term"...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
Click to expand...

So eager to play to the Maga base, that he has forgotten that the majority of Americans think that abortion should be legal.
 
RMOO said:
So eager to play to the Maga base, that he has forgotten that the majority of Americans think that abortion should be legal.
Click to expand...

They've gone from shooting themselves in their feet to shooting themselves in their heads. Stupid move with mid-terms so close. Graham is an idiot on his best days.
 
I guess they forgot what happened in Kansas. Or, maybe they're so afraid of what happened in Kansas that they want to make it nationwide so it can't be voted on. Either way, its a very stupid move. Women haven't been energized against them enough already?
 
Matata said:
They've gone from shooting themselves in their feet to shooting themselves in their heads. Stupid move with mid-terms so close. Graham is an idiot on his best days.
Click to expand...

Oh he can keep right on shoving his foot up there - the further the better. At some point it will become clear that he and his ilk are simply unhinged.
 
I’ve heard a few of them are back tracking a little now. They will say anything to get elected. It’s disgusting. We all know how they really feel. Kansas thru them for a loop. Imagine women wanting complete control over their own bodies. Who would have thought a woman would ever come to that conclusion?
 
Thank you @Demon for posting the Patty Murray video.
 
And they lie. Notice it was a man handing down the proclamation.
They do not care. You will never be equal.

There will be no nuance or negotiation.
They will try to ban contraceptives of any kind. That's the next angle, mark it- it will.
Demon said:
I guess they forgot what happened in Kansas. Or, maybe they're so afraid of what happened in Kansas that they want to make it nationwide so it can't be voted on. Either way, its a very stupid move. Women haven't been energized against them enough already?
Click to expand...
That's the plan. That was always the plan. Cruelty and control is the point. If they gain control this is just the beginning. I can't tell you how many of these men don't think women should be able to work outside the home, attain education, have a say in divorce/custody agreements or even vote at all.
Sounds alarmist, yeah? It isn't.
 
ItsMainelyYou said:
And they lie. Notice it was a man handing down the proclamation.
They do not care. You will never be equal.

There will be no nuance or negotiation.
They will try to ban contraceptives of any kind. That's the next angle, mark it- it will.

That's the plan. That was always the plan. Cruelty and control is the point. If they gain control this is just the beginning. I can't tell you how many of these men don't think women should be able to work outside the home, attain education, have a say in divorce/custody agreements or even vote at all.
Sounds alarmist, yeah? It isn't.
Click to expand...

Oh you know they'd like women not to be able to vote. I think Peter Theil (SP) said something about problems starting when women got the vote. Going after contraception and same sex marriage is pretty much a given.
 
Demon said:
Oh you know they'd like women not to be able to vote. I think Peter Theil (SP) said something about problems starting when women got the vote. Going after contraception and same sex marriage is pretty much a given.
Click to expand...

Which is why I find it so laughable to see Lady Graham being all dramatically conservative. He must have some SERIOUS dirt on people to have maintained power for so long.
 
So Graham wants us to be like the rest of the world? That means he'll support free healthcare and education for everyone, paid leave for both mother and father each time a child is born and guaranteed job protection for them, subsidized housing when people lose a job or their housing for any reason, and an 80% tax rate for everyone to pay for those services....
 
yssie said:
So his grand plan is to have this “unborn child” that’s incompatible with life feel pain for a full 9 months, if it doesn’t die in-utero, rather than be in pain for only 16 weeks.

You just can’t argue with people like this, logic doesn’t exist :wall:
Click to expand...

Exactly, they don’t even understand the meaning of “inhumane.” Further evidence that this is only about control of women’s bodies. Guess they can’t admit that since the tradwife movement hasn’t got a whole lot of traction.
 
It’s about pandering to the evangelicals and religious right. Graham has been around long enough to know elections are won by moderates, independents and those crossover voters. Suburban women also make up a big piece of the pie. This extremism is going to backfire :pray: Unless you do what you accuse the other side of doing…cheat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top