Tullyswimmer t1_jdxlyf4 wrote

> The part you are missing is that the time frame doesn't matter. My original point is that, by 24 weeks, any abortion would be because it is medically necessary. That medical necessity is the point, whether it happens at 24 weeks or at 17 weeks.

It absolutely does matter. A 17 week fetus is not viable. A 24 or 25 week one is. If the law says "elective abortions are legal until 24 weeks, and only medically necessary after that" how does that "medical necessity" affect a 17 week pregnancy?

>If there is a law in place that an abortion isn't allowed after a given time (whatever that time is) unless medically necessary, then any such abortion must be legally defended. Otherwise, what would be the point of the law? If all that is necessary is for a doctor to say it's necessary, then the law would be unenforceable.

So again, there wouldn't be a problem with it? What you're arguing for is a law where elective abortions would be available until birth with no questions asked. If those never happen, why is it so critically important that they're legal?

>So if abortions that late are medically necessary, and such a law is unenforceable, why have it? At that point it just causes more harm.

Because you and I both know that elective abortions can and do happen after that point. Simple as that. You can try and dance around it all you want, but at the end of the day, if it was really that uncommon for them to happen, you wouldn't have a problem with restricting them.


Tullyswimmer t1_jdx3o15 wrote

> Why should a doctor have to be put on trial for doing what they think is best for their patient? Does a legal body have a better understanding of the medical issues involved?

At no point did I say that the doctor should have to defend it, or be put on trial. They shouldn't. But if anyone has to defend the decision to do something out of medical necessity, it should be, you know, the medical professional who said it was necessary?

>Can you explain to me why the situation would be different at 24 weeks as opposed to 18 weeks? The same processes and procedures are in place, regardless of time frame.

I asked a question about why we couldn't restrict abortions after 24 weeks if they were never done for elective reasons after 24 weeks. I'm not sure how 18 weeks is after 24 weeks. Last I knew, 18 weeks was before 24 weeks, so anything that happened at 18 weeks would not then be covered by restrictions after 24 weeks. Unless my math is way off.

>Does the reason why a fetus is not viable matter? Would the situation be any different if the cause was the genetic anomaly as the report stated? Is it okay to let the woman die if drugs are involved? Again, why does the time frame matter? Pregnancies can be lost at more than 24 weeks for many reasons, including natural ones.

Declaring the fetus not viable would be permitted. As long as it was truly not viable, and not like Iceland where they consider Down's syndrome a legitimate reason to terminate. Yes, the situation would be different if there was an actual genetic anomaly and not substance abuse. No, it's not OK to let a woman die because of drug use but literally nobody is making that argument except as a straw man. And again, that case was at 17 weeks, I specifically asked about a ban after 24 weeks.

>What you are missing is the idea that getting more people involved in a personal and highly traumatic decision - people who are less qualified to make that decision at that - will only make problems worse. Why do you think more restrictive states have higher fatalities?

Again, if a doctor says it's medically necessary, and that's all that's needed, who else is involved in that decision? And states that are more restrictive tend to have lower quality healthcare, and less access to healthcare, in general, that states that are less restrictive. Surely that could contribute to higher fatality rates, no? Or if they magically made abortion unrestricted up until the moment of birth, no questions asked, (as you want), would they suddenly not have higher fatality rates despite no other changes to healthcare quality and access?

I will ask the question one more time, since I still have not gotten an answer. If nobody is going to terminate a pregnancy after 24 weeks for elective reasons, why is it a problem to restrict abortion access to only non-elective reasons after 24 weeks?

Everything you've provided as a citation or example, thus far, would either be elective, didn't happen after 24 weeks, or is hypothetical.


Tullyswimmer t1_jdwxvdj wrote

> She has the abortion first. She is now required to defend the decision she and her doctor made while still dealing with the loss of her child.

Why? Why would she have to defend it? If it's "between the doctor and the patient" as you describe, wouldn't it be on the doctor to defend it, since they were the one who said it was necessary? The only case in which a woman would have to defend it if it was necessary is if a medical professional said it wasn't and she wanted it anyway, which is the definition of elective.

In the case you cited, it never once mentioned if it was medically necessary or not, or if she had consulted with a physician. If it's not medically necessary, that's elective, again.

>She must get approval for the abortion, which can take time and lead to unnecessary complications. As has happened.

Can you explain to me how that situation at 18 weeks would have be affected by restrictions after 24 weeks? I'm not sure I see the connection there. Even at 22 weeks, if your water breaks, you're probably going into labor. I know because it happened to my wife.

>She risks death for herself or the fetus. If the fetus dies and she lives, she still risks arrest. As has happened.

I'm sorry, are you equating losing a pregnancy due to methamphetamine use with a medically necessary abortion? And again, how would losing a pregnancy at 17 weeks be affected by restrictions affecting pregnancies past 24 weeks? I seem to be missing something here.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcikmuw wrote

Yeah. And even as someone who generally dislikes the government running shit and having a monopoly on it... I really can't complain about the way this state has set up liquor laws. It works well, the employees are treated well and have good benefits, and a lot of it is far cheaper than it is other places. And you can VERY easily find a specific bottle of something on the website and know exactly which store to go to if you want to purchase it. That is massively underrated if you're looking for something specific.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcijcb1 wrote

Seems my info is out of date.

I can't find the exact numbers on the state website (and I'm sure it's there) but it looks like the going rate is at least $16 an hour for a clerk II plus they get part-time benefits. I think it's part of one of the state employee unions. So it's really not a bad gig. A lot of the older clerks I've talked to are there because it's something to do and I think they get healthcare even as part time.


Tullyswimmer t1_jciihw7 wrote

Yeah, the NH senate has killed it the last several times it's brought up, but every time there's one or two more senators who vote for it as the dinosaurs like D'Alessandro leave.

It will eventually get passed in the senate, and even if Sununu vetoes, it's already pretty close to the veto override and could probably get there if they struck the psychedelics in an amendment.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcii4y1 wrote

> This shoot for the moon trend on some bills is annoying. I saw a decent solar bill get killed today because some junior rep tried to increase solar use by 1170% for the next gabillion years.

It's like the "water protection bill" that was being discussed here yesterday. The standards that were set out in that were absolutely crazy high, to the point where some bottled water wouldn't pass, and the amount of PFAS in soil alone would probably cause a lot of water sources to be over the limit.

Like, let's protect our water, sure, but let's do it in a way that makes fucking sense and is reasonably possible.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcih7jz wrote

I think the state run stores start at $12-something an hour, but the benefits are ridiculous and all employees, even part time ones, get them.

Yeah, there's a lot of ways that a state monopoly on liquor sales could go wrong, but in NH it works well, and generates a shitload of revenue for the state which is not really tax revenue.

I would 100% be OK with NH doing a similar thing with dispensaries because that's just another revenue stream for the state that keeps our taxes from going up as fast.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcigqpe wrote

I was gonna say, I've found it much harder to buy liquor in MA than NH. There's more stores if you just want like, Smirnoff and Jack, but if you're looking for more craft stuff, higher end stuff, or interesting/unique stuff, the state stores in NH have a WAY better selection than most of the private stores in MA, and are much easier to get to.

Plus, the sticker price in MA might be only a little more but then you get sales tax slapped on top of it.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcg0ezn wrote

>I happen to know some of the "Water Warriors," and while I'm not an expert on the subject, I know the levels they are calling for are both testable and achievable.

In a perfect world, they may be. If you don't consider the PFAS that's already in the soil from years and years of pollution, and if you don't consider the cost burden of building systems that could achieve those levels to the average homeowner's tap. Yes, it may, theoretically, be something that can be achieved and tested for. But it's not practical at this point. Most water test companies don't have equipment that can test for those levels. Such equipment does exist, certainly. But again, it's a matter of being realistic instead of idealistic.

>Then the reasonable Republican (of myth) would say "Woah there, my liberal friend. You've got the right idea, but you're doing it wrong. Watch how we conservatives do it right and get some progress where you got none.

And the reasonable Democrats (also of myth) would say "Oh, ok, that's a decent compromise."

But instead they can just come out and say that Republicans voted against their water protections and thus want no water protections whatsoever.


Tullyswimmer t1_jcfvu3e wrote

Presumably because the Democrats are pushing for levels that are not only nearly impossible to test for, but might be nearly impossible to actually achieve... Thus giving them the ability to say things like "Do Republicans not drink water" if the Republicans don't support it (because it's unrealistic).