Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of murdering patient, newborns

[Drolefille]

Which law? Which state? You don't specify so I don't know to which law you are referring.

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.

I would not call the Guttmacher Institute unbiased - but I will admit it is just about impossible to find research that doesn't bear some taint from either side.

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.

ou do realize this is an argument ad homnieum, right? A logical fallacy.This particular one drives me crazy. Either the law proposed is logical, or it is not. It does not matter whether the person making it has a penis or uterus. Should only those who've had an unplanned pregnancy have a voice? Only fertile women? Should juries be made up only of the defendent's gender, race, class, educational background? Should only bankers make banking laws? Etc. - Nope. A proposed law should stand or fail on its merits.

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.

I'd be willing to bet it you are not quite ready to have state and federal oversight of medical care withdrawn. That's totally different than having your medical care put up for a vote.

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.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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.

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.

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?

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.