|
Ohio State Budget Abortion Restrictions
There doesn't seem to be much about this issue flying around the internet, so I thought I'd bring the Greek community's attention to it.
Here's some highlights from the coverage from the Huffington Post: "The budget also included several controversial anti-abortion measures, including one that will force any woman seeking an abortion to undergo a trans-abdominal ultrasound." "Opponents of the new abortion restriction said that three clinics in Ohio would likely close now that the measure is implemented." "Rape crisis clinics are also in jeopardy, thanks to passage of the new budget. If these clinics are caught counseling sexual assault victims about abortion, they could lose their public funding" "And if a woman is able to obtain an abortion in Ohio and develops some sort of medical issue during the procedure, clinics will no longer be allowed to transfer these patients to public hospitals for additional care. In the midst of a crisis, these patients must find a private hospital to help them." "Despite protests at the Ohio Statehouse last week, the new anti-abortion measures were approved when the governor failed to veto them." You can read the rest of the article here. In case you're as mad about this as I am, there's a petition you can sign here This deserves as much attention as the situation in Texas. A blatant attack on women's rights and freedoms. Shameful. |
Quote:
|
I have a question that is 100% serious. What reasons are there to restrict abortions, baring a belief that a fetus is alive, which is a difficult thing to quantify scientifically?Because if there isn't one, then wouldn't restricting a woman from having an abortion be a violation of her religious freedoms? Note, I do think it is worth mentioning that I am against abortion myself, but I wouldn't consider myself to be part of the prolife movement.
|
I still don't understand the point of the ultrasound, except to waste time and money. Is this so that the woman will see the baby and potentially change her mind? I have heard this theory expressed in the past. If so...
I can guarantee that the majority of the women seeking an abortion are going to go through with it, regardless of whether or not they see the baby. It's a difficult decision to make. Most people don't just say, "Well, I'm pregnant.. it's abortion time!" I've known women who have had them, and it's an extremely difficult thing to go through. Even though they know it's best for them, it doesn't make it any easier on them (both before and after the procedure). I could understand it being mandatory that it be OFFERED, but I guess I just want to know what the point of REQUIRING it is? For those of you who support it.. why? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It's all just to make sure that women remember their place. I personally, while very very pro choice think viability should be the thing. And I feel that on both ends of the spectrum. If the baby wouldn't live outside the womb (presumably anything before 3rd trimester), then the abortion should be fine. I also think that any baby that is born before the 3rd trimester is a miscarriage and shouldn't be taxpayer funded. Where my pro-choice'ness really kicks in is there are times in the 3rd trimester that a woman should still be allowed to have the abortion. And that decision needs to be between the woman and her doctor, not a bunch of middle age men who have never been pregnant but don't ever have to admit to the number of times they've gotten somebody pregnant.
If, in the odd case that a perfectly healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy gets to the 3rd trimester and then wants an abortion, I'd definitely counsel for adoption in that case. Somebody would want that baby and she could eliminate the pregnancy without eliminating the baby, as long as someone is willing to pay the exhorbitant preemy hospital bills. But for dog's sake, quit cramming your religion down my throat! I've never had an abortion, and at this point in my life I think I can say with confidence that I never will, but since the only argument is sin, then you have no argument! Move to an officially Christian country if you want to live that way. But quit trying to ruin America just so you can live a fantasy where all babies are born healthy and happy with 2 parents of opposite genders, where the dad has a job that makes plenty of money and the mom stays home and drives a minivan. That world gets to exist for a precious few and no amount of legislation is going to make it real for the rest. |
Quote:
I think what's truly amazing is that many of our "leaders" don't (or choose not to) understand what the American family looks like today. Ironically, I'll refer to a television show - Modern Family - to most accurately portray how we're living: Nuclear families, gay families, adoptive children, bi-racial couples, having babies in your 40s, etc. Mommy and daddy (who stay married) and 2.5 children just isn't the norm. Wake up! |
Quote:
Quote:
From this article: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...-abortion.html State Rep. Ron Hood, an Ashville Republican, defended his ultrasound proposal during hearings. “Ultrasounds not only make life visible inside the womb, but unveil the truth of the unborn child’s humanity and connect the mother with her unborn child,” he said. That article also describes the problem with the transfer of a patient with complications. "Some clinics that provide abortions could be forced to close because of a new transfer requirement that forbids publicly funded hospitals from signing agreements to take patients from clinics. Those agreements are required before the Ohio Department of Health grants an abortion clinic permission to operate." So that's a Catch 22, right? Perhaps it is because I'm from Detroit, where 911 is already way to slow with documented cases of people dying while waiting for them to show up 45 minutes later, but I don't think a 911 emergency system should be used for a routine transfer between two medical facilities. I was transferred from a freestanding ER to a hospital for admission, by ambulance, on Monday. These are routine types of transfers, not emergencies per se. |
Quote:
Also, according to the article below, in Wisconsin, the law requires an ultrasound, but the woman has the option to decline reading/seeing the results. This is a slightly better situation, but again, it seems to me to be a waste of time and money. And of course, it requires the woman to undergo additional medical procedures for no reason. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-into-law?lite Quote:
|
Quote:
My pro-life stance has nothing to do with my faith. (I'm also very pro-gay rights, my church telling me it's a sin has no impact on my feelings). I think the adoption culture in our country is crap. Abortion as a means of birth control makes me very sad, because I know SO many potentially wonderful parents who are waiting for a baby to adopt. If the public psychological resources existed to helped women with unwanted pregnancies carry to term and give the baby to an adoptive family, that would be an amazing thing and help so many people. Then those same resources have to be there to help the birth mother during her post-partum years as well. During a case of rape/incest, I can understand the justification for an abortion (as early as possible) because it is emotionally detrimental to the mothers mental health. Again, it would be wonderful if the state provided the mental health resources to help a woman carry a child to term in rape/incest cases. We barely have enough public mental health resources to help all of the other people who need it, let alone help for moms with unwanted pregnancies. Middle aged men using their faith as the basis for the laws is BS, in my opinion. I wish there were more female advocates, as well as mental health advocates to make this NOT about what some constitute as "sin." It's about mental health, and those same middle aged men don't think that is a priority. |
I doubt very seriously that in an emergency situation the abortion clinics in Ohio were transferring patients by private car to public hospitals. Patients would have been transferred by ambulance just like at any other facility. The issue is like AGDee brought up. The clinics had to have a facility that agreed to take the patients should something go wrong in order to obtain a license to operate. By stopping these agreements, they are hoping to make it impossible for abortion clinics to obtain licenses since they would only be able to partner with private, not public hospitals. This does not change the fact that in an emergency the patient would be transferred to that facility by ambulance.
|
IrishLake- I totally agree that there should be more services to support women who might consider adoption if they had the medical means and psychological support to do so. There are so many ways to help reduce the number of abortions in this country that are NOT employed. Instead of increasing availability to birth control, education and support, they simply enact laws that hurt women instead of helping them. I just don't think force and coercion are the right means.
|
Quote:
Quote:
So, from the perspective of those who oppose abortion on religious grounds, it's not a matter of "I think it's a sin, so everyone else should as well." Rather, it's a matter of a moral imperative to prevent the killing of innocent humans and to object when the culture (in their view) condones the murder of those unable to protect or speak for themselves. Obviously, not everyone agrees with that view. But if the question is going to be asked "Why don't they understand that not everyone thinks abortion is a sin and stop telling us what to do?," then there needs to be some understanding that to a person who opposes abortion on religious grounds, that question makes no more sense than asking "Why don't they understand that not everyone thinks genocide is a sin?" |
Regarding the issue of adoption and how women deal with it, I talked with a woman who was in college in the 70's. She said she had friends who got pregnant and gave the baby up for adoption and others who had abortion. She said the emotional damage was FAR worse for the women who gave the baby up for adoption. Now, this can't be the only reason to have abortion be legal, but the health and welfare of the mother needs to be extrapolated out more than if she will or will not die in childbirth. I am all for adoption, but I think it's a unicorns pooping rainbows answer to the abortion problem. Would I counsel a woman to consider it, yes. But once the decision is made, then the world needs to get off her back.
And for the record, I also support euthanasia because there are times when death is the better choice. At both ends of the life spectrum. If you believe in the life of the soul, reincarnation and/or heaven, you have to accept that the soul goes on, even in cases of abortion and euthanasia. And since the science can never be settled about what constitutes life, then it will only boil down to belief. I BELIEVE it's life at viability. But until my belief can be proven through science, then it has to be kept to personal choice. |
And, by the way, that doesn't mean killing the abortionist.
But the biggest things that an anti-choice person can do is work to prevent unwanted pregnancy and improve the life of the child who is born from an unwanted pregnancy. That's a lot harder than having a rally once a year or throwing money at an elected, but it might actually accomplish a reduction in abortion, the only issue they purport to care about. |
From an OB/GYN who was practicing before Roe v. Wade. Interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/he...essa.html?_r=0 DaffyKD |
Quote:
* After posting my earlier post, I realized I should have been more precise in my terminology and said "those who oppose choice on religious grounds." There are those who oppose abortion on religious grounds but who do not think the government should get involved in the decision. Quote:
Quote:
The point is that we have a 40+ history of people on both sides of this issue (and quite a few others) misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, caricaturing, trivializing or dismissing the opinions and beliefs of those with whom they disagree. And that is one reason why after 40+ years, this is still such a divisive issue in this country. Just to be clear and in case it matters, I am pro-choice. I think abortion raises serious moral and ethical issues, but I think those issues should be resolved by the woman involved (and the father when appropriate), not by the government or by the community. I find myself agreeing with Hillary Clinton that abortons should be safe, legal and rare. But there's an old rule of thumb that real dialogue between people who disagree on an issue can never happen until those people can each say to the other "You believe that _______," and state the beliefs of the other in such a way that the other can say "Yes, that's what I believe. You understand me." |
Quote:
And for argument's sake, on the right there is the lunatic who thinks blowing up abortion clinics is the answer. There is no corollary on the left. While I have heard things that implied such, I've never heard anyone ever be PRO abortion. And I've got some pretty hard left friends :) Unfortunately, trying to find middle ground uses that end of the right to balance off the left: legal safe and rare. And in my opinion, the result is far more conservative than the average, middle of the road American feels. For instance, if access to abortion was legal, safe and plentiful, but only allowed in the first or second trimester (with exceptions for emergencies), I think the majority of Americans could get on board. But that's not what is seen as compromise in America today. I'd even be ok with mandatory counseling about options, as long as they weren't harassment in disguise. But back to the original subject, are Ohioans getting fired up over this issue? Or are they just accepting this? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would agree that the adoption culture in our country is all kinds of screwed up. There are plenty of children that want/need to be adopted, and there are plenty of great potential parents who are turned down for ridiculous reasons. However, I wouldn't agree (if this is what you were implying) that all women who wish to get an abortion should carry their child to term and give their baby up for adoption. This isn't the solution. If you get pregnant and you truly don't want to have a baby, then 9 months of pregnancy, hours of labor, and having to give your child away doesn't sound too appealing. It's not as though you're deciding between a chicken sandwich or a salad for lunch. This is a life-changing decision that will affect you for the rest of your life. And giving up 9 months of your life just to give your baby away isn't what everyone is willing to do. And in my opinion, they shouldn't have to. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm not okay with this tripe in any way. The biggest problem with the transfer agreements is that previous Ohio law requires a transfer agreement to be in place... and now the law is written such that public hospitals aren't allowed to enter into those agreements. It's a backhanded way to shut down clinics... particularly when the profound majority of private hospitals have Catholic affiliations. For a college frame of reference this is like a degree plan that requires a course to graduate, but the school doesn't actually offer the course. |
Quote:
Fact remains that abortion is about ending a pregnancy... it's not about avoiding parenthood (as obviously adoption is always an option). When pro-life folks champion adoption as the go-to option, I can't help but think they really just don't get it... they still think it's acceptable to force/coerce a woman to endure the very real risks to her life and health for the better part of a year because they think it's the "right thing to do." |
Quote:
But don't you see how refusing to accept what people say their beliefs are can come across as disrespectful and dismissive at best and arrogant and condescending at worst, especially if you throw the "exaggerated rhetoric" in there, or make judgments about what actions someone else's beliefs should require them to take? Telling someone they don't really believe what they say they believe is usually a pretty effective dialogue killer. I would certainly wonder why I should bother talking with someone who seems to think they know more about what I believe than I do. I'm not saying to uncritically accept whatever someone says. But I think we get a lot further if we give people the basic respect of taking them at their word about their beliefs and experiences. If we start there, then we can explore (and challenge) the implications of those beliefs, if not the beliefs themselves -- as long as we're also willing to be on the receiving end of exploration and challenges. |
The problem with your argument, MC, is that on one side is Live and Let Live (if you don't want to have an abortion, don't), and one that is my side is right and needs to make decisions on behalf of everyone, even if half the world disagrees because what they want to allow is murder. Regardless of if it's religious, political, social or whatever, one is telling the other how to behave and that is offensive to the part who thinks personal responsibility is more important. I don't see middle ground here. Well, I DO see middle ground, but it's not middle ground the other side will accept as compromise.
|
Quote:
But that's really not the point of my argument. The point of my argument is that regardless of whether middle ground is found, nothing good or productive comes from people on either side (of any issue) misunderstanding, mischaracterizing, caricaturing, trivializing or dismissing as not genuine the opinions and beliefs of those with whom they disagree. That just widens the divide and is a guarantee that middle ground can't be found. It's a sure recipe for polarization. If people on opposite sides make a genuine and respectful effort to understand where those with whom they disagree are coming from, then if they continue to disagree, at least it's an honest, and hopefully, respectful disagreement. |
Hmmm- I need to stop by this site more often – always an interesting conversation going on.
DubaiSis – I have a couple of questions, and I want to let you know before I ask them that I do consider myself prolife, but I completely agree with MysticCat’s point that these type of discussions go nowhere if we don’t understand the point of view of those with whom we disagree or think we disagree, so I want to assure you that these are not meant to sound snarky, but come from a desire to understand your perspective. If my attempts to paraphrase your points mischaracterize them, please correct me. 1) You stated that you didn’t want “religious people” or more specifically Christians cramming their beliefs down your throat. How do you think they are doing this – in other words, do you believe they are bypassing the usual political process that exists in order to affect change when we (meaning citizens) feel change is necessary or do you mean they are doing this in some other way and if so, how do you mean this? I have to say I was a little concerned with the comment that if this is what they want to do, they should start their own Christian country. It sounds a little like the response of conservatives to Vietnam War protestors in the 60”s: America- love it or leave it. Is this what you meant or am I misreading you? 2) You pointed out that there have been cases of pro-lifers or anti-abortionists bombing abortion clinics and there is no corollary among pro-choice groups. Are you arguing that when they (meaning those who would consider themselves liberal) feel strongly about an issue – when they consider it vital to maintaining or bringing about a just society that protects those whom they perceive to be helpless, those who are on the “left” so to speak in their political viewpoints, have never reacted extremely or with violence? 3) Finally, you indicated that you felt there was enough hypocrisy among “religious people” to be noted. This probably will sound snarky, I don’t, again, mean it that way, but I can’t think of another way to word it – how does one quantify the amount of hypocrisy in the roughly 27 million people in this country who identify religion as a high priority for them and determine there is enough of it to be noted? How would one draw the conclusion or find any evidence to support the conclusion that they are more hypocritical than those who claim no religious beliefs? What is the number or percentage of hypocrites within that group necessary to be worth noting? Since we all have moments of hypocrisy, how would you determine whether these people are consistently hypocritical or have moments of hypocrisy common to every human? I realize these read like long essay questions. I apologize for that, and I understand if you don’t want to take the time necessary to answer all of them or any of them, but as I said, I’ve found that this site is, among other things, a great place to come and read different opinions and find out why people see things the way they do and how they’ve come to their conclusions and beliefs. |
Quote:
The trouble with the debate right now is that the pro-life side views PP v. Casey as the polar opposite of what they believe. They don't see any give from the left in the concept that states have a compelling interest in protecting life after the fetus becomes viable outside of the womb. |
Quote:
The 20 week ban is for show. The number of abortions occurring after 20 weeks is trivial and is cover for the more aggregious actions like requiring all abortion clinics to be outpatient surgical centers thus shutting down all centers in a state. The 20 week number is inflammatory and diverts attention from everything else that is going on. The vast majority of 20 week+ abortions occurring in the US are for fetal anomalies. This is like the partial birth abortion ban. It effected few but whipped up a fury because of the grisly nature of the procedure. There is no real desire to make a reasonable attempt to find the line at which a fetus becomes viable outside the womb (which is 22-23 weeks btw.) |
I had decided to step out of this conversation, but I'll address this first.
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=Low C Sharp;2224640]If true, this would be a world record previously unknown to medical science. Call the Guinness Book if you can document this. 21 weeks, 5 days is the current record, and first occurred in the 1980s (in other words, after the introduction of surfactant therapy).[/QUOTE
Interesting - None of the doctors who knew his case ever suggested this, including my nurse practicioner sister-in-law, who works in the hospital where he was born. I'm sure its documentable. |
Quote:
|
you know what they say, there's no better way to a woman's heart than through a trans-vaginal ultrasound.
|
The 19 weeks thing might be disputable because they weren't doing ultrasounds to verify the age of a fetus back in those days. They were first used in 1954 in Scotland, started to be used in the UK in the 60's but weren't used in the US until well into the 70's. It can be difficult to know the exact age of a fetus without ultrasound because date of last menses is a fickle measure. Many women have light periods for a month or two. Or, if she wasn't very regular, it could be even more difficult to know. Therefore, even if true, it might be documentable.
Only his mother knows for sure, but it is also possible, at 19, that she didn't admit the pregnancy right away and wasn't totally honest about how far along she was. That wasn't unheard of then either. Many in my parents generation had a saying "The first one can come any time, the second one takes 9 months" |
There's also the difference between how long since conception, and how it is medically measured (usually from first missed period). The difference can be a few weeks.
But really, people, you know what would decrease abortion? Affordable contraceptives! |
Quote:
Aside from that, awesome story, he clearly had an amazing family. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.