Do You Know What 3/10, Tomorrow Is?

[Kathianne]

Yeah, it's Tuesday, but that's not the answer.

It's: National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers

And some are selling it!

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/anotherthing/415640/national_day_of_appreciation_for_abortion_provider s

See, they've been having a 'tough time of it.'


March 10th is National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers, and man oh man could they use some love. Obama's victory may protect Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court, but state legislatures are doing their best to pile on the obstacles and restrictions: mandatory ultrasounds are the latest fad, with bills being considered in eleven states ( because apparently women are so stupid they might not realize they're having an abortion because they're pregnant). And then, as Michael Winerip reported in an unusually thorough piece in Sunday's New York Times (in the Style section, sigh, along with the rest of the girlynews), the women's health activists who form the backbone of many clinic staffs are retiring and proving hard to replace in the more conservative and rural regions, like upstate New York, the South and Midwest. Doctors, nurses and technicians are reluctant to work in clinics in anti-choice places where they will be picketed, socially ostracized and forced to protect themselves daily against possible violence. Low pay is another factor: anti-choicers love to talk about abortion as a business, but adjusted for inflation, the price of a first trimester abortion is about what it was thirty years ago, although security-related costs have skyrocketed -- one reason why clinic staffers make about half what they would in another specialty....

[DannyR]

I bet they'll even wear the official T-shirt:
http://www.audrizzle.com/abortionsendsbabiestogodfaster.jpg

[PostmodernProphet]

"suffer the little children to come unto me"?.........

[emmett]

I've decided I am no longer discussing Abortion personally!

[PostmodernProphet]

I've decided I am no longer discussing Abortion personally!

I think you just broke that rule....:poke:

[Immanuel]

I'll show them some appreciation... :32 er no that doesn't seem Christlike. How about this :upyou, no not that one either.

Here you go... the address to the nearest unemployment site so they can find easy directions: www.unemploymentoffice.net

Immie

[Jagger]

Let the free market regulate abortion.

[PostmodernProphet]

why do you hate embryos?......

[5stringJeff]

Let the free market regulate abortion.

Should the free market regulate murder as well?

[Kathianne]

Let the free market regulate abortion.

I'd prefer the states. But with that said, why force doctors to perform abortions against their conscience? Freedom of Choice Act does just that.

[DannyR]

Should the free market regulate murder as well?Already does. Good luck trying to find a paid assassin for bottom basement prices. ;-)

[DannyR]

I'd prefer the states. But with that said, why force doctors to perform abortions against their conscience? Freedom of Choice Act does just that.I keep hearing that claim, but I still don't think its valid. The current bill certainly says no such thing:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1173:

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) GOVERNMENT- The term `government' includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, or official (or other individual acting under color of law) of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State.

(2) STATE- The term `State' means each of the States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each territory or possession of the United States.

(3) VIABILITY- The term `viability' means that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman.

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) Statement of Policy- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) Civil Action- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.So I can see this as forcing a government hospital to provide abortions, but it certainly doesn't require an individual doctor to provide them as long as the service is available. The hospital would just hire doctors who were comfortable doing so. The objecting doctor in this case is not a government. And even so, the doctor is free to not work for the government institution as well.

And I certainly don't see it as forcing private, non-public hospitals or doctors, such as Catholic ones, being obligated in any fashion.

[PostmodernProphet]

so what happens when all twenty doctors at a government operated hospital tell the administrator they don't do abortions?......

[Kathianne]

I keep hearing that claim, but I still don't think its valid. The current bill certainly says no such thing:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1173:
So I can see this as forcing a government hospital to provide abortions, but it certainly doesn't require an individual doctor to provide them as long as the service is available. The hospital would just hire doctors who were comfortable doing so. The objecting doctor in this case is not a government. And even so, the doctor is free to not work for the government institution as well.

And I certainly don't see it as forcing private, non-public hospitals or doctors, such as Catholic ones, being obligated in any fashion.

If the Catholic or any other private hospital is taking in medicare/medicaid patients, they fall under. Considering most Catholic hospitals are in poor, urban areas, it's a bit of a problem.

I think they will eventually close them.

[DannyR]

If the Catholic or any other private hospital is taking in medicare/medicaid patients, they fall under. That seems to be a rather liberal reading of the law.

The point of medicare/medicaid is to provide financial help to a patient to seek treatment. Does it always imply that the acceptor of such a patient must abide by government restrictions?

[DannyR]

so what happens when all twenty doctors at a government operated hospital tell the administrator they don't do abortions?......I'd think they'd hire one that did. I'm less worried about doctors who work for the government. I see it as no different than any other government job. Someone might not like unemployment or welfare policy, but is their boss really supposed to let them not do a job if they are in a department geared toward that purpose? Does a soldier have the right to refuse an order he disagrees with (assuming its not illegal). One has a choice in if you work for the government or not.

So even assuming government doctors may be forced (and I have no idea), lets restrict the conversation to if this law forces private doctors to perform abortions. That seems to be the claim I hear most often.

[PostmodernProphet]

That seems to be a rather liberal reading of the law.



that's what we're afraid of....liberals, reading the law.....

[PostmodernProphet]

I'd think they'd hire one that did.

and if they only needed twenty doctors, fire one of the ones who didn't.....

since we already know the laws relating to government action have been extended into virtually every arena through the commerce clause of the Constitution, it is rather disingenuous to say this act wouldn't extend beyond "goverment" institutions...

[Kathianne]

That seems to be a rather liberal reading of the law.

The point of medicare/medicaid is to provide financial help to a patient to seek treatment. Does it always imply that the acceptor of such a patient must abide by government restrictions?

And the bill was being written by whom? Conservatives? I think not.

[Immanuel]

so what happens when all twenty doctors at a government operated hospital tell the administrator they don't do abortions?......

Twenty very good and competent doctors with a conscience get fired and three without get hired.

Immie