netstack
Texas is freedom land
No bio...
User ID: 647
netstack
Texas is freedom land
8hr ago
Yeah, flashing the fake titties would be inappropriate. Has McBride done that? Or posted provocative pictures, or stolen women’s luggage, or whatever?
Last I checked, most women have their breasts even when they aren’t nursing a baby. This doesn’t lead you to assume they are sexual deviants. Unless, I suppose, you take the fundamentalist view. Would you feel better if McBride wore a burqa?
There is a whole world of impractical signals out there. I think you’re picking one to back up a mistaken intuition.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
8hr ago
I suppose not.
Not sure how I can effectively challenge their assumption, though.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
8hr ago
They’re about as practical as replacements after a mastectomy, augments on a post-menopause trophy wife, or whatever the hell Rudy Giuliani was doing. Which is to say, not very.
Not everything impractical is a fetish.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
9hr ago
Source for Twitter being 50/50? I assume it’d lean one way or the other.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
9hr ago
Uh, no. He’s jumped pretty hard on whatever populist-right memes are floating around Twitter.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
9hr ago
Right, though I don’t have information for that on the other deaths. So they could also be the % of society who can’t or won’t get to a hospital.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
9hr ago
Here is what I actually think a reasonable framing of this question is: "can men with a cross dressing fetish involve non-consenting women in their crossdress-play?"
This is about as reasonable as asking why we tolerate bondage fetishists in the police force. We don’t; the handcuffs have a practical, unobjectionable, non-sexual purpose. Anyone abusing such privileges for sexual gratification can and should be punished.
Has McBride done or said anything to convince you her presentation is sexualized? Because if you’re going off base rates, I think you might have the wrong idea.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
10hr ago
That’s still unworkable because you can’t separate outside knowledge.
If you’re sentencing someone to women’s prison, do you really rely on passing? If I’ve got a vendetta against a trans coworker, can’t I out her no matter how well she passes? If my buddy Big McLargeHuge, manliest of teenagers, wants to get into the women’s locker room, what’s stopping me from playing wingman by accusing him of insufficient T?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
No, it doesn’t. In the first footnote of their response, the Supreme Court defines “reasonable medical judgment.”
a medical judgment made by a reasonably prudent physician, knowledgeable about a case and the treatment possibilities for the medical condition involved.
Which of these did Dr. Karsan not attest? More importantly, why doesn’t the Supreme Court specify?
Even if you don’t think the abortion was necessary—isn’t this perverse? The state is shooting down every attempt to clarify its laws before committing a potentially criminal act.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
This is all a ploy to teach Russia about the power of friendship imported cheap labor.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
How does this make it harder for Trump to de-escalate? The U.S. already enjoys near-total leverage over Ukraine. Calling a Russian bluff is purely improving our leverage against them.
Not by much, mind you, and I can’t say I endorse the brinksmanship…but conditional on it working as intended, I don’t see how Trump’s options are any more limited.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
1d ago
Yes, we're reading the same decision.
But how is "believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment...that the medical exception to Texas’ abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances" not asserting a "reasonable medical judgment"?
Though the statute affords physicians discretion, it requires more than a doctor’s mere subjective belief. By requiring the doctor to exercise “reasonable medical judgment,” the Legislature determined that the medical judgment involved must meet an objective standard.
...the statute requires that judgment be a “reasonable medical” judgment, and Dr. Karsan has not asserted that her “good faith belief” about Ms. Cox’s condition meets that standard.
So the state accepts that Karsan asserted her judgement in good faith, but insists that it wasn't a "reasonable medical" judgment, because it didn't meet their standard. What standard? An "objective" one. Okay, but what standard? What magic words would she have to say to clear the bar?
Dr. Karsan did not assert that Ms. Cox has a “life-threatening physical condition” or that, in Dr. Karsan’s reasonable medical judgment, an abortion is necessary because Ms. Cox has the type of condition the exception requires.
Checking the complaint, then, what's this?
(138) Dr. Karsan has met Ms. Cox, reviewed her medical records, and believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment, that a D&E abortion is medically recommended for Ms. Cox.
Oh, that "good faith" only extends to a recommendation. She chickened out and wouldn't commit to--
(139) It is also Dr. Karsan’s good faith belief and medical recommendation that that the Emergent Medical Condition Exception to Texas’s abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances, as Ms. Cox has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from her current pregnancy that places her at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of her reproductive functions if a D&E abortion is not performed.
So Karsan literally used all the magic words from the statute except "reasonable." This gives the state Supreme Court license to ignore her recommendation, revoke her legal protection, and send her employer a threatening letter about how she's still risking their accreditation. All while insisting that "Only a doctor can exercise 'reasonable medical judgment'."
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
The state has all the initiative. It can decline most challenges by waffling on phrasing. It doesn’t need to prosecute anything that isn’t a slam dunk because it’s satisfied with the chilling effect. So any challenge has to come from a woman who is sympathetic enough to win, but not so sympathetic that the state sees the writing on the wall and declines. That makes an already-small pool even smaller.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Is that true? From the judge’s order
Dr. Karsan…believes in good faith, exercising her best medical judgment, that a D&E abortion is medically recommended for Ms. Cox and that the medical exception to Texas’ abortion bans and laws permits an abortion in Ms. Cox’s circumstances.
This is quoting from the complaint. The Supreme Court insists that “believing the medical exception applies” isn’t good enough. It has to actually apply, and the only way to find that out is to risk going to court.
The chilling effect isn’t invented. Karsan’s employer wouldn’t let her do the procedure without a court order. She secured the order. Then Paxton unsecured it. Also, he tweeted a letter to said employer, reminding them that they were very definitely not safe from prosecution. What was she supposed to conclude?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
That’s a chilling effect for you.
Compare gattsuru’s posts on ATF ambiguity. They don’t have to shoot every dog to remind people that dog-shooting is, in fact, on the table.
Wasn’t the Kate Cox case about infertility? It used the “substantial impairment” part of the exception rather than “danger of death.” If her doctors and judge agreed on medical necessity, the law remained intact.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
After reading the decision more completely, I don’t think routine error applies to the OP’s cases. They’re about complications or perverse results from Texas doctors denying care for fear of liability. The women then either sought abortions out of state or carried the fetus until its death was unambiguous.
Routine error was a possibility for Nara’s original case, but an unlikely one. Based on this survey of adverse events due to abortion pills between 2000 and 2019, Ms. Thurman had a 20/2660 = 0.7% chance of death after her adverse event. On the other hand, all 20 of those were more or less ignored, right? So neither likely nor publicized.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
The Republicans shook off their policy wonks and status-quo enthusiasts in favor of idpol, populists, and shameless accelerationists. Is that really encouraging regarding the Democrat response?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Is there anything a leftist could say that wouldn’t invite you to post like this?
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
I keep hearing radio ads for “California Psychics.” I totally believe they’re less useful than AI.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Maybe your sample just isn’t representative? I don’t know anyone who claims their life turned around after confession, either, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
Intuitively, it’s got to be pretty high, right? New restrictions shouldn’t be causing more abortions; at worst, they’re moving safe procedures to unsafe ones. The main suggestion I’ve seen is causing women to resort to mifepristone instead of a surgical abortion, but that’s not what generates late-term outrage bait.
netstack
Texas is freedom land
2d ago
What are you talking about? I can’t tell what you’re claiming is malpractice. And what does it have to do with Jews?
Yeah. I think acknowledging a sex/gender distinction would cut through most of the newsworthy categories.
More options
Context Copy link