Sticky

Jenny,

I did not go right to the case notes.
First of all I read the whole case.
Second, if you read (or re-read carefully) what was posted by me you would see that I the first part of the case that I posted was from the opening of the writeup on the case.
I then posted the full background section so that people whowill not end up reading the whole case at the link that I had posted would at least read the background section.
Then finaly I posted from the discussion section which you refer to as the notes (and then requote) and incorrectly point out that I went straig to that section.

You said the following insinuating that I and/or that Judge and/or those doctors said that Pemberton's uterus would have ruptured.
No one said such a thing. Read carefully what was in the case and what you quoted.
That is:
"pose a substantial risk of uterine rupture"

That is what they said.

Not that I am the only one to answer this nor am I any authority that anyone should listen to, if this comment is directed at me (amongst others) read what I wrote.
Because that is how the U.S. Federal and State legal systems work.

Nobody made him God but, you the people of the U.S. built that system and that is how it works.

What this case does is ensure that hospitals and doctors througout the U.S. will continue to act in the best interest of the patient (in this case the patient is the unborn baby).

You are right, they will likely not seek out medical care.
This does not change that fact of what the results of this case (not the original court order) show, that the Hospital in question was acting in the moment. At that moment in time they didn't care if she never steps foot in a hospital again (although it would be nice if they included that as part of their decision process - maybe they didn't, maybe they did and still came to the same conclusion) their concern was for the unborn baby.

You used this case for the promotion of free-birth
The only thing that I use this case for after, it was brought to this thread, is to point out that:
Nice. (sarcastic)


[quote=Jenny Hatch]Also, to assume that mothers who give birth alone are as un-formally educated as me is wrong.[quote]
For you to assume that Faith Assembly members living in the state of Indiana are un-formally educated as you is wrong as well.

Would you not say that the following describes women who belive in/practice free-birth:
It says that they have a minimum of a high school education.
Just like you tried to point out about women believing/practisince free-birth, they were trying to point out that these women are not from:
Those are the words you used in post 161.

You used those words to defend people believing/practising free-birth to make the case agaist the using worldwide statistics on births to prove anything.

The summary of the study uses the following to say something similar:
They are saying that these women are healthy and educated.



Sometimes in excitement people read and take in what they want to hear or what they are expecting to hear.
This is most often exagerated on the internet or in email where messages are short and the reader does not hear the tone of the writer (when discussing in person tone is more often understood).
I know that I have been guilty in the past of both mis-reading (reading what I was expecting) and mis-judging tone.

I understand it happens, but...
Please don't tell me that I said something or that others have said things that if were re-read (or read more carefully) were clearly not said.

__________________
Sticky The Stickman