Ohio State Budget Abortion Restrictions

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DubaiSis

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!

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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

The law requires an ultrasound be performed on a pregnant woman at least 24 hours before an abortion, a requirement that can be waived if the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest.

Results of the ultrasound including images, a description of the fetus and a visualization of the fetal heartbeat must be offered to the woman. The woman can decline the results.

[IrishLake]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

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.

[squirrely girl]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

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.

To start, technically abortion is birth control... it controls birth... albeit after conception. Second, the research summarily dismisses the "abortion as birth control" argument pretty regularly... there isn't some weird glut of lady folk running around using abortions as their primary form of birth control... urban legend/anti-choice stereotype. Finally, the existence of infertile couples isn't cause to force women with unwanted pregnancy to be brood mares.

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."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Sure, many. Many hundreds. Possibly even many thousands. Tens of millions of Americans call abortion murder.

I see how differently people behave when born children are being murdered in front of them. You try to change the law in addition to direct action.

I agree that tens of millions of Americans believe abortion is immoral, tragic, etc. But exactly the same as shooting fourth graders in the head? Nah, not many really believe that. And if I'm wrong, and tens of millions truly believe that there's a Newtown massacre happening every day in every city in America, and their reaction is to pursue legal action alone (or do nothing at all), then that's a far less flattering picture of the movement than my claim, which is just that they're using exaggerated rhetoric.

I see your point, though I think the Newtown shootings aren't at all an apt analogy. The people protecting children there were people already in the school who had at least some relationship to the children there. Other than law enforcement, there weren't random strangers running in to throw themselves in front of the bullets. Your earlier reference to Auschwitz (which I recognize was a reference to comparisons that those opposed t choice might make rather than your own comparison) might have been a closer analogy, though I'm well aware that comparisons to the Holocaust can be unnecessarily inflammatory and Godwin the discussion in no time flat.

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.

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by squirrely girl

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."

I would sooner die than give birth to a baby I didn't want. People don't get it. You are not saving lives by making abortion illegal.

[amanda6035]

Originally Posted by IrishLake

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.

Yes, yes, yes.