Is this a bill you could support? (Pregnant Women Support Act)

[bluestateguy]

Some of the programs included are:

* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
* provide counseling in maternity group homes;
* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
* support informed consent for Abortion Services;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.

Finally, we must protect our children by passing the Child Custody Protection Act, continue to promote Safe Haven laws and support funding for programs such as the Abandoned Infants Assistance.

Click here for more information on 95-10.

Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 202.220.3066

http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=45

I'd want to know a little more about the informed consent part, but otherwise there seems like a lot of good ideas here.

[JerseygirlCT]

1. My fear

Like you, the "informed consent" part sounds suspiciously like those laws requiring providers to force women to sit through long and unnecessary videos about the procedure and the fetus. Anything to string out the entire process.

And from there, I have to guess what's behind many of the other ideas here - that seem ok on the surface. what are they hiding? What's the practice going to look like? How are they really not interested in helping women who have already made a choice to carry and more interested in forcing women to carry a pregnancy?

[uppityperson]

11. More, what "informed consent means". And yes, this is ALREADY done.

Again, no woman gets an abortion without an informed consent. This sounds like they want to have extended "counseling" about "the potential physical and emotional risks of abortion"> I imagine that, as they say, states that mandate this have lower rates of abortion, probably because there is other BS standing in the way, like spousal or parental CONSENT.

2. Requiring informed consent. The 95-10 Initiative will reduce the number of
abortions by requiring federally funded clinics to provide that mothers sign an informed
consent agreement, ensuring that the mothers understand the potential physical and
emotional risks of abortion.Why this matters: A 2004 study, using regression analysis to isolate causal
effects, shows that the passage of a state law requiring informed consent reduces the
number of abortions in the state by anywhere from 12 to 22 abortions yearly per 1,000
live births.14 Thus, if informed-consent requirements were in effect throughout the entire
nation, they would prevent between 50,000 and 100,000 abortions a year.15 Although 27
states have informed-consent laws, there remain significant gaps in coverage that should
be closed.


3. Providing information concerning genetic disability testing. The 95-10
Initiative will reduce abortions by requiring doctors to give all parents of unborn children
diagnosed with a genetic disease information on the accuracy of the tests which lead to
the diagnosis. The bill mandates that HHS provide information on federal support
services available to treat and raise a child with genetic diseases. The bill requires HHS
to compile information on services to help families with a diagnosed child.
Why this matters: 80 percent of babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome and 95
percent of babies diagnosed with cystic fibrosis are aborted. The test used to diagnose
these conditions before childbirth can be prone to error.

[Mojeoux]

74. OH Hellllllllllllll NO! n/t

[uppityperson]

2. What does "support informed consent for Abortion Services" mean? No, this is RW bs

"A comprehensive plan that will reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years by promoting abstinence, personal responsibility, adoptions and support for women and families who are facing unplanned pregnancy.

The 95-10 Initiative seeks to reduce the number of abortions in America through Federal, state and local efforts as well as support and encouragement to volunteers and dedicated people on the front lines helping pregnant women. Much attention has been given to ending abortion or keeping it legal. We believe that we must do more to reduce the abortion rate by helping and supporting pregnant women.

(clip)
We support helping pregnant women who wish to carry their children to term but because of lack of resources believe abortion is their only option."

I don't know of any woman who has gotten an abortion without "informed consent". Furthermore, while I agree that increasing contraceptive availability and useage is a great thing, the wording on this is suspect imho.

"But Americans are not at all closely divided over whether abortion is
undesirable: huge majorities regard it as morally wrong, and a tragic act, in all or many
circumstances.1 This widespread consensus offers opportunities for we the people,
through Congress and our state legislatures, to take serious steps to reduce the number of
abortions in America"

[cali]

3. absolutely fucking not.

this is anti-choice crap. yes there are some good ideas, but they turn poisonous when linked to this anti-choice dog shit.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

4. Yes I agree

I am not American but I see poor pregnant women in my country that suffer a lot. You have money it is a shame if you leave any pregnant woman suffer.

[me b zola]

24. Welcome to DU, Eg-ptiangirl!

The politics behind this proposal are meant to hurt women, not help them. I know that at a glance this proposal could sound like a good thing to some, but politics in the US is often not what it seems. It is quite common here to have a political movement claim to be for one thing, but really means to destroy that thing. When George Bush* wanted to eliminate environmental standards, they called their policy "Clear Skies", making people believe that their policies would help the environment while actually it was destroying it.


Welcome to our discussion board, many of us like to hear voices from other parts of the world and their take on issues. :hi:

[Eg-ptiangirl]

36. Thanks a lot for clarification

I thought they wanted to help them not forcing an agenda through them.

[me b zola]

38. One of the proposals is to create a data base of the reason why a woman has an abortion

This is a conservative move to try to discredit women seeking an abortion.

[uppityperson]

5. More from the linked pdf:

It is often remarked that Americans are deeply divided over the issue of abortion; and indeed there is deep disagreement over whether abortion in general should be banned
or remain legal. But Americans are not at all closely divided over whether abortion is
undesirable: huge majorities regard it as morally wrong, and a tragic act, in all or many
circumstances.1 This widespread consensus offers opportunities for we the people,
through Congress and our state legislatures, to take serious steps to reduce the number of
abortions in America. Democrats for Life look and work toward the day when unborn
children can be fully protected in law. But in the meantime – and without waiting on the
possibility of the Supreme Court reversing its Roe v. Wade abortion-rights decision – we
as a society can do much to reduce the tragic incidence of abortion in our nation.


Most women who have abortions do so with great reluctance, and many would
decide otherwise if they had greater support in bearing or raising the child and if
alternatives were available to them. By far the two most common reasons for having
abortions are that the woman’s life would be dramatically changed (for example, losing
educational or career opportunities) and that she cannot afford another child. These
factors are each mentioned by up to ¾ of women having abortions, and between them
they constitute the most important reason women give in approximately half of
abortions.2 Economic and social factors put pressure on women to have abortions; often
the decision to abort is a “choice” in name only. Democrats have long recognized, since
at least the New Deal, that economic insecurity can easily leave people without real
choice, and that a strong safety net of social support can increase true freedom, promote
the common good, and protect the most vulnerable among us. A strengthened safety net
can also work, in the case of abortion, to protect the unborn child – the most vulnerable
among us – as well as the woman who faces great economic and other difficulties in
bearing and raising the child.

The 95-10 proposal of Democrats for Life seeks over the next decade to eliminate
95 percent of all abortions performed in the United States through a three pronged
strategy: supporting children and their mothers from conception forward, helping
mothers make the most informed and best decision with a knowledge of available alternatives to abortion, and preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Much of
the 95-10 Initiative is embodied in the Pregnant Women Support Act, a comprehensive
measure soon to be introduced by Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN).
The importance of societal support in reducing abortions is suggested by abortion
statistics around the world. Abortion rates have been relatively high in Latin America
even though abortion was, at least until recently, illegal or severely restricted throughout
the region. Conversely, abortion rates in Western Europe are the lowest in the world –
and one third those of Latin America – even though the criminal laws are less restrictive
(although they do exist).3 This does not mean that laws against abortion have no effect,
or that protecting the unborn through law should not be a goal. But it does show if we
truly want to defend vulnerable unborn life – and if we also want to support women in
difficult and vulnerable circumstances – then social supports are necessary.


Americans are a generous people, and we have been willing to commit resources
to pursuing noble goals at home and abroad. No effort could be nobler than protecting
vulnerable unborn children by supporting their mothers who so often are driven to
abortion by their economic or social circumstances. The 95-10 Initiative provides a
strategy for this effort, through a wide-ranging set of proposals backed by proven
research into why women have abortions and what will reduce the perceived need to
abort.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. You're kidding, right? ( I hope?)

The organization is "Democrats For Life of America," that wants to do away with abortion. It's a RW wet dream:


* support informed consent for Abortion Services; (that means lots of intimidation tactics before women are "allowed" to undergo the procedure.

* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing (intimidating families from having an abortion due to a dying or hopelessly deformed fetus)


* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women; (to produce more laws to protect fetuses, leading to personhood)

Please read this before you post such crap:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/59537/page/2

Unless you really want to oppress women: then you are as bad as any teabagger.

[cali]

9. the op makes me furious.

right wing trojan horse crap.

[theHandpuppet]

55. Ditto that!

:mad:

[mzteris]

22. Doesn't everyone want to "do away with" abortion?

as in - having them not be a "necessity"?

Just so's you know - I wholeheartedly 10000% support CHOICE for abortion rights (too).

[uppityperson]

25. However, they want to "do away with" by making them more difficult to get

Women already give informed consent. For instance, they do not need intensive counseling "ensuring that the mothers understand the potential physical and emotional risks of abortion."

If you go to the link, and read their web links, they all go to "pro-life" anti-choice sites. End the need for abortions, don't end abortions.

[mzteris]

31. end the need ..... exactly.

Like I said - I haven't even made it to the link yet. . .

But yeah, women do need "counseling" - not INTENSIVE counseling, but there should be information and emotional support available for EITHER decision made.

[CTyankee]

98. and you know what women "need" how? nt

[mzteris]

105. OMFG - this isi getting ridiculous

I don't know what any particular woman NEEDS - if she needs one, if she wants one - then by all means - then she should lhave one - one that is SAFE and LEGAL and covered by insurance if she has it and other medical subsidies if she doesn't.

I am 1000% PRO-CHOICE. But do you think women wake up one morning and go "Say - It think having an abortion would be really reallly fun - so I'm gonna get pregnant so I can have one."

Do you WANT an abortion? Does anyone really WANT one? Do you WANT to have a new lung? I mean, if you need to have a new lung, then of course you want one, but wouldn't you rather not to have had to have HAD a new lung to begin with?

[CTyankee]

110. I just don't know where to start with this. Of course I don't believe any woman

gets up one day and says she wants an abortion. But I don't think she needs all this "care" when it has been shown that women, with proper birth control and education, can take care of themselves. If birth control fails, then they can avail themselves of an abortion if they so wish. Why not just leave it to that?

[mzteris]

112. because is really isn't 'that simple"

it's not like deciding to get a hangnail removed. "Avail themselves of an abortion" - well, yeah, they can - but you sound so - so CASUAL - and, quite frankly, cavalier about it.

It's not always "women" and it's not always women with health care or choices or money or insurance or support systems or any of the other things that one needs when making a life changing decision.

The point I'm trying to make is the same as Clinton's - abortions should be safe, legal, and rare.

[CTyankee]

126. HANGNAIL? REALLY?

You seem to say that it should be up to the state to tell women what they "need" to get an abortion (apart from accurate medical information). If a man needs a procedure, he goes and has it done. He gets his medical information.

But if it's a woman why is there a reference to "cavalier" decisions? Why not with the guy? And what business is it of yours or the state whether or not her decision is "casual"? That is a value judgment of your own making.

There is a double standard here. Do you not believe that women can be trusted to make these decisions in their lives? Do you think that the state in its wisdom should make those decisions for them? And if it should for them, what decisions should it make for men and if not, why not?

[uppityperson]

128. Are you trying to pick a fight here? I'd advise stepping back for a moment,

think that you 2 are not communicating well.

I can see both of your frustrations, and perhaps can figure out a way to get past it, if both of you want to. So?

[mzteris]

131. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please please please pay attention:

I am pro choice. Abortions should be legal and safe and covered by insurance and medicare, etc...

There should be NO "moral judgement" passed.

Only a woman has the right to decide if she WANTS or NEEDS an abortion. No one else.

Your attitude seems very cavalier to me - as in, are you a man? - You sound so dismissive - like having an abortion is NOT something of consequence to go through. It IS. Like any OTHER MAJOR MEDICAL PROCEDURE or life-changing decision. I'm not saying the state has ANY say as to whether her decision IS "casual", but I'm here to tell you that I've never met a woman yet for whom having an abortion was "casual", ya know? Or maybe you don't.

Again - only the woman has the right to decide. Not her parents, not her doctor, not her "church", not her friends, not the sperm-donor, not the insurance company, and most gd assuredly - NOT the government in way shape or form.


I don't know how to be any more clear here. I completely support your right to an abortion (if you're a woman) but I would never ever wish one on you. Or my worst enemy.

[CTyankee]

140. You made the hangnail comparison. As a woman, I NEVER would.

But I think that women can make moral decisions on abortion without the help of the state. Do you disagree? AGain, the question is on this as LEGISLATION by the federal government.

As I have stated, women are moral agents and can make these decisions on their own. They have priests, ministers and rabbis and they have their own religious counsel. Their doctors can give them medical information. The question here is the role of this legislation, hence the government. AS much as you say you don't think it is the role of the government to tell women what to do, we are really talking about legislation, right?

For your information, I had three children but I would have considered an abortion if I became pregnant accidentally with a fourth. Why? Because I knew I could not adequately take care of another child given the children I had. That, to me, was a responsible, adult decision. And it would have been mine, based on the moral responsibilty I had to the children who were in my care, regardless of whether you or anybody else thought I had a good enough "excuse" and needed government imposed "counseling." Excuse me, but I see no problem with my moral reasoning here...

[mzteris]

144. that's the way you make it sound,

as if having an abortion is "no big deal" to a woman.

I don't disagree with you about the State. After I read the whole thing - and who they were I - I promptly said I was against them and their bs. Did you that part?

Women are moral agents and don't need any priest minister or rabbi to make a decision (I think religion is pretty much a misogynistic intitution.)


I'm not sure I understand this: S much as you say you don't think it is the role of the government to tell women what to do, we are really talking about legislation, right?

I support ROE v. Wade, if that's what you mean. I support access to late-term abortion. I support a woman's RIGHT to have an abortion and oppose the government and/or any legislation - state, federal, county, city - that inhibits a woman's right or access to abortion. As repeatedly stated, I oppose the fact that abortions aren't covered under insurance, medicaid/medicare, healthbill, etc....

In all due respect, saying you "would have considered" is not the same thing has having to actually consider. How one would behave in theory is not always how one behaves "in fact". I'm not saying you wouldn't have considered, nor that you would not "have had" one, but it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish to be presented with a reality rather than a supposition, ya know?

:sigh:

Where have I said I supported "government imposed counseling" . . . :banghead:

[mzteris]

107. btw - i was responding to the poster who said "END THE NEED"

why don't you excoriate her, instead, eh?

[uppityperson]

100. And you think there is not information and emotional support available?

Seriously?

Go to the link and read about pro-life democrats trying to make it more difficult to get an abortion.

[mzteris]

106. f*ck the pro-life democrats.

f*ck all the freaking anti-abortionists.

I wasn't supporting this group but trying to have a gd intelligent discussion about how we can prevent the NECESSITY for abortion. I'm not stupid enough to think that day will ever come, like we won't eliminate poverty and abuse and accidents but, gee, wouldn't it be nice if no woman ever HAD to have an abortion? They really aren't that much fun, you know.

[uppityperson]

108. I think a good part of the problem here is online communication

I should have asked "Do you think there is not information and emotional support available?"

Sorry. Reading what you write, I think online communication is a big issue here.

[CTyankee]

111. My question is why do women need "counseling" if it is their decision?

If someone needs an appendectomy do they need "counseling"?

[mzteris]

113. appendectomy? - well, yes. Yes, they do.

Along with any other medical procedure or life changing event.


Hell, people get "counseling" on which gd bank account to open. Foods to eat. Schools to attend and which fraking type of DOG they should buy!

[CTyankee]

115. Beyond medical information? No, they don't . Women don't need people telling them

what their fertilized ovum is or could be. They need to know what the procedure will have on their physical situation. They don't need people telling them what their values are, tho. That's the difference. Women know already what their situation is. They have arrived at their decision to have an abortion based on their moral and their practical views. Just as people arrive at their decision to have an appendectomy. They don't need "counseling." They do need information i.e. what they need to do to take care of themselves after the appendectomy, diet, drugs, whether/when they can drive, etc.

[uppityperson]

117. She might want someone to talk with about it though.

"They don't need people telling them what their values are, tho. That's the difference. Women know already what their situation is. They have arrived at their decision to have an abortion based on their moral and their practical views."

I agree. However, there are some who would like to be able to talk with someone, counseling, about it. That is different from "telling them what their values are". I think that is what that poster is meaning.

Having talked with that poster a bit, I think this is going the wrong way.

[mzteris]

121. Information/counseling - same damn thing, in my book.

WTH did you think I meant? Holding hands and praying for guidance?

[uppityperson]

124. Holding hand and letting the person talk.

Again, having been on the "holding hand and letting person talk" side, sometimes people need someone to listen to them. Sometimes they don't, but sometimes they do. I don't know how to mandate it, don't think mandating it is worthwhile since then it can get into imposing some crap on someone.

[mzteris]

125. sorry - just getting a bit testy

I define "counseling" differently from the poster.

I'm not saying to "counsel" them to have an abortion or not. But yeah, after the FACTUAL INFORMATION has been given and all the questions answered, just listening would be a really good thing. Maybe it can't be "mandated" but having the training and the funds for it would be good.

[CTyankee]

129. I have worked in a facility providing abortions. Some women do NOT want counseling.

They have made up their own minds (as free citizens in a democracy). They have their own counsel, whether their own religion or private individuals. Others are more vulnerable. Counseling in those cases is provided, but it is not judgemental at all. Many issues are called up and considered.

My problem here is with the state saying there must be counseling. The private clinic I worked for had its own ideas about counseling and did not need direction by the state. It was a feminist organization that recognized individual women had individual needs and beliefs. Talkingit over with a patient did not mean indoctrination. It meant understanding. It also meant giving important information about contraception to avoid future abortions because it is better to provide information isn't it? do you think the state is going to give that information?

[uppityperson]

133. Me too and I am in agreement with what you write

it gets old, having to continue to fight this battle. I don't think that is what that poster means, indoctrination or mandated, think it's a communication thing here. I've been wrong before, but thinking this now here.

There have been changes over the last 30 yrs, sounds like you were involved with a good facility. Thank you for your work.

[mzteris]

134. I agree and applaud every word you just said -

except the last eleven words.

I think the state should make damn sure that all women have access to safe and legal - and free, if needed - abortions.

[CTyankee]

141. OK, and I'm fine with that. Peace. but my last 11 words were about the state's version of

"counseling." It's a little like the state's approved school prayer in public schools, don't you think?

[mzteris]

145. don't support prayer in schools, either.

Nor the Pledge of Allegiance.

[uppityperson]

114. having worked in the fields, there can be a big difference, or may not be

Emotional weight and time spent with the provider (or staff) after the procedure can be very different for an abortion and an appendectomy.

Having an abortion CAN be emotionally draining, but also for some it isn't. having an appendectomy doesn't usually have the same emotional weight, but for some it does.

One HUGE difference though, is that after an appendectomy, people generally stay in the hospital for a day or 2, and can get the support they need, if they need it. "omg I almost died!" was told me by a 22 yr old, truly freaked out about the whole thing, IV's, pain, antibiotics, etc.

After an abortion, people generally stay in the clinic for an hour or a few, depending on the facility, then leave. They may have a followup appointment later, but don't have much monitoring by the provider. Meeting up with someone out in public later, we must pretend we don't know them. If they initiate contact, we can ask how they are doing, but I've only once had much of any contact like that afterward.

[CTyankee]

119. I think that the question is that beyond the medical question, is it up to the state to tell

people what religious and philosophic ideas they SHOULD have?

I have faced several surgeries. They were not about my moral or religious views. they were decided strictly on the medical issues involved. If I don't do this, then it could mean an emergency intervention down the road, so how do I decide? Perhaps it would have a religious implication if I belonged to a religion that didn't believe in such an intervention, but that was not the case...

As a democratic society, we must accept the fact that our citizens can make up their own minds about what to do with their bodies. Women are moral agents and have a host of advisors they can avail themselves of, including their religious advisors. there are usually people at abortion clinics available to help but I think they're help should not be required, only on request. Why do we trust women to make decisions in other areas of their health and not on the question of an abortion?

[uppityperson]

120. No, of course it's not up to state to impose religious/philosphical ideas

That is not what I'm saying, don't think that's what that other poster is saying either. Have it available, not mandated. Rather like I always want more accessible affordable non-stigmatic mental health care AVAILABLE. Not mandating any counseling, any religious or moral or philosophical impositions.

I am not saying it's up to state to impose any religious/philosophical/moral ideals, but saying that there can be a difference between abortion and appendectomy as there can be between appendectomy and open heart surgery. There can be different needs, with also some of the same needs.

"Why do we trust women to make decisions in other areas of their health and not on the question of an abortion?" is a question I have also as it makes no sense.

[boppers]

41. "Doesn't everyone want to "do away with" abortion? " Hell no.

It should be subsidised and encouraged. Too damn many people on the planet already.

[mzteris]

47. hoooooooooookay....

how about birth control instead.

[boppers]

49. Abortion is birth control, so not "instead", but as part of a comprehensive set of options.

Pills, condoms, IUDs, uterine rings, abortions... all should be legal, subsidized, and encouraged.

[mzteris]

56. Sorry - I'm not going to "encourage" anyone to have an abortion..

sometimes that is the best solution at the time, but if you can avoid the problem, then don't you think that's best.

I mean - I don't believe in "abortion as birth control" in a general sense. I think you're one of the only people I've ever "met" who does.

[boppers]

69. Well, it's more medically risky (and expensive) than other forms of birth control.

So, for that reason alone, it's not the most cost effective.

It's also one of the methods with the lowest failure rates, though.

[mzteris]

72. huh?

Maybe it's the late hour, but I'm not following this: "It's also one of the methods with the lowest failure rates, though."

[boppers]

76. Maybe too obvious to be seen?

The point being that giving birth after an abortion is *much* rarer than giving birth after using condoms, the pill, etc.

[EFerrari]

63. No, everybody doesn't want to do away with safe legal abortions. n/t

[mzteris]

64. don't be obtuse. . .

I am PRO CHOICE! I don't want to do with away with "safe legal abortions"! How in the fricking HELL could you POSSIBLY get that I was "anti-abortion" from what I've posted?

JFHC - I support CHOICE 100%, but I certainly would never wish an abortion on ANYONE! I would much rather the necessity for them be eliminated, wouldn't you?

Pregnancy prevention for birth control - not abortion - is a much better option. How could anyone think anything different?

[EFerrari]

65. "How could anyone think anything diferent?"

It may surprise and alarm you, but your opinions are not held universally.

[mzteris]

70. so you're saying abortions are GOOD things

to have. Everyone should have one because they're so much fun or grand or something? A mark of status, maybe? What?

WTF, I mean really. Just because I certainly support every woman's right to have an abortion - and most definitely understand that having an abortion is not only sometimes the BEST option for a woman, but her ONLY option - I most certainly and fervently hope that NO WOMAN ever HAS to go through one.

Having a cavity filled is a good thing too, but having that sucker drilled out (especially w/o the Novocaine) - not so much fun to go through. Am I getting through to you at all or have you made up your mind that you just won't like a damn word I say about anything and will figure out some way to misinterpret it to ensure that you won't.

I'm not understanding your not understanding me. I'm speaking pretty plain English here. Pro-choice, good. Having to be in a position to have to have an abortion - not so good. Unless you just LIKE abortions or something? (See how ridiculous that sounds?)

Seriously, I don't think you LIKE abortions nor ENCOURAGE abortions just for the hell of it (at least I HOPE not!) - so please don't think I'm anti-abortion because I think having to have one is something I believe most women would rather not have to go through.

[EFerrari]

92. So, in post after post, you vilify abortion but you are SO pro-choice.

Gotcha.

Repeat: No, not everybody wants to do away with safe, legal abortions.

[mzteris]

103. Heart transplants are good to have when you need it -

but I don'want anyone to HAVE to HAVE one! Do you?

Do you not get that?

Who here LIKES the physical act of abortion? please raise your hand...

In no way shape or form am I even CLOSE to suggesting that abortion not be available. WTF is wrong with your reading skills?

[EFerrari]

122. What you want is immaterial to women's health and no, everyone doesn't share

your abortion phobia.

[mzteris]

123. I'm reallly really sorry you can't read. n/t

[EFerrari]

127. I read just fine, thanks!

[mzteris]

137. evidently not. One more time and then I'm done.

I am pro-choice.

I support women's right to an abortion.

I believe the woman - and only the woman - has the right to make that decision.

I believe abortion should be legal. and safe.

I believe abortions should be covered by insurance, medicaid, etc.

I believe no one should ever have to go through having an abortion.

[EFerrari]

142. Shocker: this isn't all about you!

[mzteris]

146. do you have ANYTHING to actually contribute

to this discussion?

HB, is that you?

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

148. Sure. Everybody doesn't want to do away with safe, legal abortions.

:)

[mzteris]

151. your response is nonsensical in it's format.

I do, however, agree with the sentiment you were TRYING to state.


And again, if you can read, then you know I support safe, legal, abortions that are covered under insurance or other health benefits.

[EFerrari]

152. LOL

[Ysabel]

164. you don't get it...

i am happy happy happy so happy in fact that i had two abortions...

[mzteris]

179. hoooooooookay....

whatever trips your trigger... it's such a fun event to go through, isn't it?

Though seriously, wouldn't you have rather not have gotten pregnant in the first place instead?


I'm glad you're "happy" - you made whatever choice you needed to make at the time with the circumstances that existed... but do you really want women to "have an abortion" if it is something they could have avoided?

I mean, I'm glad liver transplants exists, but do you want your loved one to have to have one? really?


I'm not anti-choice, I'm not even anti-abortion . . . but if the necessity for one could be prevented.....??

[saracat]

71. Abortions will always be a necessity as long as humans live.

We may cut down on the amount of them but they will always be a necessity. There is always going to be rape, incest, poverty,disease and difficult pregnancy. All the problems of the human condition are not ever going to disappear.

[mzteris]

73. unfortunately, you're right.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were no rape, incest, poverty, disease, or difficult pregnancy?

I know, silly huh? Maybe I read to much speculative fiction. Maybe hope springs eternal in the breast of liberals who hope to change the world for the better.

What was it Hillary said? Abortions should be safe, legal and rare. (Was it Hillary? I forget. . . It's getting too late for my brain. lol)

[Ysabel]

165. i was FORTUNATE to have two abortions!

[mzteris]

180. you were fortunate to be able to have

the two abortions you obviously wanted. . . and I'm very glad you were able to get them safely and legally. Were you able to have them covered by your insurance or other medical care program? If not, then you should have.

Are you saying you were very glad you got pregnant so you could enjoy the opportunity to have an abortion? Really?

I don't think so.

I would NEVER interfere with your right/opportunity/legality to have an abortion - and I still fight to have that covered - but I still more strenuously support the avoidance of the circumstances that necessitate an abortion. And - unless one just likes having their insides vacuumed - wouldn't you agree?

[Demeter]

7. Does the Phrase MYOB Mean Anything to a Guy Anymore?

How I wish women could find some deeply personal and life-threatening facet of a man's life to dig their noses into and legislate rules about.

[Nikki Stone1]

12. After Stupak, it's clear that the Dems are gunning for women now

Nowhere to go.

Nowhere the FUCK to go.

[cali]

14. no, that is not clear.

there are many, many dems who stalwartly support choice.

[Capitalocracy]

16. maybe you could start a "prostate exams make you gay" campaign?

just a thought

[Demeter]

18. Or Prostate Exams to Prove You AREN'T Gay o r HIV Positive--Every 6 weeks

[boppers]

42. I know people who pay for such things as a recreational activity.

... so it might backfire.

[Iggo]

89. Heheheh...you said "backfire".

[The Straight Story]

83. Your body, your choice - a good message for a great many things. (nt)

[Warpy]

8. They lost me at that group home thing

and I think they'll lose any of us who remember the Florence Crittenton Homes and seeing the pregnant girls with dead eyes allowed out once a month for an ice cream cone in a drug store soda fountain. What had started out as a noble idea in the 1890s had devolved into an adoption scam by the 1950s, with girls given no opportunity to keep the babies they'd risked their lives to bear.

That's one more thing we don't want to go back to.

I'd also like to know who's supplying all the counseling and which information they're giving. It sounds like a giveaway to fake abortion services that pressure women into giving birth to babies they don't want.

[mzteris]

21. well, a "group home" is preferable

to being homeless and on the street, don't you think?

And yeah, there are still "parents" out there who kick their daughters out for being pregnant. Just like they kick out GLBT kids...

Don't know about this "group" yet. Some of the ideas sound great, but that could be spin - and then one has to examine the motivations behind it...

[uppityperson]

26. Here is the spin..."Pro-life, pro-life and more pro-life"

Their links:

* Pregnancy Resources (6)
Be Not Afraid - Resources for parents with difficult prenatal diagnoses
The Nurturing Network
Crisis Pregnancy Center-Online
Abortion is not just a simple medical procedure. For many women, it is a life changing event with significant physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences. Most women who struggle with past abortions say that they wish they had been told all of the facts about abortion and its risks (ALL links there go to anti-choice agencies)
Stand Up Girl
CareNet
Heartbeat International

* Post-Abortion Help (3)
* Democratic Links (11)
* Pro-Life News and Education (4)
* Pro-Life Advocacy Groups (14)
* Consistent Life (3)
* Euthanasia/End of Life (3)
* Death Penalty (5)
* Medical (12)
* Political (1)
* Religious (13)

[mzteris]

33. I'm not arguing FOR "that group" in any way. n/t

[Warpy]

Hiccup

[varelse]

10. No

thanks for asking.

[uppityperson]

13. After reading the link, and the linked pdf, no way. While some of this sounds good, it is a Trojan

horse thing. Much of what they say they want in that list is already provided. Otherwise, it is small amounts of things that can too very very easily be used to pressure women and take away their rights.

Thanks for posting this to check it out. At first glance it seems only slightly questionable with good points, but further reading shows it is anti-choice bullshit.

[Capitalocracy]

15. One more step toward womb to tomb socialism.

Sperm to worm! :sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

17. List of their RW BS web links, excuse me Pro-Life links. NO pro-choice ones

Web LinksWe are regularly out on the Web. When we find a great site we list it.

* Pregnancy Resources (6)
Be Not Afraid - Resources for parents with difficult prenatal diagnoses
The Nurturing Network
Crisis Pregnancy Center-Online
Abortion is not just a simple medical procedure. For many women, it is a life changing event with significant physical, emotional, and spiritual consequences. Most women who struggle with past abortions say that they wish they had been told all of the facts about abortion and its risks (ALL links there go to anti-choice agencies)
Stand Up Girl
CareNet
Heartbeat International

* Post-Abortion Help (3)
* Democratic Links (11)
* Pro-Life News and Education (4)
* Pro-Life Advocacy Groups (14)
* Consistent Life (3)
* Euthanasia/End of Life (3)
* Death Penalty (5)
* Medical (12)
* Political (1)
* Religious (13)

[cornermouse]

19. No.

[Brickbat]

20. Well, after I hear about definitions of the following bolded terms:

* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
* provide counseling in maternity group homes;
* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
* support informed consent for Abortion Services;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.

Then I can make a decision. But I kinda think I know what my decision is.

[CTyankee]

85. Accurate data on abortion and other reproductive issues is already being done by the Alan Guttmacher

Institute, considered the "gold standard" of research organizations on this area by state and local health departments all over this country. AGI has been called the research arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Their work is excellent and whatever anybody wants to know about abortion stats is there. When I worked for PP of CT I used their excellent reports when citing data in my fundraising letters to donors to keep them informed...

The truth is out there. There are just some people who don't want to see it...

[Brickbat]

91. Right; that's kind of what I was getting at.

There's no reason to reinvent a pro-life wheel when accurate numbers are available.

[CTyankee]

95. What I don't understand is why there are DUers on this thread WANTING

a bill like this? What is the impetus to have such a thing from a progressive Democrat?

[uppityperson]

96. They haven't read what it really is. The language is deceptive on purpose

Are you a "democrat for life", meaning for your entire life, or are you "pro-life"? Do you want to decrease the NEED for abortions or the ABILITY to GET an abortion?

It is very deceptive. I hope those DUers who want this bill simply haven't read the site or the posts here, are skimming too fast. But then, I have been accused of being naive.

[CTyankee]

97. But we know or have access to information about what works to decrease abortions.

It is increased sex education and access to safe, affordable birth control. But abortion must always be there in case of contraceptive failure. And why do we have to know "reasons" women are having abortions? If they have made that choice then that's that. Period. Why must Democrats be the busybodies investigating women's reproductive choices...

(sigh)I think I've been fighting this fight for too long...I'm getting madder and madder all over again...same sh*t I've been hearing for YEARS...:banghead:

[uppityperson]

102. Yup. Having lived in the time when legal abortions were not available,

I continue to fight to keep them available. Those younger than I, those for whom a legal hygienic abortion was available, some of them do not understand what can happen if this is lost. Having taken it for granted, having never had to deal with it beyond making the decision, raising the money, getting there, having it done, recovering, many fertile women (and men) truly cannot conceive (heh) of it being otherwise. Intellectually perhaps, but in their guts?

Hang in there and thank you for continuing to work with this.

[enlightenment]

23. No.

establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion . . . WHY?

* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses; . . . ALREADY AVAILABLE

* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing; . . . TEST FOR WHAT? PREGNANCY?

* provide counseling in maternity group homes; . . . GROUP HOMES? WE STILL HAVE GROUP HOMES? THE KIND WITH NAMES THAT INCLUDE 'UNWED MOTHER' ?

* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent . . . WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SUPPORTING PREGNANT WOMEN?

* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care; . . . SHOULD BE DONE REGARDLESS.

* provide grants for ultrasound equipment; . . . WHY? TO UP THE GUILT SWEEPSTAKES?

* support informed consent for Abortion Services; . . . SEE ABOVE (AND BITE ME.)

* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women; . . . SHOULD BE DONE ANYWAY.

* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children; . . . WHY?

* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers. . . . SHOULD BE DONE ANYWAY.


Sorry, this is mostly bad - and the bits that aren't are so wrapped up with the anti-abortion crap as to make them useless in context.

[mzteris]

30. i dunno know about this group at all yet,

haven't even had a chance to go to the link! - but to address your remarks:


* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion . . . WHY? ...
WHY NOT? If we can figure out the whys, then eliminating the reasons would be a good thing, n'est pas? I mean, we all support a woman's right to have an abortion, but I don't think any of us are "pro-abortion" - that's why we use the term "pro-choice", right?

* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses; . . . ALREADY AVAILABLE
IS IT? Who, what, when, where, why, how? . . .

* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing; . . . TEST FOR WHAT? PREGNANCY?
No, for - complications. Like Downs or Sickle Cell, or CP, or some other medical issue. Do you want people to automatically abort Downs or Autistic kids? Or do they need some information and support about the future of their and their child's life. . . I'm not saying either way what a parent SHOULD do. That would be their choice. But it should be an informed and carefully thought out choice not based on immediate reaction/emotion.

* provide counseling in maternity group homes; . . . GROUP HOMES? WE STILL HAVE GROUP HOMES? THE KIND WITH NAMES THAT INCLUDE 'UNWED MOTHER' ?
Where do you suggest pregnant women who have no place to live should go? Parents DO kick out their pregnant daughters the same as their GLBT kids, ya know? How's homeless sound when you're 15, pregnant, and scared?

* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent . . . WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SUPPORTING PREGNANT WOMEN?
Really? One of the arguments many use is the lack of adoptive homes for "unwanted" children. As an adoptive mom (and former foster mom), whether or not it has ANYTHING to do with "supporting Pregnant women" - it has a whole hell of a lot to do with supporting their offspring.

* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care; . . . SHOULD BE DONE REGARDLESS.
Of course it SHOULD. but it's not.

* provide grants for ultrasound equipment; . . . WHY? TO UP THE GUILT SWEEPSTAKES?
Sounds suspect and fishy to me, too.

* support informed consent for Abortion Services; . . . SEE ABOVE (AND BITE ME.)
Also concerned about their definition of this...

* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women; . . . SHOULD BE DONE ANYWAY.
OH yeah . . . but then again, what has that to do with abortion prevention?

* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children; . . . WHY?
Don't like the term "unborn" either. That's usually a dead giveaway. Unless there's some insurance BS reason that fetal treatment isn't being covered? Like if the fetus needed surgery in utero? Anyone know?

* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers. . . . SHOULD BE DONE ANYWAY.
Some are. Program needs to be expanded, though.

[boppers]

46. Point by point:

"* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion . . . WHY? ...
WHY NOT? If we can figure out the whys, then eliminating the reasons would be a good thing, n'est pas? I mean, we all support a woman's right to have an abortion, but I don't think any of us are "pro-abortion" - that's why we use the term "pro-choice", right?"

We already have this data, this is an effort to revive an unconstitutional measure that would collect enough *additional data* to publicly identify individual women.

"* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses; . . . ALREADY AVAILABLE
IS IT? Who, what, when, where, why, how? . . . "

It's at the campus medical center. This is an attempt to increase back-door funding for pro-life, non-medical, organizations.

"* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing; . . . TEST FOR WHAT? PREGNANCY?
No, for - complications. Like Downs or Sickle Cell, or CP, or some other medical issue. Do you want people to automatically abort Downs or Autistic kids? Or do they need some information and support about the future of their and their child's life. . . I'm not saying either way what a parent SHOULD do. That would be their choice. But it should be an informed and carefully thought out choice not based on immediate reaction/emotion."

They don't have Austism genetic screening yet, and aborting Downs/Fragile-X/etc. children should be their choice, without some holier-than-thou forcing cherry-picked data like "parents of children with this disability say they're happy they had the child..." It's just another way to force somebody's opinion on pregnant women. Personally, I'm in favor of enhanced genetic screening, up to and including: sex selection, eye color, hair color, PK, cancer susceptibility, anything that can be tested for.

"* provide counseling in maternity group homes; . . . GROUP HOMES? WE STILL HAVE GROUP HOMES? THE KIND WITH NAMES THAT INCLUDE 'UNWED MOTHER' ?
Where do you suggest pregnant women who have no place to live should go? Parents DO kick out their pregnant daughters the same as their GLBT kids, ya know? How's homeless sound when you're 15, pregnant, and scared? "

More backdoor funding for pro-life group breeding homes... note the lack of funding for group homes of pregnant daughters who got abortions, but are still homeless.

"* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent . . . WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH SUPPORTING PREGNANT WOMEN?
Really? One of the arguments many use is the lack of adoptive homes for "unwanted" children. As an adoptive mom (and former foster mom), whether or not it has ANYTHING to do with "supporting Pregnant women" - it has a whole hell of a lot to do with supporting their offspring."

More encouragement to breed and carry to term unwanted children. Unnecessary, humans do enough of it already.

"* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care; . . . SHOULD BE DONE REGARDLESS.
Of course it SHOULD. but it's not."

This is already part of the Health Care bill that just passed, so it's bullshit to try and make it law.... again...

"* provide grants for ultrasound equipment; . . . WHY? TO UP THE GUILT SWEEPSTAKES?
Sounds suspect and fishy to me, too. "

Oh, I know exactly what this is about. It's to *require* women to look at an ultrasound before an abortion procedure.

"* support informed consent for Abortion Services; . . . SEE ABOVE (AND BITE ME.)
Also concerned about their definition of this... "

More pushing of opinions onto women.

"* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women; . . . SHOULD BE DONE ANYWAY.
OH yeah . . . but then again, what has that to do with abortion prevention? "

It's pretty clear from the rest of the bill that this has noting to do with violence against the woman, and everything to so with a fetus. Perhaps they haven't considered that carrying a fetus potentially *is* a violent act against women.

"* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children; . . . WHY?
Don't like the term "unborn" either. That's usually a dead giveaway. Unless there's some insurance BS reason that fetal treatment isn't being covered? Like if the fetus needed surgery in utero? Anyone know? "

This is because one reason women have abortions is because the medical care of pregnancy and birth is horribly expensive. Turn women into federally funded baby factories, and somebody has to pay for it.

"* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers. . . . SHOULD BE DONE ANYWAY.
Some are. Program needs to be expanded, though. "

France has a great program for this.

[enlightenment]

61. Thanks, boppers.

I was actually enjoying an evening out for a change!

[mzteris]

66. Pro-choice is the only choice in my book. . .

We already have this data, this is an effort to revive an unconstitutional measure that would collect enough *additional data* to publicly identify individual women.

.......... of course I don't support "identifying women". But understanding whys is the first step to resolving problems.


It's at the campus medical center. This is an attempt to increase back-door funding for pro-life, non-medical, organizations.

..... OK. I've since my first posts finally(!) got to their website and found their anti-abortion, period. I don't support that. I was jsut asking the question about wherhe the counseling is coming from. Not all campuses have "medical centers" - or not much of one - anyway. That's why I support Planned Parenthood.


They don't have Austism genetic screening yet, and aborting Downs/Fragile-X/etc. children should be their choice, without some holier-than-thou forcing cherry-picked data like "parents of children with this disability say they're happy they had the child..." It's just another way to force somebody's opinion on pregnant women. Personally, I'm in favor of enhanced genetic screening, up to and including: sex selection, eye color, hair color, PK, cancer susceptibility, anything that can be tested for.

...... no, not yet (on the autism) but they're working on it. Of COURSE abortion should be the choice of the parents! Did I say anything different? But selective abortion for eye-color? Really? That sounds a bit - I dunno - well, I wouldn't do it.


More backdoor funding for pro-life group breeding homes... note the lack of funding for group homes of pregnant daughters who got abortions, but are still homeless.

........ I'm not commenting on "their agenda" - I was asking where you thought pregnant teen girls should go? Or no-longer-pregnant teen girls for that matter.


More encouragement to breed and carry to term unwanted children. Unnecessary, humans do enough of it already.

...... so now you want to FORCE women to have abortions?? Sorry, can't go along with that, either.



This is already part of the Health Care bill that just passed, so it's bullshit to try and make it law.... again...

........ is it? Sorry I don't know all the articles of a bill just passed. How about those fetal surgeries? Are they covered too?



Oh, I know exactly what this is about. It's to *require* women to look at an ultrasound before an abortion procedure.

........ you're probably right on that.


More pushing of opinions onto women.

........ I don't think anyone's opinion should be forced onto anyone else. I'm an information junkie so I think everyone else should be, too. :)



It's pretty clear from the rest of the bill that this has noting to do with violence against the woman, and everything to so with a fetus. Perhaps they haven't considered that carrying a fetus potentially *is* a violent act against women.

....... carrying a fetus IS potentially a violent act for some women. Just being forced to carry a baby you don't want is an act of violence imo, nevermind the whole boyfriend/babydaddy violence against them!! (Of course being forced to have an abortion would be violence against the woman, too.)



This is because one reason women have abortions is because the medical care of pregnancy and birth is horribly expensive. Turn women into federally funded baby factories, and somebody has to pay for it.


........ Are you saying women shouldn't get free medical care for pregnancy/child birth? Or have I lost something of what you've said somewhere?



France has a great program for this.

.... Really? I'd like to hear more about it. As a foster mom to a newborn (now my son!!) I also got the "nurse visits". I loved her! We worked together with the birth mom - it was an 'intensive reunification' program (which obviously didn't work) - for a couple of years.

We also worked together on getting services for some of my other fosters. I'd call her to get the scoop and get the services arranged without having to get the Social Worker involved in the process - just present with the fait accompli (they were sooooooooo bogged down that to wait for the SW to get anything done would have been too late!) Officially the DHS didn't "sanction" my practices, but I had more than one "off-the-record" closed door meeting with the DHS supervisor that "X" child could certainly use "this or that" service/treatment and couldn't wait on the bureaucracy of the system to get it implemented.

[boppers]

75. ... :)

"... of course I don't support "identifying women". But understanding whys is the first step to resolving problems."

There have been lots of studies. The overwhelming reason is crushing poverty. Not "I'm not able to buy new cars" poverty, we're talking people making less than $15,000 a year,between 18-24, who are already on Medicare.

"..... OK. I've since my first posts finally(!) got to their website and found their anti-abortion, period. I don't support that. I was jsut asking the question about wherhe the counseling is coming from. Not all campuses have "medical centers" - or not much of one - anyway. That's why I support Planned Parenthood."

PP's great, probably both because of, and in spite of, the politics which created it (social and racial eugenics, rather than genetic eugenics). I went there for my last HIV test (getting married soon, wanted to be sure I hadn't picked it up over the years), I think it cost me less than 50 bucks and took less than 10 minutes.

"...... no, not yet (on the autism) but they're working on it. Of COURSE abortion should be the choice of the parents! Did I say anything different? But selective abortion for eye-color? Really? That sounds a bit - I dunno - well, I wouldn't do it."

Well, *you* wouldn't, and that's kind of the whole point... *you* get to make the decision, without somebody else trying to "inform" you about different perspectives. WRT Austism, NT's might freak out about an ASD+ child, but I could see an ASD+ couple actually choosing to have an ASD+ child (and abort NT+ ones), so they would be better parents, in that they'd be better able to relate to their child. My more cynical side is also nagging at me about parents using genetic disabilities to set up mini-farms, households of disabled children to collect checks. Since I've seen it in the Foster system (you might have, too), it wouldn't shock me so much as sadden me.

"........ I'm not commenting on "their agenda" - I was asking where you thought pregnant teen girls should go? Or no-longer-pregnant teen girls for that matter."

Oh, we need more homeless teen and homeless adult programs, certainly. What I think we *don't* need is programs that potentially encourage teens to get pregnant so they can leave awful home conditions and move into a shelter.

"...... so now you want to FORCE women to have abortions?? Sorry, can't go along with that, either. "

No, not force, but readily enable people who can't take care of children... to not have them.

"........ is it? Sorry I don't know all the articles of a bill just passed. How about those fetal surgeries? Are they covered too? "

It's an across the board ban on all pre-existing conditions. A major health corporation (I forget which one) just got into a lot of shit over this one, as they decided to cover a child at birth, but declined to cover a fetal defect which occurred before birth. The full ban should be in effect in the next couple of years.

"....... you're probably right on that."

The tactic works as follows (and a bunch of the bill is along the same lines): Try to convince the mother that a fetus is a viable, living, child. Thus, the "information" and "counselling" and "aid" and ultrasound, all trying to drive home that idea.

"....... I don't think anyone's opinion should be forced onto anyone else. I'm an information junkie so I think everyone else should be, too."

Well, I don't know any women who didn't think long, and hard, about their decisions before making an appointment. It's not like going for a Mani-Pedi, it's (depending on method) possibly dangerous, bloody, and can really mess a body up for a while. The problem is that the calls for "more information", "more counselling", (etc.) aren't about making sure a person is as informed as they choose to be, it's about making them as informed, about one perspective, as pro-birthers want them to be.

"....... carrying a fetus IS potentially a violent act for some women. Just being forced to carry a baby you don't want is an act of violence imo, nevermind the whole boyfriend/babydaddy violence against them!! (Of course being forced to have an abortion would be violence against the woman, too.)"

Yes, for this reason there are checks in the system to ensure the woman consents.

"........ Are you saying women shouldn't get free medical care for pregnancy/child birth? Or have I lost something of what you've said somewhere?"

I'm saying we shouldn't encourage "professional birther" as a profession. If a person can get free medical care for 20 years by dint of constant pregnancy, but a person who doesn't choose constant pregnancy cannot get medical care, it send the message that women in society are more valued by being pregnant all the time.

".... Really? I'd like to hear more about it. As a foster mom to a newborn (now my son!!) I also got the "nurse visits". I loved her! We worked together with the birth mom - it was an 'intensive reunification' program (which obviously didn't work) - for a couple of years. "

Clicky:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92116914

[noamnety]

27. Sounds like anti choice swill with a bit of privacy violations thrown in.

Why do we need to collect information on why women opt for abortions? Who should they have to answer to, and why?

Can men buy condoms without having to make an official statement about why they don't want to become fathers? Why do they get more of a right to privacy than women?

How about grants for abortion services? Why is all your financial support for women who make the "right" decision?

So-called "democrats for life" can kiss off, the democrats don't need to be pushed any further toward right wing fundamentalism.

[Arugula Latte]

28. What a load of anti-choice crap wrapped up in a pretty bow!

I call bullshit! Let's be real -- "pregnancy counseling" is a euphemism for "talk the little wimmin out of going ahead with abortion." Informed consent is another anti-choice tactic.

This stinks to high heaven.

[Withywindle]

35. And it's all based on the premise that "women are ignorant."

Why, SURELY, if those little ladies were properly "counseled," none of them would EVER choose abortion......


Newsflash to "Democrats for Life": There is no (D) in PATRIARCHY.

[Withywindle]

29. Hell no.

As has been well pointed out before, this is "stealth" anti-choice bullshit.

Do you realize that there are ALREADY, and have been for decades, bogus "pregnancy crisis centers" advertised all over the place, with their main purpose being to lure young women and girls who are pregnant and scared into a place where they're given a lot of bullshit about the physical "risks" of abortion (hint: it is way, WAY safer than giving birth) and even more bullshit about the "moral" aspects (read: bloody fetus pictures and a religiously-based guilt trip).

Sounds like more of the same to me.

If there were really a decent economic system in this country (one that actually continued to really help kids AFTER birth, as well as their mothers, who will probably work to support them and an actual living wage and benefits sure would help), then women who wanted to be mothers wouldn't feel a need to either abort or adopt out.

If there were really a decent health care system in this country, then women who are pleased to be pregnant will get the medical care they need for a healthy pregnancy and delivery, and women who are NOT pleased to be pregnant will be able to get that undesired condition treated safely without a load of puritanical bullshit shoved down their throats.

Let's work on that, OK? After all, decent economic support and decent health care will benefit EVERYONE. Why are all these moralists suddenly so fascinated with my uterus should there be a sperm-and-egg omelet, but meanwhile I can't get health insurance because my job doesn't cover it, and the endometriosis that's been plaguing my (otherwise empty, thank the gods) uterus for 20 years is a "pre-existing condition"?

Stop staring at my lower abdomen and what might or might not be there. My eyes are up here.

[saracat]

32. NEVER. This is all about fetus and nothing about women.

This is a huge step toward outlawing abortion. As they said in the 70's, "MY body, MY choice". I guess some didn't even notice there is nothing about birth control being provided either. Democrats for Life aren't Democrats!

[rug]

39. They are.

http://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=211

Maybe not your flavor, but they are.

[Withywindle]

45. I know they exist. There are Republicans for Choice too.

I have voted for a Republican candidate for any office exactly twice in my life. I'm in Illinois, which is a purple state. In both those cases, it was a pro-choice Republican against an anti-choice Democrat.

I'll do it again if I have to. Fuck yes, it's important. I have a uterus and still might have a pregnancy--that I would not want--happen to me despite all my precautions, so I vote in self-interest.

At some point, women have to make a stand. I've already made mine and I won't sway from it.

There is no (D) in PATRIARCHY, but there are two (R)s.

[saracat]

48. Yeah well those who do NOT support the party platform aren't real Dems IMHO.

. These types of folks are no better than Repugs and I have just as much respect for them.

[rug]

50. Guess not.

[saracat]

67. What is the point of this picture?

[boppers]

77. It's the "we're not changing things in Hyde" picture.

Hyde pisses some people off.

Obama is signing an EO that states that Hyde is still intact.

Which pisses people off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13535

[U4ikLefty]

104. Does it piss YOU off?

[mzteris]

109. it pisses me off.

There's no reason in the world that abortions shouldn't be covered along with any other medical procedure.

[saracat]

153. I agree!

[RainDog]

132. so, rug, are you anti-choice?

do you really think women should be forced to give birth b/c of someone else's religious myths?

[rug]

150. Ask them.

[uppityperson]

154. Since I am one of "them", I'll answer. No way in HELL should we be forced

to give birth b/c of someone else's religious myths.

If you seriously cannot answer that, you are something.

[rug]

157. Which one in the picture are you?

And why do you support the Hyde Amendment?

[uppityperson]

159. Thought you meant "women", since talking about forcing women to give birth.

How does "no"="I support"? You are something.

[RainDog]

156. I asked you.

[rug]

158. I don't answer loaded questions.

Do you honestly believe the abortion question revolves around "religious myth"?

That's a skewed worldview you have there.

[uppityperson]

160. Thank you for clarifying that you won't say forcing women to give birth b/c of someone else's religi

religious myths is wrong.

Thank you for clarifying that you won't simply say that.

It really helps us know more about you.

[rug]

161. I didn't say your statement was wrong. I said it was idiotic.

I suppose you also believe the abortion restrictions contained in Roe v. Wade are based on religious myths.

Give my regards to "us".

[RainDog]

162. thanks for the answer

because, yes, a belief that a zygote has consciousness is religious myth. a belief in a soul if religious myth.

the issue of viability, on the other hand, is not about religious myth, but rather medical information.

there is no one-to-one correlation between the two ideas. in this instance or with evolution v. creation. the same mythology or religious ideology that is not based upon any reality informs both ideas.

maybe you think it's a loaded question because it requires you to admit that you hold a belief that has as much validity as creationism.

we all hold engage in magical thinking. for most of us, however, it's not at the expense of an entire gender's life.

take care.

[uppityperson]

163. Try again. Read this time. Post and whom the poster is.

By the way, you said it was "loaded", not "idiotic".

[rug]

168. My reading is fine. I suggest you read some case law on the subject.

Not one cites religious myths.

BTW, a question can be both loaded and idiotic, as can posts.

[uppityperson]

170. If you can read fine, they you should be able to figure out who wrote that question

[rug]

172. Actually, I'm having trouble with that sentence.

[tnlefty]

143. I call them democrats against women.

I refuse to even dignify the pro-life, or for life, as this boils down to trying to control women.

And to the OP, no I would not.

[mzteris]

34. PRO-LIFE group. Not Pro-choice at all.

Some "democrats" - buncha damn fundies...

While some of their "ideas" have merit (see my other posts) - I don't like them and I don't like their methodology.

bleh. I'm disappointed. :(

[nemo137]

37. It sounds like it's trying to subsidize and expand Crisis Pregnancy Centers

which are a deceptive anti-choice tactic. So no.

[EFerrari]

59. Bingo. n/t

[defendandprotect]

40. "Collect accurate data on why women choose abortion" ... ???? "Maternity Group Homes"?????

This looks like a near dozen ways to try to control women and their pregnancies!!


This is also questionable . . .

provide grants for ultrasound equipment

Ultrasound testing seems to be leading to more Cesareans -- and we're waaaay over the

numbers internationally -- think it's generally 3-7% internationally -- here we're way

over 30% -- 38% in Florida!!

And, here we have another ton of "women have no idea what they are doing!" . . .

support informed consent for Abortion Services;

Here's another sign that "Dem for life" aren't much different from the rest of the

anti-abortionists . . .

require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;

"Pregnant" is sufficient --

Require SCHIP to cover pregnant women -- let's not get into areas of giving "personhood"

to the unborn!

But this would be a great idea if it said "for ALL new parents" --

" provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers."

[Foo Fighter]

52. I stopped reading at "collect accurate data on why women choose abortion."

Are they collecting data on other procedures as well? For example, let's say I have a bum knee and my ortho doc suggests a few choices:

1. Ice, rest, cut back on physical activity and see how it goes.
2. Physical therapy.
3. Surgery.

The choice would be up to me and, while I would depend on my doc's advice for guidance, ultimately I'm the one that makes the final decision. So, why is this choice any different than abortion? Why aren't they gathering info on my choice of options for treatment for my knee as well? Or any other medical choice for that matter. After all, it's not uncommon that when I go to my doc (which is rare), she will outline choices of, say, a few different meds that might work for whatever is ailing me. She'll take my medical history into account and give me the pros and cons of the various options and we'll decide together what treatment plan will most likely work for me. Usually, there is one med/option that will be the best path and that's the route we will go. However, if I wanted to go for option B for whatever reason, that would be my choice and that's the route we would end up going (perhaps with a few caveats) because in the end, it's my decision.

Gee, shouldn't these types of things be tracked too? After all, I made a "choice" in my medical treatment.

Hmmm....maybe we should help these guys out and inform them each and every time we make a "choice" in our medical treatment. If you chose to take a Tylenol for, say, a headache, let them know. Same goes for any prescription med you're taking. After all, every time you take your morning/afternoon/evening prescription, in reality, you're making a choice to do so. You could just as easily choose to not take it. So, I'd like to encourage everyone to contact the Dems for Life each and every time you choose to take/not take prescription meds or OTC stuff. Or vitamins. Or supplements. Take a hit off your asthma inhaler? Let them know. Hell, let them know what you chose to eat today because after all, food is very important to overall health. If they want to know about the medical choices we make, I say we should help them out. :evilgrin:

[defendandprotect]

78. Completely agree . . .

IMO, this is simply about trying to control women --

:)

[bemildred]

43. No.

Send me something that guarantees every child in the USA good nutrition, a safe place to sleep, decent clothing, and all the books they can read, and I'll think about it.

[TwilightGardener]

44. The stuff about medical care for pregnant women is good. The rest, unnecessary intrusion.

So, ultimately, no--could not support it.

[CTyankee]

101. If we have a system that cares of the health of ALL citizens, then we have

a system that cares for pregnant women, no?

[Mushroom]

51. Of course not

I've been to that site in the past to read up on the Pregnant Women Support Act propaganda. I wouldn't expect anything different from omnipotent politicians on the take who keep women down to exploit them as enslaved cash cows.

[Nikki Stone1]

53. You need to read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8168988

[shugah]

54. no

i didn't have to read any further than the 2nd bullet point. it's none of your business why women make the choices they do.

[Foo Fighter]

60. Exactly.

See my post #52 in this thread.

[Missy Vixen]

57. No

By the way, is there a party you could recommend for pro-choice Democratic women? It seems our own has decided we (and our votes,) are expendable.

Just asking.

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

58. Nope. This is anti-choice bs.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Excuse me? "support informed consent for Abortion Services;"? Or how about "promoting abstinence"?

This is clearly designed to sound "reasonable" to most Democrats, who, like most Americans, are pro choice and don't want the government telling citizens what they can or can't do with their own bodies.

Let's go through the list, shall we?

* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support; --- I'm willing to bet that the "toll free number" will be to a "pregnancy crisis center" where 'support' will consist of someone telling the pregnant woman that Jesus doesn't want her to get an abortion. There are already plenty of places like that, putting misleading ads in the yellow pages- they don't need my tax dollars to do it.

* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion; --- one of the core philosophical conceits of the anti-choice movement (or of ANY anti-choice movement, for that matter) is that they know better. Women must not be capable of making moral, informed decisions to terminate their pregnancies; they must be hyp-mo-tized into doing it, they don't know what they're doing, they're "victims". We see the same arguments against consenting adult porn- the people involved, particularly the women- don't know what they're doing. So we have to 'help' them by telling them what they can or can't do with their bodies.

* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses; --- again, this sounds like more funding for anti-choice 'crisis centers' where they can use tax dollars to proseltyze students. They want to set up free childcare on University Campuses, I say they should go for it- put their money where their mouths are and start some campus day cares. No one is stopping them. I won't hold my breath.

* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing; --- what? "accurate information"? You mean the doctors, the OB-GYNs, the genetic labs, the other professionals aren't providing women 'accurate information'? Holy shit! That's a travesty. Except, they are. What they aren't doing is giving women the spiel about how within 2 seconds after sperm fuses with egg, a tiny soul has magically appeared inside the single cell. I'd be very curious to see EXACTLY what 'accurate information' they think women aren't getting. Seriously.

* provide counseling in maternity group homes; --- counseling by whom? What kind of counseling, exactly?

* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent; --- that sounds relatively reasonable.

* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care; --- catch me if I'm wrong, but we're supposed to be getting rid of all the 'pre existing conditions' vis a vis the insurace industry. Not exactly expending a whole ton of political capital to suggest something that is already in the works anyway.

* provide grants for ultrasound equipment; --- okay, if there's a real shortage, sure.. but to who?

* support informed consent for Abortion Services; --- Yeah.... 'nuff said.

* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women; --- well, we're all for increased awareness, certainly.

* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children; --- I agree, as long as the point isn't to shoehorn in another legal definition of "unborn children", i.e. everything from the moment of conception on- fertilized eggs, embryos, etc. as full citizens under the 14th amendment.

* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.; --- I know California already does this, funded by those cigarette taxes the smokers hate so much. It's a good idea, no question. They should get lactation consultants or the La Leche league in there, too, if they're really interested in the health of babies.




Beyond that, I don't want any more of my tax dollars going towards shit like 'promoting abstinence'. Enough, already. Apparently the Federal Budget is stretched so thin that many on the 'left' have to have a screaming, whining temper tantrum at the mere suggestion we spend a sliver of the discretionary dollar on space exploration--- meanwhile, we've pissed away hundreds of millions of dollars preaching at teens to wait until marriage until they fuck, which is just about the most idiotic piece of non-advice I can ever imagine trying to sell a high school student, much less having to pay for it.

[Solly Mack]

68. Nope

[cap]

79. so this will mean more funding for Planned Parenthood, right????

Planned Parenthood does much of this already....let's give them more dough, right?

Really!

[CTyankee]

86. PP prevents more abortions than any other organization in this country.

The work of the PP centers all over the country is only 5% around abortion care. The other 95% is in prevention, education and related health care.

[cap]

149. I used to work for PP

they are pro-choice in the fullest sense of the word. They do a lot of women's health care... regular gyn exams, contraception, abuse counseling, rape counseling, etc. as well as abortion

[LeftyMom]

80. It mostly sounds like excuses to throw money at the "pro-life" movement via crisis pregnancy centers

CPCs lie to women in order to funnel them into the adoption pipeline. They do not deserve government funding.

I bolded all of the measures that appear to be likely excuses to either refer women to CPCs or to fund them.

* establish a toll-free number to direct women to places that will provide support;
* collect accurate data on why women choose abortion;
* provide Pregnancy Counseling and Childcare on University Campuses;
* provide accurate information to patients receiving a positive result from prenatal testing;
* provide counseling in maternity group homes;
* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* provide grants for ultrasound equipment;
* support informed consent for Abortion Services;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.

[uppityperson]

81. Hey bluestateguy, now that you've had this much input, what are you thinking about this?

I would ask for this to be locked as RW propaganda, but seems leaving it open to caution others against this trojan horse stuff is a good idea. ALWAYS read the info and think about WHAT they are saying and HOW they are saying it. Go to the link and look at their associated links.

So, what are your thoughts on it now? Serious question.

[bluestateguy]

90. I would support parts of the bill

and demand clarifying language in other provisions so that the law(s) could not be manipulated by the anti-choice side to sneak their agenda through a backdoor.

[EFerrari]

93. This thing is written entirely in weasel, rw code.

I'm glad it caught your attention because this is how the rw fishes for supporters.

[uppityperson]

94. Indeed. Simply wanting to "decrease abortion numbers" by "providing support and"

all that other crap can so very easily mean that women are less ABLE to get abortions, not that they NEED fewer, but aren't able to get them. Rather like shooting all providers will decrease the number of abortions also.

[Odin2005]

82. 'Democrats for Life" = Fascist theocrats in Blue uniforms.

[Motown_Johnny]

84. I am for non-legislative methods of reducing abortions.

Pres. Clinton said it best, Abortions should be safe, legal and rare.

If this bill works toward that end I can support it, the devil is always in the details. From the outline above I would say Yes, I think I can support that.

[CTyankee]

87. I hope you have read the excellent posts on this thread telling you what is wrong

with a good part of this bill, based on past experience with such seemingly OK proposals. Some of it may sound "good" to you if you haven't been in this fight for many years, as many of us here have been. This looks to me like an attempt to "dress up" this bill with "good sounding" ideas that are designed to fool people like you. There is NO possibility that abortions will ever disappear. Women need accurate medical information and pregnancy prevention that is accessible and affordable. We need to have MORE support for family planning, not less. We need more responsible sex education so that kids can make healthy choices in their reproductive lives. Women who choose abortion should not be hassled, "counseled" or interfered with in making their choice to terminate a pregnancy. Women are moral agents and can decide these things for themselves.

A lot of the above will go a long way to making abortion "rare." But the need for abortion care will ALWAYS exist...you need to get your head around that...

[uppityperson]

88. This legislative method tries to reduce abortions by making them harder to get

The outline is VERY deceptive in that. The details show the trojan horseness of the thing.

[RainDog]

130. If you want to reduce abortions, you should get anti-choice people out of health care

and get birth control in health clinics in high schools and make it possible for teenagers to have birth control health care without parental consent, if need be.

most parents are rational and do not object to birth control for their teens if they are sexually active.

the ones who do, imo, are like child abusers who want to force birth on females who are not ready to give birth. those are the ones that children need protection against.

because the reality is that teenagers have sex, whether we want them to or not. therefore, the rational and RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to limit the possibility of pregnancy among teens.

Poor women, esp, but all women in reality need access to affordable birth control as well. We live in the 21st century. People have sex and do not intend to give birth because of this act. There is nothing illegal about this fact. There's nothing wrong with this fact.

It is perverted for people to attempt to make the sexual act into forced childbirth at this time in history.

[krabigirl]

99. Nope, sorry, I don't support any of it. Why waste money on this?!

[RainDog]

116. Democrats for "life" can GO FUCK THEMSELVES

HOW DARE anyone claim to be for civil rights and be against women's access to safe and affordable birth control, INCLUDING ABORTION.

If you (generic) are a "democrat" "for life" you're neither, in my opinion.

You are pariahs. You are panty-sniffing perverts.

You align yourselves with pedophiles who claim children are the reasons for abuse. That's as rational as claiming "unborn" have rights that supercede rights of women.

[uppityperson]

118. I <3 you

[hayu_lol]

135. This bill needs to be aborted as quickly as possible...

More studies? Really? This is the most studied subject over the past 40 years. Tons of studies. This is crap designed to help out the new Nebraska bill...if one delays past 20 weeks then must carry to term.

Proponents of this bill should invest in knitting needles and metal coathanger and the old standby...toxic chemicals and drugs.

The writing of this proposed bill reminds me of the myriad of bills designed to change creationism to intelligent design to whatever clever idea this large group of cretins can come up with at their Wed. night prayer services.

NO. NO. NO. NO.

This subject DOES belong to women. The women who OWN their own bodies. If pro-birthers want to keep trying...then they personally should give up sex for life.

Choice. That is what counts.

[RainDog]

138. Men against choice should castrate themselves for the cause

it's the least they can do.

for all of us.

[mzteris]

147. ooooo - good one!

I like it!

[Bluebear]

136. "there seems like a lot of good ideas here" - - OK, Blue State **GUY**

[ScreamingMeemie]

155. Just popping in to adore you some more!

[Bluebear]

175. XOXO

[Canuckistanian]

139. No. Any mention of "informed consent for Abortion Services" is a trap

No woman goes through an abortion without "informed consent".

It's probably the hardest decision women have to make. And doctors make DAMNED SURE that their patients understand the procedure and what it means.

Invoking government law is an intrusion, plain and simple.

Other than that, I have no problems with the other points.

[ismnotwasm]

166. Nope

I want full reproductive services for all women. Most of the above plus full, non-judgmental support for pregnancy termination if a woman chooses.

[Ysabel]

167. no...

why / none of your business...

- haha...

[williesgirl]

169. Fuck no - tell them to stay out of a woman's right to choose. Period.

[cynatnite]

171. Nope...it's anti-choice. n/t

[ecstatic]

173. A lot of what you listed is already in place nt

[ehrnst]

174. A few things that smell about this...

They want state sponsored medical misinformation given to women, via "counseling" and the "toll free number, " on the taxpayer dime.

Data is already being collected by the CDC - I wonder how this redundant data will be "filtered..."

Grants for "who" to get ultrasound equipment? Ultrasounds are not recommended, unless there is a risk involved in the pregnancy, because there ultrasound is not risk free. These expensive machines would likely be compulsory for women seeking abortions, and not neccessary for the majority of pregnancies. Another money pit - or funding for religious "Crisis pregnancy Centers."

They are calling pregnancy testing "prenatal testing..." not medically accurate. And by "accurate" I'm betting it's politically expedient, not medically accurate.

If the bill just did this:

* increase the adoption tax credit and it permanent
* eliminate pregnancy as a pre-existing condition with respect to health care;
* increase awareness about violence against pregnant women;
* require the SCHIP to cover pregnant women and unborn children;
* provide free home visits by registered nurses for new mothers.


It would never float with the pro-life, anti-poor women getting guvmint help for their promiscuity.

[JVS]

176. Since this seems like the kind of thing the right wing of our party likes, I'd consider supporting..

it, but only after pulling a Lieberman and shitting all over the intention of the bill, making it deficit neutral, making it contingent on a bunch of my pet projects, and getting free tuition to Ivy League schools for all HS graduates in my state. After the DFL people make all those concessions, I'm sure some kind of compromise could be reached, but they should be pragmatic about it and realize that a lot of what they list just isn't political reality.

[RainDog]

177. +1000000000000000000000000

[JVS]

178. Thank you for the points.

[RainDog]

181. no, you were the one with all the salient points. I just reallllly liked your post. :) n.t