Florida is threatening to prosecute TV stations over an abortion rights ad. The FCC chief calls it ‘

It's not even disinformation .. based on a "letter of the law" reading there are several reasons she (or cases like hers) could have been legally banned from her abortion, and several reasons she could have been effectively banned from her abortion. The people calling the ad disinformation are the ones engaging in disinformation...

 

It’s the exact same thing with the DeSantis vs Disney fiasco, and almost all the right leaning posters sided with Disney on that one. Simply depressing.

 

I actually linked this story on Wednesday in that thread, and all I got in response was one funny rating from 95.

 

You said earlier...

That aside, can you give an example of one of the "several reasons" she could have been prohibited from having an abortion given the information she provided? What she expressed sounded pretty straight-forward, "doctors knew."

People say there could be a gray area, present what that gray area looks like and how does that description compare to the ad? There doesn't appear to be any gray area presented in the ad.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Thank you, this was quiet a few years back, but I think I've processed this better than my wife has for obvious reasons.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I did earlier. The exceptions are "saving her life" or that the abortion is "necessary to prevent future irreversible harm"...

Clearly, an abortion doesn't "save the life" of a woman with a lemon sized brain tumor .... so that's out.

For the other option ... "necessary" is a steep barrier. To me, "necessary" means there are no other options.

What if there are other treatment options that didn't involve an abortion? ... her abortion is not "necessary" and is prohibited by the law ... even if that's the treatment she'd prefer.

What if a doctor says she'll survive at least until given birth, then they can start treatment, with a low probability of the delay having an permanent affect .... her abortion is not "necessary" and is prohibited by the law ... even if she wants to start her treatment now.

What if the doctor says option A requires an abortion, but won't leave a scar ... and option B doesn't require an abortion, but will leave a giant scar across your forehead.... she wants option A ... all doctors says "no" because they don't want to go prison over a gray area ... so her abortion is effectively banned.

Is that enough examples?

 

That's not what the ad says. The ad says that the doctors "know" that if she doesn't have an abortion, she will die.

The ad says the doctors "know" she needs to have an abortion otherwise she will die, so this is not valid.

Again, that's not what the ad says.

If option B exists, then the doctors can't "know" she needs an abortion to survive.

No.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Edit ... I wanted to ad that you are misconstruing the first exemption. It's not "will die someday", it's an exemption for emergency care when the patient is actively dying. And further, the Florida health department gave a specific list of those exemptions... "The rules list three conditions that could put a pregnant person’s life at risk: premature rupture of membranes, ectopic pregnancy and molar pregnancy. " ... not seeing brain cancer on the list...

Then goes on to say ... "Some doctors are questioning what that means for conditions not covered by the emergency rules and what happens when the rules expire. Humphrey says it’s just made things more confusing."

Florida's abortion exception rules further confuse, providers say : NPR

You have no idea, based on that ad, where she fell in any of those possible scenarios. The ad says "in cases LIKE mine" ... not necessary cases exactly like hers. I just laid out 3 examples were cases LIKE hers where abortion could be illegal, and takes treatment choices away from the patient and the doctor, which is absurd, and the point of the ad.

 

In that same thread I posted multiple times about Donald Trump saying anyone who burns the flag should be jailed. Nobody wanted to broach that one either

 

If the doctors "know" then there can be no other alternative (and abortions are allowed - the ad is dishonest).
If the doctors do not "know" then the ad is dishonest for indicating that they know.

I'm honestly not sure what other possibilities there are outside of the doctors not being willing to write notes to express what they claim to "know."

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I address that in my edit above. "knowing a patient will die someday" is not the same as the patient being in need of immediate lifesaving treatment. You are clinging to that excuse, but the Florida health department clarified what those acceptable cases are, and brain cancer isn't on the list. Nor is clearing the way for brain cancer treatments. In the article I linked above, Doctors in Florida are saying they are reluctant go outside of the 3 cases the Florida health department listed, because they could lose their licenses or go to prison ... so her abortion, "for life saving measures", definitely falls in that gray area, whether you want to admit or not.

The other possibilities are simple ... a woman and her doctor discuss the condition, the treatment options, and decide what is best among themselves without worrying about going to prison.

 

Respectfully, that's not what it says in the ad, that's something you are interpreting from it. Your interpretation implies that the risk (certain death in this case) is not attached to the pregnancy (we'll all die someday). That in and of itself would make the ad disingenuous.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

To your point about the exceptions and interpretations:

"But Humphrey says she cannot say how great that risk is, and even if she could, it's unclear what the risk threshold is for Florida’s exceptions to apply."

This is clearly different from...

"doctors knew if I did not end my pregnancy...I would lose my life"

We've been through high risk pregnancies; we've been strongly encouraged to be done; I can't imagine a doctor ever positing the idea of "knowledge of death" to the mom as it related to a pregnancy.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

Again, I’m focusing on what the law says. “Will die in 6 months if you don’t get treatment” and “will die in 5 minutes if you don’t get treatment” are covered by two differnt exceptions, and you can’t conflate the two. She was clearly more like the former than the later. If she was the former then perhaps her option for an abortion would be taken away from her for the reasons I’ve listed above - or for other women in cases LIKE hers. She is defined not covered under the 3 specific cases.

We have actual doctors in Florida saying that they are finding gray areas where they would recommend and an abortion but are not sure it’s legal. Read the NPR article I linked above. That doctor gives the case of a woman who had a heart attack before getting pregnant, and was a higher risk of complications. But because she didn’t fall in the 3 cases listed in the administrative law, and the risk wasn’t quantifiable, she wasn’t sure it was legal.

 

I read the emergency rule. It clearly states "and other life-threatening conditions." It does specifically call out the ones you mention, but there is no logical reason to presume that it would exclude other life-threatening conditions. It is highlighting known exceptions, not excluding ones that are not specifically mentioned. Life-threatening is actually a significantly lower standard than knowing a patient will lose her life.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

 

I get how tiring the whataboutisms are, but if you are going to claim to be pro free speech, it seems like you at least have to acknowledge the transgressions of the other side.

 

Holy Crap! I'm moving to Norway. They get Gator games over there right?

 

Read it again. The “other life threatening conditions” clause only appears in the section that requires hospitals to have written policies on keeping records related to abortions. It doesn’t say a single thing about “other life threatening conditions” being exempt from the abortion laws or abortion reporting laws. The only 3 procedures exempt from being reported as an abortion are ruptured membrane, ectopic pregnancy, and trophoblastic tumors… that’s a fact.

https://www.flrules.org/gateway/readFile.asp?sid=4&tid=28322077&type=1&File=59AER24-1.doc

 

I have a question, doesn't matter what type of cancer.
Would receiving radiation or chemo treatment harm the baby? If the answer is yes, then abortion or not, the baby might die from efforts made to cure the mothers breast cancer, colon cancer or whatever.
Making the mother ride out the 9 months prior to treating the cancer doesn't sound like a viable option.

 

It shows up in these locations: the rule title, the summary, and in the full text itself. It seems unreasonable to treat it as insignificant or to discard it altogether. That's just my opinion.

Agreed.

It does not state "only" in the context you are using. It states that there are 3 procedures that are explicitly (as described) not needing to be reported as abortions.

[EDIT: It would be interesting to note, I say "would" because I believe #4 passes easily, but it would be interesting to note if not reporting as an abortion is the only way to allow an abortion; is it possible that some abortions would be considered allowable but have to be reported as an abortion? I don't know the answer to that]

Go GATORS!
WESGATORS