Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



lil_miss_stfu ([info]lil_miss_stfu) wrote in [info]unfunnybusiness,
@ 2009-01-19 13:05:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood:*Snarl*

*seeth*
Woman says anti-abortion nurse removed her IUD without permission, then lectured her.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would've kicked the nurse in the head and then sued the shirt off her back. And then sued the shirt off the back of every other person in the clinic who was aware that this sort of shit had gone down before and *not* done anything about it.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]kitsune_wolf
2009-01-19 04:03 pm UTC (link)
The plaintiff demands damages for battery, constitutional violations and negligence. She is represented by Ryan Villa with the Law Office of Robert Cooper.

Good! Sue the ovaries off her!

(Dumb question how does the IUD stop pregnancy anyway?)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]witty
2009-01-19 04:15 pm UTC (link)
Short version: nobody's really sure, but it does.

Longer version: the general idea is that it irritates the lining of the uterus so that nothing will implant, or that it pokes the fallopian tubes all over hell and gone so that egg and sperm will get lost and never meet. (This mechanical explanation was more true of the old copper ones that were like, just objects; Mirena and its newer ilk also include low-dose hormones.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kitsune_wolf
2009-01-19 04:27 pm UTC (link)
it irritates the lining of the uterus so that nothing will implant

Ah, I can kinda see why the nurse might think that's a step closer to abortion than the pill. But she's still a fruit loop who should be sued, slapped, and banned from working as a nurse for refusing to reinsert the IUD.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jujubee
2009-01-24 02:03 am UTC (link)
Except I've read some fundie anti-birth control stuff that says the pill does the same thing. It has this "back up" pregnancy prevention just in case you do ovulate. Which my doctor told me once that you do do. Though I hope I just misunderstood him because I love him and I know that's just wrong.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]magistera
2009-01-27 09:49 pm UTC (link)
The pill doesn't do that, though. It's a really pervasive idea that it does (helped along by the nuts who would like to see all contraception outlawed, and so screech "IT'S AN ABOOOOORRTIOOON"), but it doesn't.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]imbrium
2009-01-21 02:28 am UTC (link)
That, and the copper on the other models is (supposedly) spermicidal. Aw, yeah.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]julesnoctambule
2009-01-19 05:33 pm UTC (link)
'We the jury find the plaintiff is entitled to all requested damages, as well as a free punch to the face and/or ovaries of this so-called nurse.'

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]kitsune_wolf
2009-01-19 06:24 pm UTC (link)
Ha! If only.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]julesnoctambule
2009-01-19 06:33 pm UTC (link)
I'm hoping more people come forward and this woman never goes near a medical practise again except as a patient.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map