You are here

House passes "Protect Life Act"

http://jezebel.com/5849839/house-passes-let-women-die-bill-after-extremely-depressing-debate

the bill disallows abortion if the insurance carrier receives any federal funding, which will apparently be most private insurance. It would also allow a hospital to refuse treatment to women seeking abortions even if it's a life-saving procedure.

D:

...coughBULLSHITcough...

"CONGRESS: stop worrying about my UTERUS and fix the damn ECONOMY!!"
--sign held by teen near-niece, at recent 'Occupy' event

"To split yourself in two
is just the most radical thing you can do
so girl if that shit ain't up to you
then you simply are not free

cause from the sunlight on my hair
to which eggs i grow to term
To the expression that i wear
all i really own is me..."
--Ani Difranco, 'Reprieve'

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLcsJUJjaXM)

"What a bunch of moralistic, theocratic, misogynistic, 11th-century-wannabe total fucking assholes!"
-- HCM

0 likes

Seriously? This is totally fucking insane. The government should not be concerned about such wedge issues. And, in my mind, that's what this legislation is - a wedge issue. These things that were elected into an office (that some call congress) put forth ideas that they personally could probably care less. But they vote and pass the legislation that'll ultimately turn people against one another and/or distract them from the real things that matter - the economy, jobs, and the right to have the choice to do what needs to be done in your own situation with your own body.

They pass such divided legislation, hoping to catch a vote from the radical religious or the citizens who see the elected official as moral. Thing is, morality in this case is actually just control and the ability to take away the individual's control over their own body. The elected official doesn't seem too concerned about taking care of the citizen who can't find a job or can't find assistance when bouncing back from being knocked-down because of awful economic policies the elected official voted for. To be a moral person is to take care of your people. By people I mean, your everyday joe schmo..not some fat cat who made off like a bandit while wiping their ass with America's economy.

We need to end this rule of misogynistic and patriarchal need to dominate people that seems to rule our congress as-of-late.

0 likes

I already knew about the crap about no abortion if being federally funded, but I didn't know that they closed the loophole for medical necessity. It's insane. I mean, if a woman is miscarrying (THE FETUS IS ALREADY DEAD/DYING), then the hospital could actually refuse to abort. She'd have to hope that she'd be make it out ok leaving it up to her own body.

I can't see that type of thing actually surviving the Senate and President, let alone courts, but it's insane that it would be in there, and it was made clear in the discussions what it meant, and the majority still goes SOUNDS AWESOME.

0 likes

A lot of Catholic hospitals don't want to be told they have to provide abortions, a lot of them don't provide OB services at all.  Part of me understands this. 

I wonder how often a woman shows up at an ER with an "abort a living fetus or die" diagnosis, and how many of those appear at a religion-owned or otherwise facility that doesn't provide this service.  I work for a high risk OB unit that will provide this service if it saves the mother's life and the community ambulance drivers know this. 

0 likes

I wonder how often a woman shows up at an ER with an "abort a living fetus or die" diagnosis, and how many of those appear at a religion-owned or otherwise facility that doesn't provide this service.  I work for a high risk OB unit that will provide this service if it saves the mother's life and the community ambulance drivers know this. 

The answer "one or more" makes this law hideous.

If this BS stands, your facility will have to NOT do that.

Basically here's where we are:

"Dear American females,
Please make a note that you are not entitled to the same level of control of your own body and reproductive choices as men (see also 'restricted access to birth control for women'). Your purpose is to gestate; your wishes don't enter into it. This is true because my god said so; don't bother fussing about human rights, equality, medical ethics, or separation of church and state... or else I'll say 'abortion' again!!!

If you don't like it, tough noogies-- you should have planned ahead better, and been born with a penis.

Smugly,
The GOP"

0 likes

Agree, one preventable death is too many and thankfully "baby dies or mom (or both) dies" (sorry I think of the baby as a living human being) doesn't come up to often and hopefully most of these cases wind up at high risk OB centers where emergency abortions can occur (rare) or natural miscarriages happen or premmie babies can be delivered (common).

My understanding is that it would allow a hospital to deny doing an abortion, even if it is to save the mother, for example a Catholic hospital whom has someone show up at their ER gets the right to say "no we can't do this abortion".  

I didn't see where it takes the right away from existing facilities whom are willing to do this.  

I don't do abortion threads, so I'll stay out of it.  It's doubtful Obama would compromise and let this pass, even if it made it through the senate.

0 likes

Hope you're right; I think expecting pregnant women in distress/ potentially life threatening events to drive around from facility to facility looking for one who 'feels comfortable' treating HER (vs her fetus) is just ludicrous... you know I respect your views, Tweety, and I also will try to use restraint in this thread (since all the 'abortion' philosophies have already been shared on other threads, to the point of exhaustion).

But I would posit for group consideration that this law is a) an attempted end run around existing law of the land (ie right to privacy as determined by Roe); b) is only one of many recent attempts by the GOP to institute government regulation of private uteri, without consent of their owners; and c) is a shameless and transparent attempt to throw a shiny ball of distraction past the ADD public, for the express purpose of avoiding discussion of the GOP's role (and that of the fatcats who bankroll 'em) in the current economic crisis.

This is not about abortion ethics; it's about distracting a gullible public, and taking Religious Conservative votes away from the Tea Party. Through any lens, ethical or political, imo this law is a steaming pile of rancid poop.

But I will try to follow your lead, and keep a sane distance from this thread from here out; we'll see how that goes!  :P

One more relevant quote, before initiation of self-restraint:

“The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. You're
born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you
assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to
which you resist is the degree to which you are free...”  -- Utah Phillips

I hope "we the people" don't let this stand.

0 likes

Hope you're right; I think expecting pregnant women in distress/ potentially life threatening events to drive around from facility to facility looking for one who 'feels comfortable' treating HER (vs her fetus) is just ludicrous... you know I respect your views, Tweety, and I also will try to use restraint in this thread (since all the 'abortion' philosophies have already been shared on other threads, to the point of exhaustion).

But I would posit for group consideration that this law is a) an attempted end run around existing law of the land (ie right to privacy as determined by Roe); b) is only one of many recent attempts by the GOP to institute government regulation of private uteri, without consent of their owners; and c) is a shameless and transparent attempt to throw a shiny ball of distraction past the ADD public, for the express purpose of avoiding discussion of the GOP's role (and that of the fatcats who bankroll 'em) role in the current economic crisis.

This is not about abortion ethics; it's about distracting a gullible public, and taking Religious Conservative votes away from the Tea Party. Through any lens, ethical or political, imo this law is a steaming pile of rancid poop.

But I will try to follow your lead, and keep a sane distance from this thread from here out; we'll see how that goes!  :P

One more relevant quote, before initiation of self-restraint:

“The state can't give you freedom, and the state can't take it away. You're
born with it, like your eyes, like your ears. Freedom is something you
assume, then you wait for someone to try to take it away. The degree to
which you resist is the degree to which you are free...”  -- Utah Phillips

I hope "we the people" don't let this stand.

I couldn't agree more. :)

0 likes

I didn't see where it takes the right away from existing facilities whom are willing to do this. 

I think how it would work is:
1. insurance * will not cover abortions (w/ medical exception)
2. hospitals are not obligated to make a medical exception

*insurance that receives some government funding, which apparently is pretty much all of them

So effectively it would be impossible to get an abortion, unless medically necessary AND the hospital allows it, OR if you can pay for it out of pocket (& the hospital allows it). The latter is why the article mentions that it means only abortions for the privileged.

^ you prolly knew all that, but just to clarify

0 likes

I think elective abortions should be privately paid.  I don't like my private insurance premiums or public money funding abortions period.  But what part of "medically life saving necessary" is hard to understand and I have no problem with.  I honestly don't know how some "religious" republicans (mostly) can sleep at night. 

Off topic:  It amazes me that the republicans swept into power last November because of people's anger at Obama's handling of the economy and deficit spending.  So did we get jobs and responsible spending?  No we things like them trying to repeal gay marriage, DODT, abortion, issues that the public right now doesn't have the energy to deal with and doesn't care about.  Pathetic.

0 likes

Off topic:  It amazes me that the republicans swept into power last November because of people's anger at Obama's handling of the economy and deficit spending.  So did we get jobs and responsible spending?  No we things like them trying to repeal gay marriage, DODT, abortion, issues that the public right now doesn't have the energy to deal with and doesn't care about.  Pathetic.

Just more of the wedge issues. I think it's just more things to try and divide the country.

My thoughts: I think a lot of the population is getting sick of such shit like denying equal marriage, denying the right to choose, etc. and a new wave of support for these issues is coming soon. I think a lot of the population is screaming "ENOUGH!" and they'll push back against these things and the ones changing the policies above.

But! As HCM hinted, the people who change these policies are hoping to play into America's ADD. The object (as I see it) is to push such legislation through so that it clutters the other party's plate. This keeps that party from accomplishing what it really wants to like focus on legislation for jobs or the economy.

Lately, it's been radical republicans (not all republicans are bad) pushing through this crazy legislation that takes away rights from women, from gays, from racial minorities, etc. After they've filled the democrats to-do list with fighting back and giving the rights back, they scream - "LOOK!! The democrats can't fix your economy!! The can't pass legislation for jobs!" or they accuse the president of doing things he's honestly not doing but they're totally guilty of themselves. And the ADD public votes again for ones who caused a lot of this mess in 2000-2008.

0 likes

Lately, it's been radical republicans (not all republicans are bad) pushing through this crazy legislation that takes away rights from women, from gays, from racial minorities, etc. ...

.... all the while yelling, "DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!! LESS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE!!!!"

???

Logic fail.

0 likes

Lately, it's been radical republicans (not all republicans are bad) pushing through this crazy legislation that takes away rights from women, from gays, from racial minorities, etc. ...

.... all the while yelling, "DOWN WITH BIG GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!! LESS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE!!!!"

???

Logic fail.

Yes!!! Doesn't make much sense to me, does it you?

0 likes

My browser wouldn't let me edit the post above. :/

Anyhow! Here's a great video: http://vodpod.com/watch/14910295-the-daily-show-lactate-intolerance

eta: The link I provided is simply an illustration of hypocrisies.

0 likes

I think elective abortions should be privately paid.  I don't like my private insurance premiums or public money funding abortions period.  But what part of "medically life saving necessary" is hard to understand and I have no problem with.   I honestly don't know how some "religious" republicans (mostly) can sleep at night. 

I wouldn't have a problem with privately paid abortions if everyone had a job that offered them insurance, paid a wage that allowed people to have more than just the basic (and I mean basic) necessities or purchase a private insurance plan.  I don't think it's fair to tell someone "sorry, public funding can't (or shouldn't) pay for abortions" and then also have that same public funding not cover preventative measures.  That's setting people (mainly women) on a road of continuous poverty trying to support children they can't afford.  I don't think anyone should be in a situation where they have to choose rent or food.  Especially when social services budgets are being cut every time you turn around.  I would rather have my tax dollars pay for abortions, birth control and for education to help women break the poverty cycle. 

That being said, I don't think it (abortion) should be used as an indiscrimate birth control method.

0 likes

A few years ago, the word on the street was abstinence. Abstinence is passive and lazy and can sometimes (I feel) be harmful do a person's development. Obviously, this last comment is only based on my own opinions and experiences. But because abstinence in general hasn't worked, it now seems the elected officials are forcing women into obedience..into a controlled situation.

Cuts to basic healthcare and access to preventative measures (sometimes as basic as free condoms) a woman is forced into deciding between pregnancy or abstinence. Again, abstinence is a lazy and passive answer. That option only works for some. For a lot of people, it doesn't. I believe in taking an educating and empowering approach to these issues and that doesn't include pushing someone into a corner.

In America, we're free to make our own choices about our own bodies. We should be embracing that and not allowing a government to pass law that takes that away nor should we allow insurance companies to force us into making a choice based on what they'll pay for or not pay for. There's an incessant need by some people claiming to be above us that have need and want to control us..a need and want to dominate. We need to eradicate that. These laws and rules are nothing but a control, a domination, and slap on the back as one says, "you can't do this yourself. Let me make your decision for you." I choose not to live in that world. We need a "we". An equal field. Not you vs. me.

-Josh

0 likes

Prior to Roe, only the wealthy had access to abortion services in desperate circumstances; that worked out badly, and is exactly where we're heading back to, for no reason other than the religious right's notion of Jehovah's intent towards my lady-parts.

I have known at least 3 women (well, two were girls at the time) who have been desperate enough to walk that path; and if you think that's a decision any woman makes in other than dire circumstances, rethink. It's wrenching and awful, and I've never known anyone to approach it frivolously, as birth control... the flip side of that, though, is fund m*****f***ing birth control!-- eliminating access to Planned Parenthood is the opposite of what is logical, if you want poor women to have less abortions. 

But that's not the goal; the goal is legislation of religious views, and governmental control of female sexuality. More condoms + more diaphragms + more oral contraceptives = less abortions. If that were the goal, instead of the 'die on the floor' law, we'd have 'new jobs creation plan!' opening 5000 new Planned Parenthood clinics in economically depressed communities...

I won't hold my breath.

0 likes

'new jobs creation plan!' opening 5000 new Planned Parenthood clinics in economically depressed communities...

sounds like a good plan

... that will never happen

0 likes

A few years ago, the word on the street was abstinence. Abstinence is passive and lazy and can sometimes (I feel) be harmful do a person's development. Obviously, this last comment is only based on my own opinions and experiences. But because abstinence in general hasn't worked, it now seems the elected officials are forcing women into obedience..into a controlled situation.

Cuts to basic healthcare and access to preventative measures (sometimes as basic as free condoms) a woman is forced into deciding between pregnancy or abstinence. Again, abstinence is a lazy and passive answer. That option only works for some. For a lot of people, it doesn't. I believe in taking an educating and empowering approach to these issues and that doesn't include pushing someone into a corner.

In America, we're free to make our own choices about our own bodies. We should be embracing that and not allowing a government to pass law that takes that away nor should we allow insurance companies to force us into making a choice based on what they'll pay for or not pay for. There's an incessant need by some people claiming to be above us that have need and want to control us..a need and want to dominate. We need to eradicate that. These laws and rules are nothing but a control, a domination, and slap on the back as one says, "you can't do this yourself. Let me make your decision for you." I choose not to live in that world. We need a "we". An equal field. Not you vs. me.

-Josh

I have no problem with my tax dollars providing poor people access to birth control.  Nor do I have a problem with my health insurance company paying clients for birth control.  

I completely agree a healthy sexy life means a healthy person and demanding abstinence is harmful.

Ultimately however, I do draw a line, reasonable or not, at providing abortions just so a poor person can have sex.  Non-medically necessary abortions should be paid out of pocket and I'm fully aware it's an impossibility for many poor people, it's another mouth to feed, and another child on welfare.  It's a line I draw and I if it makes no sense to anyone but me, I don't care.  

In my opinion.  (Dammit, I don't do abortion threads..but I still think you're the most awesome person alive.)

0 likes

I have no problem with my tax dollars providing poor people access to birth control.  Nor do I have a problem with my health insurance company paying clients for birth control. 

I completely agree a healthy sexy life means a healthy person and demanding abstinence is harmful.

Ultimately however, I do draw a line, reasonable or not, at providing abortions just so a poor person can have sex.  Non-medically necessary abortions should be paid out of pocket and I'm fully aware it's an impossibility for many poor people, it's another mouth to feed, and another child on welfare.  It's a line I draw and I if it makes no sense to anyone but me, I don't care. 

In my opinion.  (Dammit, I don't do abortion threads..but I still think you're the most awesome person alive.)

I'll come back to the argument you made. Not because I'm mad or upset. Because I'm not mad or upset. I'm actually enjoying this conversation. I think we're having a real, adult conversation...a conversation that seems to be lacking in our country. We may not agree on everything but there's nothing wrong with us working together and discussing.

That said, I just wanted to thank you thank you!! for your awesome words! :) I'm not that awesome of a person. Hahahaha! I'm sure there are tons of people who can out-awesome me. I think you're great as well. I'm happy to be your friend and know you! Hopefully I'll make it to ye olde Florida some day.

0 likes

Pages

Log in or register to post comments

More Posts Like This