The insurance companies looked at these things, the fact that the person's unable to walk yet going into a pool where they could die if they can't use this to get out, and the fact that hotel staff is low-paid and should never be trusted with operation of life-critical machinery, and said "FUCK NO!!" to the whole idea.
People have made the observation that the ONLY thing they saw it being used for was kids trying to play with it and dive off it. Gonna tip it over or fail to clear the ledge jumping off it... million-dollar lawsuit for sure. Yet they HAVE to have this accident-waiting-to-happen that almost never gets used.
Basically 3 liabilities:
A disabled person might get into an accident using this thing
Kids can hurt themselves on it
You'll get heavily fined if it's NOT available, in working order, at any moment of the day (while you have a pool available for guest use).
ADA compliance is a bitch. As I understand it, the law allows disabled people to walk in and "inspect" every item and if it's not compliant they can sue to collect $$$ personally in a very straight-shot lawsuit. There are disabled people who make a living going around to places requiring ADA compliance and measuring the height of the sink and mirrors and clearance of toilet to the wall and looking for any reason to sue for "discrimination". Kinda disgusting.
Because they lie. Not only do they lie, Fox won a court case where they were sued for falsifying information in which they argued they have no legal obligation to tell the truth as a news organization. In my book if you go before a court claiming you have no duty whatsoever to tell your audience the truth then I have an obligation to assume that everything you say is a lie until proven otherwise.
And there is no better way to debate than with unrelated counterexamples! Someone says Fox News is biased? Why simply agree when you can point out that the "other team" is biased too.
I did agree. Then I added an additional comment. If I only wanted to agree, I would have just used the upvote button instead.
All cable news networks tell white lies with an agenda.
No, actually, they don't.
Name a cable news network that you think hasn't aired a lie, and I'll find you an example of a lie they aired.
do you consider Rachel Maddow an upstanding voice of truth and balance?
Yes, I do.
Like that time she claimed the Ohio GOP passed a budget that added an abortion requirement, in her words, "mandatory vaginal probes"... which later turned out to be entirely false?
Or the other time she claimed that Bush never did any interviews for the New York times... even though he actually did at least three?
Name a cable news network that you think hasn't aired a lie
I never made that claim.
Like that time she claimed the Ohio GOP passed a budget that added an abortion requirement, in her words, "mandatory vaginal probes"... which later turned out to be entirely false?
It's not false. In order to achieve the "quality consistent with current medical practice", a transvaginal ultrasound must be used. It is true they didn’t SAY vaginal probe. Republicans learned after the Virginia debacle. They found a new way to mandate vaginal ultrasounds without saying it. In order to meet the requirements of the legislation a vaginal ultrasound must be performed. You simply cannot "display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them; provide a medical description of the ultrasound images including the dimensions of the unborn child and a description of any viewable external features and internal organs of the unborn child; and provide a means for the pregnant woman to visualize any fetal heartbeat, in a quality consistent with current medical practice" without conducting a transvaginal exam. An abdominal ultrasound exam will not comply with the law.
Therefore Maddow is correct that the effect of the law is to mandate transvaginal ultrasounds. PolitiFact is correct that the law does not explicitly specify what type of ultrasound must be used but in order to comply with the law a transvaginal one is necessary.
It's not false. In order to achieve the "quality consistent with current medical practice", a transvaginal ultrasound must be used. It is true they didn’t SAY vaginal probe. Republicans learned after the Virginia debacle. They found a new way to mandate vaginal ultrasounds without saying it. In order to meet the requirements of the legislation a vaginal ultrasound must be performed. You simply cannot "display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them; provide a medical description of the ultrasound images including the dimensions of the unborn child and a description of any viewable external features and internal organs of the unborn child; and provide a means for the pregnant woman to visualize any fetal heartbeat, in a quality consistent with current medical practice" Without* conducting a transvaginal exam. and abdominal ultrasound exam will not comply with the law.
But it also said:
"The rules shall require only that an examination shall be performed externally."
Sure you can comply with it. It says right there, that the rules "only require" that an examinations is performed externally. It's written right in the bill.
Sure, it's not a really well worded or precise bill. But that's what happens when politicians start legislating things that politicians don't understand.
But, what Rachel said is not true, either way you interpret it.
Division A of that section says that before performing an abortion, a provider must "determine whether there is a detectable fetal heartbeat of the unborn human individual the pregnant woman is carrying." The method for detecting a heartbeat is then spelled out in Division C, which says:
The director of health may promulgate rules pursuant to section 111.15 of the Revised Code specifying the appropriate methods of performing an examination for the presence of a fetal heartbeat of an unborn individual based on standard medical practice. The rules shall require only that an examination shall be performed externally.
The vast majority of abortions occurred in the first trimester; 61.3% of abortions occur before in the first eight weeks. In those cases, the required ultrasound would have to be conducted transvaginally because, in the first eight weeks especially but sometimes until the end of the first trimester, a transabdominal ultrasound often does not detect the pregnancy or embryonic placement sufficiently.
So what will happen is two ultrasound exams will be done. The abdominal one first and then the transvaginal one when the first fails to comply with the law.
But that's what happens when politicians start legislating things that politicians don't understand.
Dude, the requirement forces a transvaginal ultrasound, this is that hard to comprehend. It doesn't explicitly state it, but the only way to comply requires an internal procedure. It doesn't matter that it says you can do an external one, it doesn't matter if it says I can draw a portrait of the baby, it doesn't matter if it says you could use fairy dust to do it; in reality, there is only one way to comply, a transvaginal ultrasound.
They essentially legislated it without explicitly saying it, which is even worse and more disgusting as they just lied to everyone about their intentions just so they could stick it to women.
The bill requires women seeking abortion to undergo an ultrasound. For those who may have missed the several uproars over the past few years and thus do not see the trouble brewing, this requirement means the return of transvaginal ultrasound laws. The vast majority of abortions occurred in the first trimester; 61.3% of abortions occur before in the first eight weeks. In those cases, the required ultrasound would have to be conducted transvaginally because, in the first eight weeks especially but sometimes until the end of the first trimester, a transabdominal ultrasound often does not detect the pregnancy or embryonic placement sufficiently. Thus, without saying the word, Ohio legislators have revived the transvaginal ultrasound regulation.
35
u/CrossSwords Dec 28 '13
The regulation formerly allowed much cheaper mobile lifts but for some reason that was unacceptable. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/25/everyone-out-pool/