Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[SomedayGirl]

As a pro-choice Texas woman, I can tell you I'm not terribly exercised by the 20 week restriction (something like 98% are performed prior to that anyway). The ambulatory hospital standard and the admitting privileges are hugely problematic, though. I've yet to hear anyone explain why abortion should be under a different standard than vasectomies or wisdom teeth extraction, both of which are routinely performed in a clinical setting, or why medical abortions should be administered in a surgical setting.

 

[Lowpro]

Here's my compromise and one that I hope abortion proponents will push hard for in the face of this law. I think that RU486 and other forms of medical abortion should be widely available by prescription. Medical abortion is only feasible in the nine weeks after LMP so it should be well within anyone's definition of viability.

I would also like to see Texas push for widely available birth control for the poor along with comprehensive sex education for everyone.

I'll counter that one, though I honestly think it's totally fine AND abortion doesn't need to be illegal at any gestational age to boot so it's not really a compromise.

Instead I want to go to the other extreme, one you may like but is about as un-American and ethically wrong at the same time. Mandatory vasectomies for all males starting at age 10. No opt out. I hesitate to make oral contraceptives mandatory because of their relationship in endocrine response. They probably would remain at best a discretionary contraceptive. That severely reduces the risk of unplanned pregnancies. Vasectomies are somewhat reversible but the nice thing is that sperm can still be harvested. Overall there is no risk of germ-cell sterilization. There's also minimal physiological risk with regards to development. Simply put, you just don't need your vas deferens for anything more than ejaculation. The risk of pregnancy is quite low here and the risk to reproductive viability is negligible.

Keep up on reproductive health practices for both genders and make make parenthood truly "planned" by both consenting parties and you could actually never make abortion illegal by making it an outmoded procedure.

 

[xjx388]

I guess I'm on ignore. Anyone else have evidence why Texas needed these particular restrictions on clinics? Anyone?

You aren't on ignore, I just got tied up and the thread is moving faster than me.

Texas wants these laws. Need is a string word. And the sonogram law has reduced abortions. I'm on my phone, but I'll cite in a bit.

 

[RandFan]

Need is a string word.

What's the point then? Are you acknowledging that the bill is a trap law?

And the sonogram law has reduced abortions.

Legal abortions in the states that have these laws. It does not prevent black market abortions. It does not prevent rich women from having abortions and any link you provide will not likely account for these.

You say that as if that is a good thing. Don't get me wrong. If you can reduce abortions through comprehensive education and birth control then I'm for it. I'm not an abortion enthusiast. Id like very much to see abortions reduced. But not at the expense of harassing women.

Again, this seems to be an admission that the laws are simply designed to discourage women from having abortions through harassment at one end needless legal hoops to just through at the other end. Would be appropriate to effectively take away gun rights by harassing gun owners and make it nearly impossible for gun merchants to sell guns?

Take your time. I understand as I've been in your shoes before, where I was in the minority of a thread. I certainly don't mean to pressure you to answer if you are busy.

 

[Kestrel]

As a pro-choice Texas woman, I can tell you I'm not terribly exercised by the 20 week restriction (something like 98% are performed prior to that anyway). The ambulatory hospital standard and the admitting privileges are hugely problematic, though. I've yet to hear anyone explain why abortion should be under a different standard than vasectomies or wisdom teeth extraction, both of which are routinely performed in a clinical setting, or why medical abortions should be administered in a surgical setting.

The goal was to raise costs and limit access. It has nothing to do with protecting the patient or assuring quality medical care.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I guess I'm on ignore. Anyone else have evidence why Texas needed these particular restrictions on clinics? Anyone?

Trap laws. That's what these restrictions are. Rick Perry is outright lying to the public about making abortions safer.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You aren't on ignore, I just got tied up and the thread is moving faster than me.

Texas wants these laws. Need is a string word. And the sonogram law has reduced abortions. I'm on my phone, but I'll cite in a bit.

Texas Republican, men want these laws. They can't do it during normal legislation because Texas requires 2/3rds votes to make laws in normal sessions. The special session is a way or the GOP Texans to skirt the normal method.

 

[RandFan]

As a pro-choice Texas woman, I can tell you I'm not terribly exercised by the 20 week restriction (something like 98% are performed prior to that anyway). The ambulatory hospital standard and the admitting privileges are hugely problematic, though. I've yet to hear anyone explain why abortion should be under a different standard than vasectomies or wisdom teeth extraction, both of which are routinely performed in a clinical setting, or why medical abortions should be administered in a surgical setting.

The GOP don't want to make a case that these things are necessary or helpful. Better to just pass the laws and damn the needs of poor women.

It would be nice if those who are supporting these trap laws would admit that it does nothing at all to prevent rich women from having abortions. The can always fly to California or New York and take in a concert at the Hollywood bowl or take in a play on Broadway. Even if America somehow outlawed abortion or even if the GOP put heavy burdens like these idiotic federal personhood amendments, rich women could just jet off to any number of countries like Mexico. They could vacation at Cabo San Lucus, Mazatlan or Puerto Vallarta (to name but a few prime vacation spots).

The laws can only affect poor women. They will not reduce abortions.

The evidence is clear, these laws do not decrease abortions.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women in the United States. Fewer than 0.5% of women obtaining abortions experience a complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about one-tenth that associated with childbirth.

Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.html

 

[RandFan]

Abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures for women in the United States. Fewer than 0.5% of women obtaining abortions experience a complication, and the risk of death associated with abortion is about one-tenth that associated with childbirth.

Source: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.html

Bariatric surgery to help obese patients have a much higher rate.

Information on Bariatric Surgery

The Journal of the American Medical Association reported in October 2005 that the in-hospital mortality rate among bariatric surgery patients was 0.1 to 0.2 percent. At 30 days post-surgery, mortality estimates ranged from 0.33 to 1.9 percent.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery is a major operation, associated with an overall complication rate of about 20 percent—meaning that approximately 1 in 5 patients will experience some type of postoperative complication.

• Mortality rate as high as 1.9%
• Overall complication rate of about 20%

Don't expect any laws akin to trap laws for bariatric surgery anytime soon. Abortion trap laws have never been about health. That's obvious.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Rape?

The woman has to consent to the ultrasound. I guess women are getting raped in OB/GYN offices every day.

No, it forces a woman to have an object inserted into her vagina that she doesn't want there, in order to have a procedure that she is asking for. Last time I checked, forcible penetration of the vagina by any kind of object is rape. It's legislated rape. And did you miss the part where THE VAGINAL ULTRASOUND IS NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY for an abortion to be performed safely?

Finally, don't try to conflate a medically necessary ultrasound with one of these forcible insertions.

Texas wants these laws.

No, it doesn't. If it did, Rick Perry wouldn't have to spend $2 million in tax dollars on two perfectly useless special legislative sessions to pass them.

And the sonogram law has reduced abortions.

And here it is. This is what it's all about for you. Why don't you just come out and admit that you don't think a woman has the right to control her own body, you approve of this chipping away at women's reproductive rights, and you don't want women to have access to abortion, any abortion?

How do you know the sonogram law has reduced abortions, and hasn't just driven women to illegal abortionists?

 

[xjx388]

No, it forces a woman to have an object inserted into her vagina that she doesn't want there, in order to have a procedure that she is asking for. Last time I checked, forcible penetration of the vagina by any kind of object is rape. It's legislated rape. And did you miss the part where THE VAGINAL ULTRASOUND IS NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY for an abortion to be performed safely?

How are the speculums, doctor's hands and surgical instruments in her vagina not rape and the ultrasound is? No one is forcing her to get either procedure. This is pretty extreme thinking.

Finally, don't try to conflate a medically necessary ultrasound with one of these forcible insertions.

Sonograms in pregnancy are rarely medically necessary. They are nice to have, very informative, can make detecting certain anomalies easier and they protect the doctor from lawsuits; but, they are not strictly necessary.

I can think of several reasons why an ultrasound before abortion might be similarly helpful.

And here it is. This is what it's all about for you. Why don't you just come out and admit that you don't think a woman has the right to control her own body, you approve of this chipping away at women's reproductive rights, and you don't want women to have access to abortion, any abortion?

I don't believe people should engage in sexual intercourse if they don't want to have kids. But they do have the right to. If they exercise that right and create a life, I don't think it Gould be so easy to end that life.

How do you know the sonogram law has reduced abortions, and hasn't just driven women to illegal abortionists?

I don't. As an analogy, the anti-drug laws have driven people to illegal drug dealers; does that mean we should legalize all drugs?

 

[thaiboxerken]

How are the speculums, doctor's hands and surgical instruments in her vagina not rape and the ultrasound is? No one is forcing her to get either procedure. This is pretty extreme thinking.

Because there are procedures that are medically needed for the abortion and procedures that are not needed. Medical doctors should be the ones making those decisions, not anti-abortion legislators.

Again, you're not going to trick people with your "arguments" so stop trying.

 

[funk de fino]

It's not semantics. There is no law that says a woman cannot have sex with anyone they want to however many times they want to or in whatever flavor of sex she wants. Go for it ladies!

Oh yes, there are.

 

[RandFan]

How are the speculums, doctor's hands and surgical instruments in her vagina not rape and the ultrasound is?

Consent.

No one is forcing her to get either procedure.

Then there is no such thing as force. What do you think force is? If I said you could choose to be waterboarded or you can do what I say, is that force? It's the same thing. A woman who is under a lot of stress and fear of her future and can only relieve that stress and fear if she allows someone to stick something up her vagina is being raped.

 

[elbe]

I didn't know that legislaters were allowed to tell women when they are and aren't raped.

 

[Dcdrac]

It always amazes me that the right and christian right scream on about the State staying out of peoples lives but seem to want the State to control women's lives.....

 

[RandFan]

It always amazes me that the right and christian right scream on about the State staying out of peoples lives but seem to want the State to control women's lives.....

Exactly.

 

[Elizabeth I]

How are the speculums, doctor's hands and surgical instruments in her vagina not rape and the ultrasound is? No one is forcing her to get either procedure. This is pretty extreme thinking.

Others have answered your sophistry, as have I. I bet you're a "she was asking for it" kind of guy, too, aren't you?

I don't believe people should engage in sexual intercourse if they don't want to have kids.

So, only procreational sex for you? When your wife goes through the menopause, will that be the end of your sex life?

I don't. As an analogy, the anti-drug laws have driven people to illegal drug dealers; does that mean we should legalize all drugs?

Given the current "success" of the War on Drugs, a lot of people are starting to think that might not be such a bad idea - legalize and control. So far all the War on Drugs has done is to give the cartels power they could only have dreamed about a few decades ago.

What you fail to recognize and admit is that these laws won't reduce the number of abortions, they will reduce only the number of LEGAL abortions. You're accomplishing nothing but increasing the risk for a lot of mostly poor women. So much for "protecting the safety and health of women." You don't care about that at all. You just want to feel smug because once abortion is forced back underground you can ignore all the illegal abortions and point to the fact that the number of legal ones is shrinking.

 

[Polaris]

How are the speculums, doctor's hands and surgical instruments in her vagina not rape and the ultrasound is? No one is forcing her to get either procedure. This is pretty extreme thinking.

Sonograms in pregnancy are rarely medically necessary. They are nice to have, very informative, can make detecting certain anomalies easier and they protect the doctor from lawsuits; but, they are not strictly necessary.

I can think of several reasons why an ultrasound before abortion might be similarly helpful.

I don't believe people should engage in sexual intercourse if they don't want to have kids. But they do have the right to. If they exercise that right and create a life, I don't think it Gould be so easy to end that life.

I don't. As an analogy, the anti-drug laws have driven people to illegal drug dealers; does that mean we should legalize all drugs?

I really hope this mindset eventually dies out, responsible as it is for so much misery.