Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)R
Posts
1
Comments
178
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Not Manmohan, mammogram.

    Google keyboard swipe not that accurate.

  • Checking for a fetus is called proving, by a pregnancy test.

  • Please add the qualifier:

    If found...

  • You can shift the blame all you want but the truth that this is the outcome people of Texas votes for won't change. Women being rejected necessary care for a healthy life.

    The best consequences I can hope for is all the doctors move out of the state along with all the people who wish to have a healthy life.

  • Yes but there is laws which prosecute doctors for abortion, which is a consequence of pregnancy.

    Were they right to deny the investigation to your wife? No absolutely not.

    Having said that, it is understandable why the blanket decision was taken.

  • My point is the doctor shouldn't be prosecuted for taking a decision that the government is forcing them to take. The blame doesn't lie with the doctors but the government the people chose to make the laws.

    This is what happens when the medical decision has to be guided by legal principles instead of medical reasonings.

    Your anger understandable but directed at the wrong entity. It should be directed towards the government rather than the doctors. They might have been the face of decision taken to deny your wife care but it is not theirs.

  • It is Trump's America only because inspite of what people might say America is far closer to be like Saudi Arabia than any Nordic countries.

  • What if the the mammogram fails to detect it and she still dies?

    Manmohan Mammogram is not 100% accurate.

  • I specifically said in the case which you elaborated in your reply the rejection was wrong. My response was to what you had shared in your original post before.

    According to the limited details you had shared before one can propose why the rejection was done.

    The problem is not the doctors rejecting care, deciding to safeguard themselves. Only because when the government decides to prosecute anyone it is always the doctor. And the patients that doctor might have cared for no where to be seen.

  • What if she was pregnant, mammogram caused irreparable harm to fetus, she couldn't abort even if the harm had caused the fetus to die in her uterus which may have caused her to die or be infertile.

    I am not saying it was right decision but this might have been the thought process behind it.

    One should remember the possibility of these outcomes are more than the benefits she might have had by the mammogram, if it was preventive not diagnostic.

  • Nothing will happen. Did anything happen to the police who killed unarmed kids, and innocents without any other reason other than the colour of their skin.

  • The loss was due to judges pushed by Republican govt and Trump who had falsely declared that there is no overturning of the judgement when asked in their confirmation hearings. So even if the timing was off this was Trump's doing.

  • There is difference between preventive investigation and diagnostic investigation.

    If the mammogram was advised because she has a history of breast cancer either familial or in her past; or if she had lumps in her breasts or other signs of breast cancer. Then that mammogram was diagnostic and should not have been rejected.

    If it was a part of preventive screening then perhaps the benefits of rejection outweigh the harm it might have caused.

    Mammogram has a greater exposure to radiation than a x-ray. And can more than likely cause birth defects. Any other place they might ve given abortive pills or contraceptive to mitigate that risk. But this was the land of the free. So it is less risky to just not do it.

  • That does require a significant majority of the executive branch to go through with it.

    Impeachment is in ways similar to it.

  • Every president in some way or form pushed those boundaries without any consequences. Even the lightly better ones, like the shade of grey only lightly different than black.

    Trump is the culmination of every president taking its way with the constitution without even a slap on the wrist.

  • Every country which went into dictatorship had checks and balances. US checks and balances were not unique.

  • Having Mamdani on ballot is a sign of a sliver of hope, of whatever life left in democracy. If you wish to make this ember into a fire, everyone needs to get out and vote. Show that having a worthy candidate will make people come out and vote. Show dems that with the right policy they can win, but only if they would listen.

  • Arch wiki ftw

  • Funking it up