Please enlighten me on how I misinterpreted what you typed.

I said:
You said:
Unless you interpret these undesirables who break into my car as rampant pregnant mothers on a spree (which wouldn't make a whole lot of sense), you didn't read my statements.

Undesirables aren't the only people who get abortions. Perfectly desirable people do as well.

However, even perfectly desirable people who are not financially able to have kids and do, cause undesirable kids....who break into my car and steal stuff. Thus, undesirable children are born. I'm not sure how this doesn't make sense to you, but somehow I'm not surprised.

I hope you are aware that the "desirables" can (and sometimes do) have children who would also break into your car and steal stuff.

He's just doing a bad job of highlighting a link between legalizing abortion in the 70s and a decrease in the crime rate in major cities reported in "Freakonomics."

Of course - that's completely irrelevant to the issue though.

This is a total side-track to the thread (which is why I didn't pursue it further), but if you search, there are plenty of papers espousing the link between Roe v. Wade and reduced crime rates. Freakonomics also made the argument front-and-center. The issue isn't that poor people, or single parents, or any other crime correlates are the ones who have all the abortions - it's that the wide availability of relatively cheap abortions made those groups the largest increase in abortions, because they lacked any access before.

Less at-risk babies = less at-risk youth = ... and so on. The irony I alluded to earlier is that a good number who are gung-ho "SAVE THE BABIES!" wouldn't step foot in the poor part of town to cash a check and are in favor of denying poor folks health care. Why not just start earlier? [/cynicism]

There's no safe place to draw a line, as long as a fetus is dependent upon the woman's body to live, there is no ethical reason to force her to use her body to support another human life. The only argument people have is that she deserves it which, since neither pregnancy or a child is 'punishment' is specious at best.

I agree. Quite frankly the idea that women who have abortions aren't taking responsibility for their actions is ridiculous. Isn't it the definition of taking responsibility? Were I to find out I was pregnant tomorrow it is probably the choice I would make for multiple reasons - financial, relationship, living arrangements, etc. I'm not bringing a child into this world who I can't take care of, and I'm not going to bring a child into the world who I would unfairly resent for existing. If and when I have children it will be because my partner and I have agreed we want children. I'm not going to be pregnant for 9 months just to give a baby up for adoption, I wouldn't trust that I'd follow through and I'd probably never forgive myself for giving him/her up either.

And, I use birth control, condoms, Plan B, and in the past Depo. But none of that is 100% fullproof. I'm not going, nor do I expect others, to live up to the standards of groups like the Catholic Church where sex is only for procreation, and if you do it then you 'deserve' the consequences. But even having taken every reasonable precaution, I could still be pregnant. Abortion is birth control in the very literal sense of the word. It's not something people go do for fun, it's being responsible, just like how taking Plan B is responsible, or using condoms is responsible. Just because some people disagree with that choice, doesn't make it LESS responsible.


[/quote]I agree this case is horrific. I hope it serves as an example of what happens when access to reproductive choice is blocked for those who need it most.[/QUOTE]
Word.
Weak troll.
My people are never responsible for their own actions max. Centuries of irresponsibility, that's what my people are known for.
This is a correlation/causation problem though and not something that I think can have a true link drawn through it, although I've tended to avoid some of that literature.

It may well be - crime statistics are obviously VERY complex, and nobody has a firm grasp on the root causes of criminal behavior.

Still though, the correlation is interesting at worst.

This, though, I agree with completely:

Similarly, using anything other than viability to define what constitutes a 'person' really relies on some sort of God-imbued "spirit" or other, similar source of human-hood, something that creates a very difficult situation for basis of law.

When I was there (born and raised), I spent most of my days hanging out with friends, maximizing our time together on or near the playground, and playing basketball outside of our school. Occasionally, a couple of dudes who were from the wrong side of the tracks started engaging us in fisticuffs in our neighborhood.

Fortunately for me, after one such brouhaha, my mom got scared, and sent me to live with my auntie and uncle in Bel Air.

Win.

Cool story.

Sort of back on track - and ignoring the whole abortion-is-it-murder debate - When efforts have been put forth to restrict abortions to hospitals or more advanced (i.e. - not a mere doctor's office) health facitilities it has been fought by many of the pro-abortion groups. I would argue that this is a convincing case for at LEAST increased oversight. The fact that this doctor was allowed to operate for YEARS is an absolute disgrace.

This doctor wasn't running a legit clinic in the first place though, correct? Illegal clinics are illegal now and would be just as illegal under further restrictions, but still, obviously, exist either way. How would adding additional regulation to legal clinics prevent the illegality of what this guy was doing already?

In short, he was already breaking the law, I'm not sure making a new law would actually do anything but make abortion harder to access, which then makes people more likely to seek out this sort of doctor in the first place.

Looks like it started out as "legit" - it was licensed in 1979. From the CNN report:

"
Originally, he said, the clinic used another doctor as a consultant so it could receive a license to perform abortions in 1979.
Two primary state agencies, the Department of Health and the Department of State, have oversight, Williams said Wednesday at a news conference.
But a grand jury investigation found that health and licensing officials had received repeated reports about Gosnell's dangerous practices for two decades with no action taken, even after the agencies learned that women had died during routine abortions under Gosnell's care, the district attorney's statement said."

Ah, sounds like a definite failure by the DH/DS in PA then. But I think the same query applies, does adding more regulation actually fix the problem in this case? I'm not sure it actually would have. Following the current regulations SHOULD have shut him down. (Was the third decade run underground or was his first decade in practice actually 'clean' ?). Restricting abortion to hospitals or similar facilities would be devastating to access for women, so does the law actually cause the problem it would intend to stop? It seems to me that it would.

Likewise some very financially well off people have had kids who became undesirable...
Let's start with....uuuuuuuhhh

COLUMBINE SHOOTERS?

Flipside at your argument about people not being well off...but yet producing 'desirable' role models

Benjamin Carson??


Your argument for finance and the ability to produce 'undesirable' kids is just dumb and insulting.

Um how? The bolded is where we disagree. I think women of every social class and age and in every state should be able to have an abortion for any reason at any time until viability free of harassment from protestors, biased counseling, parental notification, and mandatory waiting periods. Fewer restricitions and lower costs of EARLY abortions will eliminate/greatly reduce the need for LATE abortions, and if late abortions are needed for medical reasons, they can be performed at a safe reputable licensed regulated place.

ETA: When you said "too high" did you mean "too high" according to your moral beliefs or "too high" to be believable? At first I thought you meant the latter, but I am guessing now you meant the former.

At what point does the "right" to a medical procedure trump the right for it to be regulated? I have a "right" to have my eyebrows waxed, but the state of TX regulates it - only licensed cosmetologists can do it, and their places of business are inspected and must meet certain standards.
It sounds like you are arguing for a moral reason for not changing the regulations while I am arguing, admittedly using a very unusual case, that there may be medical reasons for requiring facitilites to be held to a higher standard. I'd like the statistics for the incidence of clients at out-patient clinics having complications. I know of an abortion doctor's office here in Houston (now closed) that was well-known for having ambulances come to pick up patients on a rather frighteningly constant basis, but know of no place to get city/state/national statistics for that. Those would be useful.
(eta - it's easy to find statistics about complications in general - it's just not easy to find them broken down by hospital vs. out-patient or doctors' offices.)

Abortion Clinics ARE regulated. Licenses are required. They have regulations they must follow. The problem here is that the Department of Health didn't follow up with complaints. I think Drole's point is that if you aren't going to follow the regulations you have already set up, what's the point in legislating new rules, which may further restrict access, if your original rules aren't being followed in the first place? Safe practices can be followed just like in regular doctors' offices that perform procedures. I perform biopsies everyday in my office. The Health Department was just here today checking us out. Further intrusion on the Doctor/Patient relationship is not needed. However, I expect that reports of major complications, much less deaths due to in office procedures should prompt a swift investigation.

This would be a weird place to say "please let me have your babies" right? Even if it were just a euphemism for how much I love what you said? Yeah, it'd probably be weird.

First, I think conflating eyebrow waxing with medical care is just wrong. Secondly, I believe that medical care should be regulated based on medical necessity. For example, requiring women to see ultrasounds prior to an abortion is intentionally emotionally manipulative and a delaying tactic. It does nothing for the actual needs or safety of the mother and is purely a political regulation. Similarly if the level of regulation is more than is needed then you are limiting access to care. If all flu shots had to be provided in a doctor's office, and could never be provided in a pharmacy or a school or nursing home then far fewer people would gets shots, right? But obviously open heart surgery requires an OR, multiple medical professionals, and sterile equipment so doing that at Walgreens would be a bad idea.
I'm actually making the argument that the standards are actually in place and the goverment regulatory departments failed to uphold them in this unusual case. Which is why unusual cases are generally poor grounds for changing laws yet still frequently the only thing that spurs changes in laws.

Now if well-regulated clinics are having persistent medical complications that go beyond those expected then there is probably a case to be made, but as you said, I don't know where there statistics are either and in lieu of them I'm not willing to make the argument to increase regulations.

You beat me, but this. Unless the current standards when upheld are truly unsafe, I wouldn't advocate making them more restrictive.

DF - the eyebrow waxing is actually a better example than it might first appear. The rationale behind the regulations of cosmetology is often medical - you can hurt someone, so it is in the interest of the state to regulate it. Currently in Texas there is a debate about threading - cosmetologists argue that it must be done only in licensed facilities, while many argue that because the potential for injury is so slight it is fine to have it done in, for example, malls.
I'd say comparing abortion regulations to those applied to flu shots is more of a stretch. Flu shots have no demonstrated risk that would necessitate they only be given in hospitals. Again, we need firm data.
I don't buy the "ultrasounds are only a delaying tactic" argument. The stage of development does impact what can and can't medically be done. Informed decision is a component of every surgical procedure - if women are to make a choice, shouldn't they have as much information as possible? (rhetorical question) And just because a woman might have an emotional response doesn't mean she shouldn't still understand exactly what will happen in an operation. I dealt with a breast cancer scare - my reaction was VERY emotional, but I still had to deal with the realities of the situation and the possible procedures. I needed all the information in order to make an informed choice. That's true for all medical decisions.
Even Roe v. Wade distinguishes between the three trimesters in terms of balancing the rights of a pregnant woman and the rights of the fetus. I think we see this recognition in the fact that studies have shown a higher percentage of support for abortion on demand in the first trimester than the second or third.
It seems to me that viability is a common accepted line of demarcation - not for the black/white, abortion-on-demand-until-the-baby-crowns camp and the no-abortion-ever-no-matter-what crowds, admittedly. The problem of course is that viability is much earlier today than back in 1979.A former student had a daughter who weighed 1 1/2 lbs., 4 months early. She and the baby are now home and the baby is doing very well.

I think one thing we can agree on is that without objective data it is hard to argue convincingly for EITHER side of increased/decreased regulation. (Look at me underailing the thread). Perhaps this horrific incident can result in a close look at the data so the public CAN decide whether or not increased regulation, or a revamping of enforcement , is necessary.

I'm not denying that eyebrow waxing doesn't require some safety, but you missed that I wasn't comparing flu shots to abortions, I was pointing out that flu shots and surgeries are regulated entirely differently based on medical safety and needs. Abortion, both medical and surgical, should be regulated to that same standard, it should not have increased regulation because of an extraordinary case or because of political reasons.
The laws require that the doctor show a woman the ultrasound, not that they do an ultrasound for the purposes of the procedure. You're reading what I'm saying wrong. And rhetorical or no, when you pass a law requiring a woman to see her ultrasounds prior to abortion, you don't care about her informed consent. That's not informed consent, that's intentional, paternalistic, misogynistic, manipulation of someone trying to get a medical procedure that you disagree with. No one passes a law requiring the patient to watch their own colonoscopy prior to a biopsy or surgery on their colon, right?

Were you required to view pictures of your breasts? Or (with some creative license to mirror the emotional effect of ultrasounds) were you required to view a sketch of what your chest might look like with a double mastectomy? If you think there isn't the intent to influence a woman's choices not an intent to inform behind those laws then you're missing something.

Thing is, that such young infants are still the exception rather than the rule. That's why though people may say "oh yes third trimester is wrong" there's no hard and fast line. Again this ignores when the abortion is sought due to genetic/medical problems that would result in a stillbirth or an infant dying shortly after birth.

Honestly I'd rather it not be the public, but the medical profession, that's just me though.

My well-researched reply ended up being an editing nightmare, so here's the Reader's Digest Condensed version:
1.) Yes, I was shown the "pictures" of my breasts, as well as my ureters when I had exploratory surgery on them. I know of women who were shown pictures of the outcomes of various breast cancer treatments - so they would know what they were getting into in terms of physical outcomes. I would never have surgery without having seen all of the relevent data, shown to me by a doctor who could "read" the x-rays, ultrasounds, etc.
2.) It's subjective to call requiring an ultrasound "paternalistic, misogynistic, manipulation". The ultrasound will show the stage and completion of development and position of the fetus - all of which can affect medical care.
3.) Couldn't find the stats for percentage of abortions due to genetic defects. Advances in medicine mean that babies like Lillian Grace are becoming the rule, not the exception, more and more. I know of at least 7 premies in my limited field of friends who were/are perfectly fine. It's still a crapshoot, but being a premie is no longer a death sentence or 100% chance of disability.
4.) It's a political issue, voted on in many cases, so restricting the information to the medical profession would be counter-productive. At least in Philadelphia something with the enforcement of the current regulations went horribly wrong - what we need to know is how to prevent this from happening anywhere.

Having the option to see the ultrasound would be one thing. Requiring it is emotionally manipulative...I definitely agree with Drole on that one. A woman could make the decision to have an abortion given all information in written form...the ultrasound should be an option.

Were you required to see them even if you didn't want to? By law?
Which is NOT what the law says. What part of a politician telling a woman that she MUST view an ultrasound of her fetus before she can get an abortion is NOT paternalistic, misogynist or an attempt at manipulation? Again this is not about a doctor being required to view an ultrasound for medical reasons, this is about a requirement on a patient.
Of course it's not a 100% chance of disability, but that wasn't my point. One of the major reasons you can't just say X weeks is the absolute cut off is that there is a lot of gray area. In addition, if a fetus is now "viable" but is only 24 weeks do you allow the woman to induce delivery so she can give birth and then abandon the child to the care of the state, or do you force her to carry it longer?

I'm making a second post with some data I did find.

I'm not saying restrict the information to the medical profession, I'm saying that medical professionals should make the decisions about medical care, not politicians (particularly not male politicians who REALLY have no right telling a woman what to do with her body). I'd rather that my medical care, whether abortions or surgery not go up for a public vote.

From preemie.info:
It looks like 23-25 weeks has had a lot of increases in survival rate, yet have a very broad range for chances of survival which suggests to me that this age is probably where a lot of the serious complications occur.

Facts about Induced Abortion
This site cites its sources well and appears to be relatively unbiased to me. They appear to be a legitimate site. It is dated Jan. 2011.
So when we talk about late term abortions, we're talking about less than 2% of all abortions.
So, in short, poorer women, women in their twenties, and women who have had at least one child represent the majority of women who have an abortion. The statistics about race are a bit confusing since there are likely more white women than there are black or hispanic women the numbers there are not proportional.

So, it is riskier to have a later term abortion, and even more so for a 'late-term' abortion. But money and the amount of time it takes to get an abortion are the primary reasons people had a "delay" in getting an abortion. That's across the board remember, not just for late-term abortions as that is only 2% of all abortions.

Is that you madmax? Still obsessed with Philly huh? You must have gotten your ass whooped, jumped, robbed, or something...LMMFAO!!!!

Shhh I'm waiting to hear more about how irresponsible my people are.

The part that bothers me about the ultrasound is that the woman cannot look away or close her eyes during the procedure. While the staging is really important, as you have said , for medical care and SHOULD be done, the woman should be allowed to look away or close here eyes if she so chooses.

That's the part that seems paternalistic, misogynistic, and manipulative to me. It's not the medical ultrasound: it's the fact that the law is attempting to make her change her mind by looking at the baby and its beating heart. It's a law designed to delay care and the person administering the ultrasound is required to make sure the patient watches the ultrasound the entire time.


(I, by the way, am not sure if I am pro-choice or pro-life, but this law just doesn't sit well with me.)

LOL really? He hailed a taxi and when it approached the license plate said "Fresh" and it had a game piece hanging from the mirror. If anything, he could see that this taxi was unusually but he thought "fugettabahdit" said said "take me home to Bel Air."

Every time I try and post weird stuff happens. This is my third attempt - if it doesn't work I give up. Drole - I know you aren't going to change my mind, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to change yours, so I don't want to continue to go back and forth. I am very familiar with your arguments - when I was avidly "pro-choice" I made them myself.

So back on topic - DF, if increased regulations aren't the answer, what should PA do as far as enforcing current ones? Should oversight go to another state/federal body?

Really. You think that as a lay person you can really look at a x-ray, CT, ultrasound and decide if you need a procedure? You are using the information given to you by the physician. The exam could be completely normal, especially in the case of US (which is very user dependent and results in pseudolesions especially in breast quite frequently), and if the MD told you it was abnormal, even another MD who isn't a radiologist wouldn't know they were wrong. How are you as an untrained person supposed to know what you are looking at? It may make you feel better that you saw all of your films, but for informed consent, it is completely unnecessary for a patient to see all of their studies before an exam. I get informed consent from patients 5 times a day and actually show patients their films very infrequently. When I do show it to them, they have no idea what they are looking at. If I wanted to, I could point anything out to them as an abnormality, and they'd have no idea I was wrong. At some point, you have to trust what your physician is telling you. Informed consent is about telling you the risks and benefits of the procedure, giving you alternatives for treatment and answering any questions you have. It's not about show and tell.

Exactly. I've had X-Rays to determine if I had irregularities related to a health condition. I didn't ask to look at the prints because I didn't need to. All I needed was the doctor to confirm that there were no irregularities and give me more details. Had I ended up needing a procedure, that wouldn't have changed. What am I going to see on that print that I NEED to see to make a decision? I would have no idea whatsoever what I was looking at either way. I do hope I am never in a position where I have to make the decision to have an abortion or not, but I do know seeing an ultrasound wouldn't be necessary to make the decision. And I absolutely object to being forced to see it. It IS MEANT to be manipulative. I was not forced to see my X-Ray, and wouldn't have been forced to see it even if I had needed a procedure. Why is this different?

I thought I was rather clear the first time I brought it up. However, see NYtimes. Some states require ultrasounds, Oklahoma passed a law requiring that the technicians describe the heart beat, the toes, etc and that they sign off that the woman was paying attention. It IS manipulative and paternalistic, and there's a reason that it only happens with abortion and not with a colonoscopy. Because people want to dissuade women from having an abortion, plain and simple.
Their data appears unmanipulated, at least from what I can see. I get that they're pro-access to abortion and birth control, but they also didn't have any scare facts on either side.

The law itself is indeed independant of those proposing it, however what makes violations of rights even more egregious is when the majority does it to the minority, when the powerful do it to the powerless. So while the OK ultrasound law is wrong because of the law itself, the fact that it was primarily written and supported by men adds to the insult. During the health care debate, when one male politician stated that HE didn't need maternity care so why should it be covered, he got smacked down royally by his fellow, female, politician. However it was wonderful evidence of the thought process that goes into the majority controlling care for the minority.

Additionally, there is a lot of research on black defendants and all white juries. So while you've reduced it to the ridiculous, there is concern about not adequately representing "peers" on the jury.

You stated "so the public can decide." My point was that the "public" shouldn't be deciding. Medical professionals should be advising government regulatory agencies on the level of safety required for care. The 'public' should not be able to vote to require flu shots to take place in a hospital or surgeries to take place at Walgreens any more than the public should be able to vote on the safety and regulation of abortion.

I'm not sure how you're connecting from A to B in what I'm saying and ending up with C.
Besides my desire for access to abortion, I'm not really sure how my comments are actually related to abortion itself. Were it any other medical procedure, I'd feel the same way. And that's why the distinctions between abortion and other medical procedures are so stark.

Figure out where they went wrong and fix it? Without having access to that information, and I don't want to read the grand jury reports for my own mental health, I can't give specifics. Luckily it's not my job to. But having worked in the state government before, I do believe that they're perfectly capable of fixing things and enforcing the laws currently in place and will probably have to make a lot of changes and report to the federal government in the process.

Great article - makes some points I would make (and some I wouldn't, but the writer has done his homework) but does it much more succinctly:

http://www.slate.com/id/2282166/

And I'm glad I've had doctors who didn't mind explaining to me, a mere layman but one with at least average intelligence, what was going on, indeed using "show and Tell". It was much easier for me to understand what was going on once I could see it.

This is really, REALLY post hoc and anecdotal, a pretty rough combination.

The purpose of the law isn't "educational" in the strictest and most commonly used sense. "See, the baby has toes!" isn't something used to teach a lesson or instruct the patient about the health of the child - it is clearly intended to push the mother toward keeping the fetus, even though it is not viable by any measurement, and clearly the law allows it to be aborted.

Unless you really think "poll tests" were intended to create a more educated electorate? Or "poll taxes" were viable methods to collect money?

I'm glad your experience was good, but yours was not the intent behind laws like Oklahoma's, and shaming women into keeping an unwanted pregnancy is, well, shameful.

If I were having your fetus I would totally not abort it.

That's great. But you had the option. That's the key word. Option. Women should have the option to not see the ultrasound prior to an abortion. As Drole said, you aren't required to view your colonoscopy. Again, what is the difference?

As I've said, I've had tests involving visuals that could have resulted in extra procedures (including surgery). I didn't need to see the visuals, and wouldn't have if surgery was the result. The doctor can point and explain all they want, but it doesn't matter that I'm intelligent. I didn't go to medical school, and have to trust that they're correct or get a second opinion from another doctor if I don't. It's completely understandable that some people want to see the visuals. My mother is one of those people, for example. She always wants every single detail before making decisions. I don't. And we should both have the option to go about making our medical decisions in the way we see fit.

Backtracking doesn't get you anywhere. That is NOT what you said. Yes, it is appropriate to have your doctor show you your films IF you want to see them, but that is completely different than...
So which is it? Should no one make these decisions without seeing films they aren't qualified to evaluate or can you see them if you feel they help you? I spend a lot of time with my patients discussing their case. MOST find no benefit from seeing their films, and it is not Standard of Care to show them.