SABCS boycott due to Texas Abortion Law

[Gfunk6]

Call for a Move or Boycott of Big Texas Cancer Meeting

Oncologists are calling for this year's San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium to be moved out of Texas in response to the state's new abortion law, and a boycott of in-person attendance if no move happens.

www.medscape.com

The funny thing is that they are not proposing a true boycott, just planning to attend on-line rather than in-person. That type of "protest" won't fly with ASTRO as there is no discount for attending online anyway so they get paid the same regardless.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted1111261]

This type of “activism” doesn’t hurt the people you want it to hurt. It hurts vendors, small business owners, restaurant/food services people- people that are probably on your side in the first place.

 

[Gfunk6]

This type of “activism” doesn’t hurt the people you want it to hurt. It hurts vendors, small business owners, restaurant/food services people- people that are probably on your side in the first place.

Well, that's true. But the idea is that is enough business owners in the state lose business they will complain to the legislators and get the law repealed. That's the idea anyway.

 

[deleted1111261]

Well, that's true. But the idea is that is enough business owners in the state lose business they will complain to the legislators and get the law repealed. That's the idea anyway.

I find that these is the least effective way to get things done. It's tantamount to a tantrum.

 

[RSAOaky]

I agree with Simul on this one. San Antonio is a relatively blue city in a sea of red, so you're statistically more likely to negatively impact people that actually agree with you than those who don't.

 

[TheWallnerus]

We need doctors being social justice warriors like we need social justice warriors being doctors.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

We need doctors being social justice warriors like we need social justice warriors being doctors.

I'm not sure I agree with this in general, however... more specifically, this law targets doctors with punitive monetary damages for performing an entirely legal procedure at the request of one of their patients.

I think physician advocacy is entirely appropriate here.

The law is tantamount to me being able to sue you for not treating elective nodes on the last breast cancer patient you saw.

 

[OTN]

I'm not sure I agree with this in general, however... more specifically, this law targets doctors with punitive monetary damages for performing an entirely legal procedure at the request of one of their patients.

I'm by no means arguing in favor of the new Texas law, which I disagree with. However, after the passing and signing of the bill, your statement "for performing an entirely legal procedure" is no longer correct.

Whether or not the state law will survive the inevitable Supreme Court challenge is another matter entirely.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

I'm by no means arguing in favor of the new Texas law, which I disagree with. However, after the passing and signing of the bill, your statement "for performing an entirely legal procedure" is no longer correct.

Whether or not the state law will survive the inevitable Supreme Court challenge is another matter entirely.

"criminally legal"

In general court parlance, I think "illegal" typically implies a criminal violation.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Call me a SJW, but I don't really have an issue with this if it's what the majority of attendees want. Same with any group or medical society, like say ACOG, that focuses on women's health issues.

Now, the fact it'll still be held on site and these folks are going to "boycott", meaning that they're going to pay for online access, that's silliness. If you're going to boycott don't give them any money until they relocate.

 

[deleted1111261]

It's not "illegal" to not treat lymph nodes.

I don't know or claim to be right - i just don't see these type of boycotts "being the change".

Also, don't love vigilante-esque way of handling this issue. Going to be very interesting.

 

[TheWallnerus]

i just don't see these type of boycotts "being the change".

About as effective as racing for the cure IMHO

 

[ROforbetterorworse]

Call for a Move or Boycott of Big Texas Cancer Meeting

Oncologists are calling for this year's San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium to be moved out of Texas in response to the state's new abortion law, and a boycott of in-person attendance if no move happens.

www.medscape.com

The funny thing is that they are not proposing a true boycott, just planning to attend on-line rather than in-person. That type of "protest" won't fly with ASTRO as there is no discount for attending online anyway so they get paid the same regardless.

Makes more sense to boycott the meeting itself

Doubt SABCS cares as long as they are getting paid 1 way or the other (virtual vs in person). They will make some bland PR statement

Yes, important to have small business owners reaching out to the state legislators, but SABCS probably has even more money than them

SABCS also jointly sponsored by the UTHSC in SA, AACR and Baylor

Now if SABCS and their sponsors bottom line hit, then maybe they will try for advocacy that actually may have some impact?

 

[Mandelin Rain]

It's not "illegal" to not treat lymph nodes.

Nor is performing an abortion in Texas after 6 weeks, from the standpoint that neither the state nor any of it's agencies can intervene in any way to stop it. In fact, the statute expressly forbids the government from doing so.

It is a statute that allows private citizens to sue other citizens if they perform such an abortion.

It is as arbitrary as allowing citizens the space to sue doctors that wear red socks or refuse to treat lymph nodes in breast cancer cases with nodal positivity.

 

[deleted1111261]

Nor is performing an abortion in Texas after 6 weeks, from the standpoint that neither the state nor any of it's agencies can intervene in any way to stop it. In fact, the statute expressly forbids the government from doing so.

It is a statute that allows private citizens to sue other citizens if they perform such an abortion.

It is as arbitrary as allowing citizens the space to sue doctors that wear red socks or refuse to treat lymph nodes in breast cancer cases with nodal positivity.

Still not same as LN example as there is no statute for that.

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Still not same as LN example as there is no statute for that.

Of course there isn't. It's a hypothetical. Read the statute. Replace "abortion after 6 weeks" with "wear red socks" or "refusal to treat axillary nodes".

Either is entirely possible, if this is set as precedent.

 

[deleted1111261]

Of course there isn't. It's a hypothetical.

If they think that boycotting will help their cause, legitimately, and are okay with collateral damage to people just trying to live their lives, then I guess that’s their choice. The logic is fascinating. Do we now all boycott all thing Texas? Getting treatment at MDACC (that would be popular here)? Cowboys games? Breakfast tacos in Austin? Should we stop watching Friday Night Lights?

 

[Mandelin Rain]

Let people do what they want, I guess. If a group of women's health doctors feel strongly about women's health and protecting doctors' rights, I think it's entirely appropriate to boycott the women's health conference in the state that is targeting women's health doctors,

If the NRA was holding a conference in Vermont and Vermont allowed citizens to sue other citizens $10k for possessing a gun, NRA members would probably also boycott. BTW, another possible scenario if this is precedent.

 

[deleted1111261]

Let people do what they want, I guess. If a group of women's health doctors feel strongly about women's health and protecting doctors' rights, I think it's entirely appropriate to boycott the women's health conference in that state,

If the NRA was holding a conference in Vermont and Vermont allowed citizens to sue other citizens $10k for possessing a gun, NRA members would probably also boycott. BTW, another possible scenario if this is precedent.

i mean that’s where it has to go… to show what a joke the statute is

 

[TheWallnerus]

If they think that boycotting will help their cause, legitimately, and are okay with collateral damage to people just trying to live their lives, then I guess that’s their choice. The logic is fascinating. Do we now all boycott all thing Texas? Getting treatment at MDACC (that would be popular here)? Cowboys games? Breakfast tacos in Austin? Should we stop watching Friday Night Lights?

I liked Bette Midler's suggestion

 

[DoctwoB]

These kind of protests send a message; which is the exact point of protests. Not sure if moving a small medical conference moves the needle like baseball pulling the all star game or something, but it creates a background as part of a movement that allow opponents to point how the states policies are costing them business. Plenty of voters want politicians to stay out of social issues and focus on Main Street, and this drives home that one effects the other. Also remember protest is not just to cause harm but to sooth ones own conscience. I don’t want my money supporting Texas business and paying Texas taxes.

As for hurting businesses, that is true, but it also true that if your conference is somewhere else it will boost business there. It is a zero sum game. So might as well spend that money where feels right to you.

 

[deleted1111261]

It’s true - people can do what they want. So many states do things that 48-52% of us find to be wrong. And if we boycotted everything, everything would be virtual. And that would be lame. Voice your displeasure with the TX legislature, send money to blue causes, vote in better people…

If Louisiana passes a copycat law, we done with NOLA? What about Florida?

Friends, I’m just not going to be stuck going to Boston or Philly for conferences. Ugh.

 

[DoctwoB]

It’s true - people can do what they want. So many states do things that 48-52% of us find to be wrong. And if we boycotted everything, everything would be virtual. And that would be lame. Voice your displeasure with the TX legislature, send money to blue causes, vote in better people…

If Louisiana passes a copycat law, we done with NOLA? What about Florida?

Friends, I’m just not going to be stuck going to Boston or Philly for conferences. Ugh.

If it keeps conferences out of Orlando I’ll be all for it.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

It’s true - people can do what they want. So many states do things that 48-52% of us find to be wrong. And if we boycotted everything, everything would be virtual. And that would be lame. Voice your displeasure with the TX legislature, send money to blue causes, vote in better people…

If Louisiana passes a copycat law, we done with NOLA? What about Florida?

Friends, I’m just not going to be stuck going to Boston or Philly for conferences. Ugh.

I for one, as a pro-lifer, am very pleased by the TX decision, but would not call ASTRO to move their meetings in support of such measures to states that pass similar laws, tying themselves to one political party. There is much wisdom, though many of us are passionate on both sides, to keep national oncology organizations non-partisan. As individuals yes, but SABCS should not.

 

[evilbooyaa]

It’s true - people can do what they want. So many states do things that 48-52% of us find to be wrong. And if we boycotted everything, everything would be virtual. And that would be lame. Voice your displeasure with the TX legislature, send money to blue causes, vote in better people…

If Louisiana passes a copycat law, we done with NOLA? What about Florida?

Friends, I’m just not going to be stuck going to Boston or Philly for conferences. Ugh.

There will be discrepancy of opinion on this. The Texas anti-abortion law is pretty bad, IMO, and flies relatively strongly in the face of Roe v Wade. Sueing a lyft driver for driving a person to an abortion?

Individuals should be allowed to boycott for whatever they want. While you're welcome to disagree, it doesn't really matter. To me this is doubly relevant because it's a BREAST CANCER conference. Something that happens nearly all the time to women, not to men. And a new law that flies in the face of WOMEN'S reproductive rights progress that has been made since Roe v Wade and seems to give no quarter for exceptions in the setting of medical risk to the mother or for instances of pregnancy as a result of a criminal act... well yeah a lot of people that are pro-choice at baseline are going to be pretty pissed at the state as a whole.

I would feel similarly if ACOG held their yearly conference in Texas. But if IASLC, RRS, or even the ASTRO year meeting was in Texas, would it be as strong of a "lol wtf"? Probably not.

Boycott to me doesn't mean be virtual, it means hit the meeting in the pocket book and have them consider holding it at a venue outside of Texas. Companies/Organizations (mostly) don't care about social justice until it starts hitting their pocket book or their sense of self-worth.

 

[SneakyBooger]

Oh great, a political discussion.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Oh great, a political discussion.

Agreed, let's keep close to the vest about SABCS and oncology in general and not go full political thread like in the past.

 

[RadOncMegatron]

There will be discrepancy of opinion on this. The Texas anti-abortion law is pretty bad, IMO, and flies relatively strongly in the face of Roe v Wade. Sueing a lyft driver for driving a person to an abortion?

Individuals should be allowed to boycott for whatever they want. While you're welcome to disagree, it doesn't really matter. To me this is doubly relevant because it's a BREAST CANCER conference. Something that happens nearly all the time to women, not to men. And a new law that flies in the face of WOMEN'S reproductive rights progress that has been made since Roe v Wade and seems to give no quarter for exceptions in the setting of medical risk to the mother or for instances of pregnancy as a result of a criminal act... well yeah a lot of people that are pro-choice at baseline are going to be pretty pissed at the state as a whole.

I would feel similarly if ACOG held their yearly conference in Texas. But if IASLC, RRS, or even the ASTRO year meeting was in Texas, would it be as strong of a "lol wtf"? Probably not.

Boycott to me doesn't mean be virtual, it means hit the meeting in the pocket book and have them consider holding it at a venue outside of Texas. Companies/Organizations (mostly) don't care about social justice until it starts hitting their pocket book or their sense of self-worth.

Remember it’s reproductive rights only for 1/2 the country and infanticide for the other half. One side doesn’t consider these as legitimate rights “endowed by Our Creator” (side point where do rights come from? The US Supreme Court?) and the other doesn’t believe it is murder at all. Just like many issues there is no consensus. If there was it wouldn’t be a highly charged political issue. It is what it is a very divisive issue, I just want you to consider then for this thread, given the virtual absence of any politician or high profile democrat that is pro-life, why doesn’t SABCS just overtly support the Democratic Party and overtly be politically hostile to their conservative members? The answer is obvious it’s because we have breast cancer patients about 50/50 on this issue. Let’s not bring this political mess to them…


Edit: I don’t want to debate whether abortion is or is not a human right here (well I do but just DM me…lol) but it should be beyond debate pro-lifers believe it is not and pro-choice do not believe they are committing infanticide.

 

[evilbooyaa]

I respect your opinions and agree with your post in its entirety. I do not expect or want SABCS as an organization to boycott Texas because of the law, becuase you're right, organizations should be apolitical on controversial issues to avoid alienation of upwards of 50% of their membership.

It is not SABCS (the organization) that is boycotting the meeting. It is certain, individual, oncologists that are calling for it. Those oncologists likely are pro-choice. I hope we can agree that this is OK. SABCS (to date) has not made any statement beyond "we are looking into this". It's basically just somebody on twitter who got a bunch of likes/re-tweets, including a few prominent other breast cancer oncologists. And again, their method is not one I agree with (don't give the organization any money).

 

[RadOncMegatron]

I respect your opinions and agree with your post in its entirety. I do not expect or want SABCS as an organization to boycott Texas because of the law, becuase you're right, organizations should be apolitical on controversial issues to avoid alienation of upwards of 50% of their membership.

It is not SABCS (the organization) that is boycotting the meeting. It is certain, individual, oncologists that are calling for it. Those oncologists likely are pro-choice. I hope we can agree that this is OK. SABCS (to date) has not made any statement beyond "we are looking into this". It's basically just somebody on twitter who got a bunch of likes/re-tweets, including a few prominent other breast cancer oncologists. And again, their method is not one I agree with (don't give the organization any money).

I’m glad it’s not SABCS. On a topic this divisive, it’s no surprise some individuals would be so passionate. So all good 👍

 

[thecarbonionangle]

SABC and ASTRO should get cancelled because they are not woke enough. How woke? NOT ENOUGH!

 

[IrvingJones]

I respect your opinions and agree with your post in its entirety. I do not expect or want SABCS as an organization to boycott Texas because of the law, becuase you're right, organizations should be apolitical on controversial issues to avoid alienation of upwards of 50% of their membership.

It is not SABCS (the organization) that is boycotting the meeting. It is certain, individual, oncologists that are calling for it. Those oncologists likely are pro-choice. I hope we can agree that this is OK. SABCS (to date) has not made any statement beyond "we are looking into this". It's basically just somebody on twitter who got a bunch of likes/re-tweets, including a few prominent other breast cancer oncologists. And again, their method is not one I agree with (don't give the organization any money).


I read a lot of correspondence, articles and studies that relate to abortion and I understand how important this is for the whole world and for the US population in particular. On the site graduateway.com/abortion-essay-topics/ I found a lot of article topics and essays on the topic of abortion and decided to write a few as well.

I absolutely agree with you.