placeholder

It turns out my understanding of Florida abortion law is defective Because of Florida abortion laws, she carried her baby to term knowing he would die She said her pregnancy was proceeding normally until November, when, at 24 weeks, an ultrasound showed that the fetus did not have kidneys and that she had hardly any amniotic fluid. Not only was the baby sure to die, her doctors told her, but the pregnancy put her at especially high risk of preeclampsia, a potentially deadly complication. Her doctors told her it was too late to terminate the pregnancy in Florida, which bans nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/02/health/florida-abortion-term-pregnancy/index.html

Effectively it does say that. Unless you think it's reasonable to expect a physician to take a chance on being fined, losing their license, or being imprisoned if some D.A. decides the physician made the wrong choice. There are lots of cases already where physicians have refused to provide treatment to women with non-viable fetuses or who have life threatening pregnancies being denied treatment because physicians or hospital administrations are being very very cautious. As far as I understand it, in Florida if a physician gets a concurring opinion from another ob/gyn MD about the necessity of performing an abortion, then they are legally in the clear.

Actually, I posted a link on the previous page to an abstract of the research. Here's a link to the entire paper: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml?tab_body=pdf

Clearly, you didn't read what I wrote, If they were limited to only one term of say, 10 years, how would that change their decisions? And thanks for the big fat meme. My rule for them is the bigger they are, the more suspect is their content.

Some people believe that anonymous parties on a forum should be allowed to claim as facts whatever they believe without providing any confirmable evidence in support. But on this forum the following is the rule: "Any alleged factual claims must be supported by a valid link to an approved credible source." https://aseannow.com/forum/158-world-news/

Are you alleging that researchers in a peer reviewed journal reviewed scientific research published in the 70's, and somehow altered it and presented the altered results? And that the reviewers didn't catch them? Or that the reviewers conspired with them? Either way, that's a very serious charge to make. You have evidence?

You mean if the members of the Supreme Court had a single term limit of say, 10 years, they would decide differently?

Thanks for your personal recollection of what you allege those scientists were saying. I got news for you. What counts in science is published research. I'll stick to what the scientific literature of that time actually said.

Where did I claim otherwise?

Nonsense. That isn't what I said. Here it is again: "Actually, states already have that proviso in their laws. The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say." What do you think it means that the state gets final say? It means that in some states if a doctor gives an abortion and subsequently the state decides it wasn't justified the doctor can be convicted of a crime and sent to prison. Which is exactly what these articles say.

Can you tell me where Al Gore has published his scientific research on the subject? The reason denialists like you focus on celebrities and popularizers is that it distracts from what the climatological scientific community's research is telling us. Research of which the predictions are repeatedly and increasingly being borne out by reality. You've got nothing.

To answer your first question, of course I do. ‘A scary time’: Fear of prosecution forces doctors to choose between protecting themselves or their patients State abortion laws are often vague about what constitutes a medical emergency, meaning doctors, hospitals, and clinics risk being second-guessed by prosecutors. “This is a scary time. If you have a state that wants to set an example, they’re looking for cases to prosecute,” said Lisa Larson-Bunnell, a health care attorney for a Missouri hospital... In Missouri, every abortion must be reported to the state, and prosecutors can request a court order to examine records and confirm a medical emergency was present. https://www.statnews.com/2022/07/05/a-scary-time-fear-of-prosecution-forces-doctors-to-choose-between-protecting-themselves-or-their-patients/ Doctors Are Still Confused by Abortion Exceptions in Louisiana. It’s Limiting Essential Care The existing laws in Louisiana allow for abortions in certain cases when a pregnant patient’s life or health may be at risk, but physicians have criticized the texts for being confusing and limiting their ability to provide essential medical care... In Louisiana, abortion providers who violate the abortion-ban law face up to 15 years in prison and $5,000-$200,000 fines. Physicians have reported feeling fearful of providing pregnancy care that they would have in the past. “It’s so critical that physicians feel that they have the ability to make the judgment that is best for their patients without fear of misinterpretation and real consequences,” Avegno says. https://time.com/6282288/louisiana-abortion-exceptions-confusion-doctors/

If ever there was a demonstration of an utter lack of knowledge, you have just provided it. Acid rain was a huge problem in the North America and Europe thanks to the prevailing winds carrying sulphuric and nitric acid generated by coal burning power plants. And once those power plants were compelled to scrub their emissions, the problem greatly ameliorated. Given that coal is no longer economically viable in regions where power plants must scrub emissions. the problem should get even smaller over time. What Happened to Acid Rain? During the 1970s and ’80s the phenomenon called acid rain was one of the most well-known environmental problems in Europe and North America, appearing frequently in news features and mentioned, on occasion, in situation comedies of the day. Since that time, the visibility of acid rain in the media has been supplanted by stories about climate change, global warming, biodiversity issues, and other environmental concerns. Acid rain still occurs, but its impact on Europe and North America is far less than it was in the 1970s and ’80s, because of strong air pollution regulations in those regions. https://www.britannica.com/story/what-happened-to-acid-rain Actually, the ozone hole layer was also successfully addressed thanks largely to the initiative of 2 Marxists: Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Basically it meant replacing Chloroflourocarbon gases with substitute propellants and refrigerants. Ozone Hole: How We Saved the Planet "Scientists concluded it was seemingly benign industrial chemicals called CFCs that were used in everyday products from hairspray to deodorant. If continued unchecked, the world faced a perilous future — one in which humans would be forced to hide from daylight due to the harmful unfiltered UV radiation, and one where agriculture and entire ecosystems would collapse. Ozone Hole: How We Saved the Planet tells the incredible true story of how scientists, world leaders and two of the most unlikely eco-warriors — Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher — successfully worked together to prevent an environmental catastrophe. The result was a history-changing treaty that just may have saved the world." https://cgcs.mit.edu/ozone-hole-how-we-saved-planet Of course, this occurred in the era before the political right decided that Science = Marxism. And, in fact, te ozone hole has since shrunk considerably. As for global warming and climate change, it's the same thing. It was first called Global Warming because that was the obvious and inevitable effect of the rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It was the great 19th physicist John Tindall who discovered the greenhouse gas effect. It was he who pointed out that without the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be a lot colder and a lot less hospitable to life. By the end of the 19th century exactly how powerful the warming effect of CO2 was had been measured. In other words, 19th century physicists would have had no problem accepting global warming. It's that basic a propostion. Now the term climate change is used instead as research showed the effects of global warming aren't confined just to increased heat but to the fact that increased heat leads to other climatological changes.

Really? You were reading scientific papers on climate change in the 70's? Can you share with us what journals you subscribed to? I'm sure you wouldn't take reports from the popular press as accurately representing what the scientific consensus was at the time. That would be foolish.

And maybe someday that will happen again. What is it about most of you denialists that you don't understand the issue of the rate of change?

In fact, while there weren't a lot of papers being written on the subject back then, the majority that were being written predicted global warming. THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests. https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.xml Also, Exxon (then Esso) scientists also predicted global warming from CO2 emissions. Esso squelched the release of that research Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation xxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming "How much warming we are having today is pretty much right on where models have predicted," says the study's lead author, Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley... Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters. https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming And since I'm sure you're going to be grateful to me for providing this information, please allow me to say in advance, "You're welcome."

Actually, states already have that proviso in their laws. The trouble is, in most of those states the doctors don't get final say in judging what constitutes a potential threat and what doesn't. It's the state that gets final say. And even if your etymologyical point was correct (foetus was rarely used the way you claim it was, and only for effect), it's utterly irrelevant.

All rational people, conservative or liberal, prefer reasoning to insults. And it seems that to you any sentence that contains more than three words (4 if you count "Schumer's" as 2) is a long drawn-out speech.

What don't you understand about the fact that Biden was addressing Trump's stance on a public issue. Biden's speech had nothing to do with a personal attack on Trump or anyone else.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you and apparently to no avail, women whose pregnancy in some ways endangers them, are encountering obstacles to getting an abortion in states that have sharply restricted abortions because doctors don't want to run the risk of losing their licenses, being sued by freelance private citizens, and even facing jail time. And, of course, you choose the word "child" whereas pro-choice people use the word fetus. And before you go on obout termininating pregnancies in the last 3 months, as you should well know by now, most pregnancies are terminated in the first 3 months. most pregnancies are terminated in the first 3 months. Roe v Wade specifically exempted independently viable fetuses from its ruling. In cases where late term abortions are performed it's because either the fetus isn't viable, or it has already died, or it is endangering the health of the mother. Yet these womem are finding it increasingly difficult to get abortions. And there's this: Abortion ban states see steep drop in OB/GYN residency applicants States that have enacted abortion bans saw a 10.5 percent drop in applicants for obstetrics and gynecology residencies in 2023 from the previous year, according to new data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. That decline carries a potential long-term impact on the availability of doctors to care for pregnant people and deliver babies across a large swath of the South and Midwest because medical residents often choose to stay and work where they trained. “Everybody is saying they knew this would happen, but this is concerning,” said Atul Grover, who leads the association’s Research and Action Institute to examine the most pressing issues affecting American health care. https://archive.ph/E7QaH https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/04/21/abortion-ban-states-obgyn-residency-applications/

What is the Average Life of a Car? How Long Do Cars Last? The average car lasts around 12 years or around 200,000 miles, according to The Bureau of Transportation. These lifespan numbers continue to rise as modern technology helps vehicles last longer. It's safe to assume that vehicles are built to run up to 200,000 miles when properly taken care of. However, electric engines should last up to 300,000 miles. https://mechanicbase.com/cars/how-long-do-cars-last

Energy Trends UK, January to March 2023 Renewable generation reached a record share of 47.8 per cent of total generation, up from 5.8 per cent in the same quarter of 2010. Renewable generation was boosted with a new offshore wind record of 19.2 per cent up from 0.6 per cent in the same quarter of 2010. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1165986/Energy_Trends_June_2023.pdf

"a unknown force"? If ever there was a confession that a charge was baseless, this would be it. In other words, you've go o evidence.

No, there really isn't "science on both sides" anymore. There was a time when there were legitimate reasons for doubt, but that has long passed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#:~:text=A 2019 review of scientific,errors or cannot be replicated. Why people believe that serious scientific doubts remain is due to the massive public relations spending by the fossil fuels lobby. An Investor Enquiry: How Much Big Oil Spends on Climate Lobbying "We attempt to gain an order of magnitude estimate of a few, key representative oil and gas companies and trade associations to give investors and other interested parties a feel for the amounts of shareholder funds being used for this purpose. We find, estimating conservatively, that these five entities spent almost $115m per year combined on obstructive climate influencing activities, with the bulk by the American Petroleum Institute ($65m), ExxonMobil ($27m) and Shell ($22m). Extrapolated over the entire fossil fuel and other industrial sectors beyond, it is not hard to consider that this obstructive climate policy lobbying spending may be in the order of $500m annually." https://influencemap.org/report/Climate-Lobbying-by-the-Fossil-Fuel-Sector