Safe Abortions by Doctors Now Used Against Women
The crooked anti abortion industry faced a problem. They did well when they called abortions "unsafe." It turned out not to be true. What to do?
They came up with a new ruse. Pass a law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges. Since abortion doctors almost never have to admit their patients to a hospital they generate no revenue for that hospital. Hospitals have been limiting doctors outside hospitals from practicing inside hospitals because it generates more revenue to use their own staff doctors. So, by passing a law requiring hospital privileges for abortion doctors abortion rights advocates face several headwinds.
What is so dishonest of anti abortion zealots is claiming the hospital rights requirements will make abortions safer. They are already safe and such laws do not make them safer in any sense of safe. They do accomplish there actual objection, to outlaw abortions which they were unable to do with Roe v Wade. More honorable people would overturn Roe. Anti abortion operatives are not honorable.
The question now is with the Supreme Court. Will it accept as valid the bogus argument for hospital admitting privileges even though facts show these privileges do not add safety? Or will it correctly see the ruse as a backdoor attempt to reverse Roe?
The United States is going through a political period when the religious ideas of some are being forced onto people who do not share them.
It is what our founding fathers tried to prevent. There are those trying to make it happen anyway.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhose property is a living, breathing, pregnant woman? Is she the property of a state, a religion, a church, or does a pregnant woman enjoy the sovereignty of self-ownership. Is her body her personal property? Does self-ownership extend to the internal parts of her body, her brain, organs, tissues, her uterus, the fetus? Or can a state and a religion claim property rights to one or more of her body parts without also claiming property rights to her entire body? If the answer is yes, then to be fair a quick amendment to the practice would include testicles. If the answer is no, then we need an emancipation proclamation for all women, all mothers.
ReplyDeleteArdy B "Whose property is a living, breathing, pregnant woman?"
DeleteI have brought one version or another of that question here many times. I've allowed anti abortion zealots to answer it. They never, ever, do. When I first brought it up the answer was, "Women are innocent victims. It is doctors and staff that are the villains. They are the only ones that will be prosecuted." That has not turned out to be the case because women make the decision to buy abortion services. Now, if they are, somehow, going to be exempted from all prosecution that should be done now. It will not be done because the unspoken, secret if you will, agenda is to prosecute women.
Jon Lindgren March 9, 2020 at 11:34 AM
Delete"Women are innocent victims. It is doctors and staff that are the villains. They are the only ones that will be prosecuted." That explains the continued tactical use of “Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers”, or TRAP Laws. So much for the June 27, 2016 Supreme Court opinion that such laws pose an “undue burden” on a woman’s Constitutional right to seek an abortion. I suppose the message is women have a Constitutional right to an abortion but not here in “our” state. Women are “innocent victims” alright, of your goofy TRAP Laws folks. You aimed at your “perp” and hit a law-abiding citizen.
The "property" argument is demeaning and unlawful. One needs to include science and law to understand the question and come to an answer.
DeleteScience dictates that neither gender can reproduce on its own. Science dictates that only women get pregnant and give birth.
One can pass a law that women and men give birth in equal measure but such a law would be nonsense. Laws operate in a real world, despite Democrats attempt to do otherwise.
Parents are given special standing with regard to their children. Not ownership, but guardianship.
What liberals pretend not to understand is that children become human beings at conception, not birth. Nothing else makes sense.
Therefore, the ideas and laws of guardianship come into play. Parents can't kill their children. A mother or father that would willingly kill their children are guilty of murder.
Pretend as some might, abortion is the killing of a human child, a human being. An unborn children is not an arm, leg or finger of a woman. It is a separate human being doing what unborn humans do at this point in their lives; live and grow.
If anyone needs emancipation, it is the unborn child. He or she needs the full protectin of the law with respect to being a singular human being.
Matt: "If anyone needs emancipation..."
DeleteYou still refuse to declare what rights a pregnant woman will have. Apparently, she will have none.
no rights? she will continue to have the same rights, save one, as any other US citizen. But a suggestion: Jon has a Ph.d in Econ. maybe he could be of more use on this site if he started commenting on economic issues. it would be more helpful than his inane preoccupation with homosexuality and abortion. how about old man?
DeleteMatt Noah March 9, 2020 at 12:54 PM: “An unborn children is not an arm, leg or finger of a woman.” Is it physiologically incorrect, illogical, illegal, unnatural, or immoral for a woman to claim full possession of her arm, her leg, her finger, her heart, her liver, her brain, her ovaries, her uterus, or a fully dependent fetus attached to her by a life sustaining umbilical cord, her fetus. I realize this is a challenge for many who prefer to take full control, ownership, of the course of a woman’s pregnancy. Reserve “guardianship” to describe a mothers relationship to her newborn after the umbilical cord is cut.
DeleteArdy B: If the umbilical cord is what defines "possession of the women" and "personhood", one has a very skewed view of human rights and responsibilities.
DeleteAll is fair when fighting for (a) god.
ReplyDelete