RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 10:51:06 PM)

Try 21.6 weeks as being the youngest to have made it.. and she lied...

A medical miracle: World's most premature baby, born at 21 weeks and five days, goes home to her delighted parents

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html#ixzz2XUAHBumf

There has NOT been a 20 week old to survive.

You think they wouldnt be writing up a 20 week old baby who survived at 20 weeks?

Weeks 23 to 25 of pregnancy (gestational age)
Bone marrow begins to make blood cells.
The lower airways of the baby's lungs develop but still do not produce surfactant (a substance that allows the alveoli to open for gas exchange).

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

We can give steriods to force surfactant production... but it doesnt work if the ability to produce that isnt available.

Statistics are just that... stats.

What Is the Survival Rate for Micro Preemies?

Micro preemies are very fragile, and every day that a mom spends pregnant increases her baby's chance of survival.

Born at 22 weeks: About 10% of babies survive
23 weeks: 50% to 66% of babies survive
24 weeks: 66% to 80% of babies survive
25 weeks: 75% to 85% of babies survive
26 weeks: Over 90% of babies survive

Now, to point out your error.... from your article...

The Casey opinion declared that "there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability." Indeed, in the past 21 years medical developments have moved viability up to 20 weeks post-conception.

To address the bolded part lets turn to the Mayo Clinic.

Conception typically occurs about two weeks after your last period begins. To calculate your due date, your health care provider will count ahead 40 weeks from the start of your last period. This means your period is counted as part of your pregnancy — even though you weren't pregnant at the time.

When you count from the medical last menstrual period, you are actually adding 2 weeks onto the age of the fetus. Fertilization doesnt occur until week three, implantation until week 4.

When you are looking at a 20 week pregnancy,....

Week 20: The halfway point

Halfway into your pregnancy, or 18 weeks after conception, you might be able to feel your baby's first movements, also known as quickening. If you've been pregnant before, you might have begun feeling your baby's movements a few weeks ago.

Which means this phrase 20 weeks post-conception is 22 weeks gestational.

And....

Week 26: Baby's fingernails develop

Twenty-six weeks into your pregnancy, or 24 weeks after conception, your baby has fingernails.

Your baby's lungs are beginning to produce surfactant, the substance that allows the air sacs in the lungs to inflate — and keeps them from collapsing and sticking together when they deflate.

By now your baby might be 9 inches (230 millimeters) long from crown to rump and weigh nearly 2 pounds (820 grams).

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fetal-development/PR00113/NSECTIONGROUP=2

You are getting twisted up in the terminology... and that is what is massively wrong with Politicians having their noses into a uterus. Many simply dont understand the medical terms... and Some are deliberately twisting it.

So, when you say a 20 week old fetus will survive.... there simply is no way.

http://www.spensershope.org/chances_for_survival.htm

According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive.[4] It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive.[1] A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability



jlf1961 -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 10:56:57 PM)

I seem to recall that Deanna Troi was pregnant only a couple of days before her baby was born and it survived, actually grew to puberty before the episode ended, does that count?

I mean it must be where these republicans are getting their medical information, dont you think?



tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 11:02:56 PM)

Ya know.. this topic just irritates me. Its irritating how much misinformation is out there and how people gobble it up because it suits their moral agenda to do so. These are some of the same people who insist the government isnt to be trusted to give accurate information, yet they accept what some politician tells them about abortions and fetal development, despite ......... despite.......... science.



jlf1961 -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 11:06:31 PM)

Uh, it was on star trek episode, and the plot idea has featured prominently in horror and sci fi in print, film and on the web, so it has to be true!

Just like the fact that you, tazzy, can walk on water, turn ordinary matter into gold, cure cancer with a touch, as well as ED, Sterility and male pattern baldness.

I mean the above statement becomes true as soon as I hit the OK button to post this, right?



tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 11:09:09 PM)

lol.. I knew what you meant, hon.. I have seen the episode. That was sorta my mini rant for the night.



jlf1961 -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 11:13:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

lol.. I knew what you meant, hon.. I have seen the episode. That was sorta my mini rant for the night.



You know that I am pro life in most cases, and that I also do not think the government does not have the right to legislate abortion.

But some of the crap republican controlled state legislatures are coming up with is either medically stupid, authoritarian, or bordering on the establishment of a theocratic government.

I half expect some well meaning individual to propose something like the hunger games, only instead of every year, have it every quarter, and instead two per state, have a hundred per state... but then I have a poor opinion of all political parties right now.



tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 11:19:07 PM)

There is that new horror flick... The Purge. I can see some, one day, wanting to come up with that situation. Crowd control [;)]



Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 11:35:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Phydeaux

A) you are not the token conservative here, by any stretch of the imagination. Your post however does show the typical lack of knowledge regarding the facts.
B) At least be aware that the bill is NOT regarding viability, but Fetal Pain.hint, its even called the Preborn Pain Act.
here I did some work for you to give you the text of the bill
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/pdf/HB02364I.pdf
you can thank me later.
C) Actually to most thinking people, the Gosnell case proves just how badly poor women have to deal being unable to get a safe abortion before the viability dates, and have to use a butcher like gosnell as a last resort. .
As a result of the new "bill, it would have effectively closed 42 of 47 clinics in the texas area....given the SIZE and rurality of texas.... its going to cause more problems than it solves.
Once again, you are arguing with incomplete knowledge facts and clues...
I suggests you get one before you try asserting such BS

Edited to add, the JAMA latest detailson fetal pain
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=201429
And a CDC Paper on Abortion Surveillance.
And SHaky evidence of the pain information
http://www.policymic.com/articles/29006/fetal-pain-bill-proposed-texas-measure-based-on-shaky-science




So, now I've read the bill twice. Thanks for the link, but I saw no substantive difference to the version I read already. I wonder if you read it?

So here's what I read.

Page 1: Compelling medical evidence that fetuses feel pain; and that some fetuses are viable at 20 weeks.
Page 2: Determining the age of a fetus
Page 3: Exceptions for health, brain damage, deformit etc.
Page 4: Non disclosure of abortions except under court order.
Page 5: Reporting requirements when the rules are violated.
Page 6: Requirements for doctors to have licenses; to not buy them, forge them. Etc.
Page 7: ""
PAge 8: Makes 3rd trimester abortions illegal, with exceptions
Page 9: Boilerplate.

Seems to me you are pretty clearly wrong lucy. Viability has more cites than fetal pain, regardless of the name of the bill. Regardless, it is certainly not true that the bill is "not about viability".

Regarding your "Actually to most thinking people, the Gosnell case proves just how badly poor women have to deal being unable to get a safe abortion before the viability dates" - you don't of course have any evidence of that. Poll numbers perhaps? So thats just your words, right?

Regarding the bill would have closed 42 of the 47 abortion providers: This isn't in the bill. In fact they are verbatum talking points from a leftist website called Think Progress.

So to sum up:

I said that my review was cursory.
You said that your review was not. You said that the bill was not about viability - it clearly was.
You said that the bill would require the shutting down of 42 of 47 abortion providers - it clearly did not.
You said some unintelligible thing about what Gosnell really meant - absent any supporting facts.

I said I would be attacked by rabid lefties. I think I was pretty accurate.

Have a nice day.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 11:52:38 PM)

quote:

I said I would be attacked by rabid lefties. I think I was pretty accurate.


Im hardly rabid. I happen to work in Labor and Delivery as well as NewBorn care.

That makes me a nurse with a whole lot more understanding of these issues than you.

Instead of belittling people, you really should check for yourself the accuracy of my statements instead of insisting you are being attacked by the "rabid liberals".

IF you can find scientific evidence disputing anything I have said, please, do post it. I will be very interested in reading it.



tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/27/2013 11:54:14 PM)

quote:

Regarding the bill would have closed 42 of the 47 abortion providers: This isn't in the bill. In fact they are verbatum talking points from a leftist website called Think Progress.


Of course it doesnt state that exactly. The provisions of the bill will cause that many to close.

http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/sb5-abortion-restrictions/

SB 5 would also require abortion facilities in Texas to meet state ambulatory surgical center standards, but the stringency of those standards can vary from state to state. Texas’ standards fall on the stricter side, said Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that researches reproductive health and abortion issues.

And surely you arent going to argue with the Guttmacher Institute since the right for life group uses its numbers all the time.



Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 12:14:26 AM)

Sorry Taz,

There's an error in your logic, as well.
Just because babies haven't survived earlier than 21.5 doesn't mean they couldn't be viable. The current standard of care in the UK for example is not to provide active care for babies born before 22 weeks, or under 1 lb. IF you don't give treatment to a rabies victim - he will die also. That doesn't mean he wasn't possibly viable.

Secondly, even if the current standard of medical care only allows a child to survive at 21.5 weeks, medical care is constantly evolving. It is not unreasonable to look forward 10 years and think that survivability, and perhaps even long term health issues might be significantly improved. Again, I don't think changing the law to 20 weeks is that big an infringement.

More or less your rationale for suggesting 20 weeks isn't a reasonable limit is - it makes it inconvenient?
Remember, the current rationale for Roe v Wade is viability (read wiki, or court proceedings), which makes it looks as if the texas court on its face is in alignment with the supreme court.



Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 12:27:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Regarding the bill would have closed 42 of the 47 abortion providers: This isn't in the bill. In fact they are verbatum talking points from a leftist website called Think Progress.


Of course it doesnt state that exactly. The provisions of the bill will cause that many to close.

http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/sb5-abortion-restrictions/

SB 5 would also require abortion facilities in Texas to meet state ambulatory surgical center standards, but the stringency of those standards can vary from state to state. Texas’ standards fall on the stricter side, said Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that researches reproductive health and abortion issues.

And surely you arent going to argue with the Guttmacher Institute since the right for life group uses its numbers all the time.


I don't know anything about Guttmacher.

All the law requires is meeting the legal requirements for outpatient surgical centers. You think thats unreasonable, I don't. Outpatient surgical centers - ie., where you go to get lasix, or perhaps a tummy tuck, or hemorrhoids fixed.


Yeah, I don't think its so unreasonable that an abortion - which is more complicated than any of these - be done in a safe and sanitary conditions.
Using Pennsylvania as an example, holding an abortion clinic to these standards means:

- the clinic must have doors and elevators that can accomodate a stretcher.
- floors must be seemless so they are easier to clean
- the clinics must have sterilization equipment.

Yeah. These are terrible standards for an abortion clinic. Please feel free to debate the point that these are reasonable requirements.



tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 12:29:01 AM)

quote:

Just because babies haven't survived earlier than 21.5 doesn't mean they couldn't be viable.


Uh, yeah it does. Fetal viability is the ability of a fetus to survive outside the uterus.

quote:

The current standard of care in the UK for example is not to provide active care for babies born before 22 weeks, or under 1 lb. IF you don't give treatment to a rabies victim - he will die also. That doesn't mean he wasn't possibly viable.


Current standard of care in the US is 23 - 24 weeks, however, that is left up to the neonatologist. Since this is a US issue, I think we need to stick with US standards of care.

quote:

Secondly, even if the current standard of medical care only allows a child to survive at 21.5 weeks, medical care is constantly evolving.


21.5 weeks could be 23.5 weeks. Remember that window between last menstrual period and fertilization. And how are the lungs going to evolve to the point that they can change their structure to start developing surfactant sooner than they do? Think that hasnt been tested, repeatedly?

quote:

Again, I don't think changing the law to 20 weeks is that big an infringement.


Its a huge infringement not backed by any means of medical science.

quote:

More or less your rationale for suggesting 20 weeks isn't a reasonable limit is - it makes it inconvenient?


Makes what inconvenient?

quote:

Remember, the current rationale for Roe v Wade is viability (read wiki, or court proceedings), which makes it looks as if the texas court on its face is in alignment with the supreme court.


No.

The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[6]) "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 12:39:24 AM)

quote:

All the law requires is meeting the legal requirements for outpatient surgical centers. You think thats unreasonable, I don't. Outpatient surgical centers - ie., where you go to get lasix, or perhaps a tummy tuck, or hemorrhoids fixed.


Uh, no. It also requires physicians to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Something that happened in another state, which is why that state has only 1 abortion clinic, and they attempted to close that because no hospital would grant admitting privileges.

If you cant see the twisted logic in that......

quote:

Using Pennsylvania as an example, holding an abortion clinic to these standards means:

- the clinic must have doors and elevators that can accomodate a stretcher.
- floors must be seemless so they are easier to clean
- the clinics must have sterilization equipment.


Three states impose stringent ambulatory/outpatient surgical center standards on any facilities performing abortions: MO, PA and VA (administrative regulations subject to approval).

Forty-three states and the District of Columbia limit the performance of surgical abortions to licensed physicians: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, and WY.

Eleven states require abortion providers to maintain admitting privileges: AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, MO, OH, PA, SC, TX, and UT.

Twenty-three states require reporting (to varying degrees) on abortion complications: AL, AZ, AR, CT, FL, IL, IN, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, WA, WI, and WY

http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/maps-4-regulating-abortion.pdf

quote:

Yeah. These are terrible standards for an abortion clinic. Please feel free to debate the point that these are reasonable requirements.


You were saying?



Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 12:47:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

I said I would be attacked by rabid lefties. I think I was pretty accurate.


Im hardly rabid. I happen to work in Labor and Delivery as well as NewBorn care.
That makes me a nurse with a whole lot more understanding of these issues than you.

Instead of belittling people, you really should check for yourself the accuracy of my statements instead of insisting you are being attacked by the "rabid liberals".

IF you can find scientific evidence disputing anything I have said, please, do post it. I will be very interested in reading it.


I wasn't belittling you taz. I wasn't even talking about you.

As for the overall thrust of what I said - I pretty much stand by it. I do think the bill is not worth the knee-jerk hysteria.
Most of the media are parroting the "42 / 47" line - from Planned parenthood. There's an unbiased source.

Here's some facts.

PA passed a similar law to similar outrage. PA now has 5 fewer abortion clinics.
The median cost to comply with the law was $225,000. Planned parenthood pulled in 1.1 billion last year.
Gosnell's clinic was pulling in $15,000 per day. Thats 15 days gross. Or roughly 4% of gross income.
12% sales tax is ok but 4% fee to regulate isn't ok?
Businesses go out of business all the time. There is no causal attribution that it because of the law - or anything to prevent new clinics from opening up.


There is NOTHING in this law that would require - or even likely lead to the shutting of the clinics. Just the squeeling of a special interest group that doesn't want to be regulated.

Show me that the regulations are burdensome, unreasonable and hell I might agree with you. But personally, if those abortion clinics prevent one malpractise suit they are probably ahead of the game.







tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 12:54:45 AM)

quote:

PA passed a similar law to similar outrage. PA now has 5 fewer abortion clinics - but three of those were run by Gosnell and associates.


quote:

Six months after Pennsylvania began regulating abortion clinics as outpatient surgery centers under a controversial new law, most clinics are complying - and complaining.

The state lists 17 abortion providers, down from 22 a year ago. But only 13 of the remaining providers have been approved to do surgical abortions, a loss of five surgical facilities. The four remaining clinics are restricted to providing nonsurgical terminations using abortion pills.


http://articles.philly.com/2013-01-23/news/36486696_1_abortion-clinics-abortion-providers-first-trimester-abortions

quote:

There is NOTHING in this law that would require - or even likely lead to the shutting of the clinics. Just the squeeling of a special interest group that doesn't want to be regulated.


You dont understand the differences between the states, do you.

In PA, getting admitting priviledges are not that difficult.

quote:

The 2012 Mississippi law requires each doctor who performs abortions at the clinic to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Diane Derzis, the clinic's owner, says all hospitals have refused.


Thats how the closed all but 1 clinic in Mississippi. That one only has one physician with admitting priviledges.

(Reuters) - Mississippi's only abortion clinic was granted a temporary reprieve from closure on Monday when a federal judge blocked enforcement of a state law that required its doctors to have the right to admit patients to local hospitals.

.........

Only one of the clinic's doctors holds admitting privileges and the two who provide the vast majority of abortions do not.

The clinic sought another injunction in November after the doctors' requests for privileges were rejected at every local hospital because they perform elective abortions. Two hospitals refused even to give them applications.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-usa-abortion-mississippi-idUSBRE93F07120130416



Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 1:01:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

All the law requires is meeting the legal requirements for outpatient surgical centers. You think thats unreasonable, I don't. Outpatient surgical centers - ie., where you go to get lasix, or perhaps a tummy tuck, or hemorrhoids fixed.


Uh, no. It also requires physicians to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Something that happened in another state, which is why that state has only 1 abortion clinic, and they attempted to close that because no hospital would grant admitting privileges.

If you cant see the twisted logic in that......

quote:

Using Pennsylvania as an example, holding an abortion clinic to these standards means:

- the clinic must have doors and elevators that can accomodate a stretcher.
- floors must be seemless so they are easier to clean
- the clinics must have sterilization equipment.


Three states impose stringent ambulatory/outpatient surgical center standards on any facilities performing abortions: MO, PA and VA (administrative regulations subject to approval).

Forty-three states and the District of Columbia limit the performance of surgical abortions to licensed physicians: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, and WY.

Eleven states require abortion providers to maintain admitting privileges: AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, MO, OH, PA, SC, TX, and UT.

Twenty-three states require reporting (to varying degrees) on abortion complications: AL, AZ, AR, CT, FL, IL, IN, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, WA, WI, and WY

http://www.aul.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/maps-4-regulating-abortion.pdf

quote:

Yeah. These are terrible standards for an abortion clinic. Please feel free to debate the point that these are reasonable requirements.


You were saying?


I don't see your point at all. You gave a number of statistics but no evidence its a bad thing. So what if MN requires reporting an abortion complication. I chose an example of PA (which has the toughest standards) because texas would be more lenient than that.

PA - the place with the strictest standards - closed 5 abortion clinics.

Isn't the reasonable expection therefore that texas will close proportionally LESS clinics? as it has more lenient standards?
Hardly 42/47.




tazzygirl -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 1:07:27 AM)

I never said requirements are a bad thing. What I AM saying is that an agenda is in place. Require physicians to have admitting priviledges, and then hospitals wont grant them.

No abortion clinic.

If you believe Texas wont work this the same way Mississippi did, I have a bridge from the US to London to sell you. 10 years ago, there were 6.. now 1.



Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 1:10:10 AM)


quote:



The clinic sought another injunction in November after the doctors' requests for privileges were rejected at every local hospital because they perform elective abortions. Two hospitals refused even to give them applications.



Oh, you meant the two catholic hospitals that refused to give him applications because its against their religious beliefs? Sounds.. terrible.

At the very least you have to concede that this is a combination of Mississipi's law and civic action - not Mississipi's law solely. And again, there is no indication that the local conditions are the same, and that they are likely to lead to the shut down of a significant number of clinics - let alone 90%.

In fact - with the exception of Mississipi, has the law resulted in the shutdown of 90% of the clinics anywhere?

Personally, I think the shutdown of clinics is happening (and will happen) increasingly because of RU486, and the other morning after pills - some of which can be prescribed at a pharmacy.



Phydeaux -> RE: Bravery and fortitude in Texas (6/28/2013 1:16:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

I never said requirements are a bad thing. What I AM saying is that an agenda is in place. Require physicians to have admitting priviledges, and then hospitals wont grant them.

No abortion clinic.

If you believe Texas wont work this the same way Mississippi did, I have a bridge from the US to London to sell you. 10 years ago, there were 6.. now 1.



But you have no evidence of it Tazz. There is nothing to suggest that TX will be like Mississip instead of Fl, or MI, or MN. The fact that so many states have these requirements and the sky hasn't fallen in argues that the requirements are reasonable.

Regarding admittance. There were horrible cases here in florida where people died because of cosmetic surgery where the doctors had no admitting privileges and rather than call 911 the patients --- died.

And there are also valid reasons that a hospital won't grant admitting privileges. Not carrying insurance. Poor medical history. History of mapractice.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125