https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1199491504550666240.html?refreshed=yes
According to Julia Song-- reportedly a Brazilian fascist–
2 minutes of erection is enough to conclude the coitus and fecundate the female. Anything beyond that is perversion, degeneracy and socialism.
This is why nobody human ever willingly fucks a fascist.
Well, Eva Braun… Carmen Polo… Melania Trump…
Well, at least someone reads my Tinder profile…
There it is: Casey was wrongly decided. They think they can not just get rid of abortion but birth control.
Migraine warning for sticky elemts:
Reimplanting ectopic pregnancies. Reversing abortions. What the fuck. I don’t even understand why they want abortion reversal - wouldn’t that lead to more women starting abortions, thinking they can cancel???
Maybe they’re looking forward to back alley abortions (when it’s made illegal) and then charging those who get them with murder if they don’t get it reversed???
Asking logic of these idiots is asking too much I guess. And I bet they are looking forward to back-alley abortions, just because they’re sadistic misogynists.
Yeah. Really it’s more about punishing women for having sex out of wedlock. Yes married women get abortions but these bozos don’t think that far.
If they were really pro-life they’d be pro-birth control and pro-sex toy, and they’re totally against those too.
The lead author (Mitchell D. Creinin) explains his
research program here.
The non-medical terms "abortion reversal,” “medical abortion reversal” and “abortion pill reversal” have been used to describe a purported treatment first published as a case series in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy in December 2012 |7|. However, medical abortion cannot be “reversed,” which would imply putting a pregnancy back in the uterus. Conceptually, the goal of progesterone proponents is mifepristone antagonization with high doses of progesterone: two small case reports and one large case series have been published about such treatment |7 9|. Commentaries in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and New England Journal of Medicine have outlined the numerous scientific and ethical problems with these reports, including lack of control groups, no confirmation of mifepristone ingestion, failure to establish viability prior to progesterone treatment, and providing experimental treatment without patient consent or institutional review board oversight 110,11). Within the reproductive rights community, some may even argue that mifepristone antagonization is conceptually impossible and potentially hamiful to women.
We see a parallel issue in second trimester surgical abortion, with women requesting osmotic dilator removal in less than 1% of procedures |12|. Even when providers have reviewed all pregnancy options prior to dilator placement, counsel patients that dilator placement is the start of the procedure, and confirm with patients that they are absolutely clear in their decision before proceeding, a small minority of women do change their mind. The best information we have about what happens after dilator removal is a small case series of 12 women, which demonstrated pregnancy loss in 50% and complications in 66% of women 112]. Still, when requested, patient autonomy requires dilator removal.
What should we do for the small fraction of women who change their mind after taking mifepristone? Is recommending expectant management or progesterone treatment the better choice? To answer this question, we need to understand what happens when mifepristone is taken without misoprostol, if mifepristone antagonization with progesterone works (including the appropriate progesterone route, dose and duration) for all or just for specific gestational age ranges, and what safety concerns are present in both scenarios.
The details of this article are hidden behind a paywall, but one can presume that some questions were not resolved with a literature review.
If various pro life groups were not spreading false medical claims, the need for this study would not be so pressing.
I wasn’t doubting the need for the study. But really, thanks for clarifying that studies are often done because the information available is insufficient. I didn’t know that!
Instead, I was commenting that I find the pro-life movement wanting abortion to be “reversible” baffling. It seems like that should drive up women attempting abortions, since, people on the bubble might think they can change their mind later.
[EDIT: I’m going back on hiatus. There’s a point on this site where sometimes I just feel like I’m being ganged up on by much older people for being a young female scientist, and I just don’t want to deal with it. See you in a week or whenever; I have a paper due to the publisher anyway. I’ll remember to check the literature and make sure my question wasn’t answered. Wouldn’t have known to do that otherwise. 
]
I’m sorry. I had incorrectly assumed that Institutional Review Boards required more documentation and paperwork than your publisher.
I’m sorry to hear that. I feel like it’s the opposite, where you’re one of the subject matter experts we have around here who tolerates the rest of us who have opinions but far less expertise.
Wait a bit and try to get pregnant again? Is that naive?
Hope I’m not one of them. I’m really impressed by you.
As long as we’r stuck with the so-called Patriot Act and Gitmo here’s a good candidate.
Some more stuff over here:
One of his reasons: The 9-year-old victim’s hymen was intact
His claim was made despite expert studies showing most child victims do not show evidence of physical damage and that examination of the tissue is not a reliable test of sexual activity. In fact, a 2012 study by the peer-reviewed journal Forensic Science International found that 90% of child victims don’t suffer physical damage from sexual abuse.
Bevin defended his final actions in a series of 20 tweets last week, saying he personally reviewed each case he pardoned […] “Not one person receiving a pardon would I not welcome as a co-worker, neighbor, or to sit beside me or any member of my family in a church pew or at a public event,”