Today, I am grateful for the ability to make decisions about my health, and to have access to medical services as I need them. While it’s easy to take this for granted, pending legislation — the "Women's Right To Know Act” (HB 854) currently in the North Carolina Senate, may change all this.
HB 854 aims to redefine informed consent by imposing a 24-hour waiting period for those seeking an abortion — a safe and legal medical procedure — in this state. This bill requires all patients to be shown an ultrasound image, as well as a verbal description, including gestational development and audible detection of a heartbeat, at least one day prior to an abortion. If these stipulations truly helped individuals make better decisions, I would champion them; everyone deserves the privilege to make well-informed choices.
For many however, HB 854 will make medical choices even more inaccessible and difficult. In WNC, where transportation and gas costs are prohibitive, a trip of several hours is hard enough traversed once, let alone repeated 24 hours later. Imposing a waiting period limits those who are juggling families, jobs or financial burdens — in short, most residents. HB 854 does not enhance the solvency of medical information currently given to patients seeking an abortion; no greater safety or psychological care is achieved. In fact, families experiencing pregnancy loss due to fetal anomaly or miscarriage would be subject to these same requirements. As medical patients in this state and country, the “right to know” is already inherently ours. Currently, an ultrasound and detailed description thereof is freely available upon patient request, but not yet required by legislative decree.
Continuing to allow residents the privilege of employing our own best judgment, and ensuring access to trained medical providers, may be the most illuminating path our state government can take.
— Anna Pfaff
Asheville
Several states now have fresh Republican-driven legislation in the works that to various degrees restrict (I believe unconstitutionally) access to abortions — an accepted and legal procedure.
Instead of coming to power and working tirelessly to cleverly ease us slowly out of recession, they straight-away offered tax breaks to the wealthy class and then launched headlong into the culture war stuff such as the legislation described in the letter above.
They say don’t like the Nanny State —– yeah right.
Christian theocrats want to use the law to impose their peculiar religious views on all others. They are more dangerous than the leftist socialists.
…………………….
There is not a thing wrong or inappropriate with a waiting period.
Conservative slap fight!
GO!
I am probably the only conservative in the discussion and I’m not siting here slapping myself.
Well, you’d probably have to as Tim never actually engages in dialogue. He merely posts cliches and screams “personal attack” when challenged.
So, how about this? Instead of a waiting period, why don’t some of the pro-life people donate nine months of their time and money to helping women with unwanted children bear that child and then adopt it?
After all, isn’t life more precious than the off-chance of being stuck with the hyper-violent offspring of a rapist or a child with almost no chance of living past the age of three? Wouldn’t it be worth nine months of extra costs of living to see a bundle of joy brought into this world so it can be adopted by people who love *all* life?
Or is it, like the song says: “you don’t abortions, you want battered children/you want to ban the pill as if that solves the problem/and now you want to force us to pray in school?/god must be dead if you’re such a fool”?
Many churches are already involved with helping young women go through pregnancy and helping with adoption.
Again, there is nothing inappropriate with a waiting period.
So, you favor more government intrusion in private matters?
That depends on the purpose of the intrusion. I am in favor of waiting periods for background checks when purchasing a firearm, for example. I am in favor of making teenagers wait until they are 16 to get a drivers license. Some states restrict their privileges until they are 18. Lastly, I do not consider the killing of an unborn child to be a private matter. Nor do states that prosecute criminals for murder when an unborn child dies in an assault upon the mother.
So is the next step a description of open heart surgery, gall bladder removal, brain tumor removal, tooth extraction, hernia repair, all vividly played before the ailing patient? Because if the purpose is to explicitly inform a young pregnant woman, then by this reasoning, every other surgical procedure should be explicitly explained, also preferably in 3D imaging. Otherwise it is merely harrassment.
And Davyne just one won an internet.
Game. Set. Match.
Thanks once again for playing travelahaha, we’ve got some nice parting gifts for ya.
Dang…I wanted to win THE internet. <;-)
Unless any of the above mentioned procedures are performed on an emergency basis, all of them with the exception of the dentistry are done with consultation and preliminary work. Nobody walks in without previous consultation for open heart surgery, gall bladder removal, hernia repair or any other significant operation. In fact nearly all insurance companies require advance notification and consultation at least 24 hours prior to surgery.
Now, you want to compare the surgical killing of a baby in the uterus to a simple tooth extraction, well be my guest.
game set match my arse … overhanded right back to you.
Where are the laws that require consultation?
Isn’t it left up to the doctor, who has spent years learning and training, to prepare their patient for a procedure? What law tells a dentist what they have to tell me before I get a root canal?
Since when is the government responsible for telling a doctor how to prep their patient?
You always scream ‘LESS GOVERNMENT!’, unless of course you want the government to enforce your puritanical belief system.
Nope, sorry travelhaha. Davyne wins an internet and you once again go home empty handed.
What does it matter if a government agency has a waiting period or an insurer? Even with a government mandated waiting period, the doctor and patient still make the decision. For that matter, Medicare and Medicaid already have effective waiting periods through the procedure approval requirements for many surgeries.
No, you have been refuted and you simply need to acknowledge it. I am not a libertarian in the full sense and see a valid reason for may government functions. Opposing “big government” does not mean opposition to all government.
Hahahaha!
Refuted? Cracker please.
Even with a government mandated waiting period, the doctor and patient still make the decision.
But why is the government mandating a waiting period? What other procedures has the government mandated by law? Why only this one?
You don’t want the government mandating the possession of health insurance. You don’t think the government is qualified to provide health care. Yet you believe the government should mandate a waiting period for ONE specific procedure?
Now why would that be?
Oh, right. Because it enforces your particular religious beliefs.
Not because it helps educate. Not because the procedure is inherently unsafe.
Even though it goes against the separation of church and state. Even though government telling you how to handle your health care is oppressive and socialistic in any other circumstance.
Abortion is legal despite your religious views. Believe it or not, a quarter of this country does not share your religious views.
So your desire to force your religious views on myself and others, while being hypocritical in your view of government’s role in healthcare, does not a refutation make.
Refuted. RIIIIIIGHT.
NEXT!
My replies in this matter have been rather thoughtful and quite on the mark on this matter. Government already mandates review and consultation for several Medicare and Medicaid procedures. Government is already asserting itself in medical procedures and approvals. Government already sets standards that must be met before engaging in several activities. Obamacare has a plethora of administrative requirements and doctor-patient intrusions. You keep stating there is just ONE mandate proposed when in fact there are already several for millions of Americans. Talk t somebody who has had elective surgery on Medicare or Medicaid and then come back and talk about just ONE mandate.
Abortion is not an inherently safe medical procedure. Any quack who tells you that is a liar. The plain truth of the mater is that there is not one thing wrong with a waiting period other than your attempt to demonize any opposition to the killing of babies still in the uterus.
You have no valid argument other than your empty assertions about religion and what you think motivates me. You lose.
What tatuaje said. All of it.
And even what Tim Peck said: Christian theocrats want to use the law to impose their peculiar religious views on all others.
I resent anyone thinking they have a right to tell me what to do or not to do with my own personal body, or when to do it, or how to do it–or even to espouse an opinion contrary to my own free will about my own personal body.
Not a doctor. Not a government. Not religious dogma. Not the AMA. Not Mission St. Joseph. Not health insurance. Not a church. Not a spouse. Not a lover. Not a talk show host. Not a school. Etc.
And certainly not old misogynistic God-of-Abraham men, Christian or otherwise, without whose persistent and incessant subjugation of women and aggrandizement of themselves the world would be a better place.
My husband is a retired physician…his experience in doing surgery on individuals is, you never go into the gory details. He say this would open a can of worms and place all Doctors in the position of going in (under dangerous general anesthesia) and looking for an issue with an appendex for example, but finding a tumor. Under this law, the physician would be required to close up the patient and wait for them to recover from the first invasive surgery to heal. Then subject the patient to another round of dangerous anesthesia and go in and remove the tumor. Meanwhile the anxiety of knowing all the gory details adds to the stress and feeling of unease amongst the patient and family members…un-necessarily so. As it is now, if a surgeon goes in, and spots an unexpected issue, that can be immediately dealt with.
Hubby also says, this would be thrown out in an appeals court.
Davyne, that is absurd. This proposal does nothing but create a waiting period and require that the general procedure of abortion be explained.
Betty, you are safe from the requirements proposed so I would not lose any sleep if I were you.
No woman is safe from any kind medical intrusion that treats her as an ignoramus in need of enlightenment that she does not request, and the danger of personal control by outside vested interests increases with every such piece of self-serving legislation.
Perhaps we should require a “waiting period” for people to engage in sex so that outside vested interests can “explain” to them that sex has consequences?
No it is not absurd…it is the next step on a slippery slope.
No it is not absurd…it is the next step on a slippery slope.
Ahh, you were talking about next steps and not the actual proposal. Good to know.
Perhaps we should require a “waiting period” for people to engage in sex so that outside vested interests can “explain” to them that sex has consequences?
Betty will be the Beta control.
Well yeah…Trav, an extension of my earlier winning volley.
Whether we survive as a nation will be largely determined by whether we can free ourselves from increasing legal gridlock, which controls us all with just such personal intrusion tactics as HB 854 (the crudely and erroneously entitled “Women’s Right to Know Act”) and which diverts our attention from addressing our economic woes both domestic and international.
And, the most vulnerable victims, as always, are still women and children.
HB 854 is just one more camel’s nose under the tent.
Where are the jobs for all these unwanted fetuses?
travelah enjoys playing semantics, but he isn’t fooling anyone.
It seems quite clear that HB 854 is a very thinly veiled attempt to guilt a woman into changing her mind, at a very stressful, emotional time. At the point a person has made the decision to have an abortion, they’ve had ample time to come to that decision. Forcing the woman to look at an ultrasound, or listen to a heartbeat (which can’t be detected by a stethoscope before 20 weeks, ultrasounds aren’t really a heartbeat, but amplification of the doppler effect, thus 5months into the pregnancy abortion isn’t legal in NC), is using dime-store psychology to co-opt an emotionally fragile person into agreeing with your theology. You can’t win in the courts, so you restrict freedom through legislation– real classy.
Apparently, nobody came come up with a reasonable objection to a waiting period other than it might result in the baby in the uterus surviving an attempt to kill him or her.
No reasons that you would find reasonable, but that is because you have your thoughts wrapped as tightly around the notion that abortion is an absolute evil as everyone has theirs wrapped around the notion that abortion is a tragic, yet ultimately important, option that should be left entirely up to a woman and her doctor.
This is the reason why the country cannot go any further left or right than its current little center-right malaise. We’ve all become so neurologically soft-wired to our beliefs that no one is willing to cede any intellectual or factual ground to someone who holds a different belief. Our own internal certainty is collectively driving everyone off of the cliff simple because we refuse to believe that the cliff even exists, despite all evidence to the contrary.
No, there simply are no reasonable objections to a waiting period other than it might prevent an occasional abortion and that it calls for the patient to be well informed of the procedures she is contemplating.
This embrace of libertarianism and anti-government intrusion is a fascinating observation. Progressive liberals generally advocate bigger and bigger government.
Where was all this anti-government intrusion sentiment when that monstrosity Obamacare was being pushed through onto the American people? This waiting period issue is nothing compared to the intrusion of that legislation.
Recommended reading illustrating the ultimate in governmental intrusion into and control of women’s personal lives: The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
From Library Journal:
In a startling departure from her previous novels ( Lady Oracle , Surfacing ), respected Canadian poet and novelist Margaret Atwood presents here a fable of the near future.
In the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, far-right Schlafly/Falwell-type ideals have been carried to extremes in the monotheocratic government. The resulting society is a feminist’s nightmare: women are strictly controlled, unable to have jobs or money and assigned to various classes: the chaste, childless Wives; the housekeeping Marthas; and the reproductive Handmaids, who turn their offspring over to the “morally fit” Wives.
The tale is told by Offred (read: “of Fred”), a Handmaid who recalls the past and tells how the chilling society came to be. This powerful, memorable novel is highly recommended for most libraries. BOMC featured alternate.
@travelhaha
What is the medical justification for the waiting period?
There is not one.
Doctors already give their patients all the information they need to know before they have an abortion. That is their job.
The objections to the law have been stated, you just simply choose to ignore them.
This law is about pushing christianity on others.
This law is a direct affront to the concept of separation of church and state.
But you are not willing to admit that this law is about religion. You lie and say it’s about keeping the public safer (even though that’s the doctor’s job). You lie and say it’s about anything other than forcing your religious views on someone else.
All of these christians who attempt to force their views on others and lie about their motivations are completely oblivious to the fact that their motivations are completely transparent.
I wish, for once, christians would be honest and admit that their proposed legislation that aims to dictate people’s lives is faith-based.
Of course they can’t, and won’t, because it’s not constitutional.
So they continue to lie.
Be honest travelah.
Admit that you support this law for religious reasons.
Concede that this law was created because of religious beliefs.
If you can’t then why should anyone trust anything you write?
Morality and ethics considerations cannot be divorced from the religious inclinations of the society that enforces them. People of varying faiths and people of no particular religious faith are pro-life in this matter. There are people who profess a “Christian” faith who are advocates of pro-choice positions e.g. United Methodist Church. Any attempt to force this issue into one of Christianity vs. everybody else is simply a false dichotomy. My position on this matter is governed by cultural morality framed by my particular faith.
On what ground other than moral would anybody confirm laws against murder and robbery? If moral, then what source does this morality derive other than religious? Of course this takes the discussion far outside the issue of a waiting period rather than a walk off the street opportunity for a serious medical procedure that has a history of causing complications.
Nonetheless, the matter is comprised of several issues namely informed consent, the seriousness of the medical procedures and the moral compass of the society in which these events occur.
MatCat, I believe common ground can be found in a dialog about prevention. In the 18 years I’ve been on politically oriented message boards this subject invariably comes up. And when I suggest we get together as concerned and caring people and discuss prevention, I rarely get a taker from the “pro-life” camp. I also rarely get a reasonable response when I suggest taking some of the onus off women, and place it on the male equation of this subject. Shouldn’t we be preasurring men to “keep it zipped” unless they’re willing to take on marriage, childrearoing and education???
That’s what is wrong with most of the so-called “pro-Lifers” … they are only worried about the unborn masses until they are born, after that who cares …..
Davyne,
You would get a “taker” in this camp. The responsibility in these matters is upon both men and women. I suspect you find a great number of walk away zippers among the men who think they are “hipsters” among the pro-choice crowd.
Trav.,
You keep harping on the fact that no one offers what you deem to be reasonable in terms of the waiting period being unnecessary. But, conversely, give me a valid reason why it is necessary. You claim it may prevent an abortion, but that is pure supposition. My argument is that it causes far more psychological damage unnecessarily, to a woman in a vulnerable emotional state.
Moreover, even if your supposition were accurate (and I’d love to see the studies on that), the world doesn’t need more children in the hands of people who are unsure of whether or not they wish to be parents. If you argue for adoption, I can tell you first hand there is no shortage of foster kids waiting on parents.
I mean seriously, you rail on and on about there being no possible reason to object. But, if medical professionals have not made it the standard practice, what makes legislators capable of setting medical procedures. Why would you have the waiting period??? There simply is NO medical reason.
Would you expect surgeons to take off the street patients for other serious medical procedures? Do you object to all government or insurance company oversight into medical procedures or just this one? Is your objection against government excess in medicine? What is the real objection you have to a simple waiting period and requiring informed consent?
Do you oppose the enormous government interference in Medicaid and Medicare services? If not, why not? If you are going to object to this proposal, where is your objection being heard elsewhere with other services and patients?
I smell self serving hypocrisy here.
“walk away zippers among the men who think they are “hipsters” among the pro-choice crowd.”
There you go again revealing your ingrained sanctinomy, toward the present younger generation. I have been female for some time…and trust me, before there were “hipsters”, there were sports jocks, good ole boys, farmers, high ranking military officers, and several conservative elected officials, all who were “hot to trot,” had I been willing, and with no thought to the responsibility involved. I don’t think human nature has changed so very much that today given the opportunity, the zippers would fly open at the mere wink of an eye.
The point is, the issue is much bigger than the decisions behind a closed medical consultation door. Responsible behavior before during and after the “act” falls on both sides…..and I have yet to see you coming close to including the male responsibility factor in this discussion.
What’s the medical justification?
If you can’t come up with one then you’re only justification is religious.
If you’re only justification is religious then the law is unconstitutional.
Period.
Davyne,
It was yourself who qualified your comments with reference to the “pro-life” men. I suggest the “pro-life” men are better guided by their moral beliefs than the “pro-choice” men, hipster or not.
Travelah…that is simply a boatload of blivets.
@ travelah: Morality and ethics considerations cannot be divorced from the religious inclinations of the society that enforces them….. My position on this matter is governed by cultural morality framed by my particular faith. On what ground other than moral would anybody confirm laws against murder and robbery? If moral, then what source does this morality derive other than religious? …..the matter is comprised of several issues namely informed consent, the seriousness of the medical procedures and the moral compass of the society in which these events occur.
Whose morality? Whose ethics? Whose religious inclinations? Whose moral compass?
While our nation is still a work in progress, isn’t our democracy moving away from this antiquated centuries-old white European male way of thinking? Separation of church and state, don’tcha know?
Aren’t most of our millions of current laws non-ecclesiastical in nature—civil, criminal, common, economical, liberty and justice for all, equal rights for all….?
We’ve been moving away from the oppressive-for-many God-of-Abraham Mosiac code for several centuries now, but women especially are still vulnerable as evidenced by HB 854.
Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale* is twenty-five years old now, and the rights of women have made great strides since its publication, but HB 854 and other such proposed anti-female-rights legislation is incredibly dangerous and reactionary, and if enacted would set us on a course backward toward the future.
Imagine a future in which we return to the subjugation of women as chattel with their reproductive rights controlled by a theocratic government.
* The premise of The Handmaid’s Tale is based on the Old Testament story of Hagar, handmaid to Sarah, wife of Abraham. Sarah, who could not bear children, gives her handmaid, Hagar, to Abraham to conceive children for them; and God commands Hagar to completely submit and to serve as a childbearing vessel.
Thanks Trav., by not answering a simple question your hypocrisy is made quite clear
I’ve answered the questions in a reasonable fashion.
Yep, just as I suspected…
travelahaha hasn’t come up with a single medical justification.
And what he fails to understand (ok, one of the many things, but hey, we’ll just stick to the glaringly obvious one at hand) is that the onus is on him, and the people (christian fascists) introducing the law, to justify its necessity, not on the people to prove its oppressive pointlessness.
The problem is he (and they) can’t.
Because there is no medical justification.
So instead they say ‘What’s wrong with it? There’s nothing wrong with it except your morals!”
Completely devoid of logic and reason they are.
It is the same justification used for most other serious medical procedures. It is considered a serious medical procedure that can lead to complications and should require consultation just as all insurers require and as the Federal Government requires of Medicare and Medicaid patients who undergo serious medical treatments.
There is already consultation.
Done by a trained medical professional.
Who are you, or lawmakers, to decide that more is necessary?
You have no foundation beyond your inadmissible religious one from which to argue.
Who are you, or lawmakers, to decide that more is necessary?
OK, so you are a libertarian.
uh, no.
Again, what are your, or the lawmakers, qualifications for deeming that the consultation decided upon by medical professionals isn’t enough?
Good intellect and solid common sense.
First of all, it’s ENTIRELY debatable that weither you or the lawmakers are in possession of either.
Secondly, sorry, that doesn’t trump a medical degree.
NEXT!
That is an idiots response. time to move on.
So if there is a medical justification for HB 854, what is it?
And why would anyone want to make decisions about someone else’s personal body other than their own?
……(cricket cricket)
First of all, it is NOT standard medical procedure to have people come back the next day for an outpatient procedure. I don’t know your medical background trav, but, as much as an abortion is serious, it is carried out as quickly as an appendectomy, maybe less, and even though it offends your supposed morals, is legal. There simply is no medical reason to force a woman to listen to a fake heartbeat, or waste tax payers money on ultrasounds (big gov. you’re a hypocrite)
FYI
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/11/us-abortion-states-idUSTRE75A28P20110611
Sounds like a ploy to suck more money out of citizens to the benefit of those with lobbyist to get this kind of stuff passed so they can make even more money at our expense and pain.
All you women out there who want a male-dominated religionist faction to make personal reproductive decisions for you, raise your hand.
All you women out there who want a male-dominated religionist faction to be able to legally criminalize the reproductive freedoms you now have, raise your hand.
That’s exactly what HB 854 would do if enacted–begin the dismantling of reproductive freedoms that women (and men) have worked so hard to gain over the last century.
It is not standard medical practice for outpatient facilities to perform serious surgeries on patients who walk in off the street. Outpatient surgery is scheduled after consultation with the specialist doing the surgery. If you are going to avoid being a hypocrite, lets see you advocate same day tubal ligations and cervical surgery to walk ins off the street without prior consultations.
Shades of conflation and obfuscation!
“Walk in off the street” is the operative misnomer here.
Standard “medical consultation” in no way equals the extended requirements that HB 854 attempts to foist upon women.
Nonsense, it isn’t any more imposing than the standard consultation expected of outpatient gall bladder surgery today. As it now stands, a woman who wishes to have an induced hemmoraging with it’s associated scarring of the uterus in order to kill a baby in her womb can walk right off the street and have it done then and there if she has the money (and often without the money).
Walk in off the street is exactly what is happening.
@travelah: …..can walk right off the street and have it done then and there if she has the money (and often without the money). Walk in off the street is exactly what is happening.
Ummm, no, not now. That is what used to happen.
The world according to Betty who claims the abortionists are now doing what a waiting period would require? Whats your real problem then?
Trav, your responses positively reek of misogyny. But times they are a-changing…you kind is dying off.
@travelah: The world according to Betty who claims the abortionists are now doing what a waiting period would require?
Ummm, no. Wrong again, travelah.
No “waiting period” is required by the legitimate medical community beyond a standard medical consultation.
It’s HB 854 that would require a “waiting period” beyond the standard medical consultation.
What is the “standard” waiting period for consultation for a standard outpatient operation? Who developed this “standard” and how is it any different than requiring by law what is already “standard” practice?
I don’t believe you have a clue what you are talking about, Betty.
The term “standard medical consultation” does not equal “standard waiting period for consultation.”
That is the crux of HB 854–creation of a “waiting period” with prescribed requirements beyond the current medical consultation.
This matter is at stake in North Carolina only and does not, of course, affect your state of South Carolina.
Oh, so it is a walk in off the street situation after all. North Carolina is my state along with South Carolina.
@ Nelda Holder:
“The real issue,” Rep. Ray Rapp (of Mars Hill) explained, “is interference with the doctor-patient relationship.” He referred to a letter received from Dr. William Meyer, president of the N.C. Obstetrical and Gynecological Society, that termed HB 854 “an intrusion into the physician-patient relationship,” stating that that for the government to insert itself into that relationship “with no insight or knowledge of specific situational details, no ability to resolve difficult human conditions, is wrong” and “sets a dangerous precedent where government will be directing physicians on what procedures they should be required to perform on patients.”
I’m all for letting the old busybodies just. die.off.
@ travelah: Oh, so it is a walk in off the street situation after all.
No. That is merely your diversionary obfuscation.
There is no obfuscation at all. There is either an existing “standard” waiting period or there is not. If it is the latter, it is an off the street walk in.
Apparently Dr. Meyer does not realize that the government already imposes waiting periods and several other restrictions on a myriad of Medicare and Medicaid paid procedures. So do all insurance companies. Using Dr. Meyer’s comments is an obfuscation.
So, travelah, have you ever come up with a medical justification for HB 854?
Yes, it is a serious medical procedure that can result in complications, hemorrhaging and the scarring of the uterus. No doctor with his patients concerns in mind would advocate an off the street walk in. The only people that do are the medical profiteers and those with vested interests in promoting unfettered killing of babies in the womb.
All that is true, but what is the medical justification for the requirements of HB 854?
All that is true and you still ask? Go figure.
Rhetorical question, travelah, since we are all aware by now that you cannot come up with a medical justification for the detailed requirements of HB 854.
But, if you do have one, what is it?
Not to mention, Trav, you seem obsessed with only the waiting period part of the bill. Please, tell me a medical reason for real-time viewing of a fetus that is to be aborted? Sounds like a sadistic christians’ way of screwing with a womans’ head to me.
The waiting period is the most relevant part of this matter as far as I am concerned. The ultrasound and other discussions of the process is nothing more than informing the person of the full scope of what she is doing. The seriousness of the procedure alone is sufficient medical justification for a waiting period and consultation.
Again, you are not addressing the fact that the Federal Government and all insurance companies already require waiting periods and consultation for many procedures covered under Medicare and Medicaid. This merely adds one more procedure to an already large list.
Further, you are not addressing the fact that Obamacare makes much greater intrusions into the personal medical decisions of people. I suspect you are a supporter of Obamacare. How do you reconcile support for that massive intrusion and opposition to this minor intrusion?
Now, I’ve given the medical justifications for this proposal. It’s time for you to address the glaring inconsistency with your cross purposed positions.
Is it merely adding one more procedure? I don’t recall congress previously writing into law a mandate for any other medical procedure? Why, because the medical community determines their own protocol. Insurance companies dictate what is elective or non-elective, not what is the proper methodology.
I appreciate you trying to change the topic to so-called “obamacare”. As someone with a genetic disorder who couldn’t get insurance until last year, due to a pre-existing condition. Hell yes I’m in favor of “obamacare”. My only wish is that he would have went further and got the single-payer system. All of your talk of government intrusion is no where in the bill. there is no rationing of care (like the insurance companies do), there are no death panels, and decisions are still reached between a doctor and patient. But, that’s not the topic on this thread. Republicans playing mind games with emotionally distraught women, against their doctors wishes is. You almost got me there
It isn’t changing the topic at all. What I’ve seen are attempts to define this measure as a government intrusion. Yet, as you have made it clear now, you have no objection to an even greater intrusion so in that sense your objection falls flat.
Both Medicare and Medicaid recipients are subject to mandatory consultation and often second opinions for many procedures. Whether Congress wrote the law specifically or delegated it is irrelevant. Government makes the intrusion regardless.
Suggesting Obamacare is not a massive intrusion into the personal medical decisions of individual citizens is just plain absurd. Surely you do not think that is believable?
As for the medical justification, here is a timely article that fits right into place here.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/16/report-illinois-clinics-hid-six-abortion-deaths-4000-injuries/
So, I’m wrong because I support healthcare reform and oppose this bill. While you are RIGHT, because you support this bill and oppose “obamacare”. You don’t see any hypocrisy there?
And as for your link to the non-partisan “Lifenews”: your argument being we should stop abortions because Illinois under reported stats.
Corruption exists in all systems where people are in positions of power. I don’t think we should shut down the government, financial institutions, or law enforcement because it is possible to cite individual cases of abuse. The better question is, as a whole does t he system work? Most would say yes. Abortion is legal, safe, and a service that has saved many lives (see Tim Pawlenty’s wife)
Travelah, you’re continuing to misrepresent and conflate seven different things: (1) medical consultation, (2) waiting period, (3) state legislature writing a script for doctor and patient, (4) obamacare, (5) second opinion, (6) medical justification, and (7) statistical reporting.
They are not the same thing, either in meaning, intent, practice, or locus of responsibility. They are not interchangeable and for the most part are not even interrelated.
Other than HB 854, name one other mandatory script written by a state legislature that mandates exactly a doctor’s medical procedure and mandates exactly a patient’s subjugation to said government script “even if she averts her eyes or refuses to listen to the scripted narrative.”
As for seriousness, not even a procedure as serious as brain surgery or a heart transplant requires such scripted intrusion by a state legislature between a doctor and patient.
As for reporting statistics, we ought to be pushing for all health care institutions, rest homes, and schools to report numbers of MRSA, the antibiotic-resistant staph infection that kills more patients than any other medical condition or procedure–and those numbers are increasing exponentially.
No, I am right because there is not realistic difference in requiring a wait and consult period for Medicare and Medicaid patients and requiring the same of other procedures including abortion.
My argument is not that we should stop abortions because there have been deaths and injuries associated with abortion in Illinois. Instead, as I believe you already know, my position is that the waiting and consultation period is justified because of the seriousness of the procedure. It should not be a walk off the street procedure (that it is in spite of unfounded objections, any woman or teenage girl can walk off the street and procure an abortion on demand). The health risks are far greater than the advocates are willing to admit.
While Lifenews is certainly issue biased against abortion, the story was a link to a separate newspaper article addressing what appears to be a failure to reveal the true extent of the dangers involved with abortion. It serves to lend considerable credibility to my position unless you can refute the substance of what has been reported.
Betty, it is irrelevant whether the “script” was written by a state legislative body, the US Congress or any number of regulatory bodies empowered to do so. It remains a government intrusion that is either beneficial or not depending on the circumstances driving that intrusion.
There are no walk-in clinics performing brain surgery without prior consultation and often second opinions (except in trauma and other emergency cases).
There has never been a walk-in heart transplant ever, anywhere, at any time.
MRSA and other infections are already required to be reported and documented. CDC has been tracking several infectious diseases for years.
There has been no misrepresentation. You object to a Government intrusion as the reason for opposing this bill. You demanded a medical justification for such an intrusion. I provided that and pointed out several times that Government intrusions are quite common in medical practice. I’ve also pointed out the hypocrisy of opposing this measure based on it’s “intrusion” while the same objectors support other, more intrusive Government actions concerning medical care.
I won this debate a long time ago.
Name one doctor who performs or has performed any kind of invasive medical procedure without (1) a consultation first, (2) a review of patient’s medical history, and (3) scheduling of a medical facility, all of which does take considerable time.
Legitimate doctors already follow these procedures as a practice of their medical training, not as a dictate of government.
“Walk in off the street” and “abortion on demand” are sensationalized and inaccurate buzz words with no other intent than to trivialize, demean, and demoralize both doctor and woman; and having a bunch of religionist politicians down in the NC state legislature dictate a script for doctor and patient to follow is just that–an effort to demean and demoralize and trivialize.
The words bullying and harassment are also apt descriptors for HB 854.
Refuting newspaper articles, biased or otherwise, is not an issue here. The onus is on those who are trying desperately but unsuccessfully to provide a medical reason for HB 854.
MRSA and other infections are already required to be reported and documented.
Not true, at least not in NC.
Just try to find out how many MRSA cases have been identified at your local school, hospital, or rest home. You will be stonewalled.
Betty, you are not the one health facilities are required to report to.
Name one doctor who performs or has performed any kind of invasive medical procedure without (1) a consultation first, (2) a review of patient’s medical history, and (3) scheduling of a medical facility, all of which does take considerable time.
Every doctor who performs abortion on demand at an abortion clinic. A woman can walk in off the street and have an abortion performed without any waiting or further consultation.
MRSA reporting is in vague generalities. The numbers and locations are secret, which means no facilities of any kind are ever shut down because of rampant MRSA.
Regarding abortion clinics, moot point. The operative difference between legitimate and illegitimate doctors are those who follow their medical training and those who do not; and it is unlikely that any who do not are going to abide by HB 854 if enacted.
So, give us the name of one doctor who now performs or has performed any kind of invasive medical procedure without (1) a consultation first, (2) a review of patient’s medical history, and (3) scheduling of a medical facility, all of which does take considerable time.
Regarding abortion clinics, moot point. The operative difference between legitimate and illegitimate doctors are those who follow their medical training and those who do not; and it is unlikely that any who do not are going to abide by HB 854 if enacted.
The abortion clinics are where the vast majority of abortions are being performed. Are you suggesting that the doctors performing these abortions in those clinics are illegitimate or not following proper training? If so, you are adding further justification for government intervention. If that is the case, every one of them is my reply to your demand I name one. I do not know their names.
MRSA reporting is in vague generalities. The numbers and locations are secret, which means no facilities of any kind are ever shut down because of rampant MRSA.
Regulatory reports filed with State and Federal agencies are not secret. You might not have access to them, but they are not secret.
The abortion clinics are where the vast majority of abortions are being performed.
Really? How do you know that? Where are those numbers or percentages?
Are you suggesting that the doctors performing these abortions in those clinics are illegitimate or not following proper training?
Ummm, no. That was your assumption and basis for supporting government intervention.
If so, you are adding further justification for government intervention.
Non sequitur, travelah. Practicing medicine according to one’s medical training is enough–without any doctor-patient intervention by state legislators.
You need to do your own digging. I have destroyed your arguments at every turn.
I will add however that you are either deliberately obfuscating this issue or you are ignorant of the matter. Hospitals perform very few abortions because of the cost involved and abortions are not performed in a doctors office. I suspect you can figure out where they performed.
Regulatory (MRSA) reports filed with State and Federal agencies are not secret. You might not have access to them, but they are not secret.
The numbers and locations are kept “secret” from the public, the people who need to know exactly where MRSA is rampant.
Who told you they are secret? Who refuse you such information? When did you ask for such information?
This is a rabbit trail but understandable since you have clearly lost your debate.
Back up your own statements, travelah, and stick to trying to justify a need for HB 854. Attacking me as “ignorant” does nothing toward making your unsupported opinions sound any more credible.
I always thought that uber-right-wingers wanted less government intrusion, but it seems that they now want a whole new layer of governmental bureaucracy and expense for this one singular issue.
Who told you they (MRSA statistics) are secret? Who refused you such information? When did you ask for such information?
My mother died in 2002 of MRSA that she contracted in a private care facility in NC, and I have tried ever since to track down numbers and other information about that facility through local, state, and federal agencies, all of which refuse to give out any detailed information.
Private care facilities have an extremely strong lobby in Raleigh, which is why they make tons of money, never get shut down, and can withhold such information.
Also, you’ll hear by word of mouth when staph infections (MRSA and otherwise) are becoming rampant at local schools and hospitals, but you’ll never see a press release about it. The locker rooms will be closed for a while and activities put on hold, but neither the school nor health agencies will give you numbers.
There was a bill in the NC legislature several years ago trying to shine some light on the MRSA secretiveness, but it got nowhere because of the powerful rest home association lobby.
Travelah, here are just a few of your recent chest-thumping gorilla-like postings in this HB 854 thread:
“you have clearly lost your debate”
“you are ignorant of the matter”
“I have destroyed your arguments at every turn”
“I won this debate a long time ago”
FYI, travelah, I am not in any kind of semantics “debate” with you, nor do I see any of the other concerned posters in this thread as engaging in any kind of superficial or rhetorical win-lose “debate” with you.
Quite simply, your convoluted debate-club tactics and opinions are just not that important or supportable, but the interaction herein does give opponents of HB 854 a way to keep the proposed legislation in the forefront and to share our concerns and fears with other MtnX online readers who will hopefully contact our legislators and urge them to not allow this bill to pass the NC Senate, or if it does, to urge Governor Perdue to veto it.
My overriding concern is with the implicit danger of HB 854, which would be physically, emotionally, and psychologically detrimental to thousands of women and their families in North Carolina, women who care not one whit about debate theatrics but who do feel strongly that no one else has a right to make decisions about a woman’s reproductive life and health except she herself—and that she has a right to consult with a doctor of her choosing for advice on her reproductive health without the interference and intrusion of a bunch of religionist legislators in Raleigh.
Having the “right” to close one’s eyes or plug one’s ears against such governmental intrusion as set forth in HB 854 is no “right” at all. It’s harassment pure and simple.
Harassment. Pure and simple.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD WIN IN INDINA
Stop the blatant hrassment of disadvantaged women!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/planned-parenthood-indiana_n_884418.html
BREAKING NEWS:
Governor Perdue just vetoed this bill.
Here is Gov. Perdue’s statement regarding her veto today of HB 854:
“This bill is a dangerous intrusion into the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors. The bill contains provisions that are the most extreme in the nation in terms of interfering with that relationship. Physicians must be free to advise and treat their patients based on their medical knowledge and expertise and not have their advice overridden by elected officials seeking to impose their own ideological agenda on others.”
I am assuming Gov. Perdue is equally principled regarding the ideological funding of these abortion mills i.e. government funding of planned parenthood? … ahem … of course not.
There will be another battle on another day.
Ms. Magnolia (great name by the way), the typical woman receiving an abortion is not in any manner disadvantaged. They tend to be young, middle class white women who are seeking a convenience abortion.
“They tend to be young, middle class white women who are seeking a convenience abortion. “
Legitimate source and/or facts to support this ludicrous and misogynist statement…plz.
(By legitimate, I mean no right wing, pharasee b.s.)
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil 115/Stats_on_abortion.htm
Guttmacher has a more recent survey that would spread the ethnic makeup more proportionately among white, hispanic and black women. That same survey also confirms the continuing convenience factor for getting an abortion and substantiates that a majority of abortions are still being performed on women who are not impoverished.
So, we are left with middle class women having abortions out of a desire for convenience rather than any sense of medical necessity. As for your disparaging remarks concerning conservative Americans, you are a victim of group think ignorance. That is a shame.
The crux of the matter is, as the governor stated: “the confidential relationship that exists between women and their doctors.”
Anything else is extraneous intrusion by outsiders who do not warrant an opinion, let alone a vote, about a woman’s body.
“As for your disparaging remarks concerning conservative Americans, you are a victim of group think ignorance. That is a shame. “
Actually most of America thinks your ilk, (aka right winger) are the ignorant ones. Everyone has their opinions.
This country is a center-right nation and that was more than evident with the 2010 elections.
Dream on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._party_affiliation.svg
A large number of those independents are center-right and a considerable number of Democrats are centrist.
Enjoy your nightmare.
[b]This country is a center-right nation and that was more than evident with the 2010 elections. [/b]
So, if Republicans are thrown out of Congress en masse in 2012 following the complete failure they have shown in the last year or two at doing anything substantive for the nation and for attempting to destroy the social safety net of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, you will say that America is center-left?
I don’t think it works like that. Not that I dispute that this is a center-right nation but I certainly don’t think that’s reflected in the back and forth nature of control of any particular segment of the government.
You are right that it doesn’t work that way. The example of 2010 was in response to the shrill claim that most Americans consider conservatives or non liberals to be ignorant. The political pendulum swings back and forth amid a rather conservative nation. Even with constituencies framed by 1960s and 1970s upheavals, the compass of the country remains slightly to the right of center.
The talking points of Democrats with regard to Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements is not the Pandora’s box to Republicans as some might wish. These issues along with the current state of the economy are going to be fully discussed and explored outside the foolishness of Democrat grandstanding. As James Carville noted during the 1992 election cycle, it’s all about the economy.
I’ve been an independent almost all my adult years….most, if not all the independents think the extremes are the nightmare.
I’ve been an independent almost all my adult years….most, if not all the independents think the extremes are the nightmare.
Granted, however there are too many of your political persuasion who label much of middle America and it’s genuine conservative principles as being extreme. It is akin to my labeling moderate Democrats as Trotskyites. At best it would be ignorant. At worse, loathsome.
Kinda depends on what you call “center” and “extreme.” Surely, you don’t think you are “center.”
Ken, no, I am not a centrist. I am conservative and right of center however I am not an extremist or far right wing in any sense. The far right would not be accepting of my social libertarianism.
Your same comments are applicable to yourself as well.
“This country is a center-right nation and that was more than evident with the 2010 elections. “
I think it’s obvious from this statement, that indeed he does.
Why would that statement give any reason to think I am claiming to be a centrist? The 2010 elections were a reaction to the leftist slant of Democrat policy. Democrats lost centrist independents and others who did not sign on to a radical agenda.
I am not an extremist or far right wing in any sense
I think most people would have trouble believing that.
Your same comments are applicable to yourself as well.
Except I have never even hinted about being anything other than leftist.
I am sure that most people in your leftist circles consider anybody to the right of your worldview to be extremist. I have also never hinted or stated I am a centrist.
I have also never hinted or stated I am a centrist.
LOL! Nor would anyone ever consider you a centrist–at least not any readers of your MtnX postings!
Nor would anyone ever consider you a centrist—at least not any readers of your MtnX postings!
But he says he is neither an extremist nor far right wing.
Only fooling one person…himself.
That continuum is a bitch, ain’t it, for semanticists who can’t make up their mind about the most opportunistic place to land.
This country is a center-right nation and that was more than evident with the 2008 elections.
ftfy, travelah.
Ken, everybody to the right of you that fails to agree with your political philosophy is an extremist. The label extremist is an empty and devoid term when used by those on the left to denigrate their opponents. There are extremists within any particular political persuasion however applying it generically to entire political movements within mainstream American thought is disingenuous. It has also lost any measure of usefulness in public discourse due to its flagrant abuse.
…. forgot to mention … I’m taking a break from MTX … get all your stones together for a group think lowest common denominator chug-a-lug
We’ll miss your smiling face.
Ken, everybody to the right of you that fails to agree with your political philosophy is an extremist. The label extremist is an empty and devoid term when used by those on the left to denigrate their opponents. There are extremists within any particular political persuasion however applying it generically to entire political movements within mainstream American thought is disingenuous. It has also lost any measure of usefulness in public discourse due to its flagrant abuse.
Wonderful example of uber-rightist rhetoric!
Ken, everyone knows what “extremist” means, even uber-rightists who try unsuccessfully to abuse the meaning.
(Sorry, Anna, that your excellent letter about HB 854 was hijacked.)
We’ll miss your smiling face.
Speak for yourself.
LOL, ok….I’ll miss your uber-rightist-b.s. smiling face.