OT: "Ohio bill orders doctors to ‘reimplant ectopic pregnancy’ " (or else go to jail)

[l***@yahoo.com]

Hoo boy. (Hint: The operation doesn't exist.)

And if anyone here doesn't know, an unaborted ectopic pregnancy can easily be lethal to the woman.


https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-bill-orders-doctors-reimplant-085424596.html

Excerpts:

A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature requires doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into a woman’s uterus – a procedure that does not exist in medical science – or face charges of “abortion murder”.

This is the second time practising obstetricians and gynecologists have tried to tell the Ohio legislators that the idea is currently medically impossible.

The move comes amid a wave of increasingly severe anti-abortion bills introduced across much of the country as conservative Republican politicians seek to ban abortion and force a legal showdown on abortion with the supreme court.

Ohio’s move on ectopic pregnancies – where an embryo implants on the mother’s fallopian tube rather than her uterus rendering the pregnancy unviable – is one of the most extreme bills to date.

“I don’t believe I’m typing this again but, that’s impossible,” wrote Ohio obstetrician and gynecologist Dr David Hackney on Twitter. “We’ll all be going to jail,” he said...

...In May, researcher Dr Daniel Grossman argued reimplanting a fertilized egg or embryo is “pure science fiction” in a Twitter thread that went viral in May, when the bill was first introduced.

Hi @BeckerGOP, I’m a practicing ob-gyn and researcher on abortion and contraception, and thought you might want some help understanding ectopic pregnancy since your bill (HB182) gets some things wrong. I’ll clear up a few things in this thread. https://t.co/BdXYHnCAtI

— Dr. Daniel Grossman (@DrDGrossman)
May 8, 2019

(snip)


Comment from "Michael":

"You would think that, even if you were an anti-abortion politician, you would consult medical professionals, that were sympathetic to your position, to advise you on a medically realistic bill. Obviously the super geniuses who govern Ohio found that idea too difficult for their limited intellect. I'm not an expert on medical science and most people are not. I would definitely be consulting someone who was before crafting regulations pertaining to the medical sciences."

(end)


This whole thing reminds me of the former Rep. Todd Akin in 2012. Why didn't HE try to find a doctor or two who would agree with him before opening his mouth? Don't politicians CARE about not making themselves look like idiots?


Lenona.

[l***@fl.it]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
Hoo boy. (Hint: The operation doesn't exist.)
And if anyone here doesn't know, an unaborted ectopic pregnancy can easily be lethal to the woman.
https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-bill-orders-doctors-reimplant-085424596.html
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature requires doctors to “reimplant an ectopic pregnancy” into a woman’s uterus – a procedure that does not exist in medical science – or face charges of “abortion murder”.
This is the second time practising obstetricians and gynecologists have tried to tell the Ohio legislators that the idea is currently medically impossible.
The move comes amid a wave of increasingly severe anti-abortion bills introduced across much of the country as conservative Republican politicians seek to ban abortion and force a legal showdown on abortion with the supreme court.
Ohio’s move on ectopic pregnancies – where an embryo implants on the mother’s fallopian tube rather than her uterus rendering the pregnancy unviable – is one of the most extreme bills to date.
“I don’t believe I’m typing this again but, that’s impossible,” wrote Ohio obstetrician and gynecologist Dr David Hackney on Twitter. “We’ll all be going to jail,” he said...
...In May, researcher Dr Daniel Grossman argued reimplanting a fertilized egg or embryo is “pure science fiction” in a Twitter thread that went viral in May, when the bill was first introduced.
May 8, 2019
(snip)
"You would think that, even if you were an anti-abortion politician, you would consult medical professionals, that were sympathetic to your position, to advise you on a medically realistic bill. Obviously the super geniuses who govern Ohio found that idea too difficult for their limited intellect. I'm not an expert on medical science and most people are not. I would definitely be consulting someone who was before crafting regulations pertaining to the medical sciences."
(end)
This whole thing reminds me of the former Rep. Todd Akin in 2012. Why didn't HE try to find a doctor or two who would agree with him before opening his mouth? Don't politicians CARE about not making themselves look like idiots?
Lenona.

My suggestion would be that since the embryo is so valued by them,
have the doctor implant it in them! Think, they could be saviours :)

[Terry del Fuego]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
And if anyone here doesn't know, an unaborted ectopic pregnancy
can easily be lethal to the woman.

Oh, please. You're acting like a bunch of grandstanding politicians
don't know more about anatomy than a mere doctor. How can anyone take
you seriously?

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
Hoo boy. (Hint: The operation doesn't exist.)

Hint: the article you are quoting is a lie.

Post by l***@yahoo.com
And if anyone here doesn't know, an unaborted ectopic pregnancy can
easily be lethal to the woman.
https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-bill-orders-doctors-reimplant-085424596.html
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature
requires doctors to "reimplant an ectopic pregnancy" into a woman's
uterus -- a procedure that does not exist in medical science -- or
face charges of "abortion murder".

I've seen this claim about fifteen times now on social media and
Usenet and not one of the hand-wringing, shrieking accounts of this
bill has quoted it honestly. You can find it easily enough yourself
by searching "Ohio legislature House Bill 413." The only time the
word "ectopic" is mentioned is in a provision that carves out a "safe
harbor" for physicians that gives the non-existent procedure as an
example of something that would be *protected* under the bill:

Sec. 2904.35. A physician who does all of the following is not
subject to criminal prosecution, [civil damages or professional
discipline]:

(A) [Reasonably believes the mother's life is in danger];

(B) Performs a surgery, before the unborn child is viable, for the
sole purpose of treating the woman's fatal condition;

(C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn
child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps
include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic
pregnancy into the woman's uterus.

Now, this legislation is stupid. No, check that, it's fucking
idiotic. Among other sins, it is an appalling piece of legislative
draftsmanship. I'd give a second-year law student a C- for coming up
with this crapola.

But there is no reading of it that "requires doctors to 'reimplant an
ectopic pregnancy.'" That's just bullshit. It's not a reasonable
mistake, because no native speaker of English of normal intelligence
could possibly misinterpret it honestly to get that from the text of
the bill. It's just a lie.

This story tells us a little tiny bit about the Ohio state
legislature, but it tells us a tremendous amount about the media
outlets "reporting" on it.

[l***@yahoo.com]

OK, fine. But it's kind of hard to notice the two words "if applicable" when you're distracted by such idiotic "crapola," as you described it. It's pretty close to hair splitting, from most people's point of view. (Not a lawyer's, I suppose.)

Especially when that was preceded by the words "A physician who does all of the following is not subject to criminal prosecution."



Lenona.

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
OK, fine. But it's kind of hard to notice the two words "if
applicable" when you're distracted by such idiotic "crapola," as you
described it. It's pretty close to hair splitting, from most
people's point of view. (Not a lawyer's, I suppose.)

That might well serve as an excuse for a casual reader. Not for a
journalist -- someone who makes his living with words -- to shrug off
his obligation to at least *try* to get it right. This is a willful
misrepresentation. It is a lie.

[Travoltron]

Not shocked that it was a lie. Today's "journalism" is a total joke.

Be skeptical of any doomsday hysteria the media tries to whip up.

[l***@yahoo.com]

Post by J.D. Baldwin

Post by l***@yahoo.com
OK, fine. But it's kind of hard to notice the two words "if
applicable" when you're distracted by such idiotic "crapola," as you
described it. It's pretty close to hair splitting, from most
people's point of view. (Not a lawyer's, I suppose.)

That might well serve as an excuse for a casual reader. Not for a
journalist -- someone who makes his living with words -- to shrug off
his obligation to at least *try* to get it right. This is a willful
misrepresentation. It is a lie.

But..I doubt that it's a lie that the doctors who were named (or other Ohio doctors, for that matter) are seriously worried about going to jail. Maybe they have reason to believe that if the bill were passed, they would be just one step away from being sent to jail, with a little legal maneuvering/rewriting?

In other words, doctors aren't exactly ignorant when it comes to the law - especially compared to the average American. So what are they worried about?


Lenona.

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
But..I doubt that it's a lie that the doctors who were named (or
other Ohio doctors, for that matter) are seriously worried about
going to jail. Maybe they have reason to believe that if the bill
were passed, they would be just one step away from being sent to
jail, with a little legal maneuvering/rewriting?
In other words, doctors aren't exactly ignorant when it comes to the
law [...]

Any doctor who reads the actual text of the law and is "worried about
going to jail" on its basis is not merely "ignorant," he's probably
too stupid to find his own way to the bathroom and shouldn't be
permitted to handle a pair of scissors, much less a scalpel or
prescription pad.

[David Carson]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
In other words, doctors aren't exactly ignorant when it comes to the law - especially compared to the average American. So what are they worried about?

I would no sooner seek legal advice from a doctor than medical advice from
a lawyer.

[Terry del Fuego]

Post by David Carson
I would no sooner seek legal advice from a doctor than medical advice from
a lawyer.

Which is a completely different issue from whether or not people can
honestly come to the same conclusion as the doctors and reporters in
question.

I'll ask again: Am I lying? Am I a liar?

[David Carson]

On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 07:47:33 -0800, Terry del Fuego

Post by Terry del Fuego

Post by David Carson
I would no sooner seek legal advice from a doctor than medical advice from
a lawyer.

Which is a completely different issue from whether or not people can
honestly come to the same conclusion as the doctors and reporters in
question.
I'll ask again: Am I lying? Am I a liar?

Are you asking me? I'm not challenging your honesty.

As for the reporters, I think they should have gotten a lawyer's take on
what the bill means, not simply repeated the doctor's tweet, "We'll all be
going to jail" without analysis or examination. Don't you agree? I mean,
it's an article about a bill in the legislature - wouldn't getting a
lawyer's or lawmaker's input on it seem *required* for a reporter when
publishing an article about it? Or at least getting some kind of
counterpoint from *someone*? Doesn't the failure to do so seem dishonest
to you?

[Terry del Fuego]

Post by David Carson

Post by Terry del Fuego
I'll ask again: Am I lying? Am I a liar?

Are you asking me? I'm not challenging your honesty.

Cool.

Post by David Carson
As for the reporters, I think they should have gotten a lawyer's take on
what the bill means, not simply repeated the doctor's tweet, "We'll all be
going to jail" without analysis or examination. Don't you agree? I mean,
it's an article about a bill in the legislature - wouldn't getting a
lawyer's or lawmaker's input on it seem *required* for a reporter when
publishing an article about it? Or at least getting some kind of
counterpoint from *someone*? Doesn't the failure to do so seem dishonest
to you?

I would call it dishonest if they looked at it and decided to report
it as something other that what they truly believed. I don't *know*
that they didn't (or did) consult a lawyer, but as I may have already
said, the author of the Forbes article *did* try to contact the bill's
co-sponsors but apparently got no response. Maybe it's just me, but
were I egotistical enough to be a politician and the press
*universally* misrepresented my proposed legislation I would, you
know, *respond*.

And I intentionally said "universally". What's really, really odd to
me about this is that you and J. D. Baldwin are literally the only two
people I've digitally run across claiming it doesn't say what
everyone else is claiming it says. Again, that's not science, that's
not law, that's not necessarily even meaningful at all, but it's
extremely *odd*. I normally can't look up ANY news story without
finding competing outlier claims and a bunch of stuff in the middle.
In this case, I can't find *anything* other than than the claim that's
in the subject line. That's why I posted that bit last week (?) about
whether or not pandas are "functionally extinct". The two competing
stories right next to each other were the type of thing I normally see
for pretty much *everything*. But, for some reason, not this.

I thought maybe I should just go directly to a known non-liberal news
site and search there, so I tried Fox News. I searched "ectopic",
figuring that was the broadest, most generic term possible. Unless
their search engine is broken, they aren't covering the story at all.
It's just flat-out not there. Again, not proof of anything, but
genuinely *odd*. It's as if, for some reason, they just don't want to
touch it.

On the other hand, the first hit that comes up there is "Rare 'ectopic
breast tissue' caused woman to lactate from her vulva", so there's
that. Anyone needing further evidence that I'm a Bad Person will enjoy
knowing that my immediate thought was "That poor woman...the porn
companies are probably hounding her to death."

[l***@yahoo.com]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
But..I doubt that it's a lie that the doctors who were named (or other Ohio doctors, for that matter) are seriously worried about going to jail. Maybe they have reason to believe that if the bill were passed, they would be just one step away from being sent to jail, with a little legal maneuvering/rewriting?
In other words, doctors aren't exactly ignorant when it comes to the law - especially compared to the average American. So what are they worried about?

I should have said: Given that doctors have to worry about lawsuits by unreasonable people a lot of the time, AND learn how to get the law on their side, maybe they know something about bills like these that the average scoffer doesn't?


Lenona.

[l***@yahoo.com]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
I should have said: Given that doctors have to worry about lawsuits
by unreasonable people a lot of the time, AND learn how to get the
law on their side, maybe they know something about bills like these
that the average scoffer doesn't?

You seem to think that doctors are very, very smart and crafty
individuals. That suggests to me that you haven't met many of them.

No, just that they HAVE to learn more about the law than the average citizen.

[Terry del Fuego]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:21:55 +0000 (UTC),

Post by J.D. Baldwin
(C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn
child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps
include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic
pregnancy into the woman's uterus.

Obviously, IANAL. But as someone with a more or less semi-functional
grasp of the English "language" as commonly spoken by mere mortals, I
find it a reasonable non-stretch to interpret "Such steps include, if
applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the
woman's uterus" as a demand.

It's "applicable" in this context that concerns me. At the very least,
it's ambiguous. I don't exactly have to squint to interpret "if
applicable" followed by the explicit example given as mandating
exactly what the critics say it mandates.

Of course, it's *NOT* currently on the real-world list of "all
possible steps", so maybe that's the out. But insisting that anyone
reading it as "Ohio bill orders doctors..." is acting in bad faith
seems a stretch.

I can see multiple possibilities here:

1. Laws are intentionally written to confuse laypeople and some magic
Latin fairy dust means this doesn't really say what a reasonable
person (or I) might think it says.

2. The lawmakers are too stupid to write the actual law they intended
to write and now look bad to the adults because they passed something
they didn't intend to.

3. It's a sloppy future-proofing attempt to say "Should reimplanation
of ectopic pregnancies ever become possible..."

4. Everyone responsible knows exactly what they've done and are hoping
to screw over a bunch of innocent people because it's fun.

If this country has *any* semblence of decency left whatsoever, I
don't think this law will result in any doctor or woman getting jailed
or executed or whatever over a non-reimplanted ectopic pregnancy. But
I could easily imagine a situation where (what *I* see as) the
ambiguity of this law winds up forcing innocent parties to waste time
and money on pointless and humiliating court cases...and I could also
easily imagine that being 100% by design.

If a dipshit like me can read the law the way I read it, imagine how a
rabid anti-abortionist with a badge is going to read it.

[David Carson]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 13:35:27 -0800, Terry del Fuego

Post by Terry del Fuego
2. The lawmakers are too stupid to write the actual law they intended
to write and now look bad to the adults because they passed something
they didn't intend to.

They haven't passed any law. This is a bill that's been introduced and
is currently in committee.

[Terry del Fuego]

Post by David Carson
They haven't passed any law. This is a bill that's been introduced and
is currently in committee.

I'm very happy to stand corrected.

[Louis Epstein]

Post by David Carson
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 13:35:27 -0800, Terry del Fuego

Post by Terry del Fuego
2. The lawmakers are too stupid to write the actual law they intended
to write and now look bad to the adults because they passed something
they didn't intend to.

They haven't passed any law. This is a bill that's been introduced and
is currently in committee.

Let us all hope it goes nowhere and the authors face more qualified
opponents in coming elections.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by Terry del Fuego
Obviously, IANAL. But as someone with a more or less semi-functional
grasp of the English "language" as commonly spoken by mere mortals,
I find it a reasonable non-stretch to interpret "Such steps include,
if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the
woman's uterus" as a demand.

But if you were reporting on that statement to the rest of the world,
and if you took your responsibility to get at least the basic facts
right, wouldn't you, you know, *at least look into* what was meant by
the phrase "Such steps" in that statement? Given that it sets, you
know, the whole context?

Post by Terry del Fuego
It's "applicable" in this context that concerns me. At the very
least, it's ambiguous.

It's not at all ambiguous. It appears as part of a list that says
"You cannot be sanctioned in any way if you do what you possibly and
reasonably[1] can do." It does not, itself prohibit any acts, and to
report that it does is simply a lie.

[1] "Possible" and "reasonable" being words that appear in the text
of that part of the bill.

Post by Terry del Fuego
1. [...]
2. The lawmakers are too stupid to write the actual law they
intended to write and now look bad to the adults because they passed
something they didn't intend to.

This is the one. Even aside from whether the overall policy is a good
one, or whether the particular example was wisely chosen, this is an
appalling bit of legal writing. I mean, it starts right out with "A
physician who does all of the following" (which is sloppy and un-legal
in itself) and then the first thing in the list is "Using reasonable
medical judgment, believes it is highly probable ..." which just
doesn't belong on a list of something someone "does." It's just bad.

Also, no one's passed anything and you can bet your mortgage that this
bill is not getting passed in the form in which it now exists. Not in
Ohio, not anywhere. But you can also bet the mortgage that the
"journalists" who made up this particular bit of Fake F-ing News will
suffer no accountability or even damage to their reputations. Because
it's the right kind of Fake News.

[Terry del Fuego]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 22:54:50 +0000 (UTC),

Post by J.D. Baldwin
But if you were reporting on that statement to the rest of the world,
and if you took your responsibility to get at least the basic facts
right, wouldn't you, you know, *at least look into* what was meant by
the phrase "Such steps" in that statement? Given that it sets, you
know, the whole context?

Sure, I'd like to think so. I'd also hope to have a boss that allowed
time for doing things right, but this is the USA in 2019. I just
looked up the actual bill at
<https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA133-HB-413>...and
the PDF is 723 pages full of gibberish that at first glance seems
largely irrelevant. Granted, I'm not being *paid* to read and report
on it and even if you handed me money it would likely go over my head.

But I'll take a quick stab: Section 2904.04 (A) (page 183), which
*seems* to be the beginning of the real meat simply states "No person
shall purposely perform or have an abortion." A few subsequent
paragaphs go on some more about abortion and how the court "shall
regard the unborn child victim", then 2904.30 describes a woman's
"affirmative defense", which consists entirely and exclusively of "She
was compelled by force, fear, duress, intimidation, or fraud to have
the abortion" *IF* she filed a report.

Next up is 2904.35, which is what we've been talking about.

So, the flow I see is "no abortion" -> "unless you were forced" ->
"doctors won't be prosecuted if they..." That sounds a *lot* like
"doctors *will* be prosecuted if they do *not*" prior to performing an
abortion. Based on 2904.04 (A) down, it sure looks like doctors are
expected to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy. The bits after that deal
with...terrorism. It's just weird.

IOW, it reads (to *me*) like a list of conditions under which doctors
are allowed to perform an abortion, with the obvious conclusion that
they are *not* allowed to perform one unless the relevant bits of
2904.35 (A), (B) and (C) are met.

By the way, I also think (B) is murky:

"(B) Performs a surgery, before the unborn child is viable,
for the sole purpose of treating the pregnant woman's fatal
condition;"

What, if any, impact does that have on a woman who has a "fatal
condition" but whose "unborn child is [viable]?" It looks...bad.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
It's not at all ambiguous. It appears as part of a list that says
"You cannot be sanctioned in any way if you do what you possibly and
reasonably[1] can do." It does not, itself prohibit any acts, and to
report that it does is simply a lie.

It appears as part of a list that immediately follows a blanket ban on
all abortion with the only exception being that the woman was forced.
That *is* ambiguous to me. In fact, the more I read it, the more I
think I'm being overly kind by calling it "ambiguous". In that
context, "You cannot be sanctioned in any way if you do..." sounds a
lot like "This is what you're obligated to do."

Granted, I'm influenced by my beautifully advanced ability to see and
expect the worst in everything, but why word it the way they worded it
while (maybe) leaving out some important bits? Well, of course there

Post by J.D. Baldwin
this is an appalling bit of legal writing.

I sincerely hope that's all it is.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
But you can also bet the mortgage that the "journalists" who made
up this particular bit of Fake F-ing News will suffer no accountability
or even damage to their reputations. Because it's the right kind of
Fake News.

Yeah, yeah, we *both* have an agenda. I get that. I still think it's
honestly possible to interpret the wording exactly the way it's being
reported. But if your patience and knowledge will allow you to read
and understand the entire thing and explain why I'm wrong, I'm all
eyes. And I mean that sincerely: I lack both the patience and
intellect to slog through it. But I interpret what we both seem to
think are the relevant bits largely as reported with the caveat that
what I, a nobody, believe I'm reading may not be what they intended.

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by Terry del Fuego

Post by J.D. Baldwin
this is an appalling bit of legal writing.

I sincerely hope that's all it is.

Oh, no, the *policy* is about what you've made it out to be: an
effective ban on abortion in the state of Ohio. I get that a lot of
people consider that very seriously negative. If you consider such a
policy to be evil and/or counter-productive, then this bill is
entirely your worst nightmare. But it in no way requires that doctors
treat ectopic pregnancies by re-implantation in the uterus, and to
report that it does is simply a lie.

Post by Terry del Fuego
Yeah, yeah, we *both* have an agenda. I get that. I still think it's
honestly possible to interpret the wording exactly the way it's being
reported. But if your patience and knowledge will allow you to read
and understand the entire thing and explain why I'm wrong, [...]

You don't have to read the whole thing or even a significant fraction
of it. So far as I saw last time I glanced at it, the vast majority
of it doesn't have anything to do with abortion or anything else
controversial. But I might be wrong about that. I found the relevant
portion by simply searching the PDF for the string "ectopic" and
seeing immediately that it was a safe harbor provision that carved out
exceptions to whatever other provisions, however draconian, were
included in the rest of the bill.

[Terry del Fuego]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 05:29:58 +0000 (UTC),

But it in no way requires that doctors treat ectopic pregnancies
by re-implantation in the uterus, and toreport that it does is
simply a lie.

If it's a lie, then it means that the bill bans abortion, then, out of
nowhere, says "Oh, by the way, doctors are allowed to practice
medicine."

I found the relevant portion by simply searching the PDF for
the string "ectopic" and seeing immediately that it was a safe
harbor provision that carved out exceptions to whatever other
provisions, however draconian, were included in the rest of
the bill.

And it doesn't seem meaningful that the alleged carve outs come
*after* all the other stuff? Again, "lie" is *way* too strong. I
personally, genuinely and sincerely read it as *possibly* saying
exactly what the press is claiming that it says, with the
understanding that idiots wrote it and *may* not have meant what I
see. But I see have zero difficultly understanding how someone could
sincerely come to that conclusion.

One might also expect the bill's authors to have a significant
interest in offering an clear explanation, but as of yesterday:

<https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/12/02/will-ohio-bill-force-doctors-to-do-the-impossible-reimplant-ectopic-pregnancies/#37472a5d4948>
"State Representatives Candice R. Keller (R-District 53) and Ron Hood
(R-District 78) are the co-sponsors of this bill but to my knowledge
haven’t offered a tutorial. I have reached out to both of their
offices for further comment."

(I have no idea where Forbes lies editorially.)

Curiously--and certainly NOT scientifically--when I search
news.google.com for "ohio ectopic" I don't find a single rebuttal. Not
one. Say what you want about Google (it won't be anything I haven't
already said myself), but I normally can't look ANYTHING up without
getting hits from the usual mainstream suspects as well as the likes
of Vegan Love Bunny and Adolf Was Misunderstood.

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by Terry del Fuego

I found the relevant portion by simply searching the PDF for
the string "ectopic" and seeing immediately that it was a safe
harbor provision that carved out exceptions to whatever other
provisions, however draconian, were included in the rest of
the bill.

And it doesn't seem meaningful that the alleged carve outs come
*after* all the other stuff?

Not so far as the specific allegation. If the story had been reported
as:

An Ohio legislator has proposed a really extreme anti-abortion
bill, which also contains kind of a weird provision that implies
doctors should try to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, which is not
a procedure that actually exists anywhere.

I'd have no problem at all with that characterization. It gets the
point across and it's truthful and accurate. But that's not what the
article (and a dozen more like it) said. The article I am calling a
lie said (with emphasis added):

A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature
REQUIRES DOCTORS TO "REIMPLANT AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY" INTO A
WOMAN'S UTERUS -- a procedure that does not exist in medical
science -- or face charges of "abortion murder".

I am calling this a lie for the very simple reason that it is false,
that it is not plausibly an honest mistake, and that it was
intentionally falsified in order to promote a particular narrative
about anti-abortion legislators. Nothing about the actual bill
requires doctors to re-implant such embryos. Not in context, and not
really even if you strip away the context and leave only the graf
containing that weird bit about ectopic pregnancies, which merely
suggests that such a procedure would shield a doctor from liability
only if it is "reasonable" and "possible" -- which the reporting
itself acknowledges is not the case.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by J.D. Baldwin

Post by Terry del Fuego

I found the relevant portion by simply searching the PDF for
the string "ectopic" and seeing immediately that it was a safe
harbor provision that carved out exceptions to whatever other
provisions, however draconian, were included in the rest of
the bill.

And it doesn't seem meaningful that the alleged carve outs come
*after* all the other stuff?

Not so far as the specific allegation. If the story had been reported
An Ohio legislator has proposed a really extreme anti-abortion
bill, which also contains kind of a weird provision that implies
doctors should try to re-implant ectopic pregnancies, which is not
a procedure that actually exists anywhere.
I'd have no problem at all with that characterization.

Your characterization is false, not to mention "weird provision" is a
characterization that doesn't belong in neutral reporting of the facts.

There are insufficient safe harbor provisions for the surgeon and the
patient that must be there, because the legislation mandates harm to the
woman (it's not optional as you keep insisting) in certain circumstances
because neither her health nor her consent are factors, and there's no
consideration for whether the zygote that had grown abnormally is viable.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
It gets the
point across and it's truthful and accurate. But that's not what the
article (and a dozen more like it) said. The article I am calling a
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature
REQUIRES DOCTORS TO "REIMPLANT AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY" INTO A
WOMAN'S UTERUS -- a procedure that does not exist in medical
science -- or face charges of "abortion murder".

I read the language you provided. The bill anticipates the development
of such a surgical procedure in future, in which case it's mandated if
the woman's life (but not her health) isn't in jeopardy, without
considering whether she's consented, and without considering whether the
zygote is viable.

You deliberately misread the legislative language to condemn reporting
of the story "false".

Post by J.D. Baldwin
. . .

[Terry del Fuego]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 15:52:19 +0000 (UTC),

Post by J.D. Baldwin
I'd have no problem at all with that characterization. It gets the
point across and it's truthful and accurate. But that's not what the
article (and a dozen more like it) said. The article I am calling a
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature
REQUIRES DOCTORS TO "REIMPLANT AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY" INTO A
WOMAN'S UTERUS -- a procedure that does not exist in medical
science -- or face charges of "abortion murder".

OK, I finally get your point. But here's the thing: The way I read the
bill, it's a blanket ban on abortion that prohibits doctors from
performing an abortion UNLESS [all those conditions]. Granted, because
of the horrifically bad way it's written, I'm *inferring* that,
because it sure as hell isn't explicit. The dishonesty, if it really
is that, is that a phrase similar to "if the doctor wishes to perform
an abortion" is not included.

So I 50% agree with you: The bill does not require any random doctor
who discovers an ectopic pregnancy to attempt reimplantation. It does,
however (as *I* read it), forbid a doctor to perform an abortion on an
ectopic pregnancy UNLESS that particular imaginary procedure is
attempted. Remember, that section begins with "A physician who does
all of the following..."

So, the real-world situations would be (again, as *I* sincerely read
the bill):

1. Woman goes to a doctor. Doctor finds ectopic pregnancy, informs the
patient and cuts her loose. No crime has been committed because the
doctor didn't perform an abortion. That is, you're right: A doctor
will *not* be jailed/executed for not attempting reimplanation.

or

2. Woman goes to another doctor, gets the same diagnosis. Doctor knows
the only real world option is an abortion. Doctor is forbidden to
perform the abortion without first attempting reimplanation.

The only possible way out of option number 2 that I see hinges on an
interpretation of "if applicable". Is that intended to mean "if
possible"? In that case, maybe no additional harm done. Or does it
really mean "In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, here's what you have
to do"?

Post by J.D. Baldwin
I am calling this a lie for the very simple reason that it is false,

Well, then you're explicitly calling me a liar.

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by Terry del Fuego

Post by l***@yahoo.com
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature
REQUIRES DOCTORS TO "REIMPLANT AN ECTOPIC PREGNANCY" INTO A
WOMAN'S UTERUS -- a procedure that does not exist in medical
science -- or face charges of "abortion murder".

OK, I finally get your point. But here's the thing: The way I read the
bill, it's a blanket ban on abortion that prohibits doctors from
performing an abortion UNLESS [all those conditions].

That's close enough. But note the very important word "possible"
right there in the provision. The physician must "[t]ake[] all
possible steps to [save the fetus]." Since basically every physician
in the world is lining up on Twitter and elsewhere to inform us all
that reimplanting an ectopic pregnancy is not possible, there's no
problem. Yes, I know that reimplantation is the specific illustrative
example offered, but that just brings us right back to the whole "this
thing was written by total dumbasses" point.

Post by Terry del Fuego
2. Woman goes to another doctor, gets the same diagnosis. Doctor
knows the only real world option is an abortion. Doctor is forbidden
to perform the abortion without first attempting reimplanation.
The only possible way out of option number 2 that I see hinges on an
interpretation of "if applicable".

Then you missed the previous phrase about "*possible* steps" (emphasis
added).

But there's an even worse aspect in play here. Consider the case of
the doctor who cuts out the ectopic embryo, then cuts the mother open
in a different spot to do the reimplantation, then she suffers some
complication from this second unnecessary and obviously futile
procedure and dies. The doctor cannot be held accountable in a
malpractice action or even sanctioned by the medical licensing boards
because his actions fit every element of that safe harbor -- *even if
he does it completely incompetently*.

Post by Terry del Fuego

Post by l***@yahoo.com
I am calling this a lie for the very simple reason that it is false,

Well, then you're explicitly calling me a liar.

Why? You didn't make up a dishonest representation of the bill and
disseminate it to the world.

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by J.D. Baldwin
That's close enough. But note the very important word "possible"
right there in the provision. The physician must "[t]ake[] all
possible steps to [save the fetus]."

It doesn't say foetus. You're misquoting, deliberately.

Putting paraphrases in brackets is a common convention for trimming
down text not directly relevant to the point. It is not "misquoting."

It says "all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn
child". This isn't an "unborn child" for it cannot develop into a
child.

I already told you I get that you like abortion. You can stop trying
so hard.

I think writing "unborn child" is stupid in that context and I trimmed
that to "fetus" in my paraphrase because the only important word to my
opint was "possible."

I keep writing "zygote" and not "foetus".

Elsewhere in this thread, I think I called it an "embryo." Whatever.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
Since basically every physician in the world is lining up on
Twitter and elsewhere to inform us all that reimplanting an ectopic
pregnancy is not possible, there's no problem. . . .

The problem is that the bill's author imagines a scenario in which
such a procedure exists. The future is unknowable; maybe there could
be such a procedure. It would still be undesireable, as the bill
would mandate the procedure without the woman's health being
considered and without her consent.

This is a valid and reasonable objection to the bill, which I will say
for the -- fifth? tenth? -- time is stupid on a lot of levels. But
that does not excuse making up a "news" report that misrepresents its
content and implications.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by J.D. Baldwin

Post by J.D. Baldwin
That's close enough. But note the very important word "possible"
right there in the provision. The physician must "[t]ake[] all
possible steps to [save the fetus]."

It doesn't say foetus. You're misquoting, deliberately.

Putting paraphrases in brackets is a common convention for trimming
down text not directly relevant to the point. It is not "misquoting."

Considering that everyone, including you, has noted how badly drafted
the language of the bill was, and legal language is a matter of syntax,
then it's critical not to misquote.

Post by J.D. Baldwin

It says "all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn
child". This isn't an "unborn child" for it cannot develop into a
child.

I already told you I get that you like abortion. You can stop trying
so hard.

I've already corrected you on that. That's another deliberate lie.

I get that you like to use the guise of free exercise of religion to
legislate moral restrictions on the private acts of women. You didn't
actually say that, but if you've lost the ability to frame an argument
without being insulting, then I'll damn well throw your own words back
at you.

You have a serious reading comprehension problem, so I'll repeat myself:
I believe it's immoral to abort a pregnancy that resulted from
consensual sex. Immoral. Nevertheless, I don't believe that my moral
beliefs should be imposed in law to restrict the private acts of others.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
I think writing "unborn child" is stupid in that context and I trimmed
that to "fetus" in my paraphrase because the only important word to my
opint was "possible."

Did you read anything I wrote? It's neither an "unborn child" (no
child will be born), nor a foetus. There's no pregnancy here; the embryo
cannot reach foetal development stage.

Post by J.D. Baldwin

I keep writing "zygote" and not "foetus".

Elsewhere in this thread, I think I called it an "embryo." Whatever.

Words in legal language matter. It's really important not to get this
wrong. The woman isn't pregnant, despite the misleading term ectopic
pregnancy. A child will not issue. It's not a foetus because foetal
develop stage is one of the stages following pregnancy.

As viability cannot be demonstrated, it's probably no longer an embryo,
but I don't know if there's another medical term.

Post by J.D. Baldwin

Post by J.D. Baldwin
Since basically every physician in the world is lining up on
Twitter and elsewhere to inform us all that reimplanting an ectopic
pregnancy is not possible, there's no problem. . . .

The problem is that the bill's author imagines a scenario in which
such a procedure exists. The future is unknowable; maybe there could
be such a procedure. It would still be undesireable, as the bill
would mandate the procedure without the woman's health being
considered and without her consent.

This is a valid and reasonable objection to the bill, which I will say
for the -- fifth? tenth? -- time is stupid on a lot of levels. But
that does not excuse making up a "news" report that misrepresents its
content and implications.

It's my objection to your mischaracterization of the newspaper report as
a lie. No one here has argued in favor of the bill. You made yourself
the basis of the argument when you went out of your way to attack news
coverage.

[Terry del Fuego]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 17:23:03 +0000 (UTC),

Post by J.D. Baldwin
That's close enough. But note the very important word "possible"
right there in the provision. The physician must "[t]ake[] all
possible steps to [save the fetus]." Since basically every physician
in the world is lining up on Twitter and elsewhere to inform us all
that reimplanting an ectopic pregnancy is not possible, there's no
problem.

There's no problem to decent functioning adults. But we're talking
about politicians.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
Yes, I know that reimplantation is the specific illustrative
example offered, but that just brings us right back to the whole "this
thing was written by total dumbasses" point.

This raises another possibility: *Anyone* who makes *any* claims about
what the bill intends has no business doing so because it's arguably
literally impossible to determine. That certainly fits in with my
lifelong belief that if it walks on two legs and speaks English, it's
hopelessly full of shit.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
Then you missed the previous phrase about "*possible* steps" (emphasis
added).

I didn't miss it, I simply doubt the intellect and knowledge of those
who put it there while simultaneously not trusting their motives.
Again, not science or law, just how 60 years of dealing with humans
has warped my "brain".

Post by J.D. Baldwin
But there's an even worse aspect in play here. Consider the case of
the doctor who cuts out the ectopic embryo, then cuts the mother open
in a different spot to do the reimplantation, then she suffers some
complication from this second unnecessary and obviously futile
procedure and dies. The doctor cannot be held accountable in a
malpractice action or even sanctioned by the medical licensing boards
because his actions fit every element of that safe harbor -- *even if
he does it completely incompetently*.

Unintended consquences *RULE*, dude! Though I don't recall seeing
anything in there about malpractice, just criminal prosecution.

Post by J.D. Baldwin

Post by Terry del Fuego

Post by J.D. Baldwin
I am calling this a lie for the very simple reason that it is false,

Well, then you're explicitly calling me a liar.

Why? You didn't make up a dishonest representation of the bill and
disseminate it to the world.

I am, however, provisionally agreeing with those who you claim are
liars.

Another random shower thought because I just can't get over
"applicable". If this were, say, vehicle code containing a clause
along the lines of "motorcycle insurance must be purchased, if
applicable" wouldn't most read that as "All motorcycle owners/riders
must purchase insurance"? Can you, even if you don't agree, see why I
(and apparently many, many others) struggle with this?

[David Carson]

On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 13:41:08 -0800, Terry del Fuego

Post by Terry del Fuego
Another random shower thought because I just can't get over
"applicable". If this were, say, vehicle code containing a clause
along the lines of "motorcycle insurance must be purchased, if
applicable" wouldn't most read that as "All motorcycle owners/riders
must purchase insurance"? Can you, even if you don't agree, see why I
(and apparently many, many others) struggle with this?

Not if every insurance company in the world said that motorcyle insurance
does not exist, and the same section of the vehicle code began with a
clause saying "If it exists."

[Terry del Fuego]

Post by David Carson
Not if every insurance company in the world said that motorcyle insurance
does not exist, and the same section of the vehicle code began with a
clause saying "If it exists."

It occurs to me--not as an insult, but simply as a fact--that in this
case you're willing to give politicians far more benefit of the doubt
than I do.

[David Carson]

On Wed, 04 Dec 2019 18:53:48 -0800, Terry del Fuego

Post by Terry del Fuego

Post by David Carson
Not if every insurance company in the world said that motorcyle insurance
does not exist, and the same section of the vehicle code began with a
clause saying "If it exists."

It occurs to me--not as an insult, but simply as a fact--that in this
case you're willing to give politicians far more benefit of the doubt
than I do.

That's not really it. I don't think your insurance example is very
analagous because it's phrased as an outright requirement, not a "safe
harbor" protection against prosecution, which is what the Ohio bill is,
but let's use it anyway, only with a couple of changes that make it more
applicable:

"An insurance company that issues a policy covering a driver must cover
every vehicle that driver owns. This includes, if applicable, his or her
flying car."

Next, some insurance agent tweets, "Wait, OMG, flying cars don't exist.
WE'LL ALL BE GOING TO JAIL!!!!"

Next, a reporter turns this into a story. The story doesn't read, "Idiot
insurance agent tweets something stupid," but rather, "Bill orders
insurance companies to issue policies on flying cars (or else go to
jail)."

See, I don't know how to explain why J.D. and I see this story differently
than you and most other people, but it isn't because we aren't cynical
enough.

David Carson

[J.D. Baldwin]

Post by David Carson

Post by Terry del Fuego
It occurs to me--not as an insult, but simply as a fact--that in
this case you're willing to give politicians far more benefit of
the doubt than I do.

That's not really it. I don't think your insurance example is very
analagous because it's phrased as an outright requirement, not a
"safe harbor" protection against prosecution, which is what the Ohio
bill is, but let's use it anyway, only with a couple of changes that
"An insurance company that issues a policy covering a driver must
cover every vehicle that driver owns. This includes, if applicable,
his or her flying car."
Next, some insurance agent tweets, "Wait, OMG, flying cars don't
exist. WE'LL ALL BE GOING TO JAIL!!!!"
Next, a reporter turns this into a story. The story doesn't read,
"Idiot insurance agent tweets something stupid," but rather, "Bill
orders insurance companies to issue policies on flying cars (or else
go to jail)."

That is a very lawyerly analogy. I would say it is a better, clearer
and more sharply on-point analogy than what 90% of lawyers would come
up with when trying to make the same point.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by David Carson

Post by Terry del Fuego
Another random shower thought because I just can't get over
"applicable". If this were, say, vehicle code containing a clause
along the lines of "motorcycle insurance must be purchased, if
applicable" wouldn't most read that as "All motorcycle owners/riders
must purchase insurance"? Can you, even if you don't agree, see why I
(and apparently many, many others) struggle with this?

Not if every insurance company in the world said that motorcyle insurance
does not exist, and the same section of the vehicle code began with a
clause saying "If it exists."

I love how you ignore the rest of the language to force your analogy to
work. Well, it doesn't.

"If it exists, then the insurance agent will be required to add such a
policy to the insured party, without considering the benefit to the
insured party."

It's not comparable; your analogy fails.

[David Carson]

On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 19:40:11 -0800, Terry del Fuego

Post by Terry del Fuego
So, the flow I see is "no abortion" -> "unless you were forced" ->
"doctors won't be prosecuted if they..." That sounds a *lot* like
"doctors *will* be prosecuted if they do *not*" prior to performing an
abortion. Based on 2904.04 (A) down, it sure looks like doctors are
expected to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy. The bits after that deal
with...terrorism. It's just weird.
IOW, it reads (to *me*) like a list of conditions under which doctors
are allowed to perform an abortion, with the obvious conclusion that
they are *not* allowed to perform one unless the relevant bits of
2904.35 (A), (B) and (C) are met.

I'm not a lawyer or judge, of course, but I read far more court
opinions on a weekly basis than the average layperson does, and I feel
like I've gotten an excellent sense of how judges interpret statues.
(I realize this disclaimer will not assure or impress anyone, nor
should it.)

When one part of a statute appears to or does contradict another part
- which happens every single day - judges look to see which part is
dominant or controlling, and which part is subordinate.

The bill says to take "all possible steps," including reimplantation,
"if applicable." I don't think there is any doubt that "all possible
steps" is the controlling phrase here. Reimplantation is mentioned as
one possible step. But if reimplantation isn't possible - which the
doctors are saying it isn't - then clearly the doctors don't have to
do it. The bill requires taking a all possible steps; it doesn't
require taking any impossible ones. This is how the law would be read
by a judge. No judge would interpret a law to mean that it requires
doing the impossible.

As we all agree, the wording is poor. I don't know what the authors
were thinking when they brought reimplantation into it. I'm not
justifying anything. The bill won't leave the committee in this form.
The proverb about legislation and sausage comes to mind. But Dr.
Hackney's tweet, "We'll all be going to jail," is still ridiculous,
and for the media outlets to swallow, unchallenged and unanalyzed,
his stupid take on it, and regurgitate it as the gospel truth, is
irresponsible and disgusting.

David Carson

[Terry del Fuego]

Post by David Carson
When one part of a statute appears to or does contradict another part
- which happens every single day - judges look to see which part is
dominant or controlling, and which part is subordinate.

Those are the words I was desperately seeking and which were not
coming to me.

Post by David Carson
The bill says to take "all possible steps," including reimplantation,
"if applicable." I don't think there is any doubt that "all possible
steps" is the controlling phrase here.

I agree.

Post by David Carson
Reimplantation is mentioned as one possible step. But if reimplantation
isn't possible - which the doctors are saying it isn't - then clearly the
doctors don't have to do it.

This may just be a attitudinal difference in how we look at the world.
Because I don't see anything "clearly" at all here. And what seems to
be really bothering me is the use of "if applicable" rather than "if
possible" or something closer to it. Going back to dominant and
subordinate, I'm reading it as "reimplantation is applicable to an
ectopic pregnancy." That in turn reads--to me--as a mandate.

Post by David Carson
The bill requires taking a all possible steps; it doesn't require
taking any impossible ones.

I can absolutely believe that what you say is indeed the *intent*. But
it's not what I read.

Post by David Carson
This is how the law would be read by a judge. No judge would
interpret a law to mean that it requires doing the impossible.

I'd argue that that's pretty much exactly what happened to Peter
McWilliams. It was not possible for him to survive by following the
court's demands and he in fact did not. (Yes, that case bothers me to
this day and I look at a lot of the workings of the legal world
through its filter. That may make any of my attempts at serious
analysis or, in this case, analogy, suspect.)

That aside, should the law pass as written (and I hope you and the
others who believe it won't are right), it will still invite the
"justice" system to attempt to prosecute people for just doing their
jobs. Yes, they'll (probably) be acquitted, but they shouldn't have to
deal with it at all.

And I still find it genuinely curious and arguably telling that the
idiots who wrote the bill don't seem to be interested in explaining
themselves.

Post by David Carson
But Dr. Hackney's tweet, "We'll all be going to jail," is still ridiculous,
and for the media outlets to swallow, unchallenged and unanalyzed,
his stupid take on it, and regurgitate it as the gospel truth, is
irresponsible and disgusting.

And I completely disagree. I guess that makes me a liar.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by J.D. Baldwin

Post by Terry del Fuego
Obviously, IANAL. But as someone with a more or less semi-functional
grasp of the English "language" as commonly spoken by mere mortals,
I find it a reasonable non-stretch to interpret "Such steps include,
if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic pregnancy into the
woman's uterus" as a demand.

But if you were reporting on that statement to the rest of the world,
and if you took your responsibility to get at least the basic facts
right, wouldn't you, you know, *at least look into* what was meant by
the phrase "Such steps" in that statement? Given that it sets, you
know, the whole context?

Post by Terry del Fuego
It's "applicable" in this context that concerns me. At the very
least, it's ambiguous. . . .

It's not at all ambiguous. It appears as part of a list that says
"You cannot be sanctioned in any way if you do what you possibly and
reasonably[1] can do." It does not, itself prohibit any acts, and to
report that it does is simply a lie.

What if the women and surgeon thoroughly discuss her medical condition
and, on the surgeon's advise, the woman refuses consent to be
impregnated with the zygote that had been growing ectopically because
she doesn't believe that the pregnancy would continue normally and
result in a healthy child and she doesn't believe she should be
impregnated under such circumstances.

The surgeon acts according to the patient's instructions. He can then be
criminally prosecuted.

You've gotten it very very wrong.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
[1] "Possible" and "reasonable" being words that appear in the text
of that part of the bill.

False. You're deliberately misinterpreting it. In previous followups,
you quoted Sec 2904.35(C), which address's the woman's life but not her
health. "All possible steps" is with respect to preserving the "life of
the unborn child" which includes "if applicable" "attempting to reimplant"
"into the woman's uterus".

You got it wrong, not the reporting. That is a mandate under undefined
"applicable" circumstances in which the woman's life, but not her health
and definiately not her informed consent, is a consideration. The
viability of the zygote isn't a consideration either.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
. . .
Also, no one's passed anything and you can bet your mortgage that this
bill is not getting passed in the form in which it now exists. Not in
Ohio, not anywhere.

No, I really can't make that assumption that language like this, or worse,
will never make it into law.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
But you can also bet the mortgage that the "journalists" who made up this
particular bit of Fake F-ing News will suffer no accountability or even
damage to their reputations. Because it's the right kind of Fake News.

The only thing I'd bet on is you'll make further attempts to pull the
wool over the reader's eyes on the quality of journalism.

You didn't make your point, and you're just digging in deeper.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by J.D. Baldwin

Post by l***@yahoo.com
Hoo boy. (Hint: The operation doesn't exist.)

Hint: the article you are quoting is a lie.

Post by l***@yahoo.com
And if anyone here doesn't know, an unaborted ectopic pregnancy can
easily be lethal to the woman.
https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-bill-orders-doctors-reimplant-085424596.html
A bill to ban abortion introduced in the Ohio state legislature
requires doctors to "reimplant an ectopic pregnancy" into a woman's
uterus -- a procedure that does not exist in medical science -- or
face charges of "abortion murder".

I've seen this claim about fifteen times now on social media and
Usenet and not one of the hand-wringing, shrieking accounts of this
bill has quoted it honestly. You can find it easily enough yourself
by searching "Ohio legislature House Bill 413." The only time the
word "ectopic" is mentioned is in a provision that carves out a "safe
harbor" for physicians that gives the non-existent procedure as an
Sec. 2904.35. A physician who does all of the following is not
subject to criminal prosecution, [civil damages or professional
(A) [Reasonably believes the mother's life is in danger];
(B) Performs a surgery, before the unborn child is viable, for the
sole purpose of treating the woman's fatal condition;
(C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn
child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps
include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic
pregnancy into the woman's uterus.
Now, this legislation is stupid. No, check that, it's fucking
idiotic. Among other sins, it is an appalling piece of legislative
draftsmanship. I'd give a second-year law student a C- for coming up
with this crapola.
But there is no reading of it that "requires doctors to 'reimplant an
ectopic pregnancy.'" That's just bullshit. It's not a reasonable
mistake, because no native speaker of English of normal intelligence
could possibly misinterpret it honestly to get that from the text of
the bill. It's just a lie.

You're re-interpreting this to condemn the way the story has been
reported, and you're getting it very very wrong.

(A) Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that's NOT
being used for birth control reasons when it's performed with legitimate
concern for the woman's health. Doctors may universally agree that a
condition jeopardizes a woman's health doesn't necessarily jeopardize
her life, or doesn't jeopardize her life immediately. Unless language is
qualifed "life or health", then the purpose of the bill is to deny a
woman a medical procedure that might be necessary under certain
circumstances in which her life isn't in immediate jeopardy.

(B) and (C) uses bullshit language like "child" as it's another way of
legislating that HUMAN life began at conception and not at live birth.

(B) appears to make it a criminal act if surgery is performed after the
foetus (not child) is viable. With technological advances, that's
earlier and earlier and earlier. Surgery should be performed when
warranted, period.

(C) like (B) makes medical and technological assumptions that could very
well be possible in future.

Repeating myself: Even if the zygote were viable, which I am highly
doubtful of because it's been growing outside the womb, the woman who
just had surgery to treat the condition is unlikely to benefit from more
surgery to implant the zygote in the right place. It's reasonable that
she should heal before surgery is attempted to make her pregnant.

The legislation actually makes the assumption that should the procedure
exist at some point, an attempt should be made to impregnate the patient
without her consent and without considering whether she'd benefit from
impregnation while she needs to recover from the procedure to remove the
ectopic zygote. The "if applicable" language isn't enough of a
caveat to prevent this.

Post by J.D. Baldwin
This story tells us a little tiny bit about the Ohio state
legislature, but it tells us a tremendous amount about the media
outlets "reporting" on it.

Sorry, dude, but you were so desperate to condemn the reporting here
that you failed to consider all of the bill's mandated adverse impacts.

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Adam H. Kerman <***@chinet.com> wrote:
[much snipped]

Yeah, I get it. You like abortion. Whatever. I'm not Mr.-Everybody-
Must-Remain-Fully-On-Topic-All-The-Time, but I don't discuss that
topic directly in groups without "politics" in the name.

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by J.D. Baldwin
This story tells us a little tiny bit about the Ohio state
legislature, but it tells us a tremendous amount about the media
outlets "reporting" on it.

Sorry, dude, but you were so desperate to condemn the reporting here
that you failed to consider all of the bill's mandated adverse impacts.

I'm not saying the bill, if implemented as written, would not have
"adverse impacts." Far from it -- I specifically said it's a horrible
bill for a lot of reasons. If I were a legislator and I was presented
with it, I wouldn't remotely consider voting in favor of it. But it
does not mandate reimplantation of all ectopic pregnancies, and there
is no reasonable reading of it that yields that interpretation.
Reporting that it does is simply a lie. That is the sum total of my
point.

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by J.D. Baldwin
[much snipped]
Yeah, I get it. You like abortion. Whatever. I'm not Mr.-Everybody-
Must-Remain-Fully-On-Topic-All-The-Time, but I don't discuss that
topic directly in groups without "politics" in the name.

Huh? This whole thread is completely OT here anyway.

How can any thread about abortion *NOT* be political?

[l***@fl.it]

As per usual, men discussing and arguing over what to do with women
seeking abortions :-( I wish some of you could be pregnant and then
we would see if that would convince you that in some cases it might
seem the only solution to a woman, not just when it's a question of
when it's life or death.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <qs925t$hk0$***@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman <***@chinet.com> wrote:
...

Of course, the issue at hand IS NOT abortion but nonconsensual
impregnation.

Huh???? How do you get that?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Kenny McCormack
...

Of course, the issue at hand IS NOT abortion but nonconsensual
impregnation.

Huh???? How do you get that?

From the language in the bill. If the surgical procedure were ever
perfected, it's mandatory if it doesn't jeopardize the woman's life (not
health). The bill says nothing about obtaining the woman's consent.

She's not yet pregnant despite the ectopic pregnancy, but implantation
into the womb is literally pregnancy.

[Terry del Fuego]

Post by l***@fl.it
As per usual, men discussing and arguing over what to do with women
seeking abortions :-( I wish some of you could be pregnant and then
we would see if that would convince you that in some cases it might
seem the only solution to a woman, not just when it's a question of
when it's life or death.

This is almost always a completely valid criticism, but I'd note that
in this particular case there isn't one single person here who's even
slightly defending the proposed law, including those I'd assume to be
largely uncomfortable with abortion.

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by Terry del Fuego

Post by l***@fl.it
As per usual, men discussing and arguing over what to do with women
seeking abortions :-( I wish some of you could be pregnant and then
we would see if that would convince you that in some cases it might
seem the only solution to a woman, not just when it's a question of
when it's life or death.

This is almost always a completely valid criticism, but I'd note that
in this particular case there isn't one single person here who's even
slightly defending the proposed law, including those I'd assume to be
largely uncomfortable with abortion.

It certainly seems that, to a first, second, or even third reading, JD is
pretty clearly defending it.

It may well be that on a fourth or fifth reading, reading each and every
word carefully and thoughtfully, and giving him every benefit of the doubt,
you may well conclude that he is not defending it - that he is merely
nitpicking points of language and language usage.

But who, other than the truly devoted and committed among us, has that kind
of time?

To those of us who only have time for a first or maybe second reading, the
intent is clear.

[l***@fl.it]

Post by Kenny McCormack

Post by Terry del Fuego

Post by l***@fl.it
As per usual, men discussing and arguing over what to do with women
seeking abortions :-( I wish some of you could be pregnant and then
we would see if that would convince you that in some cases it might
seem the only solution to a woman, not just when it's a question of
when it's life or death.

This is almost always a completely valid criticism, but I'd note that
in this particular case there isn't one single person here who's even
slightly defending the proposed law, including those I'd assume to be
largely uncomfortable with abortion.

It certainly seems that, to a first, second, or even third reading, JD is
pretty clearly defending it.
It may well be that on a fourth or fifth reading, reading each and every
word carefully and thoughtfully, and giving him every benefit of the doubt,
you may well conclude that he is not defending it - that he is merely
nitpicking points of language and language usage.
But who, other than the truly devoted and committed among us, has that kind
of time?
To those of us who only have time for a first or maybe second reading, the
intent is clear.

--
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to
be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order -

Well yes, of course the Jesuits would be inclined to give women the
benefit of the doubt, after all, more pregnancies, more children for
them to abuse!

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
<***@fl.it> wrote:
...

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by Kenny McCormack
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order -

Well yes, of course the Jesuits would be inclined to give women the
benefit of the doubt, after all, more pregnancies, more children for
them to abuse!

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[Terry del Fuego]

Post by Kenny McCormack
It certainly seems that, to a first, second, or even third reading, JD is
pretty clearly defending it.

I completely disagree with his take and, the longer this drags on,
disagree even more vehemently, but you're being ridiculous.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by J.D. Baldwin
[much snipped]
Yeah, I get it. You like abortion. Whatever. . . .

Stop being a jerk. Nobody likes abortion. I do not approve of a woman
who had consensual sex terminating a pregnancy (a morning-after pill is
not an abortificant) for birth control reasons; never have, never will.
I wouldn't make it illegal because I truly refuse to impose my morality
on the private acts of others. I further reject as any free exercise of
religion the imposition of legal restrictions on others to enforce my
religious beliefs.

If you were at all honest, which you're not, you'd freely acknowledge
that legal restrictions on reproduction, also including contraception
and medical prevention of pregnancy, have always been an imposition of
religious beliefs on the private acts of others in law.

I haven't defended abortion, per se. I've pointed out the obvious that
abortion is a legitimate medical procudure that's not performed for
reasons of birth control if necessary for the woman's health. The bill
completely ignores the woman's health, addressing only the woman's life.

The purpose of the bill, among other things, is to use words like
"child" to suggest that human life began at conception and not live
birth. Again, that should have been obvious.

I'll also point out the obvious that "ectopic pregnancy" is a misnomer.
Despite that the zygote grows a bit, the woman isn't pregnant. If she's
not pregnant, the procedure isn't an abortion.

That's something you should have recognized from the start without my
having to tell you.

Post by J.D. Baldwin

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by J.D. Baldwin
This story tells us a little tiny bit about the Ohio state
legislature, but it tells us a tremendous amount about the media
outlets "reporting" on it.

Sorry, dude, but you were so desperate to condemn the reporting here
that you failed to consider all of the bill's mandated adverse impacts.

I'm not saying the bill, if implemented as written, would not have
"adverse impacts." Far from it -- I specifically said it's a horrible
bill for a lot of reasons. If I were a legislator and I was presented
with it, I wouldn't remotely consider voting in favor of it. But it
does not mandate reimplantation of all ectopic pregnancies, and there
is no reasonable reading of it that yields that interpretation.
Reporting that it does is simply a lie. That is the sum total of my
point.

You're still getting that wrong. It does indeed mandate implantation in
a scenario imagined by the bill's author in which the surgeon must take
"all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn child" -- a
zygote isn't an "unborn child" -- without considering whether the zygote
could possibly development normally given that it grew outside the womb.
The life of the mother is considered, but not her health. The surgeon is
required, "if applicable", to reimplant into the woman's womb without
consideration for her health or consent.

If you were at all honest, which you're not, you'd acknowledge that
under the scenario imagined by the bill's author, yes, the surgeon has
been legally mandated to impregnate the woman during the operation
without considering her health and without her consent.

[David Carson]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
https://news.yahoo.com/ohio-bill-orders-doctors-reimplant-085424596.html
“I don’t believe I’m typing this again but, that’s impossible,” wrote Ohio obstetrician and gynecologist Dr David Hackney on Twitter. “We’ll all be going to jail,” he said...

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:21:55 +0000 (UTC),

Post by l***@yahoo.com
I've seen this claim about fifteen times now on social media and
Usenet and not one of the hand-wringing, shrieking accounts of this
bill has quoted it honestly. You can find it easily enough yourself
by searching "Ohio legislature House Bill 413." The only time the
word "ectopic" is mentioned is in a provision that carves out a "safe
harbor" for physicians that gives the non-existent procedure as an
Sec. 2904.35. A physician who does all of the following is not
subject to criminal prosecution, [civil damages or professional
(A) [Reasonably believes the mother's life is in danger];
(B) Performs a surgery, before the unborn child is viable, for the
sole purpose of treating the woman's fatal condition;
(C) Takes all possible steps to preserve the life of the unborn
child, while preserving the life of the woman. Such steps
include, if applicable, attempting to reimplant an ectopic
pregnancy into the woman's uterus.

This text from the Ohio bill is actually included in Dr. David
Hackney's tweet, which is then included via screenshot in Yahoo's
article. The meaning of the bill is as plain as day, this story is the
epitome of fake news, and there's no excuse for anyone to be spreading
it, even though it seems that every major media outlet in the
English-speaking world is doing so.

David Carson