PAs in Idaho and Montana

[rev ronin]

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

A fertilized egg isn't a human being, no matter how many times you say it is. It's a single cell. If I cut off my fingertip it has all 23 pairs of chromosomes, does it qualify as a human being as well?

You have been unable to articulate why a fertilized egg isn't a human being, nor do I expect you to be able to, because it is definitionally human.  Unlike the cells in your example, it will continue to develop through the stages of human development, birth, and aging until it is killed or dies of natural causes. It is at the very beginning of being human, and will develop the traits we associate with humanity over time, but infants aren't yet teenagers, either.

If a fertilized human egg isn't a human being, at what point does it become a human being?

Again, this is a question separate from legal personhood.

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I'm not sure where you are misunderstanding me here. I said we don't have to focus on that because most people agree with it. It's not an issue not because it's less than 1% of abortions, it's not an issue because even before Roe v Wade was overturned, even liberal states had a 20 week abortion ban except to life of mother. I don't pretend to know every single possible pregnancy complication so I don't think it's unreasonable to have that exception. There is/was no issue with the 20 week ban, I even said so in an earlier post. It's not at all because it's 8,000 a year.

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions

17 states ban abortions at or before 20 weeks of gestation.
9 states ban abortions at 22 weeks of gestation.
24 states forbid abortions at some later point or not at all (six).

We agree on a 20 week ban, except for the life of the mother? 33 state laws would have to change to make that happen.

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I don't want to go back to the starting argument that rape and murder of living breathing person is not the same as abortion.

I'm glad you brought up society though. Percentage of people in the USA who think abortion should be legal in all circumstances has ranges from about 20-30% for decades. Legal in certain circumstances? 50-55%. Illegal in all circumstances? 10-20%. That's means the vast majority of the country agrees that abortion should at least be legal under certain circumstances. 2/3 of the country believes the overturn of Roe v Wade was a bad thing and only 1/3 saw it as a good thing. 2/3 of the country also believe abortion should be legal in the first trimester.

What percentage of society thinks murder/rape should be legal?

Two wrongs don't have to be "the same" to both be wrong. Violating the bodily autonomy of a human being is wrong. In certain circumstances it might be the less wrong than an alternative, but that doesn't mean it's all OK.

Public opinion is a rather poor judge of moral correctness. It was less than 100 years ago that one of the West's civilized nations thought a whole lot of people belonged in gas chambers or ovens instead of living their lives peacefully. It was a horror overseen by men who called themselves doctors and who at least mouthed allegiance that they were engaged in legitimate public health work by overseeing the mass killing of Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and the disabled.

This is what happens when we decide certain human beings aren't legal persons. It inexorably leads to the wholesale killing of the unfavored. Need we go into Planned Parenthood's strategies to serve women of color and how it is consistent with Margaret Sanger's racist and eugenicist views?

So yeah, how many people say they think abortion is OK does not impress me. Public opinion is intentionally blind and fickle.

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

ED visits don't mean much. People go to the ED for a hangnail, doesn't mean anything is wrong with them. It would be totally reasonable for someone who is worried to make a uneventful visit to the ED.

Then why are so many induced abortions coded as spontaneous, if there's nothing to this?

Do people go to the ED for Tylenol ingestion as prescribed? Mifepristone is marketed as just that safe--are you interested in the disconnect? Even if these were entirely worried well visits, isn't that a horrid instance of poorly managed informed consent? At the very least, so many of these women were left with insufficient information about what they would actually experience in a chemically induced abortion.

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

So you're saying the data I have provided is skewed due to reporting, but apparently the data you'll believe pre Roe v Wade is totally legit when there was no reporting? Is there any medical procedure that has not improved in safety over the past 50+ years?

I would say that it's hard to draw any conclusions about safety at any stage of the process because we don't capture public health data. Why don't we? We could, but we don't. Have you ever heard of a pro-life organization arguing to collect less data on abortion, or a pro-abortion organization arguing to collect more? That skew makes me suspect that one side is afraid of transparent review of the data, but yes, that doesn't prove anything by itself about what the data would say were it collected.

And yes, global improvements in procedural safety undoubtedly apply.

1 hour ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Let's not delve into mental health and other arbitrary statistics please. Should we ban pregnancy so women don't get postpartum depression? Should we perform bilateral mastectomies on every woman once they are done having kids so they don't get breast cancer? Should we ban pregnancy to reduce the risk of maternal mortality? You don't have to answer these ridiculous questions, it's just to prove a point that we don't ban things because they carry certain risks. 

No, actually, while the questions are phrased tongue in cheek, we do need to look at the impact of policies and interventions holistically. Postpartum depression is a harm of pregnancy, and it kills women every year, and makes life a living hell for many, many more. One needn't ban pregnancy to make sure people understand postpartum depression is a not uncommon problem. Thankfully, there are many interventions.

While the temptation to have simple messaging is understandable, complex situations require complex information for true informed consent and patient autonomy.

[AbeTheBabe]

On 4/3/2023 at 11:34 PM, rev ronin said:

You have been unable to articulate why a fertilized egg isn't a human being, nor do I expect you to be able to, because it is definitionally human.  Unlike the cells in your example, it will continue to develop through the stages of human development, birth, and aging until it is killed or dies of natural causes. It is at the very beginning of being human, and will develop the traits we associate with humanity over time, but infants aren't yet teenagers, either.

If a fertilized human egg isn't a human being, at what point does it become a human being?

Again, this is a question separate from legal personhood.

I'm not sure what definition of "human being" you are using. When I google human being definition it states "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." 

A single cell isn't a human being. It doesn't have organs. It doesn't have thought. It is one step from an egg that is ovulated every month and sperm that is ejaculated on occasion. As we discussed earlier, the fetal development is a gradual process. When does a single cell become a human being is a philosophical question/exercise. There is however a very real practical defining moment - birth. First breath. First cry. First time opening eyes. 

On 4/3/2023 at 11:34 PM, rev ronin said:

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-policies-later-abortions

17 states ban abortions at or before 20 weeks of gestation.
9 states ban abortions at 22 weeks of gestation.
24 states forbid abortions at some later point or not at all (six).

We agree on a 20 week ban, except for the life of the mother? 33 state laws would have to change to make that happen.

Based on your link, 43 states have a ban on abortion by 24 weeks and another at 25 weeks. I'd say that's pretty dang close to what we have been talking about and minimally changing some laws is no reason to have some states to completely ban abortion.

On 4/3/2023 at 11:34 PM, rev ronin said:

Public opinion is a rather poor judge of moral correctness. It was less than 100 years ago that one of the West's civilized nations thought a whole lot of people belonged in gas chambers or ovens instead of living their lives peacefully. It was a horror overseen by men who called themselves doctors and who at least mouthed allegiance that they were engaged in legitimate public health work by overseeing the mass killing of Jews, Romani, homosexuals, and the disabled.

This is what happens when we decide certain human beings aren't legal persons. It inexorably leads to the wholesale killing of the unfavored. Need we go into Planned Parenthood's strategies to serve women of color and how it is consistent with Margaret Sanger's racist and eugenicist views?

So yeah, how many people say they think abortion is OK does not impress me. Public opinion is intentionally blind and fickle.

But you're the one who brought up society. You said "By banning things society communicates what it tolerates or does not tolerate." I only explained that the vast majority of society does not agree with banning all abortions, contrary to rape/murder. 

On 4/3/2023 at 11:34 PM, rev ronin said:

Then why are so many induced abortions coded as spontaneous, if there's nothing to this?

Do people go to the ED for Tylenol ingestion as prescribed? Mifepristone is marketed as just that safe--are you interested in the disconnect? Even if these were entirely worried well visits, isn't that a horrid instance of poorly managed informed consent? At the very least, so many of these women were left with insufficient information about what they would actually experience in a chemically induced abortion.

I would say that it's hard to draw any conclusions about safety at any stage of the process because we don't capture public health data. Why don't we? We could, but we don't. Have you ever heard of a pro-life organization arguing to collect less data on abortion, or a pro-abortion organization arguing to collect more? That skew makes me suspect that one side is afraid of transparent review of the data, but yes, that doesn't prove anything by itself about what the data would say were it collected.

And yes, global improvements in procedural safety undoubtedly apply.

What evidence do you have that induced abortions are intentionally coded as spontaneous? I have no issues with more data being collected for research purposes, but when the government is using this data for legal purposes and criminalization, then obviously people are going to be reluctant at best to have any kind of records.

People do go to the ED after ingesting Tylenol every single day, but it's not because of the Tylenol, it's because of what they took the Tylenol for. The process of abortion is (whether induced or spontanous) can be scary and I would think would result in quite a few ED visits even for totally expected symptoms.

I have post-op total joints go to the ED for minimal bleeding on bandage or "a lot of pain" all the time, no matter how much pre-operative counseling there is.

On 4/3/2023 at 11:34 PM, rev ronin said:

No, actually, while the questions are phrased tongue in cheek, we do need to look at the impact of policies and interventions holistically. Postpartum depression is a harm of pregnancy, and it kills women every year, and makes life a living hell for many, many more. One needn't ban pregnancy to make sure people understand postpartum depression is a not uncommon problem. Thankfully, there are many interventions.

While the temptation to have simple messaging is understandable, complex situations require complex information for true informed consent and patient autonomy.

Absolutely, one of the pillars of medical ethics is autonomy and we shouldn't allow the government or even the clinician to make those decisions. It is a complex situation and states who ban abortion currently have statistically higher rates of child poverty and uninsured women. They should maybe focus more on improving the health and lives of the living people in the states rather than banning abortion which will disproportionately affect the poor (rich people will just fly to another state if they need an abortion, doesn't matter which side of the isle).

[rev ronin]

20 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I'm not sure what definition of "human being" you are using. When I google human being definition it states "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Is Val Kilmer no longer human being because he lost the power of speech? Was Stephen Hawking no longer a human being prior to his death because he could not walk upright?

You are misunderstanding essence and accidents, and it makes me wonder if you've ever thought in these terms before. Seriously--have you?

Put simply, things like speech and standing upright are indeed things that most human beings do (or did, or will do), but they themselves do not make people human.

20 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

A single cell isn't a human being. It doesn't have organs. It doesn't have thought. It is one step from an egg that is ovulated every month and sperm that is ejaculated on occasion. As we discussed earlier, the fetal development is a gradual process. When does a single cell become a human being is a philosophical question/exercise. There is however a very real practical defining moment - birth. First breath. First cry. First time opening eyes.

What genus and species is a one-cell human egg fertilized by human sperm? If not H. sapiens, what? If not yet H. sapiens, when?

Birth is an incoherent line, because if you take cell samples from a fetus at 38 weeks gestation and a neonate born at 38 weeks gestation, they will not show any magical, post-birth change. Sure, fetal circulation will change, but they're the same organism.

H. sapiens is a biologic definition. What you are arguing is that some H. sapiens are not legal persons.  That is, some people are denied rights by virtue of a legal decision, not a substantive difference in biology. It's a time-honored philosophical position... albeit with some unsavory associations.

I suspect you're making these repetitive arguments because your belief system is a priori unwilling to acknowledge pre-viability H. sapiens as worthy of legal protection. Am I mistaken?

20 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Based on your link, 43 states have a ban on abortion by 24 weeks and another at 25 weeks. I'd say that's pretty dang close to what we have been talking about and minimally changing some laws is no reason to have some states to completely ban abortion.

So answer me this: should those laws be changed? We're agreed that earliest reasonable fetal viability is at about 23 weeks, right? From your perspective, should all of those laws be changed to prevent routine abortion after viability? If so, what's the benefit in doing so? If not, what's the harm in doing so?

20 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

But you're the one who brought up society. You said "By banning things society communicates what it tolerates or does not tolerate." I only explained that the vast majority of society does not agree with banning all abortions, contrary to rape/murder.

My reply was in the context of you saying that abortions would continue even if banned, so no, I didn't bring it up, nor do I consider "society" a great barometer of ethics in general.

20 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

What evidence do you have that induced abortions are intentionally coded as spontaneous? I have no issues with more data being collected for research purposes, but when the government is using this data for legal purposes and criminalization, then obviously people are going to be reluctant at best to have any kind of records.

Intentionally? Motivation is impossible to prove from Medicaid records, but that is the scenario most consistent with the widespread evidence of ED visits for "spontaneous" abortions in women for whom Medicaid had paid for Mifepristone dispensed within the past 30 days.  Do you have a better hypothesis for the miscoding?

And, no, the miscoding is not benign: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23333928221103107

20 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

People do go to the ED after ingesting Tylenol every single day, but it's not because of the Tylenol, it's because of what they took the Tylenol for. The process of abortion is (whether induced or spontanous) can be scary and I would think would result in quite a few ED visits even for totally expected symptoms.

I have post-op total joints go to the ED for minimal bleeding on bandage or "a lot of pain" all the time, no matter how much pre-operative counseling there is.

People go to the ED for totally expected symptoms? Then why, per the study I linked above, do these visits seem to result in so much causal miscoding? Wouldn't you think if someone took an abortion pill, and it went badly enough for them to go to the ER, they'd tell the ER staff what actually happened?

I find that explanation uncompelling.

The "safer than tylenol" is from press like https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-17/abortion-pill-mifepristone-is-safer-than-tylenol-and-almost-impossible-to-get Would you suggest that such marketing be changed to be more truthful, given the observed rates of ED visits?

20 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Absolutely, one of the pillars of medical ethics is autonomy and we shouldn't allow the government or even the clinician to make those decisions. It is a complex situation and states who ban abortion currently have statistically higher rates of child poverty and uninsured women. They should maybe focus more on improving the health and lives of the living people in the states rather than banning abortion which will disproportionately affect the poor (rich people will just fly to another state if they need an abortion, doesn't matter which side of the isle).

So, you're going to finish off with a correlation/causality logic error?

And, just as a thought experiment, how does your risk/benefit analysis change if pre-viability H. sapiens are assigned value as persons?

Edited April 8, 2023 by rev ronin
typo

[CAAdmission]

8 hours ago, AbeTheBabe said:

There is however a very real practical defining moment - birth. First breath. First cry. First time opening eyes. 

I'm not sure how absolutely practical that is. The baby is probably already doing much of that in utero. Everything hinges on the "What is a human?" question. And who has authority decide that - flawed mankind? A transcendent Creator?

There will be abortions done because someone has to make a horrific choice between the life of a mother and her child. Pro-abortion activists play this as a trump card, but a rational person will admit this is a vanishingly small percentage of cases. The choice is parallel to a firefighter who can only save one life from a burning building. It's a choice we would wish on no one, but it must be made. 

The other card the pro-abortion side usually plays are "rape and incest cases." Also a very small percentage, and a situation no one would wish on anyone. If a fetus is a human, it is not responsible for the manner of its conception. It is an incredible sacrifice and a loving choice to bring such a child into the world - a level of self-sacrifice not often seen in our society today. You can find testimony online from people conceived in rape. It's worth a listen.

Some choose abortion due to a "defect" in the fetus. The defect might be something as simple as being the wrong gender. Maybe it is something like Down syndrome. Yet I see people with Down syndrome leading meaningful lives. Can we honestly say the world would be a better place without them? If you aske them if they wish they had never been born, would you expect an affirmative response? Perhaps they teach us how to love better. 

There are those who argue that it's better for a child to be aborted that to be born into a life of poverty. By what measure? Are the poor lesser people than everyone else? Most of the world is poor by American standards. Do these people lead meaningless lives bereft of joy? People claim that children born into poverty are doomed to a life of crime. Some of the strongest, most noble people in society are those that overcame difficult circumstances. Sure, some potential mass murderers have been aborted away. And right along with them we have lost the next MLK, Einstein and Mozart. The pro-abortion sides further claims no one wants to help poor women and children while crisis pregnancy centers are being fire-bombed. There is real, palpable, twisted evil at work here.

The vast majority of abortions are due, frankly, to personal irresponsibility. Call me a prude, but sex in society today has degenerated into cheap entertainment. People have become little better than rutting animals. Women find themselves abandoned - or even worse, coerced into abortion - by some supposed paramour that wants to flee the logical, predictable consequences of their actions. 

American has lost its moral compass. It's easy to understand why our Constitution seems to be at a breaking point. It was predicted by one of the authors:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

 

[AbeTheBabe]

On 4/7/2023 at 12:30 AM, rev ronin said:

Is Val Kilmer no longer human being because he lost the power of speech? Was Stephen Hawking no longer a human being prior to his death because he could not walk upright?

You are misunderstanding essence and accidents, and it makes me wonder if you've ever thought in these terms before. Seriously--have you?

Put simply, things like speech and standing upright are indeed things that most human beings do (or did, or will do), but they themselves do not make people human.

What genus and species is a one-cell human egg fertilized by human sperm? If not H. sapiens, what? If not yet H. sapiens, when?

Birth is an incoherent line, because if you take cell samples from a fetus at 38 weeks gestation and a neonate born at 38 weeks gestation, they will not show any magical, post-birth change. Sure, fetal circulation will change, but they're the same organism.

H. sapiens is a biologic definition. What you are arguing is that some H. sapiens are not legal persons.  That is, some people are denied rights by virtue of a legal decision, not a substantive difference in biology. It's a time-honored philosophical position... albeit with some unsavory associations.

I suspect you're making these repetitive arguments because your belief system is a priori unwilling to acknowledge pre-viability H. sapiens as worthy of legal protection. Am I mistaken?

I never said if you couldn't walk upright and you're not human. The whole thread you have twisted the argument. I said a single cell doesn't have organs, can't have thought, is that not part of what it means to be human?

On 4/7/2023 at 12:30 AM, rev ronin said:

My reply was in the context of you saying that abortions would continue even if banned, so no, I didn't bring it up, nor do I consider "society" a great barometer of ethics in general.

Right but you brought up what society tolerates and rape/murder continuing if illegal so why not allow those. Just because rapes/murder continue illegally doesn't mean society as a whole tolerates it. There are justified murders though, and are understandable (shooting an intruder in your home - castle doctrine). In some states now, there is almost no exceptions to abortion legally. 

On 4/7/2023 at 12:30 AM, rev ronin said:

Intentionally? Motivation is impossible to prove from Medicaid records, but that is the scenario most consistent with the widespread evidence of ED visits for "spontaneous" abortions in women for whom Medicaid had paid for Mifepristone dispensed within the past 30 days.  Do you have a better hypothesis for the miscoding?

And, no, the miscoding is not benign: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23333928221103107

People go to the ED for totally expected symptoms? Then why, per the study I linked above, do these visits seem to result in so much causal miscoding? Wouldn't you think if someone took an abortion pill, and it went badly enough for them to go to the ER, they'd tell the ER staff what actually happened?

I find that explanation uncompelling.

The "safer than tylenol" is from press like https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-17/abortion-pill-mifepristone-is-safer-than-tylenol-and-almost-impossible-to-get Would you suggest that such marketing be changed to be more truthful, given the observed rates of ED visits?

So what exactly are you trying to say? That there's some nationwide conspiracy of ED physicians to misclassify abortions to skew data that probable won't change anyone's mind? Isn't it just a little more likely that women pretend it's a plain old spontaneous abortion for fear of being judged?

What I was trying to say is that people go to the ED all the time for symptoms that we as medical professionals expect, but it's scary to layman and "better safe than sorry".

On 4/7/2023 at 12:30 AM, rev ronin said:

So, you're going to finish off with a correlation/causality logic error?

That's not an error at all. It's statistically true. If I said lack of abortions caused the poor people, then it would be a correlation/causation error. I only said those states should focus on improving the lives of the living people in their states.

In any case, there is no end to this conversation and this is it for me. These responses take too long to type up and with 2 little kids, I just don't have the time. Have a great weekend!

[rev ronin]

1 minute ago, AbeTheBabe said:

I never said if you couldn't walk upright and you're not human. The whole thread you have twisted the argument. I said a single cell doesn't have organs, can't have thought, is that not part of what it means to be human?

Nope. Human being is H. sapiens unless you have a really good reason why some H. sapiens aren't human. An H. sapiens zygote isn't not an H. sapiens just because it hasn't yet developed organs.  Again, basic biology. H. sapiens have various ages and stages, we may have congenital defects or scars from life... but none of those things rob us of our humanity. Even in death, our DNA tells who we were.

4 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Right but you brought up what society tolerates and rape/murder continuing if illegal so why not allow those. Just because rapes/murder continue illegally doesn't mean society as a whole tolerates it. There are justified murders though, and are understandable (shooting an intruder in your home - castle doctrine). In some states now, there is almost no exceptions to abortion legally.

No, there is no such thing, definitionally, as a justifiable murder, since murder is unlawful and intentional killing of another human being. The phrase you're looking for is "justifiable homicide." I encourage you to read up on the topic of self defense and use of force--it's really a good topic to study if you want to deal with the ethics of ending a human life. I daresay self-defense requires a lot more quick thinking than most medical ethics decisions do.

The question isn't whether the exceptions to elective abortion are few--or many, for that matter--but are they correct. That is, do they logically adopt a balance of rights between the two human beings involved based on universal ethical principles like bodily autonomy?

7 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said:

So what exactly are you trying to say? That there's some nationwide conspiracy of ED physicians to misclassify abortions to skew data that probable won't change anyone's mind? Isn't it just a little more likely that women pretend it's a plain old spontaneous abortion for fear of being judged?

What I was trying to say is that people go to the ED all the time for symptoms that we as medical professionals expect, but it's scary to layman and "better safe than sorry".

If you read the papers on the topic I've linked to (or provided the DOI for... don't think I hyperlinked all of them), including the relevant references, the authors hypothesize that a combination of shame and instructions from abortion pill providers are encouraging patients to deny mifepristone was used, should they need to go to an ER.  I've got access to multiple university libraries, so if you ever can't get a copy of something I linked to and want to read it, do feel free to ask for one.

12 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said:

That's not an error at all. It's statistically true. If I said lack of abortions caused the poor people, then it would be a correlation/causation error. I only said those states should focus on improving the lives of the living people in their states.

Ok, then it was what... a non-sequitur? Everyone, everywhere should focus on improving the lives of those in their communities--I hope that's why we all are in this field. Could states with poor maternal and infant mortality benefit from more focus on that? Absolutely! Our national numbers are both tragic and embarrassing. Does that mean that protecting unborn human life is a competing priority and should be abandoned in favor of fixing it? Seems to me that if fewer OB/GYNs were performing abortions (although the number who regularly perform elective abortions is quite small compared to the hubub ACOG makes about it...) they'd have more time for prenatal and postpartum care.

16 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said:

In any case, there is no end to this conversation and this is it for me. These responses take too long to type up and with 2 little kids, I just don't have the time. Have a great weekend!

If you would provide direct answers to my specific questions, it would, in fact, progress towards a conclusion. Even if you don't answer them in writing here, do seriously consider them. I mean, yes, they are absolutely posed in ways that I believe are difficult to answer from your position, but none of them are straw men or "gotcha's".

I'm glad you have little kids--my youngest is turning 18 far too soon. Cherish them! They are precious and have intrinsic worth and value.

[AbeTheBabe]

On 4/7/2023 at 6:19 AM, CAAdmission said:

I'm not sure how absolutely practical that is. The baby is probably already doing much of that in utero. Everything hinges on the "What is a human?" question. And who has authority decide that - flawed mankind? A transcendent Creator?

Practically speaking, either life begins at conception or it begins at birth. In between is a gradual process with no defining moment. I personally don't believe a single cell is a human being, nor should it have rights that supersede the woman's decisions.

On 4/7/2023 at 6:19 AM, CAAdmission said:

There will be abortions done because someone has to make a horrific choice between the life of a mother and her child. Pro-abortion activists play this as a trump card, but a rational person will admit this is a vanishingly small percentage of cases. The choice is parallel to a firefighter who can only save one life from a burning building. It's a choice we would wish on no one, but it must be made. 

True, but it makes up a significant amount of abortions past 20 weeks. It's obvious that this should be protected legally.

On 4/7/2023 at 6:19 AM, CAAdmission said:

The other card the pro-abortion side usually plays are "rape and incest cases." Also a very small percentage, and a situation no one would wish on anyone. If a fetus is a human, it is not responsible for the manner of its conception. It is an incredible sacrifice and a loving choice to bring such a child into the world - a level of self-sacrifice not often seen in our society today. You can find testimony online from people conceived in rape. It's worth a listen.

You are welcome to have that baby when you get pregnant from a rape, but the government should not be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term. This was something done to the woman, not a choice she made. I don't want to live in a place where if my daughter (now 5) get's raped in 10 years she would not be able to have an abortion if she wanted one. It's ridiculous.

On 4/7/2023 at 6:19 AM, CAAdmission said:

Some choose abortion due to a "defect" in the fetus. The defect might be something as simple as being the wrong gender. Maybe it is something like Down syndrome. Yet I see people with Down syndrome leading meaningful lives. Can we honestly say the world would be a better place without them? If you aske them if they wish they had never been born, would you expect an affirmative response? Perhaps they teach us how to love better. 

I'm not going to go into this again, covered it before regarding raising a child with special needs. There are fetal defects incompatible to life that are being forced to carry to term right now, is that the lesser of two evils to you? Should the government make that decision and not the patient and her physician?

On 4/7/2023 at 6:19 AM, CAAdmission said:

There are those who argue that it's better for a child to be aborted that to be born into a life of poverty. By what measure? Are the poor lesser people than everyone else? Most of the world is poor by American standards. Do these people lead meaningless lives bereft of joy? People claim that children born into poverty are doomed to a life of crime. Some of the strongest, most noble people in society are those that overcame difficult circumstances. Sure, some potential mass murderers have been aborted away. And right along with them we have lost the next MLK, Einstein and Mozart. The pro-abortion sides further claims no one wants to help poor women and children while crisis pregnancy centers are being fire-bombed. There is real, palpable, twisted evil at work here.

No one argues that it's better to be aborted to be born into a life of poverty. Woman who are poor are probable more likely to have an abortion given inability to care for a child (or another child). There are 7 billion people in the world, most poor, we didn't get here by having too many abortions.

On 4/7/2023 at 6:19 AM, CAAdmission said:

The vast majority of abortions are due, frankly, to personal irresponsibility. Call me a prude, but sex in society today has degenerated into cheap entertainment. People have become little better than rutting animals. Women find themselves abandoned - or even worse, coerced into abortion - by some supposed paramour that wants to flee the logical, predictable consequences of their actions. 

You do realize that sex is a natural act? You also realize that birth control (AKA personal responsibility) is not 100% effective?

On 4/7/2023 at 6:19 AM, CAAdmission said:

American has lost its moral compass. It's easy to understand why our Constitution seems to be at a breaking point. It was predicted by one of the authors:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

Which America are you talking about? The one where the founding fathers deliberately did not establish a religion? The one where they established freedom of religion AND freedom from religion? Who decides the moral compass? The government? The citizens?

The last half of your posts reeks of "get off my lawn" energy. Have a great weekend!

[rev ronin]

50 minutes ago, AbeTheBabe said:

Which America are you talking about? The one where the founding fathers deliberately did not establish a religion? The one where they established freedom of religion AND freedom from religion? Who decides the moral compass? The government? The citizens?

Your discourse would benefit from you reading more on the topic. The first amendment kept the federal government from establishing a single federal church to overrule all the individual state churches:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States#State_churches_in_British_North_America_prior_to_the_Revolution

The idea that freedom from religion was established by the founders is a modern invention, and more properly understood as a category error in discussing the late 18th century milieu.

[TeddyRucpin]

Getting this back on track, again, Montana is prepared to implement an excellent practice bill. It was sent to the governor today for signature. 

[Ty2PA]

10 hours ago, TeddyRucpin said:

Montana is prepared to implement an excellent practice bill.

Independent practice after 4yrs - great news. Hats off to Jodee Etchart PA-C and state rep, she killed it. Passed the house 92 - 7. The senate by a smaller margin. 

[TeddyRucpin]

7 minutes ago, Ty2PA said:

Independent practice after 4yrs - great news. Hats off to Jodee Etchart PA-C and state rep, she killed it. Passed the house 92 - 7. The senate by a smaller margin. 

Yup. And I believe that initial collaboration can be with either an experienced PA (over 8K hours) OR a physician. The mountain west/northern states/northeast besides NJ/PA are doing it. 

[SedRate]

13 hours ago, TeddyRucpin said:

Yup. And I believe that initial collaboration can be with either an experienced PA (over 8K hours) OR a physician. The mountain west/northern states/northeast besides NJ/PA are doing it. 

That's great news! Thanks for sharing. 

[TeddyRucpin]

8 minutes ago, SedRate said:

That's great news! Thanks for sharing. 

Arizona has collaboration on the governor’s desk as of yesterday. Iowa is well on its way this cycle too. 

[Joelseff]

On 4/14/2023 at 5:39 AM, Ty2PA said:

Independent practice after 4yrs - great news. Hats off to Jodee Etchart PA-C and state rep, she killed it. Passed the house 92 - 7. The senate by a smaller margin. 

This is great! So how many do we have now? 3? One of the Dakotas, Utah and Montana?  Hope it is just the start and it continues to spread!!!

Edited April 17, 2023 by Joelseff

[rev ronin]

3 hours ago, Joelseff said:

This is great! So how many do we have now? 3? One of the Dakotas, Utah and Montana?  Hope it is just the start and it continues to spread!!!

Has anyone actually gotten any out of state licenses from any of these places?

[Joelseff]

3 minutes ago, rev ronin said:

Has anyone actually gotten any out of state licenses from any of these places?

That I'm not sure... You should try it Rev! Then let us know! Honestly I entertained leaving California and moving to St. George, Utah... Maybe as I near retirement... 

[rev ronin]

14 minutes ago, Joelseff said:

That I'm not sure... You should try it Rev! Then let us know! Honestly I entertained leaving California and moving to St. George, Utah... Maybe as I near retirement... 

I might just.  All my blue collar patients are fleeing Washington State, sometimes before their worker's comp cases are closed. So I can make money doing telemedicine for them...

[TeddyRucpin]

On 4/14/2023 at 10:10 PM, TeddyRucpin said:

Arizona has collaboration on the governor’s desk as of yesterday. Iowa is well on its way this cycle too. 

Arizona signed yesterday by their gov^

[TeddyRucpin]

And Montana today. Strong work to the state leaders who are getting it done!!!

[sas5814]

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the VA (my current employer), honors the parameters of where you are licensed. If Montana actually achieves independence then licensing there would be worth the trouble.

[TeddyRucpin]

12 hours ago, sas5814 said:

As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the VA (my current employer), honors the parameters of where you are licensed. If Montana actually achieves independence then licensing there would be worth the trouble.

The bill was actually titled Independent practice. It is graduated. For those who have over 8K hours/4 years. The initial collaboration is very unique as it could be with a physician or experienced PA (over 8K hours). 

And Iowa's bill just passed their senate 48-1-1 (house already passed last month 90-8-2). Another strong collaboration bill. This is the way. 

Edited April 21, 2023 by TeddyRucpin

[Joelseff]

As I have said on here before, "all the NPs have on us is independence, once we get that, what would they have over us?" Collaboration is good, Independence is better! Let's go get it!

Edited April 28, 2023 by Joelseff

[ventana]

Think I just saw Iowa passed!!

[TeddyRucpin]

1 minute ago, ventana said:

Think I just saw Iowa passed!!

It did. Signed. 

[SedRate]

On 4/28/2023 at 10:57 AM, Joelseff said:

As I have said on here before, "all the NPs have on us is independence, once we get that, what would they have over us?" Collaboration is good, Independence is better! Let's go get it!

Let's goooooo