Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

Burger - what you write comes across to me as if you feel that there is universal agreement in the medical community regarding intact D&X. There is not.

The main opposition to these bills comes from the medical community's dislike of being regulated. Doctors don't like it but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary nor does it mean that it isn't a proper function of government.

This JAMA article is objective and informative:

http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/PBAinfo/jsc80006.htm

This section of the article outlines the various policies of the various medical groups.:

http://www.eileen.250x.com/Main/PBAi...6.htm#policies

ACOG = American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology

In January 1997, ACOG released a Statement of Policy on Intact D&X . . .

Terminating a pregnancy is performed in some circumstances to save the life or preserve the health of the mother. Intact D&X is one of the methods available in some of these situations. A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure, as defined above, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. An intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision. The potential exists that legislation prohibiting specific medical practices, such as intact D&X, may outlaw techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. The intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision-making is inappropriate, ill-advised, and dangerous.

The primary objection to the ban is that ACOG doesn't like the government being involved in regulating medicine. Even ACOG admits that an intact D&X is never the only option. There are plenty of doctors who think that an intact D&X is never a better option than a D&E. Of course, there are doctors who disagree with them. But this is not a settled issue in medicine.

[Not Me]

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20040212.html

Interesting editorial that looks at the implications of Lawrence v. Tx on polygamy. The only argument that she uses though to distinguish gay marriage from polygamy is that she feels abuses towards women and children in polygamous unions are endemic. I don't disagree, but what if there were no children involved and it was just 3 consenting adults and not fundamentalist mormons.

While I can easily distinguish the facts of Lawrence from the facts of the Utah trio, I cannot word a federal opinoin in a way that would allow a state to outlaw polygamy but not also shut the door on gay marriage.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

I was told today that the Kerry/intern story has been shopped around for a while, and that apparently the recent shopping that has been going on (without any mainstream media buying yet) was being done by the Bushies -- the goal apparently is to shift attention from W's war record (or lack thereof).

So apparently they tried the real press for a couple days, couldn't get anyone to bite, and went for Drudge.

The reason none of the media will bite is that no one can apparently produce anyone who tells the story more than about fourth hand -- someone who had a friend whose really good friend's brother told them about a woman he knew...

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I was told today that the Kerry/intern story has been shopped around for a while, and that apparently the recent shopping that has been going on (without any mainstream media buying yet) was being done by the Bushies -- the goal apparently is to shift attention from W's war record (or lack thereof).

So apparently they tried the real press for a couple days, couldn't get anyone to bite, and went for Drudge.

The reason none of the media will bite is that no one can apparently produce anyone who tells the story more than about fourth hand -- someone who had a friend whose really good friend's brother told them about a woman he knew...

Not saying you are wrong, but that conflicts with Drudge's account of events - 3 major outlets are covering tracking the story. Say what you want about Drudge, but his "scoops" (as opposed to stories he links to) are right more often than not.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not saying you are wrong, but that conflicts with Drudge's account of events - 3 major outlets are covering tracking the story. Say what you want about Drudge, but his "scoops" (as opposed to stories he links to) are right more often than not.

Drudge has more now, saying the woman fled to Africa after being approached by a top news producer...

And you are correct about him being right more often than not. He broke the whole Lewinsky thing when no one else would touch it...

Link

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
And you are correct about him being right more often than not. He broke the whole Lewinsky thing when no one else would touch it...

Link

He also broke the whole Blumenthal thing...oh wait....

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts...e/70812ret.htm

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
He also broke the whole Blumenthal thing...oh wait....

http://www.techlawjournal.com/courts...e/70812ret.htm

He's been splashing it all day, and haven't heard any denials yet...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not saying you are wrong, but that conflicts with Drudge's account of events - 3 major outlets are covering tracking the story. Say what you want about Drudge, but his "scoops" (as opposed to stories he links to) are right more often than not.

I think his report said that other outlets were investigating - but those other outlets haven't run it, even after Drudge's posting. I don't know what "investigating" means - does it mean they have 20 people scrounging around looking for the story or that some reporter took a call from someone Karl Rove introduced him to at a cocktail party and then made a call to someone Karl's friend knew who might have heard something?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Me

They can hire OB/Gyns to review the files. There are many doctors who agree with the ban on partial birth abortion because a D&E can be done safely instead. This is by no means a settled issue in the medical community. Not all doctors agree with these doctors who are suing and very few OB/GYNs will do a partial birth abortion. Many qualified OB/Gyns refuse to do them because they believe a D&E will be just as effective and just as safe. There is not universal agreement on this issue in the medical community by any measure.

I have no problem with statute that bans only D&X if it can be demonstrated with reasonable certainty that there are no circumstances that it would be safer than a D&E. ut from what I understand, no one has been able (or willing, at least) to draft and pass such a astaute

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
He's been splashing it all day, and haven't heard any denials yet...

If no major media pick it up, I'd hope Kerry wouldn't dignify the rumor with a response -- since the response would be legitimate news while this hasn't yet made it there (though who knows whether we'll see a "story about a story").

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
. . .or that some reporter took a call from someone Karl Rove introduced him to at a cocktail party and then made a call to someone Karl's friend knew who might have heard something?

I don't think this is Rove's work - too early. My guess is that it's either one of the DEM candidates (READ: Dean - the Lehane connection is to coincidental) or those wacky Clintons.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
If no major media pick it up, I'd hope Kerry wouldn't dignify the rumor with a response -- since the response would be legitimate news while this hasn't yet made it there (though who knows whether we'll see a "story about a story").

WSJ has picked it up. It's now mainstream and the rest will have to carry it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have no problem with statute that bans only D&X if it can be demonstrated with reasonable certainty that there are no circumstances that it would be safer than a D&E.

I think that is what the DOJ would like to be able to argue in its defense of the law, but without the medical records, that is pretty hard to do.

There are plent of doctors that will tell you that there are no circrumstances that would be safer and others who will disagree. Just like there are doctors that think it should be illegal to inject human growth hormone as an anti-aging treatment and other doctors who will prescribe that.

What is reasonable certainty in a medical context? Generally that takes clinical studies. No one has done a clinical study looking at the safety of D&E vs. intact D&X.

The link I posted to you before summarized the data correctly as:

Intact D&X may minimize trauma to the woman's uterus, cervix, and other vital organs. Some physicians may use intact D&X when the fetus has been diagnosed as having anomalies incompatible with life outside the womb. However, some physicians have suggested that the procedure may increase complications, such as cervical incompetence.[27] In the absence of controlled studies, the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances remain unknown.

The history of intact D&X is that some OB/Gyn named Haskell made up the procedure and started doing it. You can read his account of that here . In his opinion, it was an easier procedure to do. Other doctors don't think so. No one has done a clinical trial comparing the two procedures so there is no objective data only antedotal evidence and subjective opinions of doctors who do abortions, some of whom say one is better and some of whom say the opposite.

In a medical context, when there have been no trials assessing something, you just get a bunch of doctors giving their antecdotal opinions about their own personal experiences with various procedures. One doctor will say one thing and another will say another.

This is precisely why the DOJ needs those medical charts. There have been no clinical trials on this. And the plaintiff doctors in the suit are going to give their opinions of thier personal experiences using these procedures. So the DOJ needs access to those charts to be able to prepare to depose the doctors.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't think this is Rove's work - too early. My guess is that it's either one of the DEM candidates (READ: Dean - the Lehane connection is to coincidental) or those wacky Clintons.

Drudge says Clark was telling reporters that Kerry would implode over an intern scandel.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think his report said that other outlets were investigating - but those other outlets haven't run it, even after Drudge's posting. I don't know what "investigating" means - does it mean they have 20 people scrounging around looking for the story or that some reporter took a call from someone Karl Rove introduced him to at a cocktail party and then made a call to someone Karl's friend knew who might have heard something?

Kerry is you guys grasping at straws because it became clear your front-runner was insane. Rather than look carefully for someone who could win, you grabbed a retard. Outside Mass. Kerry is not electable. Take your campaign chest, try and win some senate seats, please.