Jonathan Turley Says Him Being Gay Is Tough Because of The Frequent Ana
From
Ubiquitous@21:1/5 to
All on Thu Apr 25 21:31:40 2024
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, or.politics
Jonathan Turley’s disingenuous bloviating for right-wing media outlets who continue to let him cosplay as a relevant scholar has left him little more
than a pull-toy. Just feed him a loony legal premise and give him some
makeup and he’s ready to say everything from comical nonsense about Martin Luther King to bungling of basic concepts that could be cleared up with
cursory research.
But now he’s decided to cross the line into putting people directly in
harms way, playing cynical word games with abortion statutes and actively encouraging women in states with abortion bans to hold off on medical
treatment based on a combination of his own amateur medical know-how and
legal analysis unmoored from practical reality.[1]
In a piece at Fox News (naturally), Turley notes:
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Organization, a common rallying cry for pro-choice advocates has been
the endangerment of women with ectopic pregnancies who would now be
barred in some states banning or severely limiting abortion services.
This is a common rallying cry because it has the benefit of being a very serious concern. [UPDATE: The Biden administration is going to argue that
the EMTALA authorizes Medicare facilities to perform these procedures —
read more about that here.] Jonathan Turley wants Fox’s viewers to ignore
the risk of dead women piling up by telling you that actually those women probably do still have the right to treatment… on paper!
This is reflected in some of the most restrictive laws. Oklahoma’s
law, for example, expressly states, “An act is not an abortion if the
act is performed with the purpose to… remove an ectopic pregnancy.”
Texas, Louisiana and other states have the same express exemption.
However, even if the law were silent on ectopic pregnancies, it is
doubtful that the courts would ignore the medical and factual
classifications to treat such emergency procedures as abortions or
ignore that the mother’s life is in danger from such pregnancies.
“It is doubtful the courts would ignore.” Well, based on that rock-solid grounding, I guess women should just breathe easy! While Turley handwaves
away all the states that don’t have explicit ectopic caveats, he ignores
that medical professionals he’s talking about hypothetically are in
reality confused as to the scope of the exceptions. From Time:
The confusion is already affecting patient care, according to
anecdotal reports. Tammi Kromenaker, director of North Dakota’s only
abortion clinic (which she soon plans to relocate to Minnesota), says
she has already fielded questions from doctors in North Dakota who are
worried about treating patients with ectopic pregnancies or incomplete
miscarriages, during which the body doesn’t expel all
pregnancy-related tissue. As of July 28, providers in North Dakota
could be sentenced to five years in prison for providing an abortion,
except in cases of rape or incest or when the pregnant person’s life
is at risk.
Jonathan Turley isn’t a doctor, but he plays one on TV and he has some
medical advice for anyone worried about these laws.
When a pregnancy implants in the fallopian tube, it is not a viable
pregnancy but it creates a potentially fatal risk for the mother from
tubal rupture and internal bleeding. Removing such a pregnancy is not
an abortion. Indeed, as noted in a recent column, the procedures are
vastly different, including the fact that “mifepristone and
misoprostol, used commonly to provide medical abortions, specifically
do not treat a pregnancy outside of the uterus.”
Oh, mifepristone and misoprostol aren’t used in these procedures? Well, methotrexate sure is and we’ve already got pharmacists refusing to fill
those prescriptions even in states where the drug is technically legal for
this purpose. That’s happening because the pharmacists — correctly — fear
that they’re going to get investigated for even stepping down that road.
One woman in Texas was told that she had to drive fifteen hours to New
Mexico to have her ectopic pregnancy—which is nonviable, by
definition, and always dangerous to the mother—removed.” That is based
on a story from 2021, before the Dobbs decision, and an account from
an abortion hotline of a doctor refusing to deal with an ectopic
pregnancy. It is not explained how such a procedure, even when Roe v.
Wade was still good law, could be denied under Texas law.
Once again I’m torn as to whether Turley is a destructive
attention-seeking grifter or a complete moron. Honestly, this question
keeps me up at night.
Because he writes “it is not explained how…” meaning his addled brain at
least considered the disconnect between something being technically legal
and yet doctors still not doing it. But then he just rhetorically shrugs
like this was a mere brain hiccup or the last vestige of his legal mind
making its last, desperate scream before being tamped back down by the old world demon that seized his mind long ago.
Either way.
Yet, the fact that this story predates Dobbs supercharges the argument:
whether or not the law protects women on paper, doctors have and continue
to show that they’re not willing to risk the uncertainty. Hence the
concern over the ectopic pregnancies.
However, President Biden and other Democratic members have called for
censorship because social media companies are “killing people” with
disinformation. That is precisely what could occur if women believe
the claims of politicians and pundits on these ectopic pregnancies.
Full credit for finding a way to throw a nod to the anti-vaxxers.
The most generous read of Turley’s article is that, he really believes
that every doctor is going to read these statutes as protecting this
specific treatment and every local prosecutor elected on a platform of “stopping baby murder” isn’t going to drag every procedure through a
criminal inquest and every insurance company will feel comfortable
covering it while the local politicians scream about liability for aiding
and abetting abortions. In that world, yes, patients with an ectopic
pregnancy in these states should feel fine staying where they are and
seeking treatment.
However, over here in the real world, that’s just not happening and — in a textbook example of Freudian projection — Turley’s article is quite
dangerous and putting women at tremendous risk.
But, hey, he got to be on TV! And in the end, isn’t that all that really matters?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
From
Siri Cruise@21:1/5 to
Ubiquitous on Thu Apr 25 20:51:03 2024
XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, or.politics
Ubiquitous wrote:
“It is doubtful the courts would ignore.” Well, based on that rock-solid grounding, I guess women should just breathe easy! While Turley handwaves away all the states that don’t have explicit ectopic caveats, he ignores that medical professionals he’s talking about hypothetically are in
reality confused as to the scope of the exceptions. From Time:
I'm the government. Trust me.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/30/texas-woman-sues-abotion-arrest-starr-county/
Texas woman charged with murder for self-induced abortion sues
Starr County district attorney
The Starr County district attorney dropped the improper charges,
but the fallout “forever changed the Plaintiff’s life,” a new
federal lawsuit says.
--
Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The Church of the Holey Apple .signature 3.2 / \
of Discordian Mysteries. This post insults Islam. Mohamed
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)