Did you read the article? The difference between the two transcripts was:
“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters”
vs
“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter’s”
And stenographers use a special keyboard that records phonics, not words. It doesn’t have punctuation. That gets added later.
I can see you’re clearly not interested in understanding the situation the physician was in or discussing solutions that would have saved this patient’s life.
I’m not going to debate you further.
Do you hear yourself?
It was an emergency because she died?
She died days after it was too late for an abortion to save her.
If they performed the abortion when it would have saved her life, she wouldn’t have died, by your own logic it would’n’ve been an emergency.
And you’d be here arguing that the doctor should lose his license for performing an abortion when it wasn’t an emergency.
Yes.
That’s the problem with this law.
It takes the decision away from the medical experts, and puts in the hands of lawyers and judges who may or may not have a different agenda.
Any doctor that performs an abortion in Texas is risking a minimum $100,000 fine and permanently losing there license to practice medicine if lawyers, who are not medical professionals, decide it was medically necessary yet.
As a result, doctors in TX have been advised by their lawyers not to perform abortions unless the mother is literally minutes away from death, because otherwise you can’t prove that it was medically necessary.
In the case, the patient died of sepsis. Doctors couldn’t perform the abortion when she needed it because they couldn’t prove that it was medically necessary yet.
They knew that not performing the abortion would put mom at a much high risk of dying later. But they couldn’t legally prove that risk exists because all pregnancies involve some degree of risk.
If you want doctors to perform medical procedures when it’s medically necessary, you need doctors making that decision, not lawyers, not the state. That’s what Texas had before this law went into effect.
It’s literally created a trolly problem, it’s now better for the doctors to let some women die so they can save more lives later.
Not all of them.
The Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, was later.
But this was just days after Texas SB 8, 87th Regular Session went into effect. Which added two major laws related to abortion: the prohibition of abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected and the ability to file a civil lawsuit against anyone who provides or facilitates an abortion.
Doctors were warned by their lawyers that if they provided an ‘abortion’ after a fetal heartbeat was detected (the case here) that they would be sued and likely lose their license if they lost.
Most of them are hurting in one way or another. This particular round it’s mostly the financial, mental and emotional aftershocks of the pandemic amplified by greedy people coming up with new and inventive ways to take money from the poor and give it to the rich.
But you need to first hear and understand their pain to have any hope of getting through to them.
They’ve been told over and over through misinformation that immigrants, people with disabilities, loose/secular/independent women, people of different religious beliefs, skin colour, whatever else are the reason for their suffering, and that they should be afraid of them. That initial pain is channeled from fear to anger to hate to dehumanization to… “final solutions”.
They want Trump in because they’ve been convinced that he’s powerful and “Trump will fix it.” ‘It’ being whatever the pain is.
The reality is of course a much different story of basically just greedy people distracting them while they steal their lunch money, and narcissists that will do anything to gain ever more power.
But if you want to unprogram someone from that you need to hear their pain. What was that thing that was used by the greedy and narcissistic to channel into hate.
It’s mostly hurt/hurting people who are voting for Trump. To turn them around you need to hear their pain.
Free contraceptives is also a more effective way of preventing abortions than banning abortions.
You need to add a — at the end to make the rest of the line a comment.
It’s not quite as crazy as it seems. The older/larger floppy disk formats were more reliable due to their lower track density.
There was more surface area per byte of data. The old floppy disks could be written once and read for years in harsher environments. New floppy disks we more prone to failure after a few years.
I can understand that a doctor might personally be against termination of a pregnancy when it isn’t medically necessary. I don’t agree, but I can understand being against it.
But even if you’re a doctor that feels that way, do you really want the state second guessing your decision if you performed an emergency abortion that was medically necessary?
Even a pro-life doctor should be 100% against the state getting involved in a patient’s medical decisions.
The problem with all “abortions are illegal except in cases where the mother’s life is at risk” laws is who gets to decide when the mother’s life is at sufficiently at risk?
Any pregnancy is a risk to the mother’s life to some extent. The only person who should be making the decision of how much risk it too much is the mother after an informed and private discussion with her doctor.
These stupid laws today make it so that even if it’s an emergency, any doctor performing an abortion is taking a risk that the state won’t agree it was an emergency (or perhaps that it wasn’t an emergency yet). That means that even in an emergency it gets left to the last minute where it’s high risk for everyone.
The only way to actually be pro-life and make abortions safe when it’s medically required. Is to make abortion legal and left as a decision between a woman and her doctor.
America avoiding giving money to low income schools?
I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.
My mental image of the bicycle changed as each detail was added, but sometimes the detail changed the image (the handlebars were straight until you said they were dropped) and sometimes the detail didn’t exist; the dropped handlebars were wrapped in handlebar tape, but that tape didn’t have a colour (not sure how to explain that better) until you mentioned it was black. Most of the details “added” something to the scene rather than “changing” an assumed detail.
The “front forks on the ground” question was particularly interesting to me.
The bicycle started with two wheels, and front wheel just sorta disappeared from my image when you mentioned it was stolen, but the front fork remained floating in the air as if there was a wheel still supporting it. But asking the question about the forks on the ground made gravity exist, and then there had to be a reason it was floating, which became it was being held up by the U-Lock.
I seem to imagine scenes with few superfluous details that mostly includes only what is mentioned or implied by the narrative. But it’s super interesting to me what details we’re in fact implied.
The ball on the table was similar. The table was at waist height to the person, and the ball had a specific size of roughly the size of a racket ball because it had to be something that could be easily pushed. But the person pushing it was just a silhouette of a person, it had no gender, the only thing I pictured clearly was the hand that pushed the ball. It was pushed in an intentional way that made the ball roll across the table away from the “person” (as opposed to bouncing, or pushed sideways)
The table was just an elevated plane it had no texture, or even legs supporting it, (probably because there was no ground for those legs to be on,) it didn’t go on forever, you could see the end of the table, but it also didn’t have a size.
Yes that’s correct.
To be more clear, nuclear waste is only a small percentage of the hazardous waste we’ve been disposing of by permanently burying it.
Yes. Nuclear waste is tiny. That’s the point.
Nuclear isn’t the only hazardous waste we dispose of burying it.
We’re disposing of tonnes of hazardous waste daily. Only a tiny percentage of that is nuclear waste.
Yet for some reason everyone loses their mind about the comparatively tiny amount of hazardous waste from nuclear and no one cares about the significantly larger about of hazardous waste from the eventual disposal of solar panels and 100s of other sources of hazardous waste.
For over a century, the standard way we’ve been disposing of hazardous materials that can’t be easily recycled is to permanently bury it. We’re doing it with thousands of tonnes of hazardous materials daily.
A nuclear power plant only generates about 3 cubic meters of hazardous nuclear waste per year.
At the typical sizes we’re currently building them, you need 50-100 solar or wind farms to match the electricity output of a single nuclear reactor.
When we eventually dispose of the solar panels from those farms we literally end up with more toxic waste in heavy metals like cadmium than the nuclear power plant produced.
No solution is perfect.
But contrary to the propaganda, nuclear is one of our cleanest options.
I also pronounced cyan like cayenne as a teen….
Except I was also cocky enough to think I was right and found out when I “corrected“ a classmate who was pronouncing it “wrong”.
Google isn’t the only tech giant that needs smashing into pieces, Microsoft, Amazon, Adobe, all need to be broken up. The tech industry shouldn’t be dominated by a few companies.
As someone who lives in Alberta, please don’t just dismiss this as “they’re bat shit crazy”… I mean like yea, half my neighbours ARE bat shit crazy supporters of this shit.
But they’re also loud voices, and too many people outside of Alberta are starting to listen to the crazy and agreeing.
The educated voices here need your help to shut this shit down now or we’re going to see this cancer spread.
Please point out to your friends and colleagues just how terrible this thinking is while they’ll still listen. Or the next prime minister will be someone who thinks the same way.