Do Married And Settled People Realize That The Overturning Of Roe Affects Them, Too? In Ways One Might Not Have Thought Of? (2 Viewers)

[ekbeats]

I think women should basically have access to abortions for any reason up until 16 weeks.  From 16-24 weeks, there needs to be medical supervision. After 24 weeks there should be restrictions and multiple medical personnel involved. I think the ultimate decision should be between women and their doctors. I don’t think legislatures get involved in other medical procedures, but I’m not sure how medical standards are applied or established in determining heart transplants or hip replacements.   I can’t see supporting a murder charge on the woman or the medical team. I can see prohibiting abortions if there is not medical concurrence on the need. I can see an ethics board for doctors if they don’t follow guidelines. I don’t know the exact mechanism, but I’m pretty sure I don’t want the Kansas legislature in charge of it. 

Good post Nuggy.  We aren’t far apart on our positions.

 

[Nugget]

Good post Nuggy.  We aren’t far apart on our positions.

CNBC article on women flocking to Kansas for abortions

As more women are forced to travel for abortion services, the relationships with their doctors will be weaker.  They aren’t going to have time to do proper consulting and more decisions will get rushed. 

 

[Terminalxylem]

I get it.  You don't want to believe that there are elective late term abortions.  If I was Pro-Choice I wouldn't want to believe it either.  On top of that, the Leftist media drives it into your head that this is "evangelical propaganda."  You take it at face value and refuse to consider anything to the contrary. So you do things like this:

• When a fact, article or study is presented, the first thing you do - before even reading it - is to find a way to discredit the source.
  
• Is it a Conservative website?  Illegitimate.
  
• Is it a anti-abortion site or study?  Illegitimate.
  
• Is it at all related to a religious organization?  Illegitimate.
  

I have to say, I'm frustrated with a lot of the Liberal posters in here who consistently follow this pattern.  You know who you are.  In many ways they're reflective of the modern Left as a whole - they deal in emotions rather than facts.  They view situations through their political biases.  @timschochet just did it tonight.  When he heard examples of Democrat dogwhistles for violence, he dismissed them because they weren't specific enough.  But when it comes to Republican dogwhistles, they are always crystal clear in his mind when the wording is almost always identical.  So you have this completely hypocritical reality where Chuck Schumer's words at the Supreme Court weren't a call to violence, yet Donald Trump's words on January 6th were. 

Meanwhile, guys like me, @BladeRunner, and @GordonGekko formulate our positions based on facts.  Nobody posts more facts and links in here than GG, and it's interesting and insightful that these facts are not only ignored during discussions, but criticized for their magnitude.

So what does that lead to?  It leads to a pretty sad situation where many intelligent, well-read Liberals in here are 100% committed to the party line.   They will rarely waver, if at all.  The only conclusion to be reached is that they are so riddled with confirmation bias that they've become constitutionally incapable of debating in good faith.  Facts aren't used to develop a position - facts are manipulated and dismissed to justify a position that will never change.  I feel comfortable saying this after all the years in these forums.  Honestly, the only Liberals in here with an open mind and independent thought are @dkp993and @KarmaPolice.  At least those are the only ones that come to mind.

I'm in here for one primary reason - to find the truth and engage in honest debate with people to arrive at that truth.  I am labeled a Conservative when in reality I am right down the middle.  I am pro-choice up to viability, then pro-life after that.  I have recently changed my position and become pro gun control.  My views on race have softened considerably over the years.  I 100% believe that systemic racism still exists in this country.  I believe health care is a right and there should be a government backstop for those who don't have coverage through an employer.  I have always been socially liberal, before it was fashionable.  I used to be against trans men using women's restrooms and locker rooms.  I have come around on that and now support them using whatever restroom they desire.  I'm a Conservative on most other issues, but as I said, I am always willing to hear other viewpoints.

And I can say the same for Bladerunner and GG.  We don't always agree in here.  In fact, I have had a couple knock-down, drag-out disagreements with them on certain issues.  But guess what?  We debate the facts, we listen to each other, and we don't take things personally.

So sorry, when you and the other guy in here have made up your mind on this issue, based on one anecdote and citing no evidence whatsoever, while also accusing me of being a propagandist, it really does end the discussion.  Shame too because you guys really do need to know the truth on such an important issue.  Hopefully things change.

EDIT - see my post 7 posts down.  I reacted in anger and should have worded this better.  My only edit here is what you see in this paragraph.  I was tempted to revise the post, but since it has been reposted I am going to leave it as originally written and provide additional context here.  In short, I just want to see everyone in here - Left and Right -  post their views with a little more of a fact base, and to be a little more amiable.  That's all.

I don’t agree with your assessment, especially as it relates to whom posts the most “facts”.

GG is largely ignored because his posts are unreadable, tangential walls of text, littered with mostly OpEds and YouTube videos. While those certainly may contain factual material, there’s too much junk to sift through to find any nuggets of truth. It would be far more helpful if he linked primary data and/or research papers from neutral sites, and limited his posts to a couple paragraphs.

I’ll give an example:

Late term abortions occur, but are uncommon. The most recent overview by the American College of Gynecology summarizes the topic Here

In the United States, more than one half of pregnancies are unintended, with 3 in 10 women having an abortion by age 45 years 1. In 2008, 1.2 million abortions occurred in the United States, of which 6.2% took place between 13 weeks of gestation and 15 weeks of gestation, and 4.0% took place at 16 weeks of gestation or later 2 3. Only 1.3% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks of gestation or later 4. The proportion of abortions performed in the second trimester, usually defined as between 13 weeks of gestation and 26 weeks of gestation (as calculated from the last menstrual period), has remained stable during the past two decades 4. 

Despite the widespread sentiment, fetal viability doesn’t begin with a heartbeat. Though rare exceptions occur, the generally accepted date is 24 weeks. So some portion of 1.3% of 1.2 million abortions occurred when a fetus may have been viable. There is no centralized data collected on the reasons for abortion, so we don’t know how many are truly elective. How many of those ~15K involved both healthy mothers and fetuses? My guess is very few, because I don’t think women or obstetricians take the decision lightly.

Nonetheless, I’m open to discuss ways to minimize that number, but they need to balance the rights of all involved parties.

 

[turnjose7]

CNBC article on women flocking to Kansas for abortions

As more women are forced to travel for abortion services, the relationships with their doctors will be weaker.  They aren’t going to have time to do proper consulting and more decisions will get rushed. 

This is a good point but misses a much bigger problem that will develop in health care. Maybe it is just the world that I live in that has me focused on it, but I am shocked that there isn't more commentary on how this is going to devastate non-abortion related healthcare for women in red states. OB/gynecology physicians will undoubtedly leave these states, but the much bigger problem is that these states will find it almost impossible to find new physicians to come in. As someone who is involved in recruiting residents in a specialty other than OB/gyn but one which will be affected by new anti-abortion laws in a state that doesn't have trigger laws but will almost certainly enact new laws soon, I am very anxious about the effect this will have on our ability to recruit quality residents. In red states the next few years, it will be almost impossible to recruit qualified OB/gyn applicants. The negative effects this is going to have on healthcare is going to go FAR beyond what is being talked about in the news. 

 

[Stoneworker]

One other thing that popped into mind today that maybe people should keep in mind is that there could very well be reasons outside of specific policies that keep people from liking one party.    I am being serious above that I find myself agreeing more with the likes of ek, IK, hell- even BR more than people would expect given my "lib" label around here.   I really do agree with a lot of their specific ideas and policies.   Two things keep me away from the GOP though, and make me very reluctant to vote for them for more than at the local level:  the religious lean and the underlying "I did it, why can't you?/bootstraps" attitude.  Those two things are very much oppositional to my worldview and how I filter things.  

Thoughtful post, KP. I'm just curious why the bolded grates on you so much.

While of course not angels by any means, most conservatives I know who have that general philosophy are just heavy anti-victim mentality. Not necessarily lack of compassion.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Thoughtful post, KP. I'm just curious why the bolded grates on you so much.

While of course not angels by any means, most conservatives I know who have that general philosophy are just heavy anti-victim mentality. Not necessarily lack of compassion.

I can try to post more thoughts later if you want, but the gist of it is that it seems I have a more cynical view of the American Dream, and I think in general we overestimate our actions vs others' when we talk some of these issues and situations.  To me it's way more of a 50/50 split, so bootstraps isn't the full answer, and neither is victimhood and not trying. 

 

[Nugget]

CNBC article

“Some states, such as Texas, are pursuing aggressive measures, including encouraging surveillance of women and prosecuting doctors.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem said the state will not file charges against women, but will debate how to handle women who travel to other states for the procedure.”

This doesn’t feel like small government and the party of individual rights and freedom.  

 

[Terminalxylem]

For those interested in learning more about late term elective abortions, here's an analysis of data showing the frequency of these in Arizona in 2017.  

TRIGGER WARNING - this analysis appears on a pro-life website.  It does, however, link to a verified report from the Arizona Department of Public Health - with a link to the actual report on the adhs website.

Roughly 80% of late-term abortions are elective. Here’s how we know.

That’s interesting, but I’d need to see more detail what constitutes a threat to maternal or fetal health. Do severe chromosomal abnormalities qualify? There are a bunch of diseases that aren’t immediately life-threatening, but pose a high risk to infants dying in the first year, for example.

 

[pantherclub]

I do. My wife's 3rd pregnancy (after having 2 daughters) happened WHILE she had an IUD in. The pregnancy was ectopic, which means it had 0% of surviving, and also that if it wasn't aborted, my wife would most likely have died. My takeaway from all of this used to be that man my boys can really swim, but now it's that in some states the policy has become, too bad, you can just die over there now.

This happened to a married couple, using birth control, who would've carried the baby to term and raised it had it not put my wife in clear mortal danger. I cannot believe that there are now places in this country where keeping my wife alive is now illegal.

This is just one of dozens if not hundreds of real world every day scenarios that will be affected by this insane reversal.  Some people are just too wrapped up in their religion and "Let them pull it up by the bootstraps" mentality to see the big picture.

Framing this as a democrat vs republican issue (looking at you ek) is simply ######

 

[KarmaPolice]

This is just one of dozens if not hundreds of real world every day scenarios that will be affected by this insane reversal.  Some people are just too wrapped up in their religion and "Let them pull it up by the bootstraps" mentality to see the big picture.

Framing this as a democrat vs republican issue (looking at you ek) is simply ######

I am not sure why this has been such a controversial take.   Talking in general, this has been pretty much a DvsR issue.   Look at all the trigger laws in place for when it was overturned - are those largely red states or blue states?    Which states had the most lax regulations, including up to birth?    Etc, etc..      If somebody said they were a single issue voter and they were pro-life, what party would you guess they belong to?  

 

[parasaurolophus]

My takeaway from all of this used to be that man my boys can really swim, but now it's that in some states the policy has become, too bad, you can just die over there now.

What states?

 

[KarmaPolice]

What states?

My understanding from some reading this am is that while states currently don't say anything about ectopic pregnancies, the combination of confusing language and fear of prosecution could delay treatment and become deadly.   Also, aren't there states like LA that are looking to define a person as a fertilized egg?  

But, as IK and others pointed out - the hope is that cooler heads will prevail and at the very least there will be a carve out for ectopic pregnancies.   Missouri's bill originally banned the procedure, but after outcry put in a provision.   As far as I read, it's a concern we need to keep an eye on as these states' bills roll out, but in the meantime the confusion behind what is going on before they hammer that out could lead to some loss of life.  

 

[(HULK)]

There's no way this is true.  People who are pro life are not monsters.  Ectopic pregnancy is something that must be TREATED to ensure survival of a woman.  Like an appendectomy....you can't just ignore it.

This is the equivalent of gun nuts thinking any bit of gun legislation is going mean they are coming for our guns.

And yet, at this moment in time, it is true.

I agreed upthread that it will likely change, but right now, today, it is true that there are states where you cannot abort an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[parasaurolophus]

My understanding from some reading this am is that while states currently don't say anything about ectopic pregnancies, the combination of confusing language and fear of prosecution could delay treatment and become deadly.   Also, aren't there states like LA that are looking to define a person as a fertilized egg?  

But, as IK and others pointed out - the hope is that cooler heads will prevail and at the very least there will be a carve out for ectopic pregnancies.   Missouri's bill originally banned the procedure, but after outcry put in a provision.   As far as I read, it's a concern we need to keep an eye on as these states' bills roll out, but in the meantime the confusion behind what is going on before they hammer that out could lead to some loss of life.  

According to this from guttmacher there arent any ectopic bans in place.

This is just a big scary talking point. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

And yet, at this moment in time, it is true.

I agreed upthread that it will likely change, but right now, today, it is true that there are states where you cannot abort an ectopic pregnancy.

Name one. 

 

[(HULK)]

What states?

Depends, it's kinda murky.  Several states also outlawed the shot my wife got to eliminate the ectopic pregnancy. So, I'm not sure how they'll deal with those in those states, if they didn't outright ban abortions there.

As for vagueness/murkiness:

-Alabama has performing an abortion is illegal. Okay, so most people would consider aborting an ectopic pregnancy an abortion, so I guess it's illegal there?

-Arkansas: clear carve out for health of the mother

-Kentucky: carve out for health of the mother

-Louisiana just rushed to update their trigger law and allow ectopic abortions specifically

-Missouri: bans all abortion except in case of "medical emergency" without defining what that is with any specifics. It's a class B felony and revoking of license to practice if you do it. I would imagine several doctors won't perform them early on in an ectopic pregnancy, they'll have to wait for it to escalate to the point where the mother's life is directly endangered before doing anything. Even though it is a "future emergency". I dunno, have to see how that one plays out.

-Ohio, if it's after 6 weeks, it's banned, with this as the only exception: "serious risk of the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."  Without defining "risk", and their steep penalties, some doctors may stop doing it.

-Oklahoma: ectopic abortion is allowed specifically in their law

-South Dakota: "Any person who administers to any pregnant female or who prescribes or procures for any pregnant female any medicine, drug, or substance or uses or employs any instrument or other means with intent thereby to procure an abortion, unless there is appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female, is guilty of a Class 6 felony." Alright... but what determines "appropriate and reasonable medical judgment"? They do not define it.

-Texas: also uses that appropriate and reasonable medical judgement line, but they DID define it. I think it is clear that you could get an ectopic abortion there.

-Utah: Apparently has carve outs for mother's life at risk, rape, and incest (Utah really needs that last one )

-Mississippi: "preservation of the mother's life" is quite murky. An ectopic pregnancy isn't dangerous at the beginning, but as the fetus grows it increasingly becomes dangerous. So, do they have to wait for it to become life-threatening before aborting it?

-North Dakota: Allowed to "save the life of the pregnant person". Same question as above, does the ectopic pregnancy need to become life threatening before it can be aborted?

-Tennessee: It would be up to doctors to prove the abortion was necessary to prevent a woman's death as part of an "affirmative defense to prosecution" if the case came to court. A physician performing an abortion would also have to prove that he or she had made a best-faith effort to deliver a live infant. So, in this case it's kinda clear, if you want to abort an ectopic pregnancy, you have to make a 'best-faith' effort to bring the ectopic baby to viability and then can only abort once it directly prevents a woman's death. That's nutso.

-Wyoming: Abortion only allowed if the mother is in "imminent peril". So again, another state where an ectopic pregnancy has to wait until it endangers the woman imminently before it can be aborted.

-Florida: full ban after 15 weeks unless there is a "medical emergency". Not sure what the threshold for that is.

-Iowa: Their medical exemption is this: “Medicalemergency”meansasituationinwhichan28abortionisperformedtopreservethelifeofthepregnant29womanwhoselifeisendangeredbyaphysicaldisorder,physical30illness,orphysicalinjury,includingalife-endangering31physicalconditioncausedbyorarisingfromthepregnancy,but32notincludingpsychologicalconditions,emotionalconditions,33familialconditions,orthewoman’sage;" No idea why the spacing didn't survive the cut/paste. So again, on ectopic... do they have to wait for it to threaten the mother's life before aborting?

All in all, I do not think any state INTENDS to prevent the abortion of an ectopic pregnancy, but with the way the language is often subjective, it will cause problems. Heck, just last night Rudy Guiliani says he was "assaulted" by someone tapping him on the back. With that level of subjectivity being common place, I'm sure plenty of doctors will just not perform them. 

 

[(HULK)]

Name one. 

I just named several where you have to wait for the ectopic pregnancy to become life-threatening before you can abort.

Some ectopic pregnancies self-resolve. At early stages, you can easily argue that it isn't life-threatening if there is a chance for it to self-resolve. So, you have to wait until it is.

The easiest and simplest way for the mother to deal with an ectopic pregnancy is to get shot up with methotrexate, which is now banned in some states (like Texas), and the earlier the better it is for her health outcomes. But, if you're in Tennessee, you can't do it early, and you have to prove not only that the pregnancy was an imminent threat to the mother's life but also that you made a best-faith effort to save the fetus. Which isn't possible in an ectopic pregnancy.

Tell me again how this is smart policy?

 

[JIslander]

I just named several where you have to wait for the ectopic pregnancy to become life-threatening before you can abort.

Some ectopic pregnancies self-resolve. At early stages, you can easily argue that it isn't life-threatening if there is a chance for it to self-resolve. So, you have to wait until it is.

The easiest and simplest way for the mother to deal with an ectopic pregnancy is to get shot up with methotrexate, which is now banned in some states (like Texas), and the earlier the better it is for her health outcomes. But, if you're in Tennessee, you can't do it early, and you have to prove not only that the pregnancy was an imminent threat to the mother's life but also that you made a best-faith effort to save the fetus. Which isn't possible in an ectopic pregnancy.

Tell me again how this is smart policy?

Yeah. --and who is making this decision?

No doubt this will be creating some very unfortunate and dangerous circumstances for women and their doctors --

 

[parasaurolophus]

Depends, it's kinda murky.  Several states also outlawed the shot my wife got to eliminate the ectopic pregnancy. So, I'm not sure how they'll deal with those in those states, if they didn't outright ban abortions there.

As for vagueness/murkiness:

-Alabama has performing an abortion is illegal. Okay, so most people would consider aborting an ectopic pregnancy an abortion, so I guess it's illegal there?

It isnt murky.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-alabama

Guttmacher fact sheet about alabama. 

There are other bad parts of the alabama law, but ectopic pregnancies are not one of the concerns. They are already considered a medical emergency. There is no "we need to wait."

From cleveland clinic...

"Ectopic pregnancy is an emergency and treatment for this condition is very important." 

 

[parasaurolophus]

I just named several where you have to wait for the ectopic pregnancy to become life-threatening before you can abort.

Some ectopic pregnancies self-resolve. At early stages, you can easily argue that it isn't life-threatening if there is a chance for it to self-resolve. So, you have to wait until it is.

The easiest and simplest way for the mother to deal with an ectopic pregnancy is to get shot up with methotrexate, which is now banned in some states (like Texas), and the earlier the better it is for her health outcomes. But, if you're in Tennessee, you can't do it early, and you have to prove not only that the pregnancy was an imminent threat to the mother's life but also that you made a best-faith effort to save the fetus. Which isn't possible in an ectopic pregnancy.

Tell me again how this is smart policy?

That drug is not banned in texas.

Texas law specifically carves out exceptions for ectopic pregnancies.

NPR article

 

[(HULK)]

That drug is not banned in texas.

Texas law specifically carves out exceptions for ectopic pregnancies.

NPR article

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/SB00004F.HTM

"Abortion-inducing drug" means a drug, a medicine,
     or any other substance, including a regimen of two or more drugs,
     medicines, or substances, prescribed, dispensed, or administered
     with the intent of terminating a clinically diagnosable pregnancy
     of a woman and with knowledge that the termination will, with
     reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the woman's unborn child.
     The term includes off-label use of drugs, medicines, or other
     substances known to have abortion-inducing properties that are
     prescribed, dispensed, or administered with the intent of causing
     an abortion, including the Mifeprex regimen, misoprostol
     (Cytotec), and methotrexate. The term does not include a drug,
     medicine, or other substance that may be known to cause an abortion
     but is prescribed, dispensed, or administered for other medical
     reasons.

SECTION 5.  Section 171.063, Health and Safety Code, is
     amended by amending Subsections (a), (c), and (e) and adding
     Subsection (b-1) to read as follows:
            (a)  A person may not knowingly [give, sell, dispense,
     administer,] provide[, or prescribe] an abortion-inducing drug to a
     pregnant woman for the purpose of inducing an abortion in the
     pregnant woman or enabling another person to induce an abortion in
     the pregnant woman unless:
                  (1)  the person who [gives, sells, dispenses,
     administers,] provides[, or prescribes] the abortion-inducing drug
     is a physician; and
                  (2)  [except as otherwise provided by Subsection (b),]
     the provision[, prescription, or administration] of the
     abortion-inducing drug satisfies the protocol [tested and]
     authorized by this subchapter [the United States Food and Drug
     Administration as outlined in the final printed label of the
     abortion-inducing drug].
            (b-1)  A manufacturer, supplier, physician, or any other
     person may not provide to a patient any abortion-inducing drug by
     courier, delivery, or mail service.
            (c)  Before the physician [gives, sells, dispenses,
     administers,] provides[, or prescribes] an abortion-inducing drug,
     the physician must:
                  (1)  examine the pregnant woman in person;
                  (2)  independently verify that a pregnancy exists;
                  (3)  [and] document, in the woman's medical record, the
     gestational age and intrauterine location of the pregnancy to
     determine whether an ectopic pregnancy exists;
                  (4)  determine the pregnant woman's blood type, and for
     a woman who is Rh negative, offer to administer Rh immunoglobulin
     (RhoGAM) at the time the abortion-inducing drug is administered or
     used or the abortion is performed or induced to prevent Rh
     incompatibility, complications, or miscarriage in future
     pregnancies;
                  (5)  document whether the pregnant woman received
     treatment for Rh negativity, as diagnosed by the most accurate
     standard of medical care; and
                  (6)  ensure the physician does not provide an
     abortion-inducing drug for a pregnant woman whose pregnancy is more
     than 49 days of gestational age.
            (e)  A [The] physician who [gives, sells, dispenses,
     administers,] provides[, or prescribes] the abortion-inducing
     drug, or the physician's agent, must schedule a follow-up visit for
     the woman to occur not later [more] than the 14th day [14 days]
     after the earliest date on which the abortion-inducing drug is
     administered [administration] or used or the abortion is performed
     or induced [use of the drug]. At the follow-up visit, the physician
     must:
                  (1)  confirm that the woman's pregnancy is completely
     terminated; and
                  (2)  assess any continued blood loss [the degree of
     bleeding].

If you read the article, and then look at the law, you'll notice that pharmacies can't prescribe it anymore. Also, it is completely banned after 49 days from conception.

Texas, was indeed clear about ectopic pregnancies being an allowed medical emergency, which I said above. But,  you can't get the drug for this anymore in real world situations, AND it is banned after 7 weeks. Plenty of women don't even realize they're pregnant at 7 weeks.

 

[parasaurolophus]

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/872/billtext/html/SB00004F.HTM

If you read the article, and then look at the law, you'll notice that pharmacies can't prescribe it anymore. Also, it is completely banned after 49 days from conception.

Texas, was indeed clear about ectopic pregnancies being an allowed medical emergency, which I said above. But,  you can't get the drug for this anymore in real world situations, AND it is banned after 7 weeks. Plenty of women don't even realize they're pregnant at 7 weeks.

That language doesnt apply to ectopic pregnancies. That is why in the text you quoted it brings it up...

Before the physician [gives, sells, dispenses,
     administers,] provides[, or prescribes] an abortion-inducing drug,
     the physician must:
                  (1)  examine the pregnant woman in person;
                  (2)  independently verify that a pregnancy exists;
                  (3)  [and] document, in the woman's medical record, the
     gestational age and intrauterine location of the pregnancy to
     determine whether an ectopic pregnancy exists;

There are carve outs that apply if there is an ectopic pregnancy.

The only outright ban on the drugs I believe is via mail. 

 

[(HULK)]

I'm not a lawyer, but it reads to me that a pharmacist can't sell it under any circumstances. So, wouldn't the doctor need to already have it? How do they get it?

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'm not a lawyer, but it reads to me that a pharmacist can't sell it under any circumstances. So, wouldn't the doctor need to already have it? How do they get it?

I am not a doctor, but I dont think they go to a pharmacy to get their drugs. 

They would administer the medicine to you just like when I had just had surgery and they put me under.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I actually dont even see what you are referencing re pharmacists. But my search was lazy. I looked for "pharm*"

I looked up and looks like doctors and hospitals get their stuff from drug wholesalers. Not sure how regional they are. 

 

[(HULK)]

I actually dont even see what you are referencing re pharmacists. But my search was lazy. I looked for "pharm*"

I looked up and looks like doctors and hospitals get their stuff from drug wholesalers. Not sure how regional they are. 

One of the articles linked on this page mentions that pharmacists wouldn't dispense it. You may have linked it lol, lemme check. Yes, the NPR one. 

Dr. Lauren Thaxton, an OB-GYN and assistant professor at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas-Austin, has already heard about local patients who have been miscarrying, and couldn't get a pharmacy to fill their misoprostol prescription.

"The pharmacy has said, 'We don't know whether or not you might be using this medication for the purposes of abortion,'" she said.

---

But interpretation of the laws is still causing challenges to care. At least several OB-GYNs in the Austin area received a letter from a pharmacy in late 2021 saying it would no longer fill the drug methotrexate in the case of ectopic pregnancy, citing the recent Texas laws, said Dr. Charlie Brown, an Austin-based obstetrician-gynecologist who provided a copy to KHN. Methotrexate also is listed in the Texas law passed last year.

---

Tom Mayo, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law in Dallas, understands why some in Texas' pharmacy community might be nervous. "The penalties are quite draconian," he said, noting that someone could be convicted of a felony.

 

[parasaurolophus]

One of the articles linked on this page mentions that pharmacists wouldn't dispense it. You may have linked it lol, lemme check. Yes, the NPR one. 

The doctor would administer it. You wouldn't go pick up a prescription for it. That's actually part of the law that you have to see a doctor. 

Which is totally fine in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, which is what we are discussing, since you have to go to the doctor. You can't self diagnose that. 

The situation where a pharmacist won't prescribe it is for different scenarios, not ectopic pregnancies. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

And just to be clear... I am not defending the law. If you want to point to the other bad parts please, go right ahead. 

It is just not true though that an ectopic pregnancy would go untreated and cause tons of pregnancies to lead to a brutally painful death to the mother for a fetus that is 100% not viable. 

I know there have been some dumb politicians that don't know what an ectopic pregnancy is and talked about transplanting, but that's just a few. Everybody else knows that it is not viable. 

 

[(HULK)]

The doctor would administer it. You wouldn't go pick up a prescription for it. That's actually part of the law that you have to see a doctor. 

Which is totally fine in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, which is what we are discussing, since you have to go to the doctor. You can't self diagnose that. 

The situation where a pharmacist won't prescribe it is for different scenarios, not ectopic pregnancies. 

Yes, but the doctor needs to get it from the pharmacist and the issue was that it got significantly harder for them to manage that. It's covered in the article you linked.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Yes, but the doctor needs to get it from the pharmacist and the issue was that it got significantly harder for them to manage that. It's covered in the article you linked.

No it isn't covered in the article. Those were patients that had been prescribed different medicine and we're going to pick it up and take it on their own. Misoprostol is usually part two of the abortion pill(uterine) that you take 48 hours later. Doctors would write a script for that part. 

Dr. Lauren Thaxton, an OB-GYN and assistant professor at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas-Austin, has already heard about local patients who have been miscarrying, and couldn't get a pharmacy to fill their misoprostol prescription.

"The pharmacy has said, 'We don't know whether or not you might be using this medication for the purposes of abortion,'" she said.

Thaxton, who supervises the obstetrics-gynecology residents who have seen these patients, said sometimes the prescribing clinic will intervene, but it takes the patient longer to get the medication. Other times patients don't report the problem and miscarry on their own, she said, but without medication they risk additional bleeding.

Doctors don't go to CVS to get the injection or pill that they are giving you.

"Hold on, brb do you need anything while I hit up target too?"

This law has been in effect since last year. Don't you think if there were women with fallopian tubes bursting on the regular that article would have brought that up? Don't you think that would be front and center? 

An ectopic pregnancy can't be self diagnosed at home or via telehealth. So the patient would be given medication at diagnosis by the doctor and the patient would have to take it right there(via injection most likely but perhaps pill form not sure how they decide that), since that is actually state law that the doctor has to administer it in person. They would never prescribe it since that would be illegal. 

 

[(HULK)]

No it isn't covered in the article. Those were patients that had been prescribed different medicine and we're going to pick it up and take it on their own. Misoprostol is usually part two of the abortion pill(uterine) that you take 48 hours later. Doctors would write a script for that part. 

Dr. Lauren Thaxton, an OB-GYN and assistant professor at the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas-Austin, has already heard about local patients who have been miscarrying, and couldn't get a pharmacy to fill their misoprostol prescription.

"The pharmacy has said, 'We don't know whether or not you might be using this medication for the purposes of abortion,'" she said.

Thaxton, who supervises the obstetrics-gynecology residents who have seen these patients, said sometimes the prescribing clinic will intervene, but it takes the patient longer to get the medication. Other times patients don't report the problem and miscarry on their own, she said, but without medication they risk additional bleeding.

Doctors don't go to CVS to get the injection or pill that they are giving you.

"Hold on, brb do you need anything while I hit up target too?"

This law has been in effect since last year. Don't you think if there were women with fallopian tubes bursting on the regular that article would have brought that up? Don't you think that would be front and center? 

An ectopic pregnancy can't be self diagnosed at home or via telehealth. So the patient would be given medication at diagnosis by the doctor and the patient would have to take it right there(via injection most likely but perhaps pill form not sure how they decide that), since that is actually state law that the doctor has to administer it in person. They would never prescribe it since that would be illegal. 

The shot my wife got was administered by her OBGYN. Why are pharmacies sending letters to doctor's offices saying they won't fill orders if it's not the doctors making the orders?

I honestly have no concept of how the back of house works at a doctor's office. Where do doctors offices get drugs if not from pharmacies? Is there some different distribution network?

 

[parasaurolophus]

The shot my wife got was administered by her OBGYN. Why are pharmacies sending letters to doctor's offices saying they won't fill orders if it's not the doctors making the orders?

I honestly have no concept of how the back of house works at a doctor's office. Where do doctors offices get drugs if not from pharmacies? Is there some different distribution network?

I didn't read where your first paragraph is occurring. I only read where the patients were trying to pick up scripts for a different drug.

Doctors would get supplied by the wholesaler.