Saik0

the delays at the 3rd hospital

My statement/arguments were more for the first two visits. I feel (and I’m no doctor) was that it was already too late by visit 3. I don’t think she was going to make it at that point regardless.

is that they shouldn’t be hard cases

Sepsis IS ALWAYS a hard case unless you catch it very very early. They delayed her significantly and she was already down the path of symptoms. I’m not sure that shrugging of the hard case of potential sepsis (for the first one that didn’t bother checking her thoroughly) and confirmed sepsis for the second hospital… is anyway at all related to the case being hard because of “abortion”.

Some said the first ER missed warning signs of infection that deserved attention. All said that the doctor at the second hospital should never have sent Crain home when her signs of sepsis hadn’t improved. And when she returned for the third time, all said there was no medical reason to make her wait for two ultrasounds before taking aggressive action to save her.

Hawkins noted that Crain had strep and a urinary tract infection, wrote up a prescription and discharged her. Hawkins had missed infections before. Eight years earlier[…]

This has nothing to do with abortion ban. This has everything to do with shitty doctors. None of this required or even remotely called for any abortion. And should that first doctor NOT have been allowed to keep their license from previous cases of being a bad doctor… A women and her child probably would be alive today.

The other facility that examined the case was also in Texas. Clearly the “ban” doesn’t stop them.

The well-resourced hospital is perceived to have more institutional support to provide abortions and miscarriage management, the doctor said. Other providers “are transferring those patients to our centers because, frankly, they don’t want to deal with them.”

Can’t blame a “ban” if there’s places that can and do legally do it.

This is shitty doctors/hospitals blaming to the law to skirt around hard cases that they simply don’t want to deal with.

But because the delays and discharges occurred in an area of the hospital classified as an emergency room, lawyers said that Texas law set a much higher burden of proof: “willful and wanton negligence.”

Now this is a shame… This is what TX should be fixing. Malpractice shouldn’t need a higher standard in an ER

All in all, I’m not sure how this is related to the abortion “ban” in any way shape or form. So why is it in the article/OP at all? Especially since in this case, it would have been covered regardless…

Section 170A.002 prohibits a person from performing, inducing, or attempting an abortion. There is an exception for situations in which the life or health of the pregnant patient is at risk. In order for the exception to apply, three factors must be met: A licensed physician must perform the abortion.
The patient must have a life-threatening condition and be at risk of death or “substantial impairment of a major bodily function” if the abortion is not performed. “Substantial impairment of a major bodily function” is not defined in this chapter.
The physician must try to save the life of the fetus unless this would increase the risk of the pregnant patient’s death or impairment.

That’s like your opinion man. Good thing you’re not my doctor, nor my kids doctor.

The victim has to know, and cannot possibly have the information required to “choose not to know”.

Literally already been explained to you. Yes you can. If I don’t want to hear information from you, I can choose not to. Just like I will now. Welcome to the block-list! See how easy it is? Now you can choose to try to tell me all you want about your opinions and I won’t hear any of them! It’s like it’s a choice that I can make with all the free-will that I have.

Several people have told you it’s possible. Even given you examples of cases where it exists. But you stick your fingers in your ears and scream all you want. I’m not listening anymore.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/ama-code-medical-ethics-opinions-informing-patients/2012-07

Withholding medical information from patients without their knowledge or consent is ethically unacceptable. Physicians should encourage patients to specify their preferences regarding communication of their medical information, preferably before the information becomes available. Moreover, physicians should honor patient requests not to be informed of certain medical information or to convey the information to a designated proxy, provided these requests appear to genuinely represent the patient’s own wishes.

American Medical Association says you’re full of shit.

Informed consent only occurs before the action.

You cannot have informed consent about something that’s already happened to you that you should have been aware of. You can have informed consent on requests to tell you that information relating to the event.

And you can absolutely decline something without knowing what it is. I do it all the time. Phone numbers call me, I hear the brief moment of silence, and then that notorious click of an automatic dialer answering the line. I know immediately it’s a scam caller and I’m not interested so I hang up. That is Informed consent that I’m not interested in whatever they’re about to say, even though I don’t know what specifically they’re about to say.

I do the same thing with my some of my family. If my aunt was to call, I’d decline the call outright. I’m not interested in anything she’s going to say. That’s my right.

Edit: Clarified confusing wording a bit.

Most people will store in their ecosystem (Microsoft or Apple). Lose your device, recover via logging back into your service.

You’ll own nothing and be happy!

Nah. It would be easy and probably responsible for google to ban site’s that are malicious like that from poisoning their AI. I think the blame rests squarely on google.

You wouldn’t “already” have it.

You’ve missed the point. Simply having something on your harddrive is already something the law does care about. It simply depends on the something.

Well I’ve read some copyright laws

So have I. Because I had access to an exception under it in my prior job. Seems like we’re still on the same page here. Not sure why you’d feel the need to call out someone else’s knowledge on a topic that you have no idea about.

However, Wayback Machine making read-only copies of websites has for now never been disputed successfully.

Except it has. That’s why administrators can exclude domains from it. DMCA notices also can yield complete removals.

Until the basement floods and the server goes offline for a few days

That’s what backups are for.

or botched upgrade that’s failing quietly;

See above

over zealous spam assassin configuration;

That’s an assumption that you’re using this specific product.

What’s funny is you think that all of this can’t happen to your stuff on Google’s servers either for some reason… Say the wrong thing in a Youtube comment? Boom whole google profile banned. All your emails are gone too.

Or random software that interfaces poorly with each other (https://support.google.com/mail/thread/142335843/all-of-my-emails-have-disappeared-how-can-i-recover-them?hl=en)

SMTP is stupidly forgiving. You’re not going to magically lose singular emails.

But one thing is for sure, my wife won’t have any of it. She’s a total backwards thinking give me windows or I’ll jump kind of Gal.

So… forward her inbox to her personal gmail account? Keep your mail server as it was for you?

Some people believe the world is flat. That doesn’t make the statement true. They provided no clear example of how any of it could be doing what they claim it would do. So that random statement starting with “some democrats”… is meaningless.

By changing the language from “all citizens”, it sets up opportunities to selectively disenfranchise those citizens who are able and registered to vote.

No it doesn’t because the verbiage is “ONLY citizens” as the replacement. It’s still VERY clear that citizens are to vote. What it clears up is any argument that non-citizens should also be allowed to vote.

This article is referencing new bills that will disenfranchise legitimately registered voters

Please quote where it says that. I see no such statement.

What’s on the ballot?

Republican-led legislatures in eight states have proposed constitutional amendments on their November ballots declaring that only citizens can vote.

Proposals in Iowa, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Wisconsin would replace existing constitutional provisions stating that “every” citizen or “all” citizens can vote with new wording saying “only” citizens can vote. Supporters contend the current wording does not necessarily bar noncitizens from voting.

In Idaho and Kentucky, the proposed amendments would explicitly state: “No person who is not a citizen of the United States” can vote. Similar wording won approval from Louisiana voters two years ago.

Voters in North Dakota, Colorado, Alabama, Florida and Ohio passed amendments between 2018 and 2022 restricting voting to “only” citizens.

What about changing verbiage to be clear is “Disenfranchise”?

the content is on my private machine already, how can any law be relevant or exerted upon what I do there?

So child porn is okay then? You would already have it on your system and got it for free on your private machine!

I doubt you’re writing this comment on the basis of your knowledge of copyright law.

I doubt you are either. Yet we’re both here.

you seem to be saying that Wayback Machine is also committing theft

It does… on paper… A lot. https://time.com/6266147/internet-archive-copyright-infringement-books-lawsuit/ To the point it’s losing lawsuits over exactly that.

If it happens so little that it doesn’t matter, then why relax the standard? It’s clearly working then. You spook people who think it could happen when you do that. There’s no positive to doing that. So why do it?

What a great and insightful comment.

My brother in Christ

No. I’m not your brother in Christ. In both that I couldn’t care less about some fictitious “Christ” and that I have no relation to you.

I once poured over Kris Kobach’s office records when he was Kansas’s attorney general, and over the course of fifteen years he found less than ten cases of it affecting even fewer votes.

Congrats? you’ve proved my point? Non-Zero amount happens… How is that detected? And why would it be beneficial to be harder to make to make that detection?

Voter fraud doesn’t exist, and pretending it does is getting sillier by the day.

You stated yourself that some do occur. Which is it?

If this was literal murder… a relatively rare event… do we want to make it harder to catch the murderers? Why is this mentality only around voting not applied elsewhere?

You’re failing to understand the premise here… If it happens so little that it doesn’t matter, then why relax the standard? It’s clearly working. You spook people who think it could happen when you do that. There’s no positive to doing that. So why do it?

You have a better chance of getting a clear picture of Bigfoot than you do of having a voter fraud incident in your jurisdiction.

Just because you don’t see it. doesn’t mean it’s not there. It would be entirely possible that there is no enforcement… and thus no records of those events happening.

Just like “illegal” border crossings. Current numbers state “Nationwide Encounters” is the number that CBP publishes. That’s not the number of border crossings. That’s the number of people that law enforcement has encountered and handled. This clearly ignores those who weren’t “encountered” but still made it over. Part of that “encountered” number would be things like, “how many border guards do we have to actually ‘encounter’ these people?” If you fired 100% of the border guard force. Well your “Nationwide Encounters” stats would also drop to near 0. That doesn’t mean that there are no longer any border crossings.

Poll workers collecting votes on voting day have no way to validate if your voter registration is not valid. It’s either you’re on the list or not. And in a lot of jurisdictions, simply getting a driver’s license is enough to get your name on that list, even if you aren’t allowed to vote otherwise.

Let’s make some safe presumptions. There are at least some non-zero amount of people who vote illegally (ignore if they’re “illegal immigrants” or not, just in general). How is discarding their votes and pursuing those felony charges enforced? Is that effective? If the answer is “poll workers”, how are they supposed to know who on their registers are not supposed to be there in states that do auto-registration? There is discussion to have here without even bringing up a singular specific source of fraud like this article does.

I can keep it until the copyright expires and then I can do whatever the fuck I want with it.

general copyright is 70 years. So no. You couldn’t do whatever you wanted with it as the computer you’re using would be long dead… and possibly you’d even be long dead. Replicating the content to another device without owners consent could and likely would be a violation of that same copyright.

You’ve put it out there for free

Irrelevant. It’s still my content that I have sole rights to. If I want to share it to individuals I can do that if I please. You don’t have any rights to do anything else with it.

and the data literally ends up on my machine because you made it do that

Incorrect. Your browser made it do that. How that data is accessed and displayed is not controlled by me. Case and point you can have extensions on your browser that changes how my websites are rendered.

That doesn’t give you a right to replicate my content elsewhere.

and potentially sharing it elsewhere for free again?

Because it’s not yours? And publishing it again elsewhere is effectively you claiming it is yours. Especially if published without attribution.

You guys can’t have this both ways. If an artist makes a painting… and posts a picture of it. They have no rights to the painting anymore? They deserve no ownership/pay for what they’ve done? If a news story is published… They have no rights to sell that story to another publisher just because you can copy and paste the text? This is absurd logic. My website has/had a cost. I bore it. I have sole rights to that content.

This scenario (misattribution of content) has nothing to do with the previous discussion. The other commenter is making an analogy to CDs, owning a CD and lending it to others doesn’t mean you’re claiming its content is your own creation.

No, this has to do with rights of the content. Owning the CD grants you a license to the content on that CD. That’s about as good as ownership gets there. They own the CD/license. As long as that CD exists/works. You don’t gain that same right by simply visiting a website.

Theft implies deprivation of ownership. Calling this theft is like calling piracy theft. It may be illegal by this or that metric, but it’s not normal theft.

No it doesn’t. Taking content and using in an unauthorized way while gaining money or some other consideration is also theft. Wayback Machine and other archives are paid for somehow. If some content being on a site swayed someone to make a donation to that archive site, then that value should have gone to the original creator. That is theft. This is the core of most of the current lawsuits. Although they often equate this to “potential and future earnings” which is bullshit because oftentimes that content would never be have been viewed at whatever cost they ascribed.

No, I never granted you any ownership of my content. Period. You didn’t pay me, you didn’t engage in any contract with me.

Simply archiving my stuff and running away then publishing it as your own is theft.