OB/GYNs &nurses leaving Texas or leaving practice

2,831 Views | 57 Replies | Last: 12 mo ago by RD2WINAGNBEAR86
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

90sBear said:

whitetrash said:

If you want to open a casino, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to operate a casino.

If you want to kill babies, it's best that you set up shop somewhere where it's not illegal to kill babies.

Unlike other suits from abortion rights groups, the Texas suit does not seek to overturn the state bans on abortion. Instead, it asks the court to confirm that Texas law allows physicians to offer abortion if, in their good-faith judgment, the procedure is necessary because the woman has a "physical emergent medical condition" that cannot be treated during pregnancy or that makes continuing the pregnancy unsafe, or the fetus has a condition "where the pregnancy is unlikely to result in the birth of a living child with sustained life."
Here is the slippery slope in all of this. We all know this will be abused by doctors, whose "good-faith judgment" at times cannot be trusted.

I recognize the issues this presents, and I am not sure of the answer.
I think we all agree.

In addition to protecting viable fetuses, should the law be written to protect doctors or patients? My vote would be for patients and then go after the doctors that abuse the law.
Either way, innocents will suffer (babies, moms, doctors).
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Using heartbeat only to determine viability was poor judgement and wording by the lawmaker. A simple amendment allowing for additional viability markers to be used in clinical judgment would solve alot of these issues while keeping the same intent of the law. The loss of the bag of waters at under 20 weeks is prime example. The continuation of that pregnancy was cruel and harmful to the woman.
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
LIB,MR BEARS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Using heartbeat only to determine viability was poor judgement and wording by the lawmaker. A simple amendment allowing for additional viability markers to be used in clinical judgment would solve alot of these issues while keeping the same intent of the law. The loss of the bag of waters at under 20 weeks is prime example. The continuation of that pregnancy was cruel and harmful to the woman.


While I completely agree, I know this correction will still be abused by some, just as hammers, knives and guns are misused, so will this correction, if it occurs. That does not mean it would be a bad correction though. Evil people will still do evil things. Also, good doctors will still make judgement calls that will sometimes be wrong.

My wife has a friend that has had two pregnancies where she started losing amniotic fluid. On the first pregnancy she was advised to terminate the pregnancy. She chose not to and went to 100% bed rest. The result was a premature birth to what is now a healthy child. On the second pregnancy the doctor knew she would not terminate due to the loss of fluid. Again, 100% bed rest and a premature birth to what is now a healthy child.

Pregnancies, and medicine in general do not always lend themselves to black and white templates.

90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states. This lawsuit involves a very specific statute that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dobbs, nor does it seek to overturn Dobbs. All Dobbs did was make the statute constitutional.

The author has an obvious agenda here, and is trying to use this specific statute as a scare tactic to make a broader point about the dangers of Dobbs.

I can't speak for others, but I do sympathize with the women at issue, and believe the statute needs to be reformed. I expect it will be. But I have little use for Slate, or its attempts to use this specific case as a scare tactic to make the broader point on abortion.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states.
States like...Texas, for example?
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states. This lawsuit involves a very specific statute that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dobbs, nor does it seek to overturn Dobbs. All Dobbs did was make the statute constitutional.

The author has an obvious agenda here, and is trying to use this specific statute as a scare tactic to make a broader point about the dangers of Dobbs.

I can't speak for others, but I do sympathize with the women at issue, and believe the statute needs to be reformed. I expect it will be. But I have little use for Slate, or its attempts to use this specific case as a scare tactic to make the broader point on abortion.
Over in the 2024 thread Clinton's impeachment has been brought up. Saying that Dobbs did not directly affect any physician is like saying performing sex acts with Monica Lewinsky did not directly affect Clinton being impeached because he was impeached for lying to Congress, not for performing sex acts with an intern. Without the instigating act, Dobbs or the cigar, the resulting legal action would never have happened. In my opinion it's just a disingenuous take.

I believe you when say you individually have sympathy for the women in question and did not intend to imply otherwise.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states.
States like...Texas, for example?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you again being obtuse?
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states. This lawsuit involves a very specific statute that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dobbs, nor does it seek to overturn Dobbs. All Dobbs did was make the statute constitutional.

The author has an obvious agenda here, and is trying to use this specific statute as a scare tactic to make a broader point about the dangers of Dobbs.

I can't speak for others, but I do sympathize with the women at issue, and believe the statute needs to be reformed. I expect it will be. But I have little use for Slate, or its attempts to use this specific case as a scare tactic to make the broader point on abortion.
Over in the 2024 thread Clinton's impeachment has been brought up. Saying that Dobbs did not directly affect any physician is like saying performing sex acts with Monica Lewinsky did not directly affect Clinton being impeached because he was impeached for lying to Congress, not for performing sex acts with an intern. Without the instigating act, Dobbs or the cigar, the resulting legal action would never have happened. In my opinion it's just a disingenuous take.

I believe you when say you individually have sympathy for the women in question and did not intend to imply otherwise.
Let me ask this: How has Dobbs affected doctors in states that have statutes in place legalizing abortion? Has it put in jeopardy the medical licenses of physician who wants to kill babies? Of course not. The state ultimately decides whether baby-killing should be legal post-Dobbs. The same goes for states that have made abortion illegal. Dobbs was just the catalyst.

We are probably arguing semantics at this point, but the point still stands that Dobbs has only allowed for legislation like the Texas statute. If you think that means doctors' opinions on the Dobbs decision are relevant to this Texas statute, I think you've been duped by the authors and their agenda. But we can agree to disagree on that point.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states.
States like...Texas, for example?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you again being obtuse?
I'm as baffled as you are. Can't imagine why an article about one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country would suddenly go off on a tangent about Dobbs.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states.
States like...Texas, for example?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you again being obtuse?
I'm as baffled as you are. Can't imagine why an article about one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country would suddenly go off on a tangent about Dobbs.
You can't? Well, then your logic tank must be running low this afternoon.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

Sam Lowry said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states.
States like...Texas, for example?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you again being obtuse?
I'm as baffled as you are. Can't imagine why an article about one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the country would suddenly go off on a tangent about Dobbs.
You can't? Well, then your logic tank must be running low this afternoon.
If he had not received the shot, then it would be even worse.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states. This lawsuit involves a very specific statute that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dobbs, nor does it seek to overturn Dobbs. All Dobbs did was make the statute constitutional.

The author has an obvious agenda here, and is trying to use this specific statute as a scare tactic to make a broader point about the dangers of Dobbs.

I can't speak for others, but I do sympathize with the women at issue, and believe the statute needs to be reformed. I expect it will be. But I have little use for Slate, or its attempts to use this specific case as a scare tactic to make the broader point on abortion.
Over in the 2024 thread Clinton's impeachment has been brought up. Saying that Dobbs did not directly affect any physician is like saying performing sex acts with Monica Lewinsky did not directly affect Clinton being impeached because he was impeached for lying to Congress, not for performing sex acts with an intern. Without the instigating act, Dobbs or the cigar, the resulting legal action would never have happened. In my opinion it's just a disingenuous take.

I believe you when say you individually have sympathy for the women in question and did not intend to imply otherwise.
Let me ask this: How has Dobbs affected doctors in states that have statutes in place legalizing abortion? Has it put in jeopardy the medical licenses of physician who wants to kill babies? Of course not. The state ultimately decides whether baby-killing should be legal post-Dobbs. The same goes for states that have made abortion illegal. Dobbs was just the catalyst.

We are probably arguing semantics at this point, but the point still stands that Dobbs has only allowed for legislation like the Texas statute. If you think that means doctors' opinions on the Dobbs decision are relevant to this Texas statute, I think you've been duped by the authors and their agenda. But we can agree to disagree on that point.
Your first question would apply if there were no states that enacted abortion restrictions, but there are and therefore the health care providers in those states were affected by Dobbs. No Dobbs, no Texas law in effect. So you can probably expect to hear health care professionals opine on the laws in their respective states, their colleagues respective states, and the Dobbs decision itself for quite some time. Yes this is a semantics debate and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
Mothra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states. This lawsuit involves a very specific statute that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dobbs, nor does it seek to overturn Dobbs. All Dobbs did was make the statute constitutional.

The author has an obvious agenda here, and is trying to use this specific statute as a scare tactic to make a broader point about the dangers of Dobbs.

I can't speak for others, but I do sympathize with the women at issue, and believe the statute needs to be reformed. I expect it will be. But I have little use for Slate, or its attempts to use this specific case as a scare tactic to make the broader point on abortion.
Over in the 2024 thread Clinton's impeachment has been brought up. Saying that Dobbs did not directly affect any physician is like saying performing sex acts with Monica Lewinsky did not directly affect Clinton being impeached because he was impeached for lying to Congress, not for performing sex acts with an intern. Without the instigating act, Dobbs or the cigar, the resulting legal action would never have happened. In my opinion it's just a disingenuous take.

I believe you when say you individually have sympathy for the women in question and did not intend to imply otherwise.
Let me ask this: How has Dobbs affected doctors in states that have statutes in place legalizing abortion? Has it put in jeopardy the medical licenses of physician who wants to kill babies? Of course not. The state ultimately decides whether baby-killing should be legal post-Dobbs. The same goes for states that have made abortion illegal. Dobbs was just the catalyst.

We are probably arguing semantics at this point, but the point still stands that Dobbs has only allowed for legislation like the Texas statute. If you think that means doctors' opinions on the Dobbs decision are relevant to this Texas statute, I think you've been duped by the authors and their agenda. But we can agree to disagree on that point.
Yes this is a semantics debate and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
Sounds good. One question unrelated to this debate since you seem to feel strongly about the instant case: Were you happy about Dobbs?
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
what someone in Authority can disagree with a Doctors/Hospitals determination of clinical need? No sensible DA would take that case without having a healthcare professional to testify that the pregnancy was viable which you would find zero who would do that..
Well, that's your first problem right there. Viability is completely irrelevant under this law.
removal of an unviable pregnancy should be a part of reasonable medical judgement. The only question is what makes the unborn child living or dead..

170A.002 (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive..

With zero chance of survival, the reasonable medical judgement is to perform the procedure to maintain the health of the woman as it is known that the womans health deteriorates rapidly with an unviable pregnancy like in the mews article.
Again as Sam has already stated, only fetal heartbeat is mentioned in the law. Nothing regarding viability. The statement on "Medical Emergencies" is vague.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf#navpanes=0

Sec.A171.204.AA PROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT. (a) AAExcept as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child

Sec.A171.205.AA EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AASections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.
This needs to be expanded for those situations where there is an unviable pregnancy. An unviable pregnancy is a medical emergency to me.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

4th and Inches said:

90sBear said:

4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

OsoCoreyell said:

Oh no! The abortionists are leaving?
It's not really about abortionists. Regular doctors are leaving because they don't feel they can treat miscarriages properly.
that is the lawyers, the malpractice insirance providers, and the hospital admins causing that, not the law.

That was clearly a failed pregnancy/miscarriage and not an abortion of a viable baby. These red tape creating admins have over corrected by being afraid of the overly broad scope of the terminology used in the law. It was written to give Leeway to professional interpretation by the medical community but unfortunately the lawyers are driving healthcare related to abortions right now.
Newsflash - Lawyers, malpractice insurance providers, and hospital admins ARE a big part of medicine in today's world.

You say it's clear, but it's not your livelihood and freedom on the line if someone in authority disagrees with you.
what someone in Authority can disagree with a Doctors/Hospitals determination of clinical need? No sensible DA would take that case without having a healthcare professional to testify that the pregnancy was viable which you would find zero who would do that..
Well, that's your first problem right there. Viability is completely irrelevant under this law.
removal of an unviable pregnancy should be a part of reasonable medical judgement. The only question is what makes the unborn child living or dead..

170A.002 (3) the person performs, induces, or attempts the abortion in a manner that, in the exercise of reasonable medical judgment, provides the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive..

With zero chance of survival, the reasonable medical judgement is to perform the procedure to maintain the health of the woman as it is known that the womans health deteriorates rapidly with an unviable pregnancy like in the mews article.
Again as Sam has already stated, only fetal heartbeat is mentioned in the law. Nothing regarding viability. The statement on "Medical Emergencies" is vague.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/SB00008F.pdf#navpanes=0

Sec.A171.204.AA PROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT. (a) AAExcept as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child

Sec.A171.205.AA EXCEPTION FOR MEDICAL EMERGENCY; RECORDS. (a)AASections 171.203 and 171.204 do not apply if a physician believes a medical emergency exists that prevents compliance with this subchapter.
This needs to be expanded for those situations where there is an unviable pregnancy. An unviable pregnancy is a medical emergency to me.
the woman should be entitled to any medical care that protects herself and the life of a viable pregnancy/unborn child. Medical judgement should determine this, not lawyers who dont know what to write a law. Get the Texas Medical board to write a policy governing medically necessary abortion exemptions and adopt a version of that.. its not that hard
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

90sBear said:

Mothra said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It is reasonable to argue that the Texas law is flawed for not containing broader exceptions that take into account fetal nonviability and impending danger to the mother.

But let's be clear here - this is NOT the real argument of the OP and those like her. They want NO restriction to ANY abortion whatsoever. This is just a motte-and-bailey routine.
Great point. Nor is it the argument of the article she posted. Slate is a liberal rag, and several of the doctors quoted in the article all talked about Dobbs, which of course has nothing to do with the law at issue.

This is using the Texas case to argue for a broader point about legalizing abortion, and nothing more.
A lot of that article specifically covers the Texas law and the suit that was brought. How does the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the Texas law going into effect have nothing to do with the Texas law? That just doesn't make sense.

I'm no fan of Slate but you seem to want to completely dismiss it wholesale which is a genetic fallacy.

At the very least I would hope people would have some sympathy for the women in Texas who brought the suit and acknowledge the gut wrenching position they and their physicians were put in by the wording of the Texas law and not compare their situation to wanting to get in a hand of Blackjack.
Doctors' opinions on Dobbs are completely irrelevant to the subject matter at issue. This lawsuit is about a specific law. It does not seek to undo the Court's ruling in Dobbs in the State of Texas. That being the case, why ask doctors' their opinions on practicing medicine post-Dobbs? The answer is obvious. These are scare tactics designed for a broader goal.

I have not dismissed at all the issues with the statute raised in the article, and even said they are issues that we must address. Think you need to read my comments again. The point of my comments is don't lose sight of the agenda here.
Health care professionals are going to mention Dobbs when then Texas law exists because of Dobbs. That's a direct line of effect and how people are going to speak about the issue that directly affects their profession. If a Supreme Court case directly affected the way you practice law and you could end up in jail for the rest of your life as a consequence, I'm not sure if you would characterize that as "irrelevant."

I said "people", not you specifically. You can go straight to the second post of this thread and keep on scrolling down to see exactly how much sympathy there is for those women and the challenges their health care providers face in dealing with some really challenging situations.
Yes, I would characterize it as completely irrelevant. In no way does Dobbs directly affect any physician. Dobbs merely overturned Roe, and leaves the decision of regulation of abortion to the states. This lawsuit involves a very specific statute that has nothing whatsoever to do with Dobbs, nor does it seek to overturn Dobbs. All Dobbs did was make the statute constitutional.

The author has an obvious agenda here, and is trying to use this specific statute as a scare tactic to make a broader point about the dangers of Dobbs.

I can't speak for others, but I do sympathize with the women at issue, and believe the statute needs to be reformed. I expect it will be. But I have little use for Slate, or its attempts to use this specific case as a scare tactic to make the broader point on abortion.
Over in the 2024 thread Clinton's impeachment has been brought up. Saying that Dobbs did not directly affect any physician is like saying performing sex acts with Monica Lewinsky did not directly affect Clinton being impeached because he was impeached for lying to Congress, not for performing sex acts with an intern. Without the instigating act, Dobbs or the cigar, the resulting legal action would never have happened. In my opinion it's just a disingenuous take.

I believe you when say you individually have sympathy for the women in question and did not intend to imply otherwise.
Let me ask this: How has Dobbs affected doctors in states that have statutes in place legalizing abortion? Has it put in jeopardy the medical licenses of physician who wants to kill babies? Of course not. The state ultimately decides whether baby-killing should be legal post-Dobbs. The same goes for states that have made abortion illegal. Dobbs was just the catalyst.

We are probably arguing semantics at this point, but the point still stands that Dobbs has only allowed for legislation like the Texas statute. If you think that means doctors' opinions on the Dobbs decision are relevant to this Texas statute, I think you've been duped by the authors and their agenda. But we can agree to disagree on that point.
Yes this is a semantics debate and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
Sounds good. One question unrelated to this debate since you seem to feel strongly about the instant case: Were you happy about Dobbs?
Yes
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

The beginning is clear enough. A woman had an infection in her uterus she knew would kill the fetus inside her, and had to wait around until the infection was bad enough to do so. Not everyone wants to possibly die in order to abort a failed pregnancy.

Of course the protectors of babies have no response, just copypastas about their own righteousness.

The first 5 paragraphs are enough to get the idea.
As a protectors of babies, this story is misinformation. The Texas law does not do what this article says. In fact, my daughter, who is currently pregnant, told her ob/gyn about this and her Dr said it's nonsense…they could easily care for the mother and terminate the pregnancy if needed. It would be malpractice if you didn't.

So, nice false flag.
Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If abortion is near and dear to you, please don't move to Texas. Problem solved.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
Refresh
Page 2 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.