Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest ColDayMan

Abortion

Recommended Posts

Online posting of women's abortion information challenged in Oklahoma

 

(CNN) -- A judge could determine Friday whether to allow an Oklahoma law to go forward that will post information online about women who get abortions in the state -- an act critics say would be harassment and an invasion of privacy.

 

"We don't feel that the government should be able to run a grand inquisition into women's private lives," says Jennifer Mondino, an attorney challenging the law on behalf of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/18/oklahoma.abortion/index.html


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Online posting of women's abortion information challenged in Oklahoma

 

(CNN) -- A judge in Oklahoma extended on Friday a temporary restraining order on a law that would post information online about women who get abortions in the state. In extending the restraining order, Oklahoma County District Judge Daniel Owens denied the state's motion to dismiss the case, putting the measure on hold until a February 19 hearing.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/12/18/oklahoma.abortion/index.html


"You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strict Abortion Measures Enacted in Oklahoma

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

Published: April 27, 2010

 

HOUSTON — The Oklahoma Legislature voted Tuesday to override the governor’s vetoes of two abortion measures, one of which requires women to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before getting an abortion.

 

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

 

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know what to say about this. I can't decide which measure is worse....preventing people from suing when the doctor knows their child is sick pre-birth is pretty awful though. How effed up is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know what to say about this. I can't decide which measure is worse....preventing people from suing when the doctor knows their child is sick pre-birth is pretty awful though. How effed up is that?

 

I can't speak to the first measure, but I can't possibly see a way the second measure would stand up to a court challenge. You've just statutorily waived any liability a doctor would have for not just negligent, but outright reckless behavior. I'll defer to our more esteemed legal experts to prove me wrong....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree.

 

On the first measure, I still think that people are forgetting what a psychological impact a situation like rape or incest makes on a person. I cannot believe there are no exceptions to this...its like forcing them to look at something that represents what happened to them, it seems pretty traumatic. (IMO)

 

Then again, some of the anti abortion people I know, think women who have them are irresponsible and it makes it convenient for them. Its not convenient at all....its horrible and its not an easy decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even know what to say about this. I can't decide which measure is worse....preventing people from suing when the doctor knows their child is sick pre-birth is pretty awful though. How effed up is that?

 

I can't speak to the first measure, but I can't possibly see a way the second measure would stand up to a court challenge. You've just statutorily waived any liability a doctor would have for not just negligent, but outright reckless behavior. I'll defer to our more esteemed legal experts to prove me wrong....

 

Without expressing any opinion on the moral merits of the second Oklahoma law, I actually think it's fairly clearly legal.  State governments have extremely broad latitude to define torts, a traditionally state law area.  If they want to specifically exempt conduct that would otherwise be clearly negligent, that is generally their prerogative unless it violates a specific provision of either the state's constitution, those portions of the federal constitution that are enforceable against the states, or federal statutes that are enforceable against the states notwithstanding their sovereign immunity.  I'm sure a clever plaintiff's lawyer will challenge this under the Civil Rights Act or something, but I don't think that will work in the end and I don't know what else a person who was denied information could do.

 

It may be that the only option will be to get opinions from multiple doctors.

 

Alternatively, however, I would actually see a market opportunity here: If I were an Oklahoma doctor and less inclined to lie to my patients than some who lobbied for this law, I would offer (for an extra fee, of course ... capitalism is perfectly legit in the medical profession) to waive the protections of this law, and to sign contracts to that effect with every expecting mother who came to see me.  Seriously--maybe some mothers wouldn't be interested (and those mothers probably have fewer objections to this law), but there have to be at least some Oklahoman women who would gladly pay extra for a doctor who legally committed (by contract) to telling the truth even when legally permitted (by statute) to do otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with Gramarye generally on the ability of the states to define their own torts.  However, how many doctors are honestly going to "withhold" such information and, if they did, I imagine the medical profession itself is going to have a problem with that from an ethical standpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats, Gramarye: you just made my new signature quote!

 

Heh.  I'm actually surprised.  Or was that intended to be tongue in cheek?  My Internet social IQ isn't as prodigious as my IRL mental one. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the first measure, I still think that people are forgetting what a psychological impact a situation like rape or incest makes on a person. I cannot believe there are no exceptions to this...its like forcing them to look at something that represents what happened to them, it seems pretty traumatic. (IMO)

 

I did a speech/study on abortion in college years ago and from what I remember, pregnancies are extremely rare from rapes and post-abortion anxiety/depression/sleeplessness usually outweigh the effects from the rape itself ... usually leading to regret from having the abortion.

 

Like I said, it's been a long time, but a quick google search with valid resources should overturn a few decent studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From today's Dayton Daily News.  An AP report on the so-called "Heartbeat Bill" being introduced by Ohio House Republicans:

 

Unborn child to 'testify' on Ohio abortion bill

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A fetus has been scheduled as a legislative witness in Ohio on a unique bill that proposes outlawing abortions after the first heartbeat can be medically detected. 

 

Faith2Action, the anti-abortion group that has targeted Ohio to pilot the measure, called the in-utero witness the youngest to ever come before the House Health Committee at 9 weeks old.  Ohio Right to Life has not endorsed the measure.

 

An aide to committee Chairman Lynn Wachtmann said a pregnant woman will be brought before the committee and an ultrasound image of her uterus will be projected onto a screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is probably the most retarded thing I've ever heard.  Besides, how are they able to swear in the fetuses?  Seems like that alone should prevent their 'testimony'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I heard a rumor that they will use a Koran!

 

I'm pro life, but this idea has me thinking of Idiocracy or at least an episode of Family Guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultrasound images of two fetuses shown to lawmakers during 'heartbeat bill' hearing

Updated: Thursday, March 03, 2011, 1:06 AM

By Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Live ultrasound images of two fetuses took the spotlight Wednesday in the debate over anti-abortion legislation that would be some of the most restrictive in the nation.

 

The unprecedented presentation from the wombs of two young expectant mothers was to support the so-called "heartbeat bill," which would ban abortions in Ohio as soon as a heartbeat could be detected, except in medical emergencies.

 

READ MORE: http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/03/ultrasound_images_of_two_fetus.html

 


UPDATE: There's been no word if former Miami Vice star Don Johnson will be called to testify by Ohio House Republicans.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House Bill 125

Abortion limitation creating cold feet

Some believe proposal will fail legal challenge

Monday, March 28, 2011

By Catherine Candisky, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Despite anti-abortion majorities in the House and Senate, a bill to give Ohio the most-restrictive abortion law in the nation has stalled after drawing fire from those on both sides of the debate.

 

Ohio Right to Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion advocacy group, fears House Bill 125 — to outlaw abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, generally six or seven weeks into a woman’s pregnancy — could backfire.

 

The organization says the proposed law would be struck down by the federal courts as being too restrictive, opening the door for courts to revisit other abortion restrictions, such as a requirement that women wait 24 hours after their initial clinic visit before having the procedure.

 

“While the principle behind House Bill 125 is good, this is the wrong time ...we need more votes on the (U.S. Supreme) court,” Marshal M. Pitchford, chairman of Ohio Right to Life’s board of trustees, wrote in a letter to local chapters.

 

House Speaker William G. Batchelder, R-Medina, said he is aware of the concern and will confer with legal advisers to determine whether passing such a law would help or hurt the anti-abortion efforts.

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/03/28/abortion-limitation-creating-cold-feet.html?sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate OKs abortion ban after 20 weeks

Thursday, April 7, 2011

By Jim Siegel, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Ohio took another step toward outlawing late-term abortions with yesterday's Senate approval of a bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy if a doctor determines that the fetus could live outside the womb.  The 24-8 vote was the latest in a series of actions this year on abortion-related bills in the Republican-controlled legislature.

. . .

 

The Guttmacher Institute reports that 1.5 percent of abortions are performed after the 21st week, and 88 percent are done within the first eight weeks of pregnancy.  If passed, Ohio would join 38 states with some type of limit on late-term abortions.  Two states - North Carolina and Nebraska - set their late-term abortion bans at 20 weeks, according to Guttmacher.  All others set it at "viability," at 24 weeks or at the third trimester.

. . .

 

Another proposal, known as the "heartbeat bill" because it would ban abortions after the point when a fetus's heartbeat can be detected, has passed out of a House committee but faces an uncertain future.  "It's my understanding that some of the people who originally supported it may not now," said House Speaker William G. Batchelder, R-Medina.

 

READ MORE: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/04/07/copy/senate-oks-abortion-ban-after-20-weeks.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abortion-related bills clear Ohio House

Jun 29, 2011 

 

COLUMBUS -- A bill that would impose the strictest abortion restrictions in the nation has cleared the Ohio House, along with two additional measures that would put other limits on when the procedure could be used, though the main bill's prospects are uncertain in the Senate.

 

The Republican led-House voted 54-43 to pass a bill that would ban abortions after the first detectable fetal heartbeat, which can occur as early as six weeks into pregnancy. It now goes to the GOP-controlled Senate.

 

If it's enacted into law, supporters of the so-called heartbeat bill hope to provoke a legal challenge and overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the United States. The ruling upheld a woman's right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at 22 to 24 weeks.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasich: No abortions if fetus is viable

Jul 21, 2011   

 

 

COLUMBUS (AP) -- Ohio Gov. John Kasich has signed a bill limiting access to abortion if a fetus could survive outside the womb.

 

The bill signed Wednesday requires a doctor to test a fetus' viability before performing an abortion after 20 weeks into pregnancy, and bans the procedure if there is a positive result. There is no exception for the health or life of the mother, though a doctor could use those reasons as a defense if prosecuted.

 

The anti-abortion Ohio Right to Life championed the bill and praised Kasich for signing it. Abortion rights groups call it dangerous for women.

 

Read More...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amendment to Ohio bill would ban physician assistants from inserting IUDs

Published: Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 6:00 PM    Updated: Thursday, February 16, 2012, 12:44 AM

  By Aaron Marshall, The Plain Dealer

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A bill aimed at expanding the scope of work that physician assistants can do suddenly is at the center of a heated battle over birth control.

A last-minute amendment from State Rep. Lynn Wachtmann, chairman of the House Health and Aging Committee, bans physician assistants from inserting or removing intrauterine devices, or IUDs, a common form of birth control. Currently, they are allowed to do so.

 

...

 

Wachtmann told The Plain Dealer he included the provision because of his belief that a fertilized egg is a human life. IUDs prevent pregnancies by not allowing fertilized eggs to implant in the uterus.

"I'm pro-life and I don't want to encourage any medical professionals including PAs to be able to do that," the Napoleon Republican said after the vote.

 

...

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/02/physician_assistants_would_be.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead of spending state $$ on issues like Ohio’s #OpioidCrisis, Ohio's Republicans voted for years of expensive, taxpayer-funded defense of lawsuits from an unconstitutional abortion ban.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^No way, they're not going to help the opioid issue. They want those low-income, public-resources-consuming drugged hillbillies dead.

 

The GOP will lose their electorate.


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a physician I find this bill terrifying. Politicians who have no understanding of medicine should not be making these decisions. If this goes through it will result in the death of mothers. There are certain conditions, such as preeclampsia and eclampsia, that are life threatening (multi-organ failure) to the mother. The only treatment that will stop these conditions is delivery if late enough in the pregnancy, or abortion if the gestation is too short. If a mother has the beginnings of multi-organ failure, but the fetus is not far along enough to survive delivery, but is at the point where there is a heartbeat, what then? If the abortion is not allowed, the mother and the fetus will die together. Politicians like to say "oh, they can just go to another state", which is bull. What if the family is too poor to travel? What if the mother is in such bad shape that she cannot be transferred across state lines? She will die and the fetus will die. Many times this is what people refer to as 'late-term abortions". It's not women who decide late into the pregnancy "oh I change my mind! JK! LOL". It's terribly difficult, excruciating, life and death decisions. This bill has no measure to protect the life of the mother. It leaves it up to the physician to make that their defense in court. Thanks guys. Because of your tunnel vision and lack of understanding of real medical conditions you will cause people to either die or for physicians to go to court for saving a life, when the other option was to just sit back and watch someone die, because of "Pro-Life" BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a child in the early 1970s, my mother took me to anti-abortion marches sponsored by the Catholic church.  The graphic images of mutilated fetuses gave me nightmares, and thinking about it still makes me sick.  And today I am firmly pro life.   

 

Many years later, I met my wife, who was also a practicing Catholic.  When she began making money, she started donating money to Planned Parenthood.  I was surprised and when asked, she said that PP was there for her when she needed help when she was younger.

 

Later my wife had several miscarriages, and two successful pregnancies.  But she also had other illnesses and was in the hospital often.  One of her miscarriages was while she was very sick in the hospital and it was actually an abortion performed to help save her life.  I've been in the room discussing these life and death decisions with the mother and physician and they are difficult and complicated... and POLITICIANS SHOULD NOT GET INVOLVED AT ALL.  It is complicated, it is personal, and it is a woman's body, her health and she is making decisions that will change or possibly end her life.  I will never vote for the scum that score political points on this issue, never.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What is the objective?

 

minimize abortion, eventually relegate it to the past. Right now, promoting adoption, contraceptives, and offering other types of family planning services are effective. Give people alternatives and explain why the alternatives are much more palpable is one way to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely a libertarian in the sense of an individuals freedom to make choices regarding his/her own body.  I hate abortions and could never imagine having to experience one, but I'm not going to make that choice any harder for people who are faced with it.  What goes in and out of your body is your own business, and certainly not a place for the government to regulate.  I can't and won't cherry pick when that principle is applicable or not.  That said, there certainly is a line in which an abortion should not be performed, and I'm not sure Roe v. Wade got it right.  I just don't trust anyone who is totally against abortion to draw that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A recent line seems to be the point at which a fetus starts to feel pain. Utah just passed a law requiring doctors to provide anesthesia to the fetus anytime after 20 weeks gestation. Most researchers however believe that they usually wouldn't feel anything until the third trimester.

 

http://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely a libertarian in the sense of an individuals freedom to make choices regarding his/her own body.  I hate abortions and could never imagine having to experience one, but I'm not going to make that choice any harder for people who are faced with it.  What goes in and out of your body is your own business, and certainly not a place for the government to regulate.  I can't and won't cherry pick when that principle is applicable or not.  That said, there certainly is a line in which an abortion should not be performed, and I'm not sure Roe v. Wade got it right.  I just don't trust anyone who is totally against abortion to draw that line.

 

I believe there is debate in the libertarian platform on this issue. I tend to be libertarian on many issues and I am able to square that with being pro-life, however, I do understand how other libertarians may disagree with this too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm definitely a libertarian in the sense of an individuals freedom to make choices regarding his/her own body.  I hate abortions and could never imagine having to experience one, but I'm not going to make that choice any harder for people who are faced with it.  What goes in and out of your body is your own business, and certainly not a place for the government to regulate.  I can't and won't cherry pick when that principle is applicable or not.  That said, there certainly is a line in which an abortion should not be performed, and I'm not sure Roe v. Wade got it right.  I just don't trust anyone who is totally against abortion to draw that line.

 

I'm pro-choice myself, but I think the fundamental difference is that pro-lifers don't view it as "what" but "who." If you are religious or otherwise believe in a "soul" of sorts and think that life begins at conception, you aren't restricting the rights of anyone at all by banning abortion - you're protecting the rights of someone. I'm a rather godless man myself so I don't align with that view, but I respect it and understand it, and I'd still vote against it if given the option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...