This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
An adjacent thought I've been wondering about is- to what extent are these outrage-bait cases routine medical (or patient) errors, that would've happened in exactly the same way but been totally ignored pre-Dobbs?
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.
Don't forget that Ms Thurman also declined to seek medical care for her adverse event; this surely raises the odds of abortion pills doing very bad things.
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.
I think a few of them have been revealed to be EMTALA violations on the part of the hospital but I’m not sure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thank you for reading more into it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't have the links right now but I did a deep dive on nih when the story first came out. There are reports of deaths due to this cause dating back decades and totally unrelated to abortion bans.
Immediate D&C seems to be the current best practice but it's a rare case and many doctors likely don't have experience with these cases and aren't up to date on the latest literature. Without knowing that the doctor specifically thought the abortion ban was related, I think it's extremely likely that this doctor was simply doing the standard of care that he felt was right.
edit: some sources: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa051620 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4471-1918-0_8 https://www.wellesu.com/10.1097/aog.0000000000000795
More options
Context Copy link
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.
More options
Context Copy link
How many of them, for that matter, are uninsured patients with hospitals trying to wriggle out of an EMTALA violation.
More options
Context Copy link
Mistake vs. Conflict Theory
Left-wing doctors are playing a political game with women's lives to advance a pro-abortion agenda, helping to create propaganda.
Some doctors believe left-wing propaganda and think they’re following the law. Akin, they’re the type of people who (edit: if they disagree with the law), when the Nazis come to the door, would rat out a neighbor hiding Jews under the floorboards.
Doctors are covering up malpractice for a willing media.
The propaganda is so effective that even my religious, anti-Trump, Romney-Republican boss is concerned about his daughters getting pregnant and being unable to receive life-saving treatment. My sister had an ectopic pregnancy since Dobbs, and she experienced no issues accessing treatment.
This does seem to be the case. "There is a widespread opposition and suspicion to seeking compromise or harm reduction with Republicans" Instead, they're hoping the increased abortion-related deaths will ensure it's a salient issue for voters.
More options
Context Copy link
Even if this is true, so what? Texas isn't one of those places that believes in an inherent right to medical treatment. Freedom includes people who aren't you who do not wish to associate with you. Maybe if you need something from someone, you should either sit at the table with them and negotiate or else find a way to do without them, such as by training up pro-life doctors.
More options
Context Copy link
What are you talking about? I can’t tell what you’re claiming is malpractice. And what does it have to do with Jews?
I think the implication is that left-leaning doctors are, either deliberately or quite possibly inadvertently, engaging in something like Washington Monument Syndrome with abortion cases: in the same way that the first cuts to the NPS prominently close the Washington Mall, marginal non-emergency abortion restrictions are read to apply to even life-or-death cases that should be pretty clear.
I wouldn't put huge weight in it, but there are plenty of examples of partisans reading opponent's rules maximally uncharitably. The fight over school library books comes to mind: this is probably choosing a side, but every rule that is charitably "stop putting the works of Chuck Tingle in the kindergarten section" is read uncharitably to ban (unabridged) copies of The Diary of a Young Girl.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Let me know when protestors start holding signs for Alyona Dixon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link