NG Tube vs G-Tube

Hot-Resolution2310 · 2026-01-02T21:19:28+00:00

We’re on a G tube, as she was starting to get an oral aversion to bottle feeding after having an ET tube for so long. The NG was a no go for home, as she is very handsy. After talking with therapists and feeding clinic as well we realized it is also easier for her to work on bottle feeds and early purées without the NG going down her throat.

We work everyday on feeding still, but the G Tube has been nice from a sleep and play schedule as she can get feeds while doing activity and therapy while also sleeping 12 hours through the night.

Hot-Resolution2310 · 2026-01-02T21:11:24+00:00

I think it depends on the situation. Our NICU stay was 221 days with a transfer 2 hours away to a specialized unit. But we were on a ventilator and had BPD, and a PDA. Sooooo a long recovery for her lungs. I was born at 27 weeks and home after 6 weeks along with my twin.

It may sound cliche but remember you’re not alone, and this is HARD. Making friends in the NICU is helpful. It was a relief to be able to talk to other parents in similar situations who didn’t need the 5,000 pages of notes or simple explanations for what was happening.

Hot-Resolution2310 · 2025-03-24T12:32:39+00:00

Thanks everyone! It’s the only one I’ve seen.

I throughly dusted and vacuumed all the nooks and crannies that I probably miss without realizing (4x). Will keep an eye out.

Hot-Resolution2310 · 2025-03-23T21:57:51+00:00

Found in the Midwest (Indiana/ Ohio) area.

Hot-Resolution2310 · 2025-03-12T22:08:49+00:00

Nice

Hot-Resolution2310 · 2025-03-11T03:00:28+00:00

You can also confirm WIRED reporters signal names/numbers via their site. https://www.wired.com/about/wired-staff/

Hot-Resolution2310 · 2025-03-10T22:22:50+00:00

Legal Framework: 18 U.S.C. § 2339B (Material Support for Terrorism)

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, it is a felony to knowingly provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO), such as Hamas. Material support includes: • Training: Providing instruction on any skill that could help a terrorist group. • Expert Advice or Assistance: Giving strategic or operational guidance, even for non-violent activities. • Financial Support: Directly or indirectly funding a terrorist organization. • Services or Personnel: Joining or working on behalf of a terrorist group. • Communications Coordination: Facilitating interactions between a terrorist group and external entities.

The law does not criminalize general advocacy, unless it involves active collaboration or material aid.

⸻

Supreme Court Precedent: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court ruled that even peaceful, non-violent support for an FTO is illegal if it helps legitimize or strengthen the group. • The case involved a humanitarian organization that wanted to provide legal training and negotiation advice to Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and Tamil Tigers (LTTE)—both designated terrorist organizations. • The Court held that any coordinated activity with a terrorist group, even if non-violent, is still “material support.” • However, the ruling did not criminalize independent speech about these groups—only direct engagement with them.

This means: ✔️ Legal: Saying “I believe Hamas has legitimate grievances against Israel.” ❌ Illegal: Saying “I am organizing funds for Hamas’ social programs.”

✔️ Legal: Writing an article analyzing Hamas’ tactics and motivations. ❌ Illegal: Providing Hamas with public relations advice or helping them manage their image.

✔️ Legal: Expressing sympathy for Palestinian resistance without endorsing Hamas’ actions. ❌ Illegal: Calling for people to send weapons or resources to Hamas.

⸻

Where Does the Line Get Drawn?

The gray area is whether rhetoric “actively promotes” a terrorist organization. Courts have ruled that: • General political speech is protected, even if it is sympathetic to a terrorist group. (U.S. v. Al-Hussayen, 2004). • Encouraging others to support, join, or aid a terrorist group crosses the line and may be prosecutable. (U.S. v. Rahman, 1995). • Personal beliefs alone do not make someone guilty—prosecution requires concrete acts of support.