3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I mean...you wouldn't be wrong. The Medicaid expansion has really destroyed the hospital industry.

But Ms. Piper tweeted that Medicaid expansion keeps rural hospitals open.  Im so confused, who do I trust?

4 hours ago, toolg said:

4 in 10 or 2 in 5... It's the same thing.

It’s the same thing, but why post it as 4 in 10 instead of 2 in 5 when they already noted 1 in 5 for the other stat.

Quote

The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday approved the oral contraceptive Opill for over-the-counter sales, making it the first hormonal contraceptive pill available in the U.S. without a prescription.  

The approval is a major win for medical groups, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which have been pushing for years for an over-the-counter (OTC) birth control pill. 

 

On 7/7/2023 at 9:54 AM, toolg said:

What else can I say? The example fits the trend.

You can say you have no idea what you are talking about, but must parrot the partisan talking points

 

F social media.

15 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

 

F social media.

was there a warrant?

this story in depth is a bit wild. she was almost 30 weeks pregnant (29 weeks and 5 days), and took medication to abort the fetus. they then burned and buried the fetus. 

it's ridiculous that she was pushed to this, though I also am sitting here wondering how she got to the third trimester before deciding to abort?

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

 

F social media.

So just to confirm, you think a social media company should refuse to comply with a warrant from law enforcement, in which theres a chance that there’s correspondence on their site that could help convict a criminal and bring Justice for a victim?

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

was there a warrant?

this story in depth is a bit wild. she was almost 30 weeks pregnant (29 weeks and 5 days), and took medication to abort the fetus. they then burned and buried the fetus. 

it's ridiculous that she was pushed to this, though I also am sitting here wondering how she got to the third trimester before deciding to abort?

Yes, there was a warrant.  

My god

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So just to confirm, you think a social media company should refuse to comply with a warrant from law enforcement, in which theres a chance that there’s correspondence on their site that could help convict a criminal and bring Justice for a victim?

Just to confirm, I think a social media company turning over private communications between a mother and her underage child, is heinous.

Of course, social media is heinous.

As heinous as forcing children to bear children.

10 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Yes, there was a warrant.  

Quote

Nothing in the valid warrants we received from local law enforcement in early June, prior to the Supreme Court decision, mentioned abortion. The warrants concerned charges related to a criminal investigation and court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion.

 

3 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Just to confirm, I think a social media company turning over private communications between a mother and her underage child, is heinous.

Of course, social media is heinous.

As heinous as forcing children to bear children.

I'm sympathetic here, but one should never view communication over an electronic medium as private, certainly not in the face of a warrant. 

The daughter was well into her 3rd trimester.

What the hell took them so long to decide to abort? once you get past 20ish weeks you really ought to be committed to the pregnancy, outside of threats to the mother's life. 

This whole story is messed up. But in this case Facebook is not the biggest villain. 

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I'm sympathetic here, but one should never view communication over an electronic medium as private, certainly not in the face of a warrant. 

The daughter was well into her 3rd trimester.

What the hell took them so long to decide to abort? once you get past 20ish weeks you really ought to be committed to the pregnancy, outside of threats to the mother's life. 

This whole story is messed up. But in this case Facebook is not the biggest villain. 

I agree that they are stupid. You can start with the mother as the worst villain here, but that does not excuse FB.

from 2022: https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/09/facebook-helps-cops-prosecute-17-year-old-for-abortion/ 

Meta provided user information to police in Nebraska that led directly to the prosecution of a 17-year-old girl for alleged crimes relating to an abortion, court documents show. The company could have challenged the legal order, but instead provided the teenager’s direct messages to cops, who are now charging the girl with three felonies for using a mail-order abortion pill and burying the miscarried fetus.

According to court documents first published by Motherboard (the case itself was first reported by the Lincoln Journal-Star), a Nebraska detective was investigating "concerns that a juvenile female… had given birth prematurely supposedly to a stillborn child.”

He apparently did not believe that the child was stillborn, though an autopsy (after exhuming the body seemingly without reason) was consistent with the story, showing that the fetus had never had air in its lungs. But because it was in a plastic bag, he asked Meta to provide all the girl’s Facebook messages, photos and other data for "statements that might indicate whether the baby was stillborn or asphyxiated.”

This information was duly provided, and messages appear to show the girl discussing taking an abortifacient medication.

...

It must be pointed out that at no point before they received the messages from Facebook was there any evidence of a crime beyond improperly disposing of a miscarried fetus.

-----------------------

So they found the fetus, did an autopsy, determined it wasn't consistent with a stillbirth it seems, and somehow that was enough to get a warrant to obtain their messages from Facebook. 

This whole story is sad and tragic. The spin TechCrunch puts on here is a bit thick ... how do you not exhume a body when there's question about what happened? If there's reasonable suspicion that either the baby was stillborn, possibly killed at birth, or aborted well past established legal timeframe with nobody contending the mother's life was at risk, I'm not sure what you want the police to do .. not investigate? 

I don't see how facebook is different than any other telecom in their shoes. If it were text messages instead of facebook messages, Verizon/AT&T/etc, would be forced to hand them over just the same.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

Just to confirm, I think a social media company turning over private communications between a mother and her underage child, is heinous.

Of course, social media is heinous.

As heinous as forcing children to bear children.

It's no different than police being able to obtain a warrant to read text messages where there's probable cause a crime occurred. 

 

"Nothing in the valid warrants we received from local law enforcement in early June, prior to the Supreme Court decision, mentioned abortion. The warrants concerned charges related to a criminal investigation and court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion."

ok.......and?   At the time, that's what they were looking for, as Celeste had told investigators that she had unexpectedly gave birth to a stillborn baby in the shower, and that she and her mother then buried it.  At the time, they were just charged with removing, concealing, or abandoning a dead human body,  concealing the death of another person, and false reporting.   Law enforcement then executed a search warrant for their facebook messages, and then discovered that she had not given birth to a still born baby, but instead had taken abortion pills to terminate her pregnancy at 29 weeks. 

Sooooo what's the problem here?  

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

I agree that they are stupid. You can start with the mother as the worst villain here, but that does not excuse FB.

Excuse facebook from what?  Complying with a legal and valid search warrant?   

So just to confirm here, if someone committed a felony against you or someone you loved.  And they had discussions through facebook messenger admitting to the crime, you'd want facebook to disobey a legal and valid search warrant and instead deny handing those messages over.  Got it.....

Oh and by the way, this story has absolutely NOTHING to do with the overturning of Roe v Wade as a) this happened before the Dobbs case, and b) aborting a baby at 29 weeks was illegal at the time they did this.  This is an absolutely f-cked up story, and good for facebook for doing the right thing by complying with a legal and valid search warrant which then gave police the TRUTH as to what actually happened.  2 years in prison isn't enough for these two pieces of scum. 

When do you suppose Albrecht Dürer decided to paint this cat's nads?

Was he almost done and like "hey something's missing! oh yes, balls!"

Then added a quick dab of big, beautiful, tawny velvet bollocks?

Look at his ball.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

So they found the fetus, did an autopsy, determined it wasn't consistent with a stillbirth it seems, and somehow that was enough to get a warrant to obtain their messages from Facebook. 

This whole story is sad and tragic. The spin TechCrunch puts on here is a bit thick ... how do you not exhume a body when there's question about what happened? If there's reasonable suspicion that either the baby was stillborn, possibly killed at birth, or aborted well past established legal timeframe with nobody contending the mother's life was at risk, I'm not sure what you want the police to do .. not investigate? 

Yeah for real.  You find a pre-mature baby buried in a bag, with thermal injuries, and you're supposed to just go, "Well, she said that this was just a natural unfortunate stillborn incident.  And although this scene looks exactly like what you'd expect to find when someone is trying to hide evidence, I'll just take her at her word that nothing else is a foot here.  Case closed!"    like wtf?

22 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

It's no different than police being able to obtain a warrant to read text messages where there's probable cause a crime occurred. 

 

"Nothing in the valid warrants we received from local law enforcement in early June, prior to the Supreme Court decision, mentioned abortion. The warrants concerned charges related to a criminal investigation and court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion."

ok.......and?   At the time, that's what they were looking for, as Celeste had told investigators that she had unexpectedly gave birth to a stillborn baby in the shower, and that she and her mother then buried it.  At the time, they were just charged with removing, concealing, or abandoning a dead human body,  concealing the death of another person, and false reporting.   Law enforcement then executed a search warrant for their facebook messages, and then discovered that she had not given birth to a still born baby, but instead had taken abortion pills to terminate her pregnancy at 29 weeks. 

Sooooo what's the problem here?  

I guess you missed that the warrant was for something else?

Quote

Nothing in the valid warrants we received from local law enforcement in early June, prior to the Supreme Court decision, mentioned abortion. The warrants concerned charges related to a criminal investigation and court documents indicate that police at the time were investigating the case of a stillborn baby who was burned and buried, not a decision to have an abortion.

 

5 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

I guess you missed that the warrant was for something else?

 

  The warrant wasn’t for something else.  The warrant was for the messages.  The reason they wanted access to the messages was because they found a premature baby burned and buried in the ground, and they were trying to determine how that baby got there. 
 

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

I guess you missed that the warrant was for something else?

 

The warrant was for an investigation about a dead late-term fetus that was burned and buried in a field. 

That they didn't at the time have evidence to suggest it was a late term abortions is irrelevant, the body of a fetus being disposed of in this manner suggests some kind of possible crime. 

It's sad all around. But I find it hard to make any case that this was pursued in bad faith by law enforcement or that the warrant was granted under misleading information.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

The warrant was for an investigation about a dead late-term fetus that was burned and buried in a field. 

That they didn't at the time have evidence to suggest it was a late term abortions is irrelevant, the body of a fetus being disposed of in this manner suggests some kind of possible crime. 

It's sad all around. But I find it hard to make any case that this was pursued in bad faith by law enforcement or that the warrant was granted under misleading information.

Exactly.  I’ll also add, the body of the baby disposed like that was already a crime.  This "argument” is so silly.   This would be like getting a warrant for a company’s books because they are being investigated for tax fraud.  And then upon investigation of the books, it’s discovered that in addition to tax fraud, the company has also been laundering money.   And then for someone to claim that the warrant was in bad faith because the warrant didn’t mention money laundering.  

 

How's that bish slap feel?