Samira wrote:
Pssh, by the time Hannah goes to college she'll have been carefully tutored in the fine arts of poker, cribbage and backgammon. She'll be flush.
Or shaking her milkshake for fives at the Uncle Willys **** Palace... Whatever's clever.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS upholds abortion ban.
SCOTUS upholds abortion ban.Follow
Or shaking her milkshake for fives at the Uncle Willys **** Palace... Whatever's clever.
http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/08/07/story11.html
Funny how the publishers of this book filed for bankruptcy to protect themselves from creditors.
The definition of Millionaire is someone who has a networth of one million or more. Sorry you need to go higher than that, I have no problem with people whose total assets are in the millions in their life time. Now if you want to talk about class stratification you should talk about the billionaires, the Forbes 400, make a million dollars a day for years and years and still not make the list. If you think the average millionaire has power worth **** you're not showing us how educated you are.
Funny how the publishers of this book filed for bankruptcy to protect themselves from creditors.
The definition of Millionaire is someone who has a networth of one million or more. Sorry you need to go higher than that, I have no problem with people whose total assets are in the millions in their life time. Now if you want to talk about class stratification you should talk about the billionaires, the Forbes 400, make a million dollars a day for years and years and still not make the list. If you think the average millionaire has power worth **** you're not showing us how educated you are.
Gonna respond to the initial subject:
What it bans is a procedure that is exclusively used by doctors who have deemed it necessary to save the life of a mother, to keep her from unnecessary injury, or to protect her fertility.
Not exactly. It allows the proceedure in cases where the womans life is in jepoardy. It does not allow it for any other reason. The argument revolved around the issue of whether or not this proceedure was needed for any of the other above mentioned reasons. So far, there's no medical reason for this. Other proceedures are just as successful and have no greater impact on a womans overall health (injury, future fertility, etc). Thus, there's no reason *other* then a life threatening one to allow the proceedure.
That's why they ruled the way they did.
The problem is that many doctors were taking the "woman's health" phrase very broadly in this context. They were performing the proceedure for such health reasons as depression and anxiety. It was becoming a non-test for the proceedure due to the abuses involved. Essentially, if you wanted one, you could get one pretty much no matter what the actual medical situation was.
Which is an incredibly misleading statement. The actual statement made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was that this procedure is never medically necessary, but that the decision-making should be between the woman and her doctor.
Kind of a chicken and egg situation really, if you're defining "medically necessary" as "whatever the doctor and the woman decide to do", you've effectively removed that as a valid test of whether something should be legal. Which was more or less what had happend in the case of this particular proceedure.
Having said all of that, I'm still not super happy with this ruling. In an ideal world, we should be dealing with the causes/justifications for abortions, not singling out specific proceedures. IMO, the more important test from a constitutional basis is to rule on what actually constitutes a valid health concern within the context of a justification for performing an abortion. Unfortunately, the ban in question only addressed the one proceedure so the court could only rule on that one case (well, it *could* rule more broadly, but then it would be repeating the same mistakes that got us into this mess).
All in all, it's not a bad ruling. The problem with abortion law right now is that there aren't enough rulings to map out the issue sufficiently. That's IMO the direct fault of the overreaching Roe v. Wade decision. This ruling puts a pin in the corkboard of precidence and allows a more proper legal process to occur on this issue. Something that we are 30 years overdue for...
Nexa wrote:
fhrugby the Sly wrote:
It instead bans one specific type of abortion procedure which could easily be argued is not an abortion at all since the procedure invoves birth and then would not be covered by Roe vs. Wade. The court's decision specifically states that barring the one procedure does not prohibit obtaining abortions by the other available procedures.
What it bans is a procedure that is exclusively used by doctors who have deemed it necessary to save the life of a mother, to keep her from unnecessary injury, or to protect her fertility.
Not exactly. It allows the proceedure in cases where the womans life is in jepoardy. It does not allow it for any other reason. The argument revolved around the issue of whether or not this proceedure was needed for any of the other above mentioned reasons. So far, there's no medical reason for this. Other proceedures are just as successful and have no greater impact on a womans overall health (injury, future fertility, etc). Thus, there's no reason *other* then a life threatening one to allow the proceedure.
That's why they ruled the way they did.
Quote:
It's something that is RARELY used and only used when a DOCTOR decides that it SHOULD be. God forbid we trust doctors to make that choice, and instead leave it up to a bunch of right wing lunatics who would rather make a statement than concern themselves with women's health or safety.
The problem is that many doctors were taking the "woman's health" phrase very broadly in this context. They were performing the proceedure for such health reasons as depression and anxiety. It was becoming a non-test for the proceedure due to the abuses involved. Essentially, if you wanted one, you could get one pretty much no matter what the actual medical situation was.
Quote:
As far as your assertion that it doesn't effect the validity or the safety of Roe Vs. Wade, I think I'll go with Ginsburg's opinion on that matter...
[quote]In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.
[quote]In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.
Which is an incredibly misleading statement. The actual statement made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was that this procedure is never medically necessary, but that the decision-making should be between the woman and her doctor.
Kind of a chicken and egg situation really, if you're defining "medically necessary" as "whatever the doctor and the woman decide to do", you've effectively removed that as a valid test of whether something should be legal. Which was more or less what had happend in the case of this particular proceedure.
Having said all of that, I'm still not super happy with this ruling. In an ideal world, we should be dealing with the causes/justifications for abortions, not singling out specific proceedures. IMO, the more important test from a constitutional basis is to rule on what actually constitutes a valid health concern within the context of a justification for performing an abortion. Unfortunately, the ban in question only addressed the one proceedure so the court could only rule on that one case (well, it *could* rule more broadly, but then it would be repeating the same mistakes that got us into this mess).
All in all, it's not a bad ruling. The problem with abortion law right now is that there aren't enough rulings to map out the issue sufficiently. That's IMO the direct fault of the overreaching Roe v. Wade decision. This ruling puts a pin in the corkboard of precidence and allows a more proper legal process to occur on this issue. Something that we are 30 years overdue for...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Gonna respond to the initial subject:
What it bans is a procedure that is exclusively used by doctors who have deemed it necessary to save the life of a mother, to keep her from unnecessary injury, or to protect her fertility.
Not exactly. It allows the proceedure in cases where the womans life is in jepoardy. It does not allow it for any other reason. The argument revolved around the issue of whether or not this proceedure was needed for any of the other above mentioned reasons. So far, there's no medical reason for this. Other proceedures are just as successful and have no greater impact on a womans overall health (injury, future fertility, etc). Thus, there's no reason *other* then a life threatening one to allow the proceedure.
That's why they ruled the way they did.
The problem is that many doctors were taking the "woman's health" phrase very broadly in this context. They were performing the proceedure for such health reasons as depression and anxiety. It was becoming a non-test for the proceedure due to the abuses involved. Essentially, if you wanted one, you could get one pretty much no matter what the actual medical situation was.
Which is an incredibly misleading statement. The actual statement made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was that this procedure is never medically necessary, but that the decision-making should be between the woman and her doctor.
Kind of a chicken and egg situation really, if you're defining "medically necessary" as "whatever the doctor and the woman decide to do", you've effectively removed that as a valid test of whether something should be legal. Which was more or less what had happend in the case of this particular proceedure.
Having said all of that, I'm still not super happy with this ruling. In an ideal world, we should be dealing with the causes/justifications for abortions, not singling out specific proceedures. IMO, the more important test from a constitutional basis is to rule on what actually constitutes a valid health concern within the context of a justification for performing an abortion. Unfortunately, the ban in question only addressed the one proceedure so the court could only rule on that one case (well, it *could* rule more broadly, but then it would be repeating the same mistakes that got us into this mess).
All in all, it's not a bad ruling. The problem with abortion law right now is that there aren't enough rulings to map out the issue sufficiently. That's IMO the direct fault of the overreaching Roe v. Wade decision. This ruling puts a pin in the corkboard of precidence and allows a more proper legal process to occur on this issue. Something that we are 30 years overdue for...
Nexa wrote:
fhrugby the Sly wrote:
It instead bans one specific type of abortion procedure which could easily be argued is not an abortion at all since the procedure invoves birth and then would not be covered by Roe vs. Wade. The court's decision specifically states that barring the one procedure does not prohibit obtaining abortions by the other available procedures.
What it bans is a procedure that is exclusively used by doctors who have deemed it necessary to save the life of a mother, to keep her from unnecessary injury, or to protect her fertility.
Not exactly. It allows the proceedure in cases where the womans life is in jepoardy. It does not allow it for any other reason. The argument revolved around the issue of whether or not this proceedure was needed for any of the other above mentioned reasons. So far, there's no medical reason for this. Other proceedures are just as successful and have no greater impact on a womans overall health (injury, future fertility, etc). Thus, there's no reason *other* then a life threatening one to allow the proceedure.
That's why they ruled the way they did.
Quote:
It's something that is RARELY used and only used when a DOCTOR decides that it SHOULD be. God forbid we trust doctors to make that choice, and instead leave it up to a bunch of right wing lunatics who would rather make a statement than concern themselves with women's health or safety.
The problem is that many doctors were taking the "woman's health" phrase very broadly in this context. They were performing the proceedure for such health reasons as depression and anxiety. It was becoming a non-test for the proceedure due to the abuses involved. Essentially, if you wanted one, you could get one pretty much no matter what the actual medical situation was.
Quote:
As far as your assertion that it doesn't effect the validity or the safety of Roe Vs. Wade, I think I'll go with Ginsburg's opinion on that matter...
[quote]In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.
[quote]In a bitter dissent read from the bench, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the high court, said the majority's opinion "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away a right declared again and again by this court, and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
She called the ruling "alarming" and noted the conservative majority "tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases" by doctor's groups, including gyncecologists.
Which is an incredibly misleading statement. The actual statement made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was that this procedure is never medically necessary, but that the decision-making should be between the woman and her doctor.
Kind of a chicken and egg situation really, if you're defining "medically necessary" as "whatever the doctor and the woman decide to do", you've effectively removed that as a valid test of whether something should be legal. Which was more or less what had happend in the case of this particular proceedure.
Having said all of that, I'm still not super happy with this ruling. In an ideal world, we should be dealing with the causes/justifications for abortions, not singling out specific proceedures. IMO, the more important test from a constitutional basis is to rule on what actually constitutes a valid health concern within the context of a justification for performing an abortion. Unfortunately, the ban in question only addressed the one proceedure so the court could only rule on that one case (well, it *could* rule more broadly, but then it would be repeating the same mistakes that got us into this mess).
All in all, it's not a bad ruling. The problem with abortion law right now is that there aren't enough rulings to map out the issue sufficiently. That's IMO the direct fault of the overreaching Roe v. Wade decision. This ruling puts a pin in the corkboard of precidence and allows a more proper legal process to occur on this issue. Something that we are 30 years overdue for...
Not exactly.
No, exactly. Don't argue with Nexa about women's rights issues, seriously. It's one thing to take your normal idiotic stance about things and make people laugh, it's something else entirely to be utterly eviscerated by little blond girl. It just makes me sad for you :(
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
There are not many thing that **** me off more than rich ******* bItching about "welfare abuse".
In the UK, "welfare abuse" costs the government a few millions pounds a year. Tax-evasion costs the UK tens of billions of tax revenue a year.
I don't know the figures in the US, but they can't be very different.
So, varrus, why not whine about tax evasion? Why not whine about those sickeningly rich people that refuse to contribute to the society they are working in? These people that actively look for ways not to pay any taxes. Instead of whining about people that already have nothing?
Oh wait, I know why. Because poor people are an easy target for weak and cowardly people. Why not fight the real "drain" on society? The real "cheats"? the real "thieves"?
Could it be because you sUck rich people's cocks for a living? Or do you send your mum to do that for you?
In the UK, "welfare abuse" costs the government a few millions pounds a year. Tax-evasion costs the UK tens of billions of tax revenue a year.
I don't know the figures in the US, but they can't be very different.
So, varrus, why not whine about tax evasion? Why not whine about those sickeningly rich people that refuse to contribute to the society they are working in? These people that actively look for ways not to pay any taxes. Instead of whining about people that already have nothing?
Oh wait, I know why. Because poor people are an easy target for weak and cowardly people. Why not fight the real "drain" on society? The real "cheats"? the real "thieves"?
Could it be because you sUck rich people's cocks for a living? Or do you send your mum to do that for you?
Ok, so I did some research to back what I said in the previous post:
Here.
In the UK, the cost of tax-evasion is estimated at £75 billion a year. and that's a "conservative" estimate.
As for "welfare abuse", what we call "benefit fraud" in the UK, the cost is estimated at £0.7 billion a year.
It's not hard to see which is more of a drain to the economy...
Here.
In the UK, the cost of tax-evasion is estimated at £75 billion a year. and that's a "conservative" estimate.
As for "welfare abuse", what we call "benefit fraud" in the UK, the cost is estimated at £0.7 billion a year.
It's not hard to see which is more of a drain to the economy...
Hopefully someone else can respond to Gbaji, I'm too busy. I could write my thesis on all the ways he is wrong, but I already had my topic approved.
Emphasis is mine:
Nexa
Emphasis is mine:
Quote:
ACLU and National Abortion Federation Criticize Decision by U.S. Supreme Court Upholding Federal Abortion Ban (4/18/2007)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Decision Allows Politicians to Interfere with Personal Medical Decisions
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court’s decision will endanger women’s health.
“Today’s decision has placed politics above protecting women’s health,†said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF. “This ruling is a set back for all Americans who believe politicians should not legislate medical decision-making. The decision disregards the opinion of leading doctors and medical organizations that oppose the ban because it is harmful to women’s health.â€
The Court ruled today on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.†The two cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country.
A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two cases. Today’s Supreme Court decision requires that the ban be upheld in this case as well.
“Today’s decision undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women’s health must remain paramount,†said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion.â€
Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.
Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to today’s opinion: “Though today’s opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of ‘the rule of law’ and the ‘principles of stare decisis.’â€
Today’s cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. Our mission is to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women. Our members include health care professionals at clinics, doctors’ offices, and hospitals, who together care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year. For more information, visit our website at www.prochoice.org.
The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. For more information, visit: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
Decision Allows Politicians to Interfere with Personal Medical Decisions
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Abortion Federation (NAF) today sharply criticized a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding a federal law banning certain abortions. It is the first abortion decision from the Supreme Court since Justice Sandra Day O’Connor retired. Both organizations said that the Court’s decision will endanger women’s health.
“Today’s decision has placed politics above protecting women’s health,†said Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of NAF. “This ruling is a set back for all Americans who believe politicians should not legislate medical decision-making. The decision disregards the opinion of leading doctors and medical organizations that oppose the ban because it is harmful to women’s health.â€
The Court ruled today on two challenges to the federal abortion ban, called by its sponsors the “Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.†The two cases are Gonzales v. Carhart, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart and three other physicians, and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of its affiliates throughout the country.
A third challenge to the ban, National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales, was brought by NAF and seven individual physicians, represented by the ACLU, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, the ACLU of Illinois, and the New York Civil Liberties Union. In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit put that case on hold until the Supreme Court issued a decision in the other two cases. Today’s Supreme Court decision requires that the ban be upheld in this case as well.
“Today’s decision undermines a core principle of Roe v. Wade that women’s health must remain paramount,†said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The decision invites politicians to meddle even further into the doctor-patient relationship by passing additional restrictions on abortion.â€
Leading doctors and medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which represents 90 percent of OB-GYNs in this country, opposed the federal ban.
Congress passed the federal abortion ban and President Bush signed it into law in 2003, despite numerous court decisions striking down similar state bans, including the decision in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent to today’s opinion: “Though today’s opinion does not go so far as to discard Roe or Casey, the Court, differently composed than it was when we last considered a restrictive abortion regulation, is hardly faithful to our earlier invocations of ‘the rule of law’ and the ‘principles of stare decisis.’â€
Today’s cases are Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, No. 05-1382 and Gonzales v. Carhart, No. 05-380.
The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in the United States and Canada. Our mission is to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women. Our members include health care professionals at clinics, doctors’ offices, and hospitals, who together care for more than half the women who choose abortion each year. For more information, visit our website at www.prochoice.org.
The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. For more information, visit: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights.
Nexa
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.â€
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
Quote:
Apparently the college students weren't hooked up to an unwilling person and dependant upon them for survival.
Hey, if Professor Openlegs weren't willing I wouldn't be stuck to her to begin with!
Quote:
I like how he keeps calling us whackos when popular opinion is clearly against him.
Sadly, popular opinion probably isn't against him, it's just that most of the people that share that opinion are too stupid to use the internet.
But seriously, there is a pretty clear left-wing prevalence on these forums. I'm not sure what you're basing your perception of popular opinion on but an MMO forum site is pretty prone to bias.
Well, I'm a welfare baby and I'll have you know that all I do is sell drugs and rob banks for a living. I also kick homeless people and steal cheeseburgers from Ronald McDonald.
I was able to mow three lawns yesterday, so that combined with my welfare check should be enough to buy another 6 pack and watch my 7 kids grow hungry. The youngest one (5) is already getting ready to have her very own welfare baby! I've never been so proud.
I was able to mow three lawns yesterday, so that combined with my welfare check should be enough to buy another 6 pack and watch my 7 kids grow hungry. The youngest one (5) is already getting ready to have her very own welfare baby! I've never been so proud.
Well, I'm not a welfare baby.
But yesterday I ate some onions, rode my bike without a saddle while writing poetry, drank some expensive wine and ate some stinking cheese, burnt an American flag, hung a capitalist with a bolwer hat and a cigar, and then went to work on the collective farm for our five year plan singing The International, before surrendering to the advancing group of german tourists in shorts.
But yesterday I ate some onions, rode my bike without a saddle while writing poetry, drank some expensive wine and ate some stinking cheese, burnt an American flag, hung a capitalist with a bolwer hat and a cigar, and then went to work on the collective farm for our five year plan singing The International, before surrendering to the advancing group of german tourists in shorts.
fhrugby the Sly wrote:
As stated in the decision, the fact that the law does not restrict a woman's abilty to get an abortion, but only elimates one procedure for which there are alternatives, was the key element that made the law constitutional.
I think that the victory was symbolic and meant to foment feelings among the general population around problems of abortion--an attempt to lead people in the direction of mobilizing, becoming impassioned and accepting a basic paradigm shift in terms of seeing that overall bans are possible and acceptable.
I think the key is that late term abortions, according to the AMA's guidelines, have always been used when the mother's life is at risk and not for the same reasons as first or second trimester abortions. Why introduce language into the law specifically restricting it unless there is an inference or an attempt to characterize the prochoice movement as brutal while backing away from being upfront that most on the right want to eliminate abortions regardless of the mother's health.
Quote:
The problem is that many doctors were taking the "woman's health" phrase very broadly in this context. They were performing the proceedure for such health reasons as depression and anxiety.
It actually wasn't. And that is specifically against the AMA's own medical guidelines. I think that is what generally the people wanted people to believe to justify the governmental intrusion into what is a private medical procedure.
This was the AMA's position in part:
Quote:
2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.
If the AMA has specifically set out these standards which guides the medical profession, why introduce this language into law with the accompanied inferences that this was not the policy of the AMA in the first place and they needed busybody rightwingers to legislate private medical procedures.
Edited, Apr 19th 2007 11:15am by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Kachi wrote:
But seriously, there is a pretty clear left-wing prevalence on these forums.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Exodus wrote:
I also kick homeless people and steal cheeseburgers from Ronald McDonald.
Yanari wrote:
Exodus wrote:
I also kick homeless people and steal cheeseburgers from Ronald McDonald.
Pffft. I actually succeed.
achileez wrote:
Yeah and you commies aren't here to promote a society based on social welfare.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Annabella the Righteous wrote:
I think the key is that late term abortions, according to the AMA's guidelines, have always been used when the mother's life is at risk and not for the same reasons as first or second trimester abortions.
Really!? What about this situation?
The problem is that while the AMA may set standards, they are so vague that doctors can easily bypass them. And even when someone tries really hard to do something about it, there are *huge* political obstacles in their way (as evidenced in this case). When you've got liberal judges who will throw out charges of abuse (and misdemener ones at that!), you can't exactly expect to have the AMA's guidelines followed.
It's a nice theory. The reality is that those guidelines can and are violated with impunity. While I agree (and stated as much) that the issue should be over what constitutes a legitimate "women's health" justification for a late term abortion, this ruling will at least serve as a starting point for that discussion.
Quote:
Why introduce language into the law specifically restricting it unless there is an inference or an attempt to characterize the prochoice movement as brutal while backing away from being upfront that most on the right want to eliminate abortions regardless of the mother's health.
Again. We keep hearing pro-choice folks say "mothers health". Could you please define that? What are legitimate health reasons to justify such an action? Because what's actually happening is that some doctors are using things like depression as a legitimate health reason for a later term abortion.
When you say that, you're essentially saying "abortion on demand", because that's what it has become in practice.
Quote:
Quote:
The problem is that many doctors were taking the "woman's health" phrase very broadly in this context. They were performing the proceedure for such health reasons as depression and anxiety.
It actually wasn't. And that is specifically against the AMA's own medical guidelines. I think that is what generally the people wanted people to believe to justify the governmental intrusion into what is a private medical procedure.
Read the article I linked. Then re-assess your assumption.
The issue of "health" is being abused.
Quote:
This was the AMA's position in part:
Quote:
2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.
Yes. And the law still allows that. But only if the conditions for the decision involve a risk to the life of the mother. Not the more vague "best interest of the patient".
Again. The problem is that many doctors interpret "best interest of the patient" as "whatever the patient wants to do". That's not what the AMA presumably intended, but it's how it's being interpreted and practiced in the real world.
The law does not limit the doctors medical choices. It only defines that "best interest" to those things that actually carry a threat to her life (which amusingly is how everyone assume it should be interpreted, but not how it's actually written into law).
The law only codifies what most people believe *should* be the deciding justification for that proceedure. Are you saying that a doctor should be allowed to perform the proceedure even if there's no increased risk to the womans life if he doesn't? Cause that's the only reason to argue your position.
Quote:
If the AMA has specifically set out these standards which guides the medical profession, why introduce this language into law with the accompanied inferences that this was not the policy of the AMA in the first place and they needed busybody rightwingers to legislate private medical procedures.
Ok. What do you think those standards mean? Do they mean that it's ok for a doctor to perform the proceedure because the woman says she'll be depressed if she's not allowed to abort? Is it ok for a doctor to perform it because it's a bit easier then another proceedure (but has no other health risks to the woman)?
What exact reasons do you think the AMA intended for doctors to be able to use this proceedure? Cause I realy don't think you understand to what degree these "standards" are not being followed (or are just being manipulated into ineffectiveness).
Edited, Apr 19th 2007 7:24pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
There's a leftist slant to most forums, discounting those intended to promote a conservative political agenda. I'm not sure why that is, but it's been my experience.
I may just be talking out of my ***, but I think younger people tend to lean more towards the left, and also more frequently use the internet, especially in the case of using forums, whereas more of the conservative population is older and not as inclined to use the internet or forums.
I don't mean that as an insult to either side, just an observation.
Quote:
Which is an incredibly misleading statement. The actual statement made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was that this procedure is never medically necessary, but that the decision-making should be between the woman and her doctor.
Quote:
Again. We keep hearing pro-choice folks say "mothers health". Could you please define that? What are legitimate health reasons to justify such an action? Because what's actually happening is that some doctors are using things like depression as a legitimate health reason for a later term abortion.
This procedure is used primarily when time is of the essence and the mother can't handle bleeding associated with other procedures. The Wichita doctor probably cited depression because there may have been no other legal alternatives for preforming an abortion on a ten year old.
Kachi wrote:
I may just be talking out of my ***, but I think younger people tend to lean more towards the left, and also more frequently use the internet, especially in the case of using forums, whereas more of the conservative population is older and not as inclined to use the internet or forums.
I don't mean that as an insult to either side, just an observation.
I don't mean that as an insult to either side, just an observation.
Quote:
The problem is that while the AMA may set standards, they are so vague that doctors can easily bypass them.
Yes, medicine is not like painting by numbers. There are judgment calls involved.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Recent Visitors: 321
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (321)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- SCOTUS upholds abortion ban.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC