Thanks for the look at this bill, Pam.

When I initially read about it elsewhere, I was disturbed that it was being filibustered. There are women out there who are threatened with job loss, homelessness, harassment and violence when they choose to have their baby.(Very real problem. Two cases upcoming involving this Claire Headley's case and the case of Laura Decrescenzo) Serious problem or not though, terrorizing doctors with the threat of prosecution for something they cannot control, and bringing a government agency into almost ever case...not a solution. I can see I'll have to read the bill in its entirety. Hopefully, some sort of /actual/ compromise can happen that protect both the women who choose to give birth, and those that do not.

Pamela Merritt's scenario wouldn't be affected by this legislation and anyone who's read the bill would know that. The legislation specifically defines what someone has to do to be have committed the crime of coercing a woman to abort and "being aggressive" isn't one of them. The legislation also says the abortion provider must believe the "predominant reason" for the abortion is coercion for him to believe the woman "lacks the consent required by law."

My response is here.

Merritt has clearly read the legislation. She quotes it numerous times but her analysis of it is obviously not true. Does she think the RH Reality Check readers are too lazy to read the legislation and see her obvious deception?

I guess Missouri has become the new home of the American Taliban who no doubt won't be happy until they put all Missouri women in burka. These mysogynists should look inward since most of the times all these efforts to control women stem from their inability to control themselves.

...I don't know how feasible it would be, but why not pass a law that says employers, scholarship providers, etc. cannot discriminate against pregnant women? I'm sure there would be logical exceptions where say a pregnant woman could not climb a utility pole as an employee if her doctor told her not to do so. How about if large/medium-sized employers had to TEMPORARILY reassign a pregnant woman to another job at or near where she is working her present job that her doctor says she couldn't do. Maybe smaller employers would have to continue healthcare coverage (IF they had any) while she took a disability leave if her doctor required her to do so.
...I can hear the protests now to any of these accommodations: "Women and doctors would take advantage of the employers," or "Employers cannot afford that" (even though CEO pay is insanely and immorally off-the-charts), etc. Yet other advanced countries have decided that a secure society to have and raise children is a public good. Imagine THAT kind of REAL pro-life attitude were adopted in our country.
...Of course the Cons would foam at the mouth and spit out frantic accusations of "socialism," "communism," "fascism," and "totalitarianism." I'm sure I forgot some other boggyman-ism.
...Oh, and warnings that millions of Octomoms would be encouraged to become baby factories would certainly ensue. As if that's what women want.
...We just have to re-imagine what a truly pro-life culture would be: Affordable healthcare, age-appropriate comprehensive sex (LIFE) education, affordable child- and elderly care, living-wage jobs, etc.
P.S. Do not disturb a good meditation.

"Imagine that rape survivor also mentions to her doctor that her boyfriend agrees with her decision, but has been aggressive with her about it. With HB46, now the doctor must turn the situation over to the government which mandates that the doctor label that rape survivor a "victim of coerced abortion" who "lacks the consent required by law."

This is a straw man argument and goes back to the pro choice lobby using rape victims to make every argument for them. If a woman who was raped got into such a situation, she could certainly go to another doctor, if having an abortion was her decision. I just think that most people here HATE the idea of ANYTHING that would help or influence women not to have abortions, because the more abortions are performed, the better conditions are for the triumph of pro choice arguments. What is sad is that many women suffer from the issues addressed in this bill and gnawing at it like a bone destroys legitimate efforts to bring the pro life and pro choice communities together in helping women.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Who's side are you on anyway? It is hard to tell. Obviously we are not well behaved women here. AHHH the feminists for life perhaps?

I really don't think "whose side I'm on" is relevant. Clearly, there is a problem that this bill is meant to address, yet the very title of this piece is deceptive in that it makes it seem as if the bill was meant to coerce women into being pregnant. That is not the case, because it is clearly focused on preventing coerced abortion. How is this to be prevented if there is no penalty for carrying out a coerced abortion? Are we just supposed to trust doctors because their doctors, implicitly, without questioning them by setting up a penalty for carrying out an abortion that he or she knows is not what the woman truly desires? More on this later.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Progo35 says: "If a woman who was raped got into such a situation, she could certainly go to another doctor, if having an abortion was her decision."

Why should a woman have to go around the state, or country, from doctor to doctor just to find someone who will trust her with her decision and perform a LEGAL procedure? Abortion is already the most regulated procedure, and at best this legislation is attempting to discourage doctors from helping women. How many times have you had to take a week off work, travel hundreds of miles, and then under your scenario, find yet another doctor to have a root canal or tonsilectemy? Probably never....

Progo35 also asked how coerced abortion is to be prevented if there is no penalty. It seems clear that Progo just implicitly distrusts any medical professional that would be associated with abortion. Are you familiar with the already stringent and thorough informed consent and counseling process women go through? I'd also be interested in seeing some statistics on the number of coerced abortions that didn't come from an anti-choice source like the Eliot Institute.

i'd like intrudce a website you will have the opportunity to wholesale jewelry The site is very clear when it comes to providing you with all the jewelry wholesale information you need