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.

Like I said, I'm mostly pro-life and even though I'm not a fan of Kasich's, I'm an Ohio resident who is fine with these restrictions.

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?

Wasteful and disgusting. As a lifetime Ohio resident, I am upset that I didn't hear about this until now, when it's too late to do anything.

Further, if one believes a fetus is a life, it's intellectually inconsistent to think it is okay in cases of rape or incest. Life is life.

Yes, I would say that's it....although I'm sure it will be explained as "we need to make sure there aren't any lesions in the uterus that would make the procedure harmful" or some such bullshit.

Not to mention exerting power over the woman, making the procedure more uncomfortable and painful, and all-around punishing her for being such a dirty whore that she got pregnant in the first place.

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.

Thank you! Not everyone in this country is religious. Not everyone thinks it's a sin to get an abortion.. or to be gay.. or whatever it is that these people want us to believe.

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!

When the ultrasounds are required, most laws (not sure about the Ohio one) also state that the pictures have to be shown to the woman. There is no medical reason for a woman to view those images. Attempting coercion is the only reason to do that.

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.

First of all, I love how a MAN can exclaim that this will provide a woman some kind of connection with her child. I'm sorry, but I don't think any man (or women who have never been in that situation) can truly speak to how a woman will feel. Again, the whole thing is just a way to try and get other people to think the same way as these politicians, who in most cases, have no personal experience with these issues... and in the case of a man, never will (except maybe through a second-hand experience by a woman in his life).

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

Just last week, my husband was dispatched to a doctors office, where a patient was having a heart attack. It was the medics that saved that woman's life, because they were there within 3 minutes of getting the call. When they got to the scene, not a single doctor or nurse had done any chest compressions, and she had no pulse. The doctor stood there with his thumb up his ass while the 3 medics, my husband included, intubated, started an IV line, and alternated giving her chest compressions. That was indeed an emergency situation, certainly not a case of needing a routine transfer. I fail to see how that is any different from an emergency situation during an abortion. We've seen Burn, and things in Detroit (and places like LA) are in dire straights. Places like Columbus, not so much.

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.