Abortion, your (lack of) choice..

[Gob]

US state enacts strictest anti-abortion law

Ag Sulzberger
March 26, 2011


.A NEW law in South Dakota makes the US state the first to require a woman who wants an abortion to first attend a consultation at ''pregnancy help centres'', to learn what assistance is available ''to help the mother keep and care for her child''.

What makes the law unique is that the mandated counselling will come from people whose central qualification is that they are opposed to abortion.

''I think everyone agrees with the goal of reducing abortion by encouraging consideration of other alternatives,'' said the state's Republican Governor, Dennis Daugaard, who signed the law this week.

The law, which will take effect on July 1, has provoked vehement opposition from pro-choice groups, which describe the requirements as unconstitutional obstacles for women seeking to have an abortion. Planned Parenthood said it would challenge the law in court.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/us-state-en ... 1c9tz.html

Mad as a cut snake...

[rubato]

Red State America.

Dumb and mean.

yrs,
rubato

[Miles]

I ,for one, do not believe any government agency, state or federal, has the right to control such a personal decision as abortion. Any woman who becomes pregnant and feels she is not capable for whatever the reason to care for a child should not be bound by law to do so. There are way too many children neglected and abused by parents who were denied the right to decide. Then there are the welfare queens who just keep popping out kids to get more money. The quality of care they recieve is substandard at best. A child is a very special thing and if the parents aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary, and they know that, they should not be forced to continue a pregnancy by the government. Their conscience should guide them.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Yep, folks need to butt out.

[Sue U]

Just remember, this is the policy brought to you by the Republican Party. This excessively intrusive government control over the most personal of medical decisions is already at the forefront of the 2012 campaign, and is what you can look forward to as Federal law under a GOP administration.

[rubato]

Carrying a pregnancy to term increases the risk of death by an order of magnitude vs getting an abortion; 10x.



yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

All sound objections.

Provided the thing growing in the MOTHER's uterus is nothing but a mass of lifeless tissue.

How ironic that people who would risk their lives to save a fucking fish have such heartburn about counseling a woman to consider NOT killing her child. With no one actually preventing the abortion if she chooses to do so, after counseling.

Up side down.

[rubato]

How ironic that people who would risk their lives to save a fucking fish have such heartburn about counseling a woman to consider NOT killing her child. ... "

And what people are those? Your usual hypothetical imaginary people?


Arguments based on delusion are not effective.



yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Carrying a pregnancy to term increases the risk of death by an order of magnitude vs getting an abortion; 10x.
yrs,
rubato

History and math apparently. Abortion = 100% death (or perhaps just 50% if you count both humans involved).

Still, I don't think mandatory "counselling" is necessarily a proper thing for gov't to do.

[loCAtek]

I'm always thunderstruck by the number of anti-abortionists compared to the number of foster/adoptive parents. You would think after the child was born, there would be a legion of responsible adults coming forward to help care for it

[Gob]

In more than 20 states, Bills have been introduced to restrict insurance coverage of abortion. In Utah, one such measure - affecting both private and public plans - has cleared both legislative chambers and been sent to Governor Gary Herbert.

Of the various types of Bills, the insurance bans could have the broadest impact, according to some abortion-rights activists.

While routine first-trimester abortions generally cost US$400 (S$506) to US$700, later and more complicated abortions can run into the thousands of dollars, especially if hospitalisation is needed


http://www.todayonline.com/World/EDC110 ... -sweeps-US

Hang about here?

Abortions are done on insurance? And Govt can mandate that you are not to be covered?

What sort of a screwy system is that?

[Sue U]

Hang about here?

Abortions are done on insurance? And Govt can mandate that you are not to be covered?

What sort of a screwy system is that?

Exactly. It cannot possibly be constitutional for a state to prohibit a private insurance company from offering coverage for a legal medical procedure. (And ironically the people pushing such measures are the very same ones complaining about a "government take-over of healthcare" under the Healthcare Reform Act.)

[MajGenl.Meade]

I'm always thunderstruck by the number of anti-abortionists compared to the number of foster/adoptive parents. You would think after the child was born, there would be a legion of responsible adults coming forward to help care for it

... and I'm always thunderstruck by the number of mothers who electively destroy their child. You would think after all the sex education and availability of contraceptives that there would be a legion of women taking responsiblity for the choice they have already made with their bodies(*)

But I doubt that banning an insurance company from paying for a legally recognized procedure is the right thing for gov't to do. Insurance companies should be free to choose what procedures they cover and for how much (premium and paid claims). All clearly written in the policies and policy-guides of course.

Meade

(*) recognizing that there are a small (relatively) number of women to whom this statement does not apply.

[loCAtek]

So, they admit they made a mistake; should a child suffer a lifetime for that?




-said so respectfully sir!

[SisterMaryFellatio]

and I'm always thunderstruck by the number of mothers who electively destroy their child. You would think after all the sex education and availability of contraceptives that there would be a legion of women taking responsiblity for the choice they have already made with their bodies(*)

But I doubt that banning an insurance company from paying for a legally recognized procedure is the right thing for gov't to do. Insurance companies should be free to choose what procedures they cover and for how much (premium and paid claims). All clearly written in the policies and policy-guides of course.

Meade

(*) recognizing that there are a small (relatively) number of women to whom this statement does not apply.

Until you have walked a mile in someone else's shoes and had to have made that decision, one that in most cases is not made lightly you can stick your comments where the sun don't shine...fuckwit!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Thank you sister. Have you actually stood post-abortion cradling your dead son in your hands as I have?

I thought not. So please, empty your mouth before speaking

Thanks
Meade

[rubato]

Carrying a pregnancy to term increases the risk of death by an order of magnitude vs getting an abortion; 10x.
yrs,
rubato

History and math apparently. Abortion = 100% death (or perhaps just 50% if you count both humans involved).

Still, I don't think mandatory "counselling" is necessarily a proper thing for gov't to do.

Until scientists revealed the details of conception in the 1800s the christian church regarded human life as beginning with "quickening" which is at the beginning of the 3rd trimester.

God apparently was content with that definition for almost 6,000 years.


yrs,
rubato

[Long Run]

This is a difficult issue in this country and many others. I prefer to see legislatures or referendums to the voters decide this issue, rather than 5 old people in robes deciding it for everyone.

Re, altering insurance laws to outlaw abortion seems to be a bad idea (may discourage a small percentage of abortions but will create many unintended problems), but it may indeed be constitutional. This is a state insurance matter, which state legislatures are given wide latitude over. Thus, it is the opposite of the federal take over of the medical system; it is just a continuation of the states exercising their power to provide and regulate health matters.

As an example of outlawing private insurance of a medical procedure, I would think it constitutional for a legislature to outlaw insurance of medical marijuana, as well as procedures that have not proven their medical value. Not every bad idea is unconstitutional.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh rubato - those pesky facts - not to mention history and math.

One of the most exciting parts of the second trimester is feeling your baby move. Women, both new and repeat moms-to-be, wait anxiously for the first movements that they feel in their belly, coming from their baby. These first movements are often referred to as quickening. In actuality, your baby begins wiggling and moving by the 8th or 9th week of pregnancy. However, he is too small for you to feel at this point. However as he gets bigger he starts to kick the walls of your uterus as he moves around. This can happen as early as the 14th week of pregnancy, normally for women in their second pregnancy or beyond, and as late as the 26th week of pregnancy for women who are in their first pregnancy or might be a little overweight.

http://www.babiesonline.com/articles/pr ... kening.asp

The word "quick" originally meant "alive". Historically, quickening has sometimes been considered to be the beginning of the possession of "individual life" by the fetus. British legal scholar William Blackstone explained the subject of quickening in the eighteenth century, relative to feticide and abortion:

Life… begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.

Nevertheless, quickening was only one of several standards that were used historically to determine when the right to life attaches to a fetus. According to the "ancient law" mentioned by Blackstone, another standard was formation of the fetus, which occurs weeks before quickening. Henry de Bracton explained the ancient law, about five hundred years before Blackstone:

If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the fetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide. The rule that a fetus was considered alive upon formation dates back at least another millennium before Bracton.

Wikipedia "quickening"

The Bible of course says in Exod 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her and yet no mischief follow" i.e. the child and mother survive the experience, the offender pays a fine. If however, either dies, its eye for an eye time. In other words, the Bible considers the potential child of equal human value as the woman. OTOH the Bible nowhere explicity forbids abortion as far as I am aware.

I don't know what the "Christian" church believed and regard that as a matter of minor interest. Nor am I convinced that what any church believes at a given moment of historical time is of necessity synonymous with God's word - far less His contentment. The issue of slavery immediately leaps to mind.

FWIW neither of my two posts mentioned God or the Bible and both suggested that the legislative action(s) were probably not justified.

Meade

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Thank you sister. Have you actually stood post-abortion cradling your dead son in your hands as I have?

I thought not. So please, empty your mouth before speaking

Thanks
Meade

You thought not? Are you a Psychic? You seem to know me and my experiences very well.


Still.......a Fuckwit!