Abortion Law


Ms. Sanger.

If you are unfamiliar with her please review her story.

This is not the place to regurgitate what is readily available throughout the web.

Choice. Persecution. The decision of others to legislate what a free minded, with all the liberties granted her by our founders.

If you are ProLife.

Please opine on all the cases where you would allow a women to make her own choice.

Rape by a father at 14?

Cervical Cancer?

A tubal pregnancy.

Instead of all the pro life rhetoric. Please address the difficult questions so we can find a common ground.

Remember the horrors of our historical mistakes on these issues.

How soon we forget.

Get educated.

Throughout the history of our nation every election has seemed monumentily important. Think back on all the slogans of every past election are they really all so different.

This author is not a historian so the question is rhetorical.

I urge an objective look at the records of the two very decent individuals running for office. I believe them both to have integrity in their convictions and a desire to do what is right. I grant them that.

My friends and fellow Americans it is now time to have the courage to follow your convictions and make a choice. A choice which may determine your choice and opportunity to govern your own body.

That is as serious as it gets.

Look back on 8 years and reflect.

Please make your voice heard. Vote.

Who would you vote for today?
( polls)

There have been a large number of commentaries by individuals who dogmatically state that a women has no right ever to choose and abortion under any circumstance.

Yet when replied to by other individuals, they never respond with any objective reasoning?

To note, every professional, professional organization, and many clergy on the planet, from all the major religions, as far as we could tell from our diligence and vetting, including every right to life group that would respond, agreed with the position that women could end their pregnancy under this circumstance.

So Why do the commenters believe otherwise?  I believe we will know by their continued absence of response.  But we would be delighted to hear an intelligently formed argument against a women’s choice in this circumstance.  No soliloquies or pulpits please, just he facts.

We want to give them the benefit of the doubt, so we ask one of these simple questions again.

Some respond with the same rhetorical gibberish, never answering the hard real world questions posed by so many intelligent and concerned individuals.

It is difficult to understand.  It infers that people who harbor these dogmatic beliefs, will not allow their minds to accept the reality of women in need and the difficult choices they may sometimes must make. Instead of educating themselves they withdraw into the catacombs of ancient cliches, and reveal no education into biology, formal logic, ethics, or medicine.  The issues are not that complicated.  Would one person, one, please respond appropriately.  It would be appreciated, as there has yet to be a good response to the very many important issues brought up regarding the women’s right to choose to control her own body.

One simple example I have seed posted, is the women with an anencephalic (a fetus that has had the misfortune of the developmental path that did not create the neurological substrate for brain formation) – In fact many do not even have cranium.  They fetuses all die at, around, or before or shortly after birth and never cognate, unless one believes that cognition takes place in the liver (some do, strangely enough).  It is extremely sad. These women will not have a successful pregnancy, as a severe anencephalic, has never grown a brain.

So, out of the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have been trained in Obstetrics and women care, NOT one has agreed with the lack of choice for that women to end her pregnancy.

That is intelligent to end these pregnancies early (please see the literature on this point as it is overwhelming without any deviance).  As many of these women, if they choose to let the pregnancy continue, end up with hysterotomy, ruptured uterus, hysterectomies and lose child bearing, hemorrhage, infection from bloood transfusion, and even death.

At a minimum, they have gone full term to have a dead baby.

If there is a single person out there which can make an argument to why these women should not have the choice of ending their pregnancy we welcome that point and discussion.  

In the absence of that we will conclude that this issue of anencephally is presently a settled discussion.

Brownback’s Backdoor Abortion Bill?

Senator Sam Brownback is not well-known outside the state of Kansas. You’re likely scratching your head trying to figure out why you recognize his name. Think back to very early in the Republican race, when the debates were populated by 11 different candidates. The guy on the outer wings, the one who said that he didn’t believe in evolution and that he’d like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, the one with the curly hair and the Kansas drawl, that’s him.

Sen. Brownback is known for his extreme conservatism. It’s not just fiscal restraint and state’s rights with this guy. He has members of the far-right going, “wow, this guy is hard-core.” Not surprisingly, Sen. Brownback is thoroughly anti-choice. He does not believe that there are any circumstances under which a termination of pregnancy is acceptable, not even in cases of rape or incest. So it’s not a shock that he’s introduced another bill regarding abortion. The knee-jerk reaction is to assume that any bill coming from Sen. Brownback regarding this issue is inherently flawed and a thinly veiled effort to undermine women’s rights, which is why everyone who has read the bill or anything about it is finding themselves a little confused, because that’s not what this bill is.

Here’s what the bill does:

For women and families whose prenatal testing has indicated that the fetus has a genetic disorder, physicians will be required to provide “access to timely, scientific, and nondirective counseling about conditions being tested for and accuracy of such tests.”

Additionally, the bill would create a nation-wide list of families who are willing to adopt children with special needs and referral to support services, including a national clearinghouse of coping resources.

While he may be getting cheers from some, Sen. Brownback’s efforts smack of an inability to grasp the difficulty of the heartbreaking choices some families must make. A diagnoses of Down Syndrome does not always mean that a family will give birth to a living child with Down’s. What it can mean is that the disorder is such that their baby will die from Down’s. The same is true for many genetic and chromosomal disorders. There are degrees of severity and some of them simply are not compatible with life.

The spirit of this bill is laudable, anything that allows women and families to make the decision that is best for them is a step in the right direction. But one step doesn’t get you to a destination. If Sen. Brownback is serious about reducing abortion, then it’s time to focus on the causes and impact of unplanned pregnancy. In fact, knowing Brownback’s typical M.O., one has to wonder if this is an attempt to lull everyone into a false sense of security before tacking on a bunch of amendments that undermine a woman’s right to choose.

Sen. Brownback says that this bill is an effort to promote the “culture of life.” But the so-called “culture of life” has to be about more than preventing abortions, it must be about making it easier to access information, birth control and the resources parents need to raise children in today’s world.

The fact is that the “culture of life” is not being promoted in this country, period. Families are not guaranteed paid medical leave, not all women can access the preventative health care necessary to decrease and detect birth defects, students are not given honest and thorough sex education, and when given the chance to cover low-income children for healthcare, the Congress (Sen. Brownback included) said “no.”

What are we to make of a culture that focuses more on the pre-born than they do the pre-schooler? There must be a broad and sweeping overhaul in how this country deals with issues like poverty, health care and education before anything can be done to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions.

It is obvious that the Florida legislature mounted a multi threaded attack on reproductive rights this week. 

It started by the passing of legislation requiring an ultrasound prior to an abortion and coupled to more egregious terms.  

Terms that are simply rejected by the vast majority of Americans, and over 99% of Nobel prize winners.

That is defining human sentient life equivalent to a full experienced adult at the moment of the meeting of the one cell sperm and the one cell egg whence they fuse and form one slight larger one cell.  Thus a women who was desirous of an abortion must then pay for an ultrasound procedure and  mandated to view the ultrasound image. This would be done before having the abortion, again mandated by the bill passed by the House chiefly divided in a partisan fashion.

The puritanicals and misogynists are truly still lurking among us in droves. Must they die of old age until the generation of rational thinking adults are able to work their way through the political quagmire?  

Oddly also the vast majority of conservatives supprting the measure were older men greyed from age, apparently not from wisdom or a connection to the community.   

The Republican-led chamber also endorsed a “fetal homicide” bill that would create a separate murder charge for anyone who caused a pregnancy to be terminated through an act of violence against a pregnant woman.

This absurdity missed the slew of reasons women may opt for an abortion for very reasonablke reasons, that well over 95% of Americans support. A very limited example include, women with cancer, women with pregnancies in their tubes, women with life threatening heart anomalies (and all other threats to their life) that carry with them a near certain death sentance if they are to remain pregnant through their term of 40 weeks.  

This is well documented in the peir reviewed medical literatue, and is not disouted among proffesionals of either side of the issue to any measurable degree.  The list goes on and on.  

Many of these situations the Abortion Pill could easily solve the end of the pregnancy and save the mother’s life. There are numerous places a women in need of abortion may find an office that perform Abortions safely, securely, privately with respect and confidentiality.

Democrats argued the abortion bill and it’s terms were simply a government invasion into an obvious private health matter.The House’s ultrasound mandate (HB257) requires women who desire abortion to pay for the scans without any assistance, this is a major burden the government would be placing among lower socioeconomic women.

Costs for an ultrasound have great variance and are often a few hundred dollars, stated by an expert testimonial.The measures once again, are micromanaging the method by which a doctor takes care of their patient without regard to the doctor’s experience or training.  

Doctors practice differently because of a number of reasons.  The legislature rarely attempts to micromangae doctor methods of practice except when dealing with abortion care.  The well known safest procedure done in the world, when it is legal.  When it is illegal, women still get abortion, but because of the illegality have to have them performed in areas that are often dangerous and simply just a few decades hospital wards were willed to the brim with women suffering, dying,  and losing wombs to complication because abortion was illegal.  Once again this another fact that is not disputed.

“Are you sure you want to do that?” said House Democratic Leader Dan Gelber, of Miami Beach. “Just to constantly second-guess and challenge a woman who makes what I imagine is one of the hardest and most difficult decisions a person has to make. In that sense, it’s an offensive bill.”  

If the “fetal homicide” bill passed the Senate and became law, anyone who caused a pregnancy to be terminated by assaulting or killing a woman could be prosecuted for murdering the “unborn child” — even if they didn’t know the woman was pregnant.The bill also would apply to drunken drivers, who could be charged with vehicular homicide for causing a pregnancy to be terminated in a car accident.

“It elevates a fetus and an egg, frankly, to the status of an adult person,” said Adrienne Kimmell, executive director of Florida’s Planned Parenthood affiliates. “The purpose of this bill is to create tension with Roe vs. Wade. It’s a chipping-away strategy we’ve seen for years now.”

In this opinion, the imbicilic articulation from the Bill’s sponsor Rep. Ralph Poppell, stated that a fetal homicide bill is an attempt to “curb crime and save lives.”

Clearly it is just another attempt to harm women and march the limitations of reproductive, and private personal matters into the hands of those elite that show no regard or connection to the intelligent women who are quite capable of making decisions and managing their own bodies without a strange antagonistic man’s interference and intrusion.

Addressing reporters on March 13, 2008, Lt. Gov. and soon-to-be Gov. David Paterson said that this mechanism is not the one by which he would have wanted the top job. It was his first public address since Gov. Eliot Spitzers official resignation.

“This is not the way I would want to aspire in my career. It’s a very ironic feeling, and I just have to try and do my best,” he said on AM radio from Albany.
He stated he wanted to five-day transition period before taking the oath on Monday. This would enable him to get up to speed on state business.

“We needed to get the state back to work. And we needed to have our government functioning,” he said. “We needed to show that to people Monday.”

With Spitzer’s resignation, the fight over Abortion Rights continue, including the Abortion Pill and The Morning After Pill.

The New Yorkers For Parental Rights is already urging soon-to-be Gov. David Paterson to reject Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s attempt to adopt the Reproductive Health & Privacy Protection Act (RHAPP).

Most suspect Gov Paterson to be as reasonable in regard to the protection of the right of women to have access to abortion and other women’s health related issues.

One can only hope that Gov. Paterson will continue the struggle for abortion rights and protect the access for women to abortion providers of their choosing.

by

Peg Johnston 

At my abortion clinic we often tell patients, “Sex is designed to get you pregnant,” the corollary of which is that “Sex makes us stupid.” In our conversations with patients we are trying to acknowledge that there are universal biological imperatives going on. It’s also a way of humorously admitting that it is a human condition that those sexual urges sometimes make us take risks that we never would in a rational moment.

The bombshell that exploded in NYS Governor Eliot Spitzer’s face today that he was a client of a high priced prostitution ring, carries the same message. It’s hard to believe that this squeaky clean politician who is tough on crime, has a lovely wife and family, and had a promising politicalcareer, would blow it all over something so stupid. But, we listen to similar stories everyday.

This controversy will undoubtably bring out the worst in Puritanical America. And it won’t be just political opponents of Spitzer—or Democrats—that will be capitalizing on his sexual indiscretion. All of the “soccer moms” that were so bitter toward Bill Clinton for exposing their kids to public discussion of “blow jobs” will be outraged again.

There are other countries—in Europe, for instance, that would greet this news as not worthy of news. They think it odd that Americans are so intolerant of sex and the sexual eccentricities of our leaders. (Of course, there are other, fundamentalist countries where the woman involved would be stoned to death.)

I would love to see this latest unfortunate controversy spark a discussion about our need for sex, about sex and power, for risk taking around sex, for what that might mean about someone’s character or ability to do a job. I would like to think that such a discussion would get more people to understand that humans are sexual, sometimes against their more rational interests. And that this discussion would increase our compassion for everyone, including women who have sex, with or without their spouse, with or without birth control, and get pregnant.

But I doubt it. People are too busy pretending that other people are stupid and they have never taken risks around sex. BS! They’re just lucky.

The author has been an abortion provider for over 20years and has written on abortion politics extensively.

The Elliot Institute, a group from Springfield, Ill., filed the “Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act” on Nov. 6, with the intention of getting it on the ballot in November ’08 in Missouri.

The proposal would require the doctor to certify that an abortion was necessary to avert the woman’s imminent death or irreversible disability. Otherwise, the doctor would have to document that carrying the fetus to term would be more dangerous than the combination of all risks associated with abortion. Those risks could include every “psychological, emotional, demographic or situational” risk that has been found associated with abortion in any study ever published in a peer-reviewed journal. Doctors would have to determine how every such risk applied to the patient and present the patient with an evaluation of every positive and negative determination. Doctors would be vulnerable to lawsuits from women who later regretted their decision to have an abortion. The proposal states that a regretful woman could receive up to $10,000 for each risk the doctor fails to include in his determination. There would be no exception in the cases of rape or incest.

Peter Brownlie, a Planned Parenthood representative said that the proposal appears to interfere with the practice of medicine.

“It looks very clearly to be a ban on abortion, with the only exception being a threat to the life of the mother,” Brownlie said. “It’s a pretty extreme measure.”

The Missouri affiliate of NARAL issued a statement saying the proposal would place a near-total ban on abortion, and warned that if the proposal was passed, it would require a dying woman who needed an abortion to save her life to wait 48 hours before undergoing the procedure.

Although many people consider the Elliot Institue a pseudoscientific organization operating behind a thin veneer of respectability, they still see the proposal as a serious threat. Unfortunately, the will of the majority and the authority of the Constitution is not always enough to save us from a constant threat on our most basic rights. Even unconstitutional proposals must be defended against vigoursly, or someday soon we’ll be sadly surprised . . .

 

 

 

 

Fred Thompson

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson speaks at The Citadel military college in Charleston, S.C., Nov. 13, 2007.

Before we begin this installment of the Rights Advocate blog, I wanted to thank all the commentors on both sides of the issue. To date we have been fortunate and have had for the most part literate and respectful posts. We have not edited or had to censure any comments for crude or disrespectful language, and I am appreciative of that. I believe a productive conversation may persist if this forum persists in an articulate manner.

We want to hear all sides of the issue and are open to our opinion being changed by good sound discussion. What more could we ask for? That enlightenment is welcomed. We hope that none of us are so dug into our dogmatic opinions as to not appreciate the well articulated position of another with an even diametrically opposed perspective.

I thank you all for your thought full commentary.

With that preface in mind let’s consider 11/13/07. The implications may be profound and we should all be aware of these important issues.

November 13, 2007 · Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson picked up a devisive endorsement from the National Right to Life committee. This committee is well known as the nation’s most outspoken anti-choice group.

This endorsement may have surprised some advocates of choice because Thompson does not support the Human Life Amendment. This amendment has been the movement’s primary goal for many decades. The endorsement is another symbol of division among social groups as the 2008 presidential campaign comes to us quickly.

David O’Steen is the executive director of the National Right to Life Committee. He said that he knows conservatives have given support to other GOP candidates for the primary. Mr. O’Steen declared that the organization’s backing will undoubtedly be a lift for Thompson in the primaries that are approaching rapidly.

“It’s been done after much consideration, much study, we have been watching this race since January,” said O’ Steen. “This is the first endorsement in the Republican race from a major grass-roots pro-life organization, representing 50 state organizations and about 3,000 chapters.”

O’Steen said his group pored over voting records and positions on abortion, but also electability. O’Steen made it profoundly obvious that one litmus was dissallowing the nomination of the primary GOP front-runner, the former Mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani.

“I would assume he’s expressing his views, and he’s been consistent with that. Rudy Giuliani has not changed his position — he’s running as a pro-abortion candidate,” said O’Steen confidently.

Thompson trumped up his own integrity in a television ad, declaring that he is “proud to have a 100 percent pro-life voting record.”

However, on NBC’s Meet the Press 9 days ago, Mr. Thompson struggled with the question of when exactly does life begin. He had been on the record in 1994 that he wasn’t sure. He told NBC as well, in a recent interview, “my head has always been the same place.” Later in the interview, Thompson said he believes life begins at conception.

Thompson stated without hesitation that he remains opposed to a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, and he thought that it would be more pragmatic to leave this vital question to the states.

“I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with,” he said ironically. “That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government … serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion.” One wonders if Abortion were indeed murder in the was that it is portrayed by the social conservatives would it surely be an issue simply left to the states? It would be strong enough to be an issue of federal importance as would murder in any sense be.

O’Steen said his group found Republican Mitt Romney too inconsistent on the abortion issue. He disliked the Arizona Sen. John McCain position on embryonic stem-cell research, and he regarded the other hopefuls as, simply, long shots — they are too under-prepared and not funded well enough to catch up to Giuliani.

In the last several days, social conservatives have been as vociferous as ever — just not as harmonious.

Televangelist Pat Robertson declared that he is backing Giuliani.

Ironically, juxtaposed to that position, Paul Weyrich, a founder of the Moral Majority, with voting integrity said Romney is the proper choice on this issue.

“George Bush combined a perspective that was very familiar to social conservatives, and an ability to win and raise millions and millions of dollars,” he said. When asked which Republican could accomplish that now, Ayres replied: “Nobody, which is why social conservatives are fractured at the moment.”

Still, Ayres insisted the party is not too worried about where social conservatives will be by the fall. Hillary Clinton, he said, remains social conservatives’ best hope for a rallying cry.

The State of Massachusetts legislature has given the approval Thursday, November 8, to a bill that mandates that Abortion protesters to stand at least 35 feet from Doctor’s offices and clinics that offer abortion services and private abortion care.

The present Govenor, Gov. Deval L. Patrick is expected to sign the legislation into law.

The bill, expected to be signed next week, will be the among the nation’s strictest state law requiring stable, fixed zones that protesters cannot enter around those reproductive health offices and clinics that offer abortions and reproductive care services.

The current law was enacted in 2000, declares that protesters cannot go within 6 feet of a person in an 18-foot zone outside the doors of an office that offers . The agencies responsible for protecting the zones have said it was difficult to enforce.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously on Thursday and the House in a 122-to-28 vote. There are 10 reproductive health offices in the state offer abortion care.

“The basic goal of the bill is to make sure patients and staff can enter reproductive health facilities without being obstructed, intimidated and harassed,” said Representative Carl M. Sciortino. Sciortino is a Democrat and is one of the bill’s sponsors. He also noted that “Current law is completely unenforceable and did not protect patients and staff the way it intended.”

Opponents of the new bill, in a typical response to laws protecting individuals from their ceaseless harassments, say the law will violate their freedom of speech.

The call for buffer zones started in 1994 after John C. Salvi III killed two women and wounded five other people at two offices offering abortion care in Brookline, Mass.

Colorado, Florida, and Montana have buffer zone laws similar to the current Massachusetts law. Interstingly, the country’s largest fixed buffer zone, 36 feet, is mandated in Melbourne, Fla.

« Previous PageNext Page »