Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Iowa Republican submits bill allowing women to sue abortion providers because of "abortion regret." Remember, though, frivolous medical lawsuits are bad   (slate.com) divider line 132
    More: Stupid, abortion providers, Iowa, Republicans, abortions, abortion regret, emotional stress, mental health professional, informed consent  
•       •       •

2439 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 4:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-28 07:27:44 PM  

indylaw: Some day 10 years from now when we finally recover from the Bush financial collapse, we're going to look at the heady years of our flirtation with the lunatic right and it will be like waking up next to a fat woman in a hungover haze.


After 7 years no liberal can tell me which Bush policy is responsible for the real estate bubble. Not one.
 
2014-02-28 07:31:28 PM  

DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?


Motivate isn't the right term here - it's 'intimidate'.  This is purely a form of intimidation - since they can't ban the procedure, they're going to make life as hard as possible for the providers.

Stay classy, party of small (as in 'uterus-sized') government...
 
2014-02-28 07:36:07 PM  

MyRandomName: indylaw: Some day 10 years from now when we finally recover from the Bush financial collapse, we're going to look at the heady years of our flirtation with the lunatic right and it will be like waking up next to a fat woman in a hungover haze.

After 7 years no liberal can tell me which Bush policy is responsible for the real estate bubble. Not one.


But it was a deregulated free for all!
 
2014-02-28 07:56:22 PM  

DamnYankees: So this is basically a bill who's purpose is to motivate doctors to not perform abortion for fear they'll be sued, right?


Yes
 
2014-02-28 08:00:33 PM  
So, what do you call it when someone uses unethical behaviour to support what they say is an ethical position?

It seems to me that hypocrisy just isn't a strong enough word for this.
 
2014-02-28 08:01:51 PM  
Okay, why are all the crazy States now acting in lockstep with stupid plans? It's like they're all synchronizing.
 
2014-02-28 08:12:32 PM  
As to my own part, having turned my thoughts for many years upon this important subject, and maturely weighed the several schemes of other projectors, I have always found them grossly mistaken in the computation. It is true, a child just dropped from its dam may be supported by her milk for a solar year, with little other nourishment; at most not above the value of 2s., which the mother may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner as instead of being a charge upon their parents or the parish, or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall on the contrary contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing, of many thousands.
There is likewise another great advantage in my scheme, that it will prevent those voluntary abortions, and that horrid practice of women murdering their bastard children, alas! too frequent among us! sacrificing the poor innocent babes I doubt more to avoid the expense than the shame, which would move tears and pity in the most savage and inhuman breast.
 
2014-02-28 08:26:07 PM  

Pichu0102: Okay, why are all the crazy States now acting in lockstep with stupid plans? It's like they're all synchronizing.


Synchronized Derpistania.
 
2014-02-28 08:27:50 PM  
Alright, so going by their "logic", women should be given the right to sue crisis pregnancy centers for giving them false information and employing fear tactics in order to keep women from getting abortions. There are far more women who regret parenthood than they do abortions. This law is ridiculous, let's start suing tattoo artists because we regret getting that tattoo years ago.
 
2014-02-28 08:30:44 PM  
Clearly Iowans have had one abortion too few.
 
2014-02-28 08:55:48 PM  
Well, I guess that is why the abortionplex went to Kansas.
 
2014-02-28 09:28:15 PM  

MyRandomName: indylaw: Some day 10 years from now when we finally recover from the Bush financial collapse, we're going to look at the heady years of our flirtation with the lunatic right and it will be like waking up next to a fat woman in a hungover haze.

After 7 years no liberal can tell me which Bush policy is responsible for the real estate bubble. Not one.


Now pay close attention. I am going to use small words that even you can understand.

They allowed the ratings companies - which were essentially unregulated - to rate mortgage back securities at AAA status. The handsome return of this moderately risky investment created a huge surge in investment dollars being made available. With more and more money being fed into buying these securities the banks lowered their lending standards to increase volume. That meant more unqualified borrowers, nothing-down speculator, and lower rates. This demand and depressed rates caused property values to skyrocket - fueling even more speculation. The leverage here started working backwards with quick bankruptcy filings as prices dropped. The more it dropped, the more bankruptcies, the lower it dropped.

Proper regulation of the bogus ratings would have prevented the whole thing. Without that there would be far less money available, preventing the formation of bubble growing faster than the overall economy.
 
2014-02-28 09:35:00 PM  
I'm really enjoying all the liberals who suddenly realize that by when you do harm to a business --even by allowing customers to sue frivolously -- you do harm to its customers.

If you harm landlords, you harm tenants.

If you harm employers, you harm employees.

If you harm restaurants, you harm diners.
 
2014-02-28 11:11:12 PM  
To be fair, the abortion lobby makes it seem like abortion is perfectly safe with utterly no downsides despite the massive evidence to the contrary.
 
2014-02-28 11:31:01 PM  

mlorton: I'm really enjoying all the liberals who suddenly realize that by when you do harm to a business --even by allowing customers to sue frivolously -- you do harm to its customers.

If you harm landlords, you harm tenants.

If you harm employers, you harm employees.

If you harm restaurants, you harm diners.


If you impose minimum safety standards on a landlord who is mostly profit taking, yes, he may raise rent, but if he does so he risks losing tenants to other landlords.  In general, the extra safety the tenants gain through regulation greatly outway the minimal cost increase.  In practice, the landlord eats the cost in most market conditions.  Same for employees and diners.  I for one, don't want to go to a restaurant that isn't inspected and doesn't at least have some fear of a lawsuit if they give me food poisoning.

Sure, there are frivolous lawsuits out there, but the cost of filing a lawsuit balances that.  What is the solution?  Not allow lawsuits?  Maybe you could set up a system that examines the evidence of both sides of the claim before allowing it to go to trial?

Of course, we already do that, but don't let that get in the way of your indignant narrative.
 
2014-02-28 11:58:53 PM  
The best argument most women who have had abortions can come up with for nobody else to have an abortion, ever, has been "you're obviously not a mother."

They're a sad bunch.
 
2014-03-01 12:02:52 AM  

Terrible Old Man: To be fair, the abortion lobby makes it seem like abortion is perfectly safe with utterly no downsides despite the massive evidence to the contrary.


To be fair, you're making very brash statements while offering no substantiation whatsoever in support of them.

Also, it's "Big Abortion," not "the abortion lobby". Sorry, but we'll have to dock you a couple of points for that.
 
2014-03-01 12:04:40 AM  

SundaesChild: Bit'O'Gristle: The "pro-life" coalition is getting preposterously creative with its legislation. In Iowa, a new bill would allow women to sue their doctors for malpractice up to 10 years after their abortion-not because they suffered physical injury (those rare cases are already covered under existing malpractice law), but because they experienced regret.

Retarded law is retarded. Now, you're going to have women getting abortions just to cash in. Nice. This is not going to have the effect you think it will. And there is no way that this bill will pass. Why not put up a bill that says fathers can sue the mothers for emotional distress, for murdering their child without the father's input? If the mother gets an abortion, it's legal, if a father punches his pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby, its murder. Not saying either is right, but why does the father, who put up 50 percent of the dna, have no say at all?

I had a gf long ago, who got an abortion behind my back, and killed my baby son. I would have taken him in myself and raised him, but no. I had no right to even KNOW she was pregnant, and no say in if the baby lived or died, but am expected to pay through the nose if she has it. That doesn't piss me off as much as i had 0 say at all, effectively, a non person until it's time to write the checks. Bullshiat.

Because it is not his body, and you can't force a woman to bear your child or abort it against her will.  How often does this need to be explained?


It needs to be explained in every abortion thread. Someone always tells this story. Not sure if it's the same guy and he's just too bitter to get it or if it's just trolls being trolls.
 
2014-03-01 12:11:18 AM  

DrBenway: Oldiron_79: Im ok with this. Its not banning or infringing on Roe V Wade in any way. Plus it will be fun to watch the libs that usually love lawyers pipe bombing lawyer offices for them sueing an abortion clinic out of existince.

If only your grasp of the English language were as powerful as your imagination.


"It would be fun to watch people bomb others for reasons and therefore."

What a sick puppy that one is.
 
2014-03-01 12:16:50 AM  

SundaesChild: Bit'O'Gristle: The "pro-life" coalition is getting preposterously creative with its legislation. In Iowa, a new bill would allow women to sue their doctors for malpractice up to 10 years after their abortion-not because they suffered physical injury (those rare cases are already covered under existing malpractice law), but because they experienced regret.

Retarded law is retarded. Now, you're going to have women getting abortions just to cash in. Nice. This is not going to have the effect you think it will. And there is no way that this bill will pass. Why not put up a bill that says fathers can sue the mothers for emotional distress, for murdering their child without the father's input? If the mother gets an abortion, it's legal, if a father punches his pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses the baby, its murder. Not saying either is right, but why does the father, who put up 50 percent of the dna, have no say at all?

I had a gf long ago, who got an abortion behind my back, and killed my baby son. I would have taken him in myself and raised him, but no. I had no right to even KNOW she was pregnant, and no say in if the baby lived or died, but am expected to pay through the nose if she has it. That doesn't piss me off as much as i had 0 say at all, effectively, a non person until it's time to write the checks. Bullshiat.

Because it is not his body, and you can't force a woman to bear your child or abort it against her will.  How often does this need to be explained?


And he also *does* have a say, at the time of conception. He can ask the woman what she would do, and if he doesn't agree, he can keep it in his pants and save it for somebody whose views *do* mesh with his own.
 
2014-03-01 12:28:25 AM  

madgonad: MyRandomName: indylaw: Some day 10 years from now when we finally recover from the Bush financial collapse, we're going to look at the heady years of our flirtation with the lunatic right and it will be like waking up next to a fat woman in a hungover haze.

After 7 years no liberal can tell me which Bush policy is responsible for the real estate bubble. Not one.

Now pay close attention. I am going to use small words that even you can understand.

They allowed the ratings companies - which were essentially unregulated - to rate mortgage back securities at AAA status. The handsome return of this moderately risky investment created a huge surge in investment dollars being made available. With more and more money being fed into buying these securities the banks lowered their lending standards to increase volume. That meant more unqualified borrowers, nothing-down speculator, and lower rates. This demand and depressed rates caused property values to skyrocket - fueling even more speculation. The leverage here started working backwards with quick bankruptcy filings as prices dropped. The more it dropped, the more bankruptcies, the lower it dropped.

Proper regulation of the bogus ratings would have prevented the whole thing. Without that there would be far less money available, preventing the formation of bubble growing faster than the overall economy.


The SEC also removed the net gain rule. Allow the big 5 investment banks to over-leverage. Only 3 of those banks survived.
 
2014-03-01 12:47:49 AM  
I give him strategic credit though.  If you can't win one way, win the other.  Some will probably wind up making use of the bill if it passes.
 
2014-03-01 12:52:12 AM  

Trivia Jockey: I only have a limited supply of punches to the face, but I'm saving one for this asshat.


Punch all you want!  We'll make more.
 
2014-03-01 12:59:09 AM  

Trivia Jockey: So, more government regulation and more medical malpractice liability?  The Republican party is in its third trimester of hypocrisy.


I believe "government small enough to fit inside your uterus" is the quote.
 
2014-03-01 01:20:09 AM  

Terrible Old Man: To be fair, the abortion lobby makes it seem like abortion is perfectly safe with utterly no downsides despite the massive evidence to the contrary.


Abortion is safer than giving birth.
 
2014-03-01 01:30:05 AM  

ciberido: Clearly Iowans have had one abortion too few.


SisterMaryElephant: I regret his Mom didn't have several abortions.  Can we sue?


*shakes foetal fist of rage*
 
2014-03-01 01:43:58 AM  

ciberido: Trivia Jockey: I only have a limited supply of punches to the face, but I'm saving one for this asshat.

Punch all you want!  We'll make more.


That reminds me -- I'm thinking about putting in a bid for the cock punch concession at the next GOP convention, and I'm looking for investors.
 
2014-03-01 02:05:12 AM  

MyRandomName: indylaw: Some day 10 years from now when we finally recover from the Bush financial collapse, we're going to look at the heady years of our flirtation with the lunatic right and it will be like waking up next to a fat woman in a hungover haze.

After 7 years no liberal can tell me which Bush policy is responsible for the real estate bubble. Not one.


Maybe not for the housing bubble.

But I can tell you which Bush policy is responsible for many thousands of cases of PTSD in OIF veterans...

Can we now sue for regret?
 
2014-03-01 06:33:08 AM  
Wow, the writer of tfa really is a moron...

By embracing a narrative of abortion regret-which the American Psychological Association does not recognize as a condition

Just because it isn't an APA acknowledged "condition" doesn't mean it isn't real. I regret buying a hdmi cable with my new graphics card without checking if my screen had an hdmi port. The regret is real, even if it isn't a "recognised" psychological issue.

and which the Guttmacher Institute characterizes as extremely rare-

So are people who die from faulty lightning rods. The rarity of an occurrence has no effect on legal issues.

Heartsill and co. are advancing the myth of the fickle woman who doesn't know her own mind. They're implying that in the moment of decision-making, a stranger still has a better grasp of a woman's psychology than she does.

And this is where it gets good. Where are they saying women don't know their own mind? By acknowledging that women sometimes feel regret? Katy is a moron with a cause. An idiot with an hammer seeing nails everywhere.

Doing something as trivial as ordering a new chair online I get a 14 day window in which to decide whether or not I actually like it or if I regret buying it. Within that time period I get to send it back and the store needs to give me a refund. Does this mean that the law maker decided that I was a fickle man who doesn't know his own mind? Or that the law maker knows the psychology of my mind better than I do? It doesn't. Then why would it mean that when talking about something important and life influencing like having an abortion?

The law isn't about women's mental states or actual regret or any pseudo-feminist outrage at assumed male motivations for the law. The man who wrote this law doesn't like abortion and wants to throw up barricades to people having them. It is as simple as that.
 
2014-03-01 08:50:46 AM  

Pichu0102: Okay, why are all the crazy States now acting in lockstep with stupid plans? It's like they're all synchronizing.


A shady organization called "ALEC".  Organizing evil for fun and profit.
 
2014-03-01 02:03:49 PM  

DerAppie: Wow, the writer of tfa really is a moron...

By embracing a narrative of abortion regret-which the American Psychological Association does not recognize as a condition

Just because it isn't an APA acknowledged "condition" doesn't mean it isn't real. I regret buying a hdmi cable with my new graphics card without checking if my screen had an hdmi port. The regret is real, even if it isn't a "recognised" psychological issue.

and which the Guttmacher Institute characterizes as extremely rare-

So are people who die from faulty lightning rods. The rarity of an occurrence has no effect on legal issues.

Heartsill and co. are advancing the myth of the fickle woman who doesn't know her own mind. They're implying that in the moment of decision-making, a stranger still has a better grasp of a woman's psychology than she does.

And this is where it gets good. Where are they saying women don't know their own mind? By acknowledging that women sometimes feel regret? Katy is a moron with a cause. An idiot with an hammer seeing nails everywhere.

Doing something as trivial as ordering a new chair online I get a 14 day window in which to decide whether or not I actually like it or if I regret buying it. Within that time period I get to send it back and the store needs to give me a refund. Does this mean that the law maker decided that I was a fickle man who doesn't know his own mind? Or that the law maker knows the psychology of my mind better than I do? It doesn't. Then why would it mean that when talking about something important and life influencing like having an abortion?

The law isn't about women's mental states or actual regret or any pseudo-feminist outrage at assumed male motivations for the law. The man who wrote this law doesn't like abortion and wants to throw up barricades to people having them. It is as simple as that.


The only barricade I see are the number of lawsuits forcing some clinics into bankruptcy assuming people make use of being allowed to sue abortion providers.

If however, nobody uses said allowance. There isn't a barricade.
 
2014-03-01 02:24:45 PM  

cwolf20: The only barricade I see are the number of lawsuits forcing some clinics into bankruptcy assuming people make use of being allowed to sue abortion providers.

If however, nobody uses said allowance. There isn't a barricade.


Doctors will be less eager to perform abortions if they can be sued at a later point in time for up to 10 years.

Just look at what economic trouble does to petty law suits. Economy goes down? News reporting on people getting sued 4 years after the fact goes up. Now add thousands of women who, having gotten an abortion at a previous time, feel the wallet lighten. The chances of a few of them going after the clinic for an easy pay day is is pretty substantial.
 
Displayed 32 of 132 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report