(UPDATED) Protecting Life? New Bill Says Its OK to Let Women Die

I'm wondering if any group is likely to do the same kind of targeting that SBA List did with those who voted for the health care act? They specifically worked on making sure that vote was brought up during the last election (though I don't know if their memories will last until the next one).

I think the extreme views of those signing onto both this and H.R 3, as well as anyone who votes for either bill, should be made an issue when those folks are up for re-election.

and before that, I was struggling with Sister telling us grade-school girls, in our weekly Released Time religious instruction classes, that (1) when we married and became pregnant, we should make sure we were taken to a Catholic hospital, so that if there should be any complications, the doctors would be sure to let us die so that we would go straight to Heaven for sacrificing our lives in childbirth in favor of the fetus, even if it too died regardless - instead of to a Protestant, Jewish or secular hospital where they might sacrifice the fetus and save the miserable lives of us girls, only to stain our souls with mortal sin; and (2) should both of us survive the complications, and should the newborn be severely physically and/or mentally compromised, this was a sign to us that God loved us even more than other women, and regarded us as especially special to be given the supreme gift of a broken child that he trusted us above anyone else to tend for Him.  

I got the idea right then and there, that if I ever DID get pregnant, I'd make sure I WASN'T ever taken to a Catholic hospital, since I had no intentions of being left to die when even the less sophisticated medical science of the early 1960s could have easily prevented the woman's death from many childbirth complications.  

I took every measure I could to make sure I never got pregnant, either, over the ensuing 50 years, probably because Sister scared the living cr@p out of me that day.   

Interestingly enough, the teachings of the Catholic Church were the single MOST effective behavioral reinforcement to never, EVER take any chances with unprotected sex!

Weird.  It was working earlier.  There are a surprising number of women on the list.   Do they not realize what they're signing?

WHERE ARE THE JOBS ???

It's the Republican shame and blame game.

Thanks Jodi! This is helpful.

All the Catholic doctrine defenders I've read, they're saying they have to treat both patients, or the abortion can't be "direct". So they'll use the surgical method to treat an eptopic pregnancy (even though it's surgery & affects future fertility) rather than use a chemical abortion. They don't want to be told: no, you have to use the drug. Or, no: you have to act promptly, you can't wait for the fetal heartbeat to stop. Or have to do a direct abortion if the placenta is causing fatal heart failure.

Heartless, blind fanatics. They want to keep their women-killing ideology, but don't want to be forced to admit or defend causing injury or death in a court of law, they'll use politicians instead.

Language has been added in the Chairman's mark that creates an expanded conscience clause --a non-discrimination clause--which exempts institutions and individuals from performing abortions even in cases where a woman's life is in danger. 

As per above, this version does not appear on line as yet.

You may recall that recently a Catholic hospital in Arizona was cut off from its affiliation with the Diocese because an abortion was performed to save a woman's life (a woman who already had several children), after hospital ethicists and others determined it was the best course.  This is exactly the type of thing that in another situation, a Catholic hospital or other hospital or individual claiming "conscience" would now be exempt from having to do.

This is a dangerous precedent in and of itself but increasingly so given that Catholic hospitals are taking an increasing share of the hospital market.

We are entering an era where our medical and pharmacy practice is not being determined by medical ethics, best practices, or the best interests of the living, breathing extant patient, but rather by someone's distorted view of what constitutes "life."

I do encourage you to contact your representative and protest the entire bill, including but not limited to the newly included language.

It makes an exception to funding abortions in those cases. It does not use those cases as exceptions to the section strengthening the conscience clause.

Now, this is an amendment, and perhaps the bill it is amending has language that makes it clear the conscience clause is not to be used as an excuse to let women die. But I honestly don't believe so, because unlike the 'death panel'-shrieking opposition, I have yet to see the folks on this side of the debate jump to such unfounded conclusions.

So are you lot done copy/pasting the non-relevant portion of the amendment all over the comment feed?

This bill sucks! It is a horribly written piece of crap.

“Forcible rape,” what qualifies as “force?” As if rape isn’t horrible enough. Will only certain women qualify for this? Who makes the decision as to the degree of “force” to qualify as rape?  Is there a certain degree a woman is supposed to suffer? Like that's not sexist.

I find this language strange, “pregnant female.” Do they mean “pregnant  ‘human’ female?” Or “pregnant female” cat? “Pregnant female” cow? “Pregnant female” goat? Are women livestock? Why not say, “in the case where a woman suffers from……..” The emphasis is on pregnant. Like it’s determined she IS and WILL remain pregnant until she gives birth to a live baby.

Refuses does not equate to lack of provision of abortion care.  And, the original language of that section of the law, as L-DAN pointed out, did NOT include life-saving care as its intention, which means that, in order to repudiate the claims made, here, they should have included it, in the first place.

Btw, none of the links that have been provided have included any of the new language in the bill.  Even if it did, though, it's kind of funny that you mention Jodi, specifically, when there are many others who obviously couldn't find it, as well. 

Um, if the language is to be inserted, I don't know what else you can call it, exCEPT 'proposed' language?  

Err, more serious lack of reading comprehension?  Each subsection repeats that clause exCEPT for the one regarding Non-Discrimination on Abortion.  So, OBviously it is NOT included in the conscience clause, there.

Really?  Are they pro-life about donating all the organs they possibly can to save organ recipients' lives?  Besides, most of the Pro-Lifers I have encountered go on to prove that they have no understanding of the dangers high-risk pregnancies present to the woman and, thus, the fetus.  Just as you, yourself, have done.  ALL pregnancies pose a danger to the woman. Pregnancy IS the second leading cause of death in women, worldwide.  You might also want to read about Obstetric Fistula, on this website, as well. And, lastly, Anti-Choicers should have no problem with early-term abortions since the fetus is not viable until at LEAST 22 weeks.

Because they've fallen for the same drivel that religious folk do, the same drivel that the latter simply falls more easily for.

Btw, I'm a Pro-Choice Christian, one who sinCEREly believes that one has to have been deceived by 'Satan' in order to be Pro-Life and Christian.

The part carving out exceptions to the anti-abortion language is very clear on only carving it out with regards to funding...not as regards the entirety of the bill.

My recollection from the AZ Catholic hospital dustup is that current law requires hospitals to provide life-saving care in emergencies regardless of other policies, preferences, or conscience issues in operation at that hospital. Catholic hospitals have been documented flouting that law, and the aforementioned dustup was regarding one that did not flout it and wound up cut off by the church for its troubles. Thus, dismissing concerns because 'it makes no sense to let a mother die because if the mother dies the baby will die as well.' is ignoring the fact that this is already a problem.

The strengthening of the conscience clause listed above, exacerbates this problem by making it harder to sanction (discriminate) against hospitals that operate in this fashion. Would it be discriminatory for a city to require that ambulances avoid Catholic hospitals if they responded to an emergency situation involving a pregnant woman?

Maybe I don't really care why many folks are pro-life when it seems to simply be shorthand for continuing to insist that women be subject to intrusions that nobody else is. When they continue to insist that fetuses are more valuable than women, and insist that I and every other woman live our lives by that metric, why should I really care why they are pro-life? They are very demonstrably not pro-my-life.

No I am not saying it is not available.  I am saying it is/was not available on line at the original time of posting.  Amendments are written into legislation every day of the week, and do not necessarily appear on line for our convenience.

You write:

If someone has an objection to doing an abortion, there are many others who don't have an objection when it comes to the life of the mother usually in the same medical facility but even with all that the bill clearly says that rape, incest and life of the mother are exceptions and thus applies to all part of the bill.

False.  Not true in Catholic hospitals which have an increasing share of the market.  Moreover, why should the life of any woman any where be subjected to ideologically driven rather than medically accurate emergency care.

You wrote:

In addition, when did every medical provider suddenly become uncaring of people dying? Many in the pro-life movement are very very pro-life including pro-life Atheists/Buddhists like myself and Christopher Hitchens. And to all of them, it makes no sense to let a mother die because if the mother dies the baby will die as well. Most pro-lifers are very conscious of this. Very few if any pregnancies put the life of the mother in danger. Removal of tubal pregnancies are not considered abortions because the fetus is not viable.

First, who are you to decide what pregnancies are dangerous to the life or health of an individual woman not presenting to you for care?  Second, if you think that "many in the prolife community" are so caring about women's lives (sorry, i dont see Christopher Hitchens lobbying on the Hill), then why are groups like Pro-Life Wisconsin and Personhood Colorado and a host of others so explicit in "no exceptions for life or health of the mtoher, and why TODAY did Arizona prolifers reject an abortion bill because they could not accept a bill that included such exceptions (or for rape?).  Why did we see this case in Arizona?

Why was a pharmacist in January allowed to refuse to fill a prescription prescribed to a woman to forestall hemorhagging because she might have had an abortion?

Look around, my friend.

You can theorize all you want.  In reality real women every day are being denied care they need.  and as long as you and yours are not immediately affected, you can stay safely behind the theory.

I think you spelled it right, Freetobe.  At least my browser says you did!

Not following...

Can you tell me WHY you think the exception clause does NOT apply to the life of the mother? Can you also prove that all those signers of the bill also think it does NOT apply to the life of the mother? You see it seems you just want to inflame things and prescribe motives to others.

Nobody says the exception clause does not apply to abortions required to save women's lives. We are saying it applies to the section regarding funding, not the section regarding conscience clauses.

Why? Because it is listed right there in the Funding section...not in the section regarding nondiscrimination against entities refusing to do/teach/etc. abortion.

I believe that forcing a doctor to do an abortion when someone's life is in danger is absolutely correct. It is completely immoral to let women die because they ended up in the wrong hospital in an emergency situation. Would you allow a doctor to allow a gay man to die because they don't believe in treating 'immoral' people like that, or would you opine that they be forced to save them? If there's another doctor nearby without those qualms, great...if not, they're stuck with it.

And what does the fact that all pregnancies are dangerous have to do with this argument? As an argument for abortion being an available choice in general, sure, but that isn't what's being debated here.

Can you tell me WHY you think the exception clause does NOT apply to the life of the mother? Can you also prove that all those signers of the bill also think it does NOT apply to the life of the mother? You see it seems you just want to inflame things and prescribe motives to others.

A demonstration of lack of reading comprehension, again.  As L-Dan and I both explained, the language is used specifically in each and every case exCEPT for the part where it refers to 'Conscience'.  Either way, both your and our claims are assumptions, but I think, all considered, a case can be made that yours is the much LARger assumption.

So let me get this straight. You think that since any pregnancy is dangerous all pregnancies should force someone who does not want to do an abortion to do an abortion? Is this the logic you use? And you call forcing someone to do an abortion as stopping government intrusion? What am I missing here? 

Um, why are you conflating two ideas that have never even come into the same orbit as each other?  The two ideas that we ARE conflating are government intrusion in regards to regulation of violation of the 'Conscience clause' and government intrusion in regards to following 'best practices'.  Which do you think is the larger intrusion, based on the political ideologies of the ProLife and ProChoice movements, respectively? And, did you not also read Freetobe's response.  As she said, no OTHER medical remedy is regulated in such a manner as this bill would have abortion regulated.  Thanks. 

Um, I believe I was responding to YOU.  You are the one who brought it into the discussion, even though no one had mentioned any such thing as of yet, as a 'pre-emptive strike', I grant you, yes, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I was merely responding to YOU.  

And that we can agree upon.  Thanks.  :)

... you could pass along that suggestion to Stupak and friends?

leave religion out.

Not when the US Council of Catholic Bishops lobbies for legislation that would let women die, and when the whole debate around women, sex and reproduction is set in one set of "morals" as dictated by one set of religious values not shared by everyone.

Um, like I also said, there is far more substantial evidence for the assumption made by the author.  Again, thanks.

It doesn't matter.  If women have the same rights as everyone else, they have the same right to determine who uses their body, and every part therein, and when and how they are used, just as everyone else does with indisputable human beings, which occurs even when another's life depends upon that usage.

But, abortion is the termination of the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta.  

Congratulations Trout....with your use of  the word "we"....you have officially confirmed my suspicions that you believe a woman's uterus is public property.

Well done. No rilly.

*blink*

What is this in response to? And how is it germane to the conversation at hand? It really helps if you actually use the 'reply' link attached to the post you are replying to and/or quote what you are responding to.

This amendment and H.R. 3 are abominations designed to not only make Hyde permanent, but to redefine what constitute 'federal funds,' create unprecidented leeway for medical professionals to endanger women, and to intrude deeply on the ability of women to exercise a legal right.

We can argue elsewhere about whether that right should or should not be legal. Here, apparently, we are arguing about whether the folks who do think it should be legal are overreacting to the unprecedented attack on that right. The answer is, not really. From the standpoint of someone firmly on the side of legal abortion, these amendments are brutal. From the standpoint of someone interested in women's health, these amendments are cruel and overbearing.

... YOU aren't aborting anything now are you?

Sorry that's just not right. But we can agree to disagree. However you don't see me riling up the troops and convincing sheep to go around calling people "woman killers" like many posts here did.

Do you say the same thing when your fellow Pro-Lifers do the same thing that you believe we are doing, then?  And, I assure you, they do it in far larger numbers.  And, when someone believes that something isn't right, they usually have an argument to back themselves up....

Let's see...I see one comment that uses the phrase "woman-killing ideology". Please point out where we single anyone out as woman-killers. Making the point that this legislation will result in women dying is not so much inflammatory as based on documented past experience of what Catholic hospitals pressure doctors to do.

If the anti-choice side talked about fetuses dying instead of 'women killing their children,' if they called them 'abortion providers' instead of 'baby killers,' if they didn't insist that abortion is murder, you might even sound non-hypocritical when accusing the other side of inflammatory language.

Troll, troll, trollidy, troll.

This is so far off topic it isn't even funny. As soon as the debate hits a point where you don't have a response to the topic at hand...the topic shifts, right off into Godwinland this time.

Since you can't even reply in such a fashion as to keep the conversation coherent as to what you're replying to, I'm done feeding the troll.

... is the section of the umbilical cord attached to the fetus, no more no less. 

And when you find something that shows slaves were residing in another individual's body using them for life support, I'll chat about comparing abortions to slavery. Until then...

Fetus does NOT equal placenta.  Really, you don't know anything about pregnancy and yet STILL feel well-informed enough to comment on something dealing with that very subject?  I didn't say a fetus wasn't human. I absolutely believe a fetus is human life.  Which is WHY I'm ProChoice, because I DON'T believe that a fetus should get more rights than an indisPUTable human being does (y'know, the part you avoided addressing in favour of the above, and in order to continue derailing the thread, at that, too).  If unwanted pregnancy is a mere 'inconvenience', then unwanted sex is even moreso, so don't bother defending yourself from rape, because it's merely 'inconvenient'.

OFFS, another stinking Godwin.  Hitler was anti-choice.  He was ProLife for German women and ProAbortion for Jewish women.  Gisella Perl, a ProChoice woman, saved Jewish women from certain death by aborting their pregnancies.  A ProLife doctor would have most likely let both women and feoti die, most likely in order to convince themselves that they did not participate in an act they consider immoral.  

BOTH Hitler and slave-owners denied rights to a group of humans they categorized as inferior while giving more rights to those they considered superior, just like the ProLifers want to deny rights to a group of humans they categorize as inferior (women) and grant more rights to a group of humans they categorize as superior (feoti).  

Now, if you want to continue to derail this thread on a topic that is entirely irrelevant to the ProChoice movement, as well (the reason why I say all ProLifers have merely been deceived by the drivel they've been force-fed, whether religious OR atheist), please, feel free to go right ahead. 

Of WHAT?

1. There is nothing that can be pinned down as being anti woman in this bill that isn't simply presumptuous.

Actually, I believe official efforts to force women to bear children against their will is "anti-woman.

2. The author of this blog presumptuously attacked the bill and used inflammatory language.

Well no...the author used accurate language.

3. A bunch of sheep who didn't realize the presumption that the blogger created have now read the bill for themselves and realized the presumption and realized that their best argument is "we think we know better than you" rather than we know for a fact.

You appear to believe that  the author pulled this out of her ass. Such is not the case.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/new-gop-law-would-allow-hospi...

1. There is nothing in this bill that canNOT be pinned down as being anti-woman that isn't simply presumptuous.

2. The author of this blog attacked language based on what evidence she has seen of it in the bill using perfectly acceptable language of her own.

3. A bunch of sheep who have created their own presumption of the bill in order to attack said blogger have now read the bill for themselves but continue to doggedly presume that their best argument is that  they know better than anyone, without any sufficient evidence to back themselves up.

Nope.  I have explained WHY it wouldn't.  I think it would behoove you to read that comment.  Abortion IS:  Termination of pregnancy (the implantation of the fetal portion of the placenta, which, again, does NOT equal fetus).  NO one born has the right to co-opt another person's body, or parts therein, not EVEN to save their life, without that person's ongoing, explicit and informed consent.  A baby is NOT completely dependent upon one single person to survive as a fetus is.  

And, way to go with the lack of reading comprehension again.  I am against war because it actually kills innocent human beings, so why should I be forced to support, through taxation, something I see as murder?  Get how ridiculous your logic is, now?

If this position was truly ProChoice, as you say, you would allow the same distinction for all other medical remedies.  You don't.  So, it's not about allowing choice, but about punishment, punishment for the way a woman's body was made.

Now, can we get back on-topic... please...? 

I have just included quotes from an article by Talking Points Memo quoting Cong. Joe Pitts on the intent of the bill, which is exactly as I have described it.

Second, please note that your posts are now going to be flagged as trolling and you will be banned unless you stay on point and stop repeating the same unsupportable comments.

The difference between a fetus and a 1 day old baby is that while the baby can be handed to someone else to care for (as adoption, or even just a nurse or other caregiver taking the baby out of the room to care for it for the mother to get some rest) the fetus cannot be given to another person.  When medical science finds a way to successfully transfer the placenta and fetus carried by a pregnant woman into the body of another to continue the pregnancy, then your argument will have validity.  Until then, there is no comparison of a fetus to a newborn. 

In addition, caring for a 1 day old newborn does not cause massive organ failure as pregnancy gone wrong can do, thus making the life of the mother part of the argument in this case invalid as well.

This is a strawman fallacy.

Remember this bill is not about banning abortion (why is that so hard to grasp). This is about two things.

1. Not forcing those who are against abortions from performing it.

2. Not forcing those who are against abortions to pay for it

Um, which, essentially, prevents women from seeking abortions, no matter how much you would like to try to deny it (why is that so hard to grasp).

Why did you swing this to arguing about banning abortions. That's a strawman. Perhaps it's because I'm prolife that you think it's OK to argue that. I'm happy to argue that if you want. But this bill is not about banning abortions. You may say it is in the long term, but that is also presumptuous. 

Nope, it isn't. When women don't have access to more than one such health care provider in their area, when that physician refuses to provide that service, when the woman is poor and without a family to support her (the most likely person to access this care), when that woman must secure funds to travel long distances to actually find a provider willing to perform that service, when that just further delays the point in time in which the woman can actually access abortion care, making the service even more expensive, yes, women are being prevented from having abortions.

A fetus is NOT a child.  One is not a child until one has, at the very least, been taken from the hospital.

The question at hand is if you can choose to force other people to kill war-time civilians for the government and also pay for that killing.

 The question at hand is if she can choose to force other people to kill that fetus for her and also pay for that killing.

No, the question at hand is whether it's a valid  hospital policy  to allow  pregnant women to die for no other reason than that their bodies cannot sustain a pregnancy and then require her family to pay the hospital bill for  her murder.

A deathly ill woman is not in a position to "force" anyone to do ANYTHING. We are talking about hospital policy.

If the republican party  Catholic church (and fake Buddhists) find saving the lives of women so offensive they clearly should not be in the business of providing medical care to women or, for that matter, writing laws they KNOW will have no other effect than  increasing the maternal mortality rate.

Trout...two things: A) not only did I read the bill, I went looking for further information that would either corroborate or contradict the claims posted here.

B) Spare me the disingenuous "logicspeak" nitpicking. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent women from obtaining abortion, and you know it.

I believe your argument is faulty (and your tone is cantankerous). If you are against war and do not wish to pay for it, feel free to offer up a bill to be voted upon that says that if you are against war you should not need topay for it.  If you can get more than Dennis Kucinich to vote for it, you are on your way. 

Surely you are familiar with the Republican system of legislation we have in this country? 

Note in fact we already have a law that says if you are against war, you don't need to participate in it (conscientious objector). So your statement is immediately refuted. There is in fact great precedence to the participation part of this.

As to the paying part of this there is also much precedence there too. As a Buddhist I do not believe in paying taxes for churches or synagogues to be built. Fortunately we live in a country where I do not need to do so. Nor do I believe in paying for someone to have slaves. So similarly there is much precedence for someone to not want to pay for abortions.

Wrong.  1. I am not the one who is making an argument promoting that someone not be forced to pay for something they consider murder.  2. Murder (or rather the taking of life) is the operative word, here.  3. Taxation is another operative word. 4.  And, so are not performing it AS a requirement of your job.  Many US military personnel defected to my country (which you will discover, below) on the grounds that they morally opposed the war that was currently taking place.  They defected because they believed they would be would be court-martialled if they remained in the US.  That is more relevant to the discussion, since they were ACTually objecting to the requirements of the perFORMance of their job.  5. I have NO problem allowing someone who has a conscientious objection to abortion not performing it, if there is someone else nearby who can provide the service in their stead - something that military personnel don't have to be concerned about - (after all, that is something that occurs with ALL other professions, medical or otherwise, because if service providers can't do their JOB they shouldn't be working at that job in the first place.  Plus, it is not OUR place to accommodate them, it is their place to accommodate us, especially when an objection to a certain part of health care arises because of one gender's biological function) 6.  Taking all of those into consideration why aren't they (and you) opposing ALL forms of taxation taken from them (and you) that lead to the exact same thing they (and you) consider murder in abortion, esPECially as it comes under the perFORMance of their job? 7. You ARE paying for someone to have slaves, when you condone slave labour for women. 8. I am Canadian (which is also relevant to this discussion, because Canada is the only democratic country without a law placing time restrictions on abortion and, because, in the majority of provinces, including the one in which I live - the most conservative province IN Canada - there is public funding for abortion), not USian.

In Buddhism we have something called vaca which means speaking in a truthful and non-hurtful way. I suggest this for you.

Why don't you try that first, then we can talk.  Your obsessive need to enslave women to their uteruses and to fetuses and deny them the same rights that everyone else has, via the same talking points that every other ProLifer has used on here, is extremely untruthful and hurtful, after all.

Wow, you can't even get issues NOT dealing with abortion correct.  A conscientious objector who is actively in the military doesn't have the option of not participating in war, they just have the option of not actually being required to kill or carry a weapon as part of their duties (fiance was in the military, from a military family and we've had conversations regarding ACTUAL conscientious objectors he and those in his family have known personally).  A conscientious objector who is trained as a medic does NOT have the option of not being shipped out on the battlefield to provide medical care to wounded soldiers.  A conscientious objector trained as a communications expert does NOT have the option of ignoring transmissions that are involved in or could lead to war.  Just more proof that you don't know anything about what you're blathering on about, no matter what the topic.

You have to focus on the argument, not on the assumed hypocrisies of the arguer.

Um, no.  If your argument is hypocritical, you HAVE no argument.  Because that is not, truly, your belief.  

If a Nazi were to argue that 1+1 = 2, you may have good reason to not like him, but his argument would still be valid. Do not try to dilute the argument. Focus on why the argument currently at hand is valid.  You know nothing about my other stances and for all you know I do exactly that. Attacking a presumed hypocrisy that has nothing to do with the matter at hand show the weakness of your position. I would urge you to consider the facts and argue rationally.'

Maybe you do, but each of those arguments that was presented to you, you have failed to address, failed to note how they may reduce the validity of your claims if you do not back them up.

1.) Being anti-abortion is fine, so long as everyone else is anti-abortion. Otherwise, you make for an easy target, and I'm sure no one here wants to lose their livelihood to a democratic, responsible government.

2.) Aforementioned strawman.

3.) See above.  Misogyny, AS we have told you OVER and OVER, ISn't determined by one's gender.  BUT the views they support.  DUH.

That bill says nothing even close to what the author says it says. Nowhere does it say that hospitals can sit around and do nothing. That's the most liberal misconstruction of a piece of legislation I've ever seen.

Lawyers examining the language of the amendment found precisely what we have reported, and Congressman Pitts has now confirmed the intent of the language of the amendment, as we have described it here.

Do you think stories like goatini's are "(laughable) histrionics?" Really? Because that's reinforcing the misogynistic motives behind this bill.

1. O/T and not remotely close to the point. Point being that we all pay for things we're not fond of because it's part of the package of having a civil society. Most of us are willing to not nitpick every possible place our tax dollars go in order to avoid derailing the energy that our government should be putting to useful work. The right, on the other hand, is willing to use any issue they can to stir shit. They disagreed with the health care bill to begin with and tried to poison it with the Stupak amendment, knowing that the majority who wanted it would find that a tough pill to swallow. They know they can't repeal it as it stands, so they're trying it again. This is childish and unproductive bullshit that affects actual women's lives (and, coincidentally, the lives of the men and children around them), from a group that supposedly campaigned on jobs and fiscal responsiblity.

2. See Jodi's note below. The bill does precisely what she says. See the Talking Points Memo article for a more in-depth analysis.

3. Why is it hard to grasp that women can hold misogynist and anti-woman views and beliefs? Seriously, how can anyone see the crop of bills that have been brought forward at the federal and state level in just the past month as *urgent* and *emergency* legislation that all have in common the fact that they will affect women disproportionately and negatively, and think that there isn't an anti-woman agenda going on? Note that these urgent bills are brought up before anything to do with the urgent business of dealing with fiscal crises in pretty much all cases. I guarantee you aren't as tired of the accusations of misogyny as I am of living with it directed at me.

Wow, for someone supposedly coming out against emotional but intellectually hollow arguments, you're doing a good job of same.

You mix the words human being and person and child as if they all mean the same thing. They do not. It's late and I have work to do before crashing, so I'm going with the short versions of arguments that can be drawn out with more nuance...but here's the sound bites version.

Let's start with the killing innocent human beings part first.

• what does innocence have to do with it?
• is removing life support killing? If no, then at least abortions up to viability aren't actually killing.
• Do I have the right to kill someone threatening my life and health? If so, abortions throughout pregnancy fall under this category...and killing a toddler does not.
• Do I have a right to threaten someone else's life or health? If not, why does a fetus have that right?

Now the human being-person-child part.

• Human being does not equal person. If you believe a blastocyst is a person, you are in the minority. You are certainly out of the realms of legal personhood.
• Actual, legal persons are not required to give of their body to sustain anyone else's life. No forced blood or living organ donation, for example. Why are women (and only women) required to do so for your sense of justice?
• How is a blastocyst different from any other stem cell? How is it ok to abort a parasitic twin, but not a regular old embyo? In other words, what is your definition of person that makes a zygote/embryo/fetus different from a number of other living things with human DNA that we have no problem medically removing?

Finally, on to the meat of this bill.

• Does your sense of justice require that women who need life-saving abortions die (generally along with the fetus)?
• Does your sense of justice believe that women need to prove they were subject to the right kind of rape in order to receive assistance in not carrying her rapist's child and being traumatized over and over again?
• Does your sense of justice allow that doctors and pharmacists can subject women presenting for treatment or prescriptions to their suspicions about why they may be there? Keep in mind that miscarriages look an awful lot like abortions.

If it's an injustice to intentionally kill innocent human beings, and abortion intentionally kills innocent human beings, then abortion is an injustice.

Unlike forcing pregnant women to remain pregnant against their will, which is just peachy-keen!

Why it is a right for women to kill their children?!

Sorry, but this isn't a pro-infanticide site. Were you looking for the Susan Smith Fan Club?

I challenge anyone passionate about this to show me why women have the right to kill their children, or to show me evidence that the unborn are not human beings.

Good luck with that. Perhaps you can show us why fetuses somehow have this amazing right to obtain biological life support from a woman who does not consent to providing it. Who else do you suppose gets this right to use womens' bodies without their consent?

I don’t have the obligation nor feel in any way at all that I have to put aside my sense of justice so that you can kill your child more “safely.”

Well, you wouldn't be the first person to think that violating the human rights of pregnant women is "justice."

GAH Multipost!  sorry!

Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is good

Every sperm is needed

In your neighborhood!

gonna leave this because it's funny...

Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is good

Every sperm is needed

In your neighborhood!

Dr's are supposed to leave their personal philosophies at the door up here.  If they don't they answer to the licensing board and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of their province for refusing care.

They can say "I don't recommend this procedure because:"  and allow you to make your informed decision but they cannot deny you care.  

Starts singing

Every sperm is sacred

Every sperm is good

Every sperm is needed

In your neighborhood!