Mississippi bill to ban most abortions

[new_avatar]

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/40131.html

Mississippi Democrat Steve Holland moves to introduce a bill to ban abortions except to save the life of the mother.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bunnieDoc]

it's starting to look like the beginning of the end

 

[Carbo/Taxol]

it's starting to look like the beginning of the end

Wow, dont be so dramatic....everyone on this forum is acting like abortions are the only thing that Ob/Gyns do. If you really are that crazy about doing abortions then just dont practice in Mississippi or South Dakota (something tells me you werent go to be practicing there anyway)...I am sure that Massachusetts, New York, California, and Oregon along with many, many other states will not be outlawing abortion anytime soon.

Instead of focusing so much on abortion (which is a very reactive method of looking at undesired pregnancy), I think we should be a little more proactive and promote sex education, healthy sexual habits, as well as early contraception....this way the need for abortion would hopefully decline (unless you get your kicks curretting and suctioning babies in utero because the mom just doesnt feel like being pregnant)...IMHO

 

[pruritis_ani]

Wow, dont be so dramatic....everyone on this forum is acting like abortions are the only thing that Ob/Gyns do. If you really are that crazy about doing abortions then just dont practice in Mississippi or South Dakota (something tells me you werent go to be practicing there anyway)...I am sure that Massachusetts, New York, California, and Oregon along with many, many other states will not be outlawing abortion anytime soon.

Instead of focusing so much on abortion (which is a very reactive method of looking at undesired pregnancy), I think we should be a little more proactive and promote sex education, healthy sexual habits, as well as early contraception....this way the need for abortion would hopefully decline (unless you get your kicks curretting and suctioning babies in utero because the mom just doesnt feel like being pregnant)...IMHO

I think the poster may have been refering to the end of the mother's right to choose. I would really doubt anybody thinks that the end of abortion will lead to the end of ob/gyn. Who is going to deliver the babies and provide prenatal care?

 

[new_avatar]

Abortion in the US is not going to end Roe or no Roe. But I believe public sentiment is changing more to a culture of life.

Abortion will become more and more limited. It already has.

Like S. Dak., Miss. has one abortion clinic in the entire state.

It will always remain in some states: California and New York come to mind.
About 30 states will outlaw abortion I believe when and if Roe falls.

I personally support life and this is actually after my ob/gyn rotation, the MFM part actually (before I was on the choice side), but I also support the rule of law.

I just also hope that future ob/gyners of America will also observe the law when and if it changes.

 

[Carbo/Taxol]

I think the poster may have been refering to the end of the mother's right to choose. I would really doubt anybody thinks that the end of abortion will lead to the end of ob/gyn. Who is going to deliver the babies and provide prenatal care?

Yeah...I figured that...I was just stating how during the heated debate encircling abortion rights, practitioners sometimes overlook the perhaps more important issues regarding patient education regarding appropriate contraception and reproductive issues

Just think of this for a second...a mother can choose to have or not have a baby at several stages....For example, she can choose to use appropriate birth control to prevent pregnancy or choose to not have sex until she is ready to be a mother or choose to go through with the pregnancy and place the baby up for adoption. My point is, whether or not to have an abortion is not the only "choice" a mother has. I understand there are circumstances that make this choice inevitable and necessary (i.e., risk of maternal mortality), but the amendments or laws that are being proposed in certain states do not completely eliminate the right to choice in the literal sense. I have not fully read the details of each amendment, but it appears that many of these anti-abortion proposals are directed at preventing abortion being used as a form of elective birth control. Now I know some proposals are advocating making abortion illegal regardless of rape or incest which I cant say I agree with as this will have potential devastating implications regarding paternal rights to children.

 

[AtYourCervix]

i will be practicing against these very (unconstitutional) laws when (and if) they change. thank goodness oregon is my future home.

 

[new_avatar]

i will be practicing against these very (unconstitutional) laws when (and if) they change. thank goodness oregon is my future home.

It is your choice to risk prison, fines, felony conviction and possibly losing your license. We live in a society based on the rule of law. Just because you are a gynecologist does not mean you live ABOVE the rule of law. Work at effecting change through legal channels.

It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution and the legislature to make laws, not a sole clinician. The government of the day reflects popular sentiment in the nation as a whole.

 

[pruritis_ani]

It is funny to hear you say that we should "follow the rule of the law". I have read countless times on here when the anti abortion crowd spout about how they would never do abortion, and an occasional post where they try to justify not refering a women to a center that would provide an abortion...are they following the law? Well, the law allows the doctor to choose, so i guess they are. Not behaving very ethically, however, at least when they do not refer.

Now you are coming on here saying, "you had better follow the law now that it is in line with my beliefs". Personally, I will likely follow the law because I will not choose to live in a backward, uneducated, evangalistic state that attempts to mandate religious beliefs and impose them on others. I think it is backward, and ignorant, and I will not be a part of it. But, at the same time, I think that providing the best level of care possible to a women is our responsibility. And, there will be times that an abortion is the best possible care. If this care is illegal, a clinician has a true dilema. And I doubt the correct answer is your *****ic "just follow the law" response.

 

[pruritis_ani]

The government of the day reflects popular sentiment in the nation as a whole.

With a 34% approvla rating for the current administration, I would strongly challenge this statement....

 

[pruritis_ani]

I personally support life and this is actually after my ob/gyn rotation, the MFM part actually (before I was on the choice side), but I also support the rule of law.
.

I find this an amazing statement...how did this MFM rotation convince you that everybody should now believe what you believe?

I mean, I can certainly understand changing your personal belief about abortion during this time (or any time). In fact, I personally would never consider an abortion a reasonable choice for me or my partner.

But, you have gone from believin in the personal privacy and freedom of choice of women to now believing that you should impose your belief on them! That just blows my mind. The only answer that comes to mind is that you were never pro-choice in the first place. You were (and are) simply pro-your-choice. Nice.

 

[new_avatar]

Now you are coming on here saying, "you had better follow the law now that it is in line with my beliefs"...And I doubt the correct answer is your *****ic "just follow the law" response.

I follow the law of the day whether it is in line or out of line with my beliefs. I hope you will too.

It is actually just that simple, following the law. Imagine you, a renegade practitioner, flounting the law when it changes. What happens when insurance companies review your charts? Or will you falsify them? Or a nurse squeals on you? Or a patient who finds faith tells on you?

Someone will eventually whistle blow you out and when that comes you should be prepared to face the consequences. Yes, it is really about following the law because as clinicians we are not above the law. By violating the law, you risk your entire practice and your career as well as prison and financial ruin. So, yes, it is really that simple and "*****ic."

 

[daisyduke]

I think that whether or not we are going to follow the law, break the law, hve our charts reviewed, get thrown in jail, etc is not really relavent. At this point, since NO laws have been changed and they are a long way off from changing... we should be discussing our thoughts on where things are headed and what we predict will happen. IS a woman's right to choose being threatened? If Roe v. Wade is overturned what will follow next? As another thread brought up, will rights for IVF, egg or sperm donation, or other reproductive technologies be threatened? Do you think we will see an increase in ER visits for complications of back-alley, coat hanger abortions?

Lets move away from "Is New Avatar gonna rat on Pruritis Ani and have him/her thrown in jail??? And will New Avatar get the best citizen of the year award??" to the real issues.

 

[pruritis_ani]

an excertp from a recent ob/gyn green journal article:

"Modern obstetrics and gynecology practice ecompases a broad range of problems, but at it's core it recognizes the tremendous impact of reproductive health on women's genral wellness. At the foundation of this association is a revolution in human social function:the seperation of sexuality from reproduction.....

Throughout existence, men have had the opportunity to disregard the consequences of their sexual engagements. But for women, seperating sex from reproduction is a recent development, and an option essential to a women's quest for self determination and the global movement for gender equality."

Abortion laws are simply a way to suppress the rights of women, and to punish them for sexual choices.

A job of an ob-gyn is to cousel a women on ALL of her choices, to help her if her partner or protection fail her, and to be able to provide the care that she needs to live the life she wants to live. Prevent unwanted pregnancy first, by all means. But if that unwanted pregnancy occurs, it is not an opportunity to impose our beliefs on the woman. She deserves to manage her own life and body.

 

[pruritis_ani]

I think that whether or not we are going to follow the law, break the law, hve our charts reviewed, get thrown in jail, etc is not really relavent. At this point, since NO laws have been changed and they are a long way off from changing... we should be discussing our thoughts on where things are headed and what we predict will happen. IS a woman's right to choose being threatened? If Roe v. Wade is overturned what will follow next? As another thread brought up, will rights for IVF, egg or sperm donation, or other reproductive technologies be threatened? Do you think we will see an increase in ER visits for complications of back-alley, coat hanger abortions?

Lets move away from "Is New Avatar gonna rat on Pruritis Ani and have him/her thrown in jail??? And will New Avatar get the best citizen of the year award??" to the real issues.

Yes, the women's right to choose is clearly being threatend. I have no idea how the current supreme court will handle it, but I am pretty pessimistic. I just hope one of the new justices is not going to bring his religion to work.

As for what will happen to patients...well, the South Dakota clinc currently performs 800 abortions a year. What will happen? Well, the pregnancies will still occur, I can tell you that much. Some women will be forced to keep babies that they are unable or unwilling to care for. Some women will drive to where proper care is available. Some women will suffer complications for carrying unwanted babies, and some may even die.

 

[snowinter]

Yes, the women's right to choose is clearly being threatend. I have no idea how the current supreme court will handle it, but I am pretty pessimistic. I just hope one of the new justices is not going to bring his religion to work.

As for what will happen to patients...well, the South Dakota clinc currently performs 800 abortions a year. What will happen? Well, the pregnancies will still occur, I can tell you that much. Some women will be forced to keep babies that they are unable or unwilling to care for. Some women will drive to where proper care is available. Some women will suffer complications for carrying unwanted babies, and some may even die.

I haven't been following ALL off this thread-- but I thought this particular paragraph was interesting. What will happen if women can't get an abortion? You wrote they will be forced to keep babies that they are unable or unwilling to care for. It seems like these women would then be candidates for putting their babies up for adoption.

 

[lilycat]

I have not fully read the details of each amendment, but it appears that many of these anti-abortion proposals are directed at preventing abortion being used as a form of elective birth control. Now I know some proposals are advocating making abortion illegal regardless of rape or incest which I cant say I agree with as this will have potential devastating implications regarding paternal rights to children.

Carbo -- with regard to the South Dakota and Mississippi bills that are moving through their respective legislatures (and which both state governors have stated they intend to sign into law should they be approved in the state legislatures) BOTH of those bills would ban ALL abortions except if the LIFE of the mother was directly in danger. Neither bill makes exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother.

 

[new_avatar]

Carbo -- with regard to the South Dakota and Mississippi bills that are moving through their respective legislatures (and which both state governors have stated they intend to sign into law should they be approved in the state legislatures) BOTH of those bills would ban ALL abortions except if the LIFE of the mother was directly in danger. Neither bill makes exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother.

Interestingly enough, this is different from the President's views who would allow the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of mom, but he defers to it as a matter of state law:

Asked about the provisions in the state law, Bush replied, "Well, that, of course, is a state law, but my position has always been three exceptions: rape, incest and the life of the mother."

Reuter's article

 

[lilycat]

With regard to where all this legislation is going...

It seems pretty obvious that the SD and Miss. bills are being introduced to directly challenge Roe. There was a great Jeffrey Toobin article in the New Yorker a few months ago about the changing standard the Supreme Court has used to evaluate abortion laws (SDO's "undue burden" measure), and it also pointed out how even some of the most ardent supporters of the pro-choice movement are sort of queasy about Roe -- there are a lot of legal scholars, Constitutional experts, etc. who feel that Roe was decided on very shaky legal "evidence" and this is why it continues to be so vulnerable, and may ultimately be struck down.

Will Roe be struck down -- both Roberts and Alito stated their respect for stare decisis, or precedent, in confirmation hearings. Roberts was more emphatic about it. With the current make-up of the court, I think overturning Roe is unlikely, but I also think this court will be more receptive to increasing numbers of restrictions placed on abortions, as proposed by individual state legislatures. If Stevens steps down (he always promised to retire during a Republican administration) during the next 2 years, the potential make-up of the court at that time could be more favorable to future direct challenges to Roe.

If Roe is struck down, what would happen next? It's the million-dollar question. It's unlikely that a federal law regulating abortion would fill the void, or that there would be a constitutional amendment addressing abortion. The issue would go to the states. Again, the Toobin article cited a study (there have been dozens of similar ones) done by maybe the Rand Corp. (can't remember exactly which think tank) that projected that 20 states would immediately vote to keep abortion legal, with maybe some restrictions (parental notifications, 24-hour waiting periods, etc.), while 25 or so would immediately vote to make abortion illegal (uncertain whether any of these 25 would have exceptions for rape or incest). Now keep in mind that the voting in these cases would be state legislatures, assuming the status quo political make-up we see today.

What would be interesting is what effect these challenges to Roe will ultimately have on the Republican party. Will the increased attention on abortion rights help fuel a Republican backlash in the mid-term elections this fall? Virtually every study I've seen in the last 3-4 years regarding abortion rights has shown approx. 60% support nationwide for keeping abortion safe and legal, while at the same time supporting certain restrictions on abortion (usually the parental or spousal notification laws, waiting periods, counseling, etc.).

With regard to "following the rule of law" -- even if Roe were struck down tomorrow, there would still be numerous states where abortion would be legal -- possibly close to half the states of the union. If I was practicing in a state where abortion continued to be a legally-recognized practice, then I have no worries about "following the rule of law." If I was practicing in a state where abortion was illegal, I would simply include a discussion of the current status of abortion laws across the country as part of my patient counseling where appropriate -- ie, if a patient asked me about the possibility of abortion as a treatment option, I would advise them that it is illegal to perform abortions in State X but that abortions are still legal in several other states. This would still be "following the rule of law."

I think all of us can agree that ideally the best scenario is to prevent the need for most abortions through education -- encouraging abstinence in scenarios where its appropriate, and when people choose not to abstain, encouraging use of contraceptive methods and personal responsibility. However, education won't eliminate devastating genetic anomalies detected in utero, and if I have a patient who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term with a fetus that has a very high likelihood of severe neural tube defects or Down's syndrome, I wouldn't feel comfortable standing in the way of that patient's choice, but that's my own personal opinion and I don't think every individual, physican or not, has to feel the same way.

 

[lilycat]

Interestingly enough, this is different from the President's views who would allow the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of mom, but he defers to it as a matter of state law:



Reuter's article

In some ways, the state laws are actually more philosophically and intellectually consistent than the President's views. I think the idea of forcing a victim of rape or incest to carry a pregnancy from that act to term is completely abhorrent, as do most people I've talked to (but I'm also pro-choice). However, if you view abortion as murder, then it doesn't stop being murder based on the mode of conception. The president is taking the more pragmatic, and thus more likely to be universally popular, approach.

 

[ShambhalaRed]

e

Just think of this for a second...a mother can choose to have or not have a baby at several stages....For example, she can choose to use appropriate birth control to prevent pregnancy or choose to not have sex until she is ready to be a mother or choose to go through with the pregnancy and place the baby up for adoption.

C/T, with all due respect, we have had this discussion before, and I have to say that your statement implies that only irresponsible people have unintended pregnancies, and that is frankly ignorant, and often not the case. I agree with you that we need to focus much more on birth control and helping a woman to control her reproductive destiny, but at this moment, no contraceptive method we have today is 100% effective and there will continue to be unintended pregnancies even among diligent users of birth control. I doubt that you believe that every couple has sex only when they intend to produce a pregnancy, so I think it's ignorant to say a woman should wait to have sex until she's ready to be a mother. Often she is not in a relationship where she feels empowered to make that choice. In other cases, she may already be a mother, and the option of having one more child may mean not being able to feed or shelter the children she already has, or it may endanger her health. Would you tell a married couple with children that they shouldn't have sex anymore if they don't want any more kids??

I wish the world were as perfect and rosy as you seem to think it is, but it's not. I would love it if there were no need for abortion. But until that day comes, I will be providing that service for women and I will try my best to reserve judgment about the circumstances that led them to make a choice to terminate their pregnancy, because in the end, it's not my business and I know that I can't offer them a perfect contraceptive.

 

[Carbo/Taxol]

C/T, with all due respect, we have had this discussion before, and I have to say that your statement implies that only irresponsible people have unintended pregnancies, and that is frankly ignorant, and often not the case. I agree with you that we need to focus much more on birth control and helping a woman to control her reproductive destiny, but at this moment, no contraceptive method we have today is 100% effective and there will continue to be unintended pregnancies even among diligent users of birth control. I doubt that you believe that every couple has sex only when they intend to produce a pregnancy, so I think it's ignorant to say a woman should wait to have sex until she's ready to be a mother. Often she is not in a relationship where she feels empowered to make that choice. In other cases, she may already be a mother, and the option of having one more child may mean not being able to feed or shelter the children she already has, or it may endanger her health. Would you tell a married couple with children that they shouldn't have sex anymore if they don't want any more kids??

I wish the world were as perfect and rosy as you seem to think it is, but it's not. I would love it if there were no need for abortion. But until that day comes, I will be providing that service for women and I will try my best to reserve judgment about the circumstances that led them to make a choice to terminate their pregnancy, because in the end, it's not my business and I know that I can't offer them a perfect contraceptive.

Shambhala,

I do not think either of us will budge on this issue and that is not my intent. However, I do take offense of your claim that my views are ignorant. In my comment I was simply pointing at the lack of emphasis on what is truly important which is preconception counseling and promoting and providing adequate contraception. I was not trying to imply that the only people who are having unwanted pregnancies are irresponsible (although as you must also admit...a very small minority truly are). If anything I was trying to emphasize that the health care provider/industry may be irresponsibly focusing on only one reactive solution to a multi-factorial problem rather than diverting more effort towards prevention. Everyday there is more news about abortion rights and controversy which sucks the media, public, and sadly even health care professional's attention away from improving preconception counseling. Although the abortion debate is critical...it should not be the sole discussion.

I know that there is not a 100% effective method of contraception (outside of sexual abstinence) and that many responsible couples will have unexpected pregnancies. I also do not expect nor advocate imposing restrictions on sexual behavior. Everyone has free will to do what they please when they please. However, free will does not eliminate consequences of a decision. Thus, I do think that it is necessary for couples engaging in sexual behavior, with or without contraception, to have least think or be educated about potential outcomes. I have seen more than enough teenagers and adults come to prenatal clinic uncertain as to how they became pregnant, uncertain as to what they could have done to prevent pregnancy, and unsure of what the next few months and years will bring. As far as solutions to correct this tragic flaw in patient outreach and education...this should at least receive equal face time as the debate regarding abortion in my opinion.

I am not naive and I do not think this world is "perfect and rosy"...remember I went through the same 4 years of medical school that you did...I am married with a child that was not expected yet everyday brings irreplaceable joy and accomplishment to my life....so dont patronize me. I respect your views and your decision to provide pregnancy termination and I wish you the best in residency.

-Carbo/Taxol

 

[snowinter]

C/T, with all due respect, we have had this discussion before, and I have to say that your statement implies that only irresponsible people have unintended pregnancies, and that is frankly ignorant, and often not the case. I agree with you that we need to focus much more on birth control and helping a woman to control her reproductive destiny, but at this moment, no contraceptive method we have today is 100% effective and there will continue to be unintended pregnancies even among diligent users of birth control. I doubt that you believe that every couple has sex only when they intend to produce a pregnancy, so I think it's ignorant to say a woman should wait to have sex until she's ready to be a mother. Often she is not in a relationship where she feels empowered to make that choice. In other cases, she may already be a mother, and the option of having one more child may mean not being able to feed or shelter the children she already has, or it may endanger her health. Would you tell a married couple with children that they shouldn't have sex anymore if they don't want any more kids??

I wish the world were as perfect and rosy as you seem to think it is, but it's not. I would love it if there were no need for abortion. But until that day comes, I will be providing that service for women and I will try my best to reserve judgment about the circumstances that led them to make a choice to terminate their pregnancy, because in the end, it's not my business and I know that I can't offer them a perfect contraceptive.

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record here; but why can't the solution for *most* unwanted pregnancies be adoption?

 

[Flea girl]

I know I'm going to sound like a broken record here; but why can't the solution for *most* unwanted pregnancies be adoption?

Easier said then done. I am a mother of two and very pro-choice. What I will say is that being pregnant is a very unique experience. I have had people in my life that have either chose to have an abortion or chosen adoption. Neither choice is without it's guilt or ramifications. Someone I knew in high school got pregnant and had intially chosen adoption(the father not in the picture,typical). However, after "bonding " with the child for 40 weeks she chose to keep the child. Keep in mind that this was a person who continued to smoke and do things that most people who are not pregnant should not do. Needless, to say she kept the child for 4 years and at that time decided that she no longer wanted to be a mother and gave the child up for adoption. Now this is an extreme case, but I think I made my point. Either choice is difficult and not easy. Yes, it would be great if we could prevent these cases of unwanted or teenage pregnancy. But I think we first need to educate our youth about sex and all the ramifications that go with it. I personally think that it borders on child abuse having delivered and seen children as young as 11 years old having babies.

 

[daisyduke]

I personally think that it borders on child abuse having delivered and seen children as young as 11 years old having babies.

So true!!! It breaks my heart. I wish as a society we could prevent these PREteen pregnancies (we can't even prevent teen pregnancies)... but we can't do that until ALL schools are making a committment to sex education! It is frightening how uneducated our society is about contraceptives and sexual health.

 

[snowinter]

Easier said then done.

this topic is being discussed in two threads at hte same time.

to quote:

But, What about the baby?

When do the "products of conception" become a baby?

If a woman terminates at 18 weeks, is it a baby?
If a woman miscarries at 18 weeks, is it a death?

In our current society, the answer to the former is no.
The answer to the latter is, legally, yes.

These are inconsistent and incompatible answers.


I think that 3dtp put it very well -- since there are inconsistent and incompatible answers to this inherent question which is the stem of this timeless national debate "when does life begin" ? and since we cannot really answer that question but rather only speculate -- each answer based on individual assumptions ---
then even though both adoption and abortion are both difficult choices -- I would say given that both accomplish THE SAME THING -- shouldnt' adoption be the choice that we as physicans advocate to our patients first over abortion?

 

[Flea girl]

So, you would advocate adoption over abortion in the case of a 12 yr old who is pregnant because of rape? Look, I will and have been nonbiased in disscussing different options. What I believe personally is NOT something I inflict on my patients. I just give them the options. I DO NOT advocate one choice over the other. That is not my decision or karma to contend with.

 

[pruritis_ani]

So, you would advocate adoption over abortion in the case of a 12 yr old who is pregnant because of rape? Look, I will and have been nonbiased in disscussing different options. What I believe personally is NOT something I inflict on my patients. I just give them the options. I DO NOT advocate one choice over the other. That is not my decision or karma to contend with.

Amen. It is the job of the physician to counsel, to provide accurate and non-biased information on ALL of the options, without attempting to bias the patient to the physician's opinion on abortion.

And, call me crazy, but abortion and adoption are pretty different, even in terms of outcomes. Sure, biological mother never "has" the baby, but going through birth and putting up a child for adoption is quite different than going through an abortion. Not every women can go through either one of these. It is a choice that is best determined by the woman, with thoughtful, empathetic and knowledgeable counseling from her doctor.

 

[snowinter]

So, you would advocate adoption over abortion in the case of a 12 yr old who is pregnant because of rape? Look, I will and have been nonbiased in disscussing different options. What I believe personally is NOT something I inflict on my patients. I just give them the options. I DO NOT advocate one choice over the other. That is not my decision or karma to contend with.

wheter abortion is "killing a baby" vs "getting rid of a mass of cells" is a personal opinion -- which at this point has not been proven. To decide on one or the other is a personal opinion. So -- when we give our patients options --which include one or the other ( an elective D/E vs adoption) that we can provide for the patient -- our personal opinion is there.

anyway -- not to argue this point forever. I think it will be interesting to see how our opinions develop and grow over the next few years of residency and even after out in the real world.

btw, I wasn't accusing you or anyone of advocating one option over the other -- I just don't see much advocacy for adoption in these posts -- ppl are upset that the option of abortion is being taken away -- and I just see adoption as a very reasonable solution to *most* not all unwanted pregnancies.

 

[3dtp]

Amen. It is the job of the physician to counsel, to provide accurate and non-biased information on ALL of the options, without attempting to bias the patient to the physician's opinion on abortion.

And, call me crazy, but abortion and adoption are pretty different, even in terms of outcomes. Sure, biological mother never "has" the baby, but going through birth and putting up a child for adoption is quite different than going through an abortion. Not every women can go through either one of these. It is a choice that is best determined by the woman, with thoughtful, empathetic and knowledgeable counseling from her doctor.

They are indeed different. Here's the rub: Thoughtful, empathetic and knowledgeable counseling from her doctor is a very high bar indeed.

Each has a vested interest in advocating, either actively or passively. Physicians work in fields they are passionate about and truly believe in, otherwise none of us would put up with the grief we do to be docs.

Here are my observations on how things are really done. When an obstetric ultrasound is done in the office, the monitor is placed so mom and fob, if he's there can see everything. We take great delight at pointing out the fetal heart motion, the head, the arms and feet.

When the same ultrasound is done in preparation for a termination of pregnancy, we carefully shield the ultrasound from the vew of the mother and fob, even if they ask to see the u/s, they are at best strongly discouraged or even outright denied the view. Why the dichotomy? If it is only about the mother's present choice, and not about the (pick your term: ) "products of conception" or "baby", then why do we behave so differently to our patients in the different settings?

Are we being honest counselors? If not, then why not? If so, then doesn't truly informed consent for a surgical procedure (the termination) mandate that we show the woman what exactly we see on ultrasound? That the "products of conception" have hands/heart motion/fingers/head/legs...?

We couch these discussions in arcane medical terms when we have pictures available that we dare not show, lest there be a change of heart at the time of the procedure. We spare the woman undergoing the abortion the trauma of seeing the ultrasound. Or do we?

One last thought and I shall sink back into the background.

We as a society have determined that "medical death" comes at the moment when we can no longer detect measurable electroencephalographic evidence of brain function. Then it is acceptable to cease prolonging the dying process and remove our patients from the ventilators and allow them to pass in peace. Should we not be consistent in our standards? If so, then commencement of life might be defined as the time when fetal brain electrical activity can be measured. Is this the right answer? I don't know and I don't think anybody knows, but at least it would be somewhat consistent.

So, should we not endeavor to select an objectve standard? In med school, I heard a lecturer try to discuss this. A questioner from the audience asked: When does it become alive? Her response: "When the mother thinks it's alive."

I am glad my mother didn't have this attitude, or surely she would have taken me down to the ocean and drowned me on numerous occasions after I was two.

I do not believe we can reasonably argue that the time of commencement of life is a "personal opinion" without great peril.

 

[pruritis_ani]

A couple of points....the shielding of the woman from the US machine is not done to convince or bias her, it is done to help her avoid difficulty associated with the difficult decision she has already made. The dichotomy exists because these are two different sets of patients that require two different standards of care.

I can get behind the thought that the POC is life when the woman thinks it is, with a caveat or two. Mainly, that life is life beyond a certain point. When is that point, I don't know.

I am not sure what "great peril" we are risking by leaving the woman the choice as to where exactly life begins between weeks, say 1 and 20. What are the risks that you see from this?

I have heard mention thus far of a "slippery slope" and the "great peril" that this would expose us to. In fact, I think the reverse is true. We have been living with the slippery, perilous slope for some time now, and whatever dangers you imagine have not occured. But, I do think that the further restriction of individual rights IS a slippery slope, and a perilous course that should be avoided at all costs.

 

[new_avatar]

I have heard mention thus far of a "slippery slope" and the "great peril" that this would expose us to. In fact, I think the reverse is true. We have been living with the slippery, perilous slope for some time now, and whatever dangers you imagine have not occured. But, I do think that the further restriction of individual rights IS a slippery slope, and a perilous course that should be avoided at all costs.

If this isn't troubling, then I don't know what is.

Sex selection, abortion, and infanticide

In Korea: "Meanwhile experts estimate that 30,000 Korean female fetuses are aborted annually."

No girls please

This is what I mean by slippery slope. This HAS come to pass in places like China. What happens if mom comes in and says the only reason she wants an abortion is because she wants a boy. What do you tell her? It's still her body, her choice, isn't it?

Or maybe one day we'll have better technology: maybe she doesn't want "junior" because she will be short, stupid, freckled, gay, or red headed.

Remember: a duty to encourage a culture that protects life.

 

[Flea girl]

This is what I mean by slippery slope. This HAS come to pass in places like China. What happens if mom comes in and says the only reason she wants an abortion is because she wants a boy. What do you tell her? It's still her body, her choice, isn't it?

Or maybe one day we'll have better technology: maybe she doesn't want "junior" because she will be short, stupid, freckled, gay, or red headed.

Remember: a duty to encourage a culture that protects life.

Can not resist must make another comment...Okay look we are not going to change each other's minds. My questions to you are 1) Do you believe in the dealth sentence? 2) How about welfare, for or againist? It seems to me that most(not all) people who advocate pro-life are for the dealth penalty and againist welfare. Ummmm, kinda of makes you wonder what would happen if abortion was illegal and all these babies are born to unwed teen moms. Who do you think is going to pay for this? Do you honestly believe that all these unwed pregnant teens are going to go for adoption? Another thing, are you at all famliar with the chinese culture or are you playing the Ingnorant American card? I personaly do not agree with the one child policy of China that had spawned increased favoritism of male children. However, remember the favorite quote JUDGE NOTLEST YE BE JUDGE! I have said what I wanted to say and now let's leave the sleeping dogs to lie. Because we all know that no one here is going to change their minds based on what is written on a internet message board, it is just being used to stir up a hornet's nest.

 

[pruritis_ani]

If this isn't troubling, then I don't know what is.

Sex selection, abortion, and infanticide

In Korea: "Meanwhile experts estimate that 30,000 Korean female fetuses are aborted annually."

No girls please

This is what I mean by slippery slope. This HAS come to pass in places like China. What happens if mom comes in and says the only reason she wants an abortion is because she wants a boy. What do you tell her? It's still her body, her choice, isn't it?

Or maybe one day we'll have better technology: maybe she doesn't want "junior" because she will be short, stupid, freckled, gay, or red headed.

Remember: a duty to encourage a culture that protects life.

Two points, then I, like fleagirl, am going to leave this conversation...

First of all, basing a law on what may happen is a bit ridiculous. The concerns you have are not reality today. If the reality changes, then you deal with it. You do not limit rights because people may in the future abuse the rights. If that day comes, then we can talk about that legislation. What we are talking about now is the right of the women to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Period.

Second, the duty to encourage a culture to protect life...talk about manipulating the topic! Pure rhetoric. The whole point is that we all have different definitions of life. Nobody is out to endanger life. The fact is that your "duty to protect life" is very different from mine.

I do respect your right to your views, even though I personally am against them. I encourage you to practice your beliefs. Simply consider that your views are not for everyone, and that others may be able to make informed, educated decisions for themselves, based on thier individual circumstance, and that even if they do not agree with your views, it could still be the "right" thing to do.

 

[snowinter]

Who do you think is going to pay for this? Do you honestly believe that all these unwed pregnant teens are going to go for adoption?

that's where adequate counseling about adoption comes in -- what it involves, how to do it, etc. of course no teen is going to do it w/out help/guidance from their physician to access all the resources.

Because we all know that no one here is going to change their minds based on what is written on a internet message board, it is just being used to stir up a hornet's nest.

I have enjoyed reading your opinions Flea girl -- and everyone elses (the ones I have read) I don't look at these conversations as an attempt to change your mind or anyone elses -- but rather as an opportunity to discuss an important issue to our career. we do influence each other. I will take your words/thoughts and they will be in my mind (somewhere) when i'm practicing .. and vice versa.. by looking at both sides --we both have a more broad perspective.

so guys -- don't get frustrated that no one has written on these forums "oh my god you are so right -- ive been so wrong" now i'm for abortion or against it. but rather an exchange of thoughts an ideas.

ok take care everyone

 

[new_avatar]

My questions to you are 1) Do you believe in the dealth sentence? 2) How about welfare, for or againist? It seems to me that most(not all) people who advocate pro-life are for the dealth penalty and againist welfare.

1) I am anti death penalty for all ordinary crimes including murder.
I only favor it in a) genocide b) acts of grand treason.

2) I am for a social welfare state that is generous enough to allow people to live lower middle class lives but perhaps not as generous as the Swedish model. Maybe a little less generous than Australia's model.

I agree that people are very hardened in their views on this topic. I keep in mind all viewpoints as I deal with patients and encourage patients to make choices within today's framework and try not to impose my personal views. I also realize that unfettered abortion on demand is not without its consequences and has had devestating effects in places like China and Korea. I am not a small minority in this nation out of right field like some of you try to paint the pro life faction as. In this article 54% of Alabamans would favor a statewide ban on abortion (albeit it's an 'unscientific' online poll, I don't believe it to be too out of line with true Alabamian sentiment). You may then say Alabama is an unenlightened place but realize that these are your neighbors and fellow Americans who may have differing views, just because they aren't from Portland, Ann Arbor, or Berkeley doesn't mean that their views are less meaningful (as the liberal left often tries to depict).

I hope to agree to disagree and G-d bless.

 

[dr. v. boombatz]

"I know I'm going to sound like a broken record here; but why can't the solution for *most* unwanted pregnancies be adoption?"


If this could only be the solution....but what people do not realize is that there are many, many children...including babies mainly b/c of their race but also other factors, who do not get adopted!

 

[3dtp]

Can not resist must make another comment...Okay look we are not going to change each other's minds. My questions to you are 1) Do you believe in the dealth sentence? 2) How about welfare, for or againist? It seems to me that most(not all) people who advocate pro-life are for the dealth penalty and againist welfare. Ummmm, kinda of makes you wonder what would happen if abortion was illegal and all these babies are born to unwed teen moms. Who do you think is going to pay for this? Do you honestly believe that all these unwed pregnant teens are going to go for adoption? Another thing, are you at all famliar with the chinese culture or are you playing the Ingnorant American card? I personaly do not agree with the one child policy of China that had spawned increased favoritism of male children. However, remember the favorite quote JUDGE NOTLEST YE BE JUDGE! I have said what I wanted to say and now let's leave the sleeping dogs to lie. Because we all know that no one here is going to change their minds based on what is written on a internet message board, it is just being used to stir up a hornet's nest.

I do not believe, in a civilized society, there is a place for a death penalty. If an individual is so incorrigible as to be a permanent and enduring threat to society, and I do believe these individuals exist, then we should lock them away to protect those weaker members of society upon whom they would otherwise prey.

I further fully support AMSA's position on the death penalty, which does not permit any physician to be involved in the death penalty in any way. We do not need doctors to kill people, for any reason.

Which brings me to the next point. If we are to remove from society, those who are strong enough and able enough to prey on the weak, and the sole purpose of this is to create an orderly and society safe for all, then who is the weakest in society that needs such protection?


I'm of two minds on the welfare issue. On the one hand, there are times when we need to help those who are in dire straights due to a variety of factors. But, on the other hand, there are those who have become comfortable with the subsistence living that welfare provides, and see no reason to better themselves. So, at what point does welfare cease assisting someone who really needs the help and become an enabling device to promote an unhealthy dependency?



I have worked in both socialist and capitalist countries. I think that significantly the quality and standards of living are far higher in capitalist countries than in the former soviet republics. I am astonished how less than a decade after the fall of the USSR, how much the standard of living improved, once a switch to a market based economy was underway. I think maybe I should return to the last bastion of capitalism left in the world: Russia.

 

[new_avatar]

Which brings me to the next point. If we are to remove from society, those who are strong enough and able enough to prey on the weak, and the sole purpose of this is to create an orderly and society safe for all, then who is the weakest in society that needs such protection?

"Unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society."

South Dakota Gov Mike Rounds

BBC News