Arlington Rep. Bill Zedler Wants To Hear All About Your Abortion

Categories: News
Rep. Bill Zedler smaller
Rep. Bill Zedler just has a few questions about your legal medical procedure.
In the latest piece of depressing women's health news from the Texas Legislature, The Dallas Morning News reported today that the House has voted to deny state funding to public hospitals that either perform "elective abortions" or "do business with entities that provide 'abortion-related services,'" whatever that means.

But that's just one of the two anti-abortion measures that are part of the massive healthcare bill currently working its way through the Lege. The other, sponsored by Arlington Republican Bill Zedler, "would require women and their doctors fill out and submit to the state detailed questionnaires about their abortions."

"Huh?" you might be asking yourself right now, if you're me and you talk to yourself at your desk, safe in the silence left behind by your entire office's sad little Chick-fil-A run. "Isn't that a violation of HIPAA and all those other fancy medical confidentiality laws?"

Well, yeah, which is why people freaked out when a similar bill was passed by Oklahoma's Legislature in March 2010. That law would have collected detailed data on each abortion performed in the state and posted it on a public, state-run website. No, it wouldn't have included the identifying information of individual patients, unless you consider the following to be identifying information:

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
(Live births, miscarriages, and induced abortions)

As many critics of the Oklahoma bill pointed out, that sure seems like enough info to identify women in smaller communities, doesn't it? Gov. Brad Henry ultimately vetoed the bill, saying that it didn't provide an exception for victims of rape or incest and would probably set the state up for a costly legal battle.

I called Zedler's office to try to get a copy of the proposed questionnaire for Texas. They promised to get right back to me -- but so far, radio silence. In the meantime, I talked to Holly Morgan, director of communications for Planned Parenthood of North Texas.

"It's an incredible invasion of privacy," she said of the proposed bill. "It's information-gathering, and it's another way to shame women: 'We're going to make you reveal all this information, we're going to keep you on a list somewhere.'" It's part of a broader pattern in the Legislature, she said, to make it "more difficult, time-consuming, expensive to get abortion care services."

Also, just plain old medical services of any kind, if they're at all lady-related, Morgan added. The Women's Health Program -- you know, the one that Texas politicians just cut funding for to make sure Planned Parenthood wouldn't get any state money -- funds such things as breast cancer and cervical cancer screenings and annual exams. "All the things," she said, "that both keep you healthy and give you the supplies and the knowledge you need to keep you from getting pregnant in the first place."

"They're just setting women up to fail," she said. "You can't win if you're of reproductive age in Texas."

Translation: Welcome to Loserville, women of Texas. Population: us.

Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
80 comments
Rick Bryant
Rick Bryant

No big government here...Right....Well?

David Fawcett
David Fawcett

SO WHAT, the questions are about getting data, does NOT ask the mother her name or address, what the F is the big deal. The UBER left and right LOVE to keep each side spun up on this issue to keep their voting base in line!

Mateusz82
Mateusz82

"Isn't that a violation of HIPAA and all those other fancy medical confidentiality laws?"

And isn't killing a baby in violation of that fancy oath that doctors take, about not doing harm? Because... killing people tends to be considered harm.

Sly
Sly

Bet that Republican have money invested in wire coat hanger manufacturing companies.

Frustrated Woman
Frustrated Woman

My Body, My Choice.  Men have no say in this matter whether they're the father, grandfather, uncle, legislator or president. My Body, My Choice. It does not matter what race or religion you are in this decision. My Body, My Choice. Please leave these decisions to myself. Women are not cold, heartless beings that get abortions for no reasons. It seems that when abortion is brought up and "ending a life" is brought into the picture that they paint women as horrible people and murderers. If I got pregnant I would have an abortion, not because I'm a horrible person, or want to kill something but because I don't want to bring a child into a world where it cannot be financially supported or emotionally supported. These legislators put so much support against abortions when having a child born, abused, neglected and then rejected by a mother or family that was not prepared seems to be much worse. Women are not heartless beings, we are human beings with hearts and we make decisions for reasons. And so I state again, My Body, My Choice. 

Frank
Frank

Just another "Holy'er Than Thou" big brother piece of crap, were do these people come from? I wish they would go back. Doing anything to help the economy? I didn't think so.

Bongobear
Bongobear

This bill gets support from me on the day a law is passed where every man's penis and sexual history is up for public examination on demand, any time, any where, and distributed on the Web.

Phelps
Phelps

Isn't the state going to have a lot more info than that once they start paying everyone's medical bills?

Da2jetstew
Da2jetstew

Rep Zedler's propsal Protects the Unborn, It's Too bad the people attack him and not the mothers killing Thier Babys

Catbird
Catbird

I'd rather have a babythen submit to this intrusion of the state government!

OldHippyIntheHillCountry
OldHippyIntheHillCountry

He's a typical elected asshole who want to regulate the creation of life but couldn't give a shit about the education of the state's children. That face and smile just reeks of indignation. He's Arlington's version of Tom DeLay - he sells medical products and serves as an advisor to an anti-abortion center.

He serves as board of directors for these fine folkshttp://www.arlingtonpc.org/ind...

I find it hypocritical that his Right to Life diatribe has become profitable to him and his family.

He's just another shit stain bible thumping ass hat.

Lilarose1941
Lilarose1941

Why is it usually males who want these laws to be passed, males who walk at the front of the anti-abortion rallies, males who kill abortion doctors?  It has nothing to do with mens' love of babies, it is all about controlling women.  Period.  No diff than what they do in other countries, maybe even worse.

Bettyculbreath
Bettyculbreath

Where did the State of Texas find this crop of Old Crazy Ass White men in Austin this year.Most are old and taking Viagra and want to stop ever thing that they used to do and still doing behind closed doors,until being caught.Its a shame how can States make laws that conflict with Federal law.Is this all a kiss our ass Obama movement,if so the man can only be President 8 years why f---up the world for that?

LeilaMA
LeilaMA

Anna the only thing that made me happy about this article was your barely suppressed but stylishly channeled rage. Winner.

Darali_starscream
Darali_starscream

What, they want a play-by-play?  Erm . . . I like to think I'm an openminded sort, but that's a kink I don't get.

And for the record, a miscarriage is an abortion.  Are we going to have to start reporting the demographics on those too?

Mister_Mean
Mister_Mean

Perhaps it is time to have a protest rally outside his office and his house.   Wonder what his wife thinks about this?  What pile of crap: "were for less government unless it is in your bedroom or with your doctor."

Pyrosmagic
Pyrosmagic

and it's all his business....not!!!! 

Kath Harper
Kath Harper

Yet another no-doubt repressed white guy's attempt to "virtually" climb inside the vaginas of as many women as possible. Note the significant omission in the Oklahoma list of info of whether the abortion was due to rape or incest, as this kind of moron simply doesn't care, just wants to control da wimmenfolk. 

alfredo
alfredo

The answers to the eight questions listed above with the possible exception of highest education is information that is typically found in the medical record of a patient.  For years the government has been requiring hospitals ect to report raw data on all types of proceures with one additional factor, complications. 

The idea is that somehow this information is used by the patient to select the best hospital and healthcare professionals have generally objected to the raw data being made public.  While an abortion is not a high risk procedure this information is something I would want the folks in Austin to have for quality purposes, a doctor or facility that have to high a complication rate for example, but that information does not need to be released to the public.

Another reason given for the need to report raw data was a feeling that hospitals were not doing a good job policing themselves and the licensing boards were not doing anything to weed out bad doctors

 

RW1961
RW1961

Yet Northern Suburbs Prestonwood Baptist Soccer Moms will continue to vote Republican, even as the party becomes more and more anti-women. 

I'm still trying to grasp the Republican strategy: no sex education or birth control to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, no medical care if you do get pregnant, no option for abortion, no medical care or food help once your baby is born, no education for your baby, and on and on. 

Exactly what do the Republicans think is going to happen? Do they think that by doing these things, babies of color (which is basically what they think all of this affects) will just magically disappear and all our problems will be solved?

And where are the educated, professional women during all this? Why are middle class women not making their voices heard as the lives and futures of their children are basically being destroyed by the Texas Republican party?

Lora
Lora

So are you saying that all people who grew up poor, were abused/neglected etc.  are not worthy of being here?  That their lives are meaningless?  And because the woman may think they are not prepared financially or emotionally that killing their own baby should be an option?  We never know where life may take us, but killing your own baby because YOU THINK it MAY NOT be happy is not a right.  Nor is killing your own baby because it is an inconvenience to YOU.  A baby is a gift not a burden.  You were/are a gift to your parents whether they realized it or not.  All of us are gifts given to our parents who are entrusted to sacrifice for us, protect us and love us.  We all fall short in many ways but choosing to kill the gift of our child is never a "right".

scottindallas
scottindallas

Do you see no difference between a first trimester abortion and a third trimester abortion? 

scottindallas
scottindallas

They already do.  I support single payer as it would be vastly more efficient.  There is not a single private medical school, and all enjoy Gov't healthcare for the vast majority of our health spending.  In fact, on average private healthcare doesn't cover anything, no one dies before 65, on average, and only a small fraction of our healthcare expensed are incurred before 65. 

So, the "private" healthcare market that you allude to is a fantasy.  What's really disgusting is that "private" health insurance channels half of our medical dollars, even though they don't cover squat.  You want to remove subsidies?  Let us go to single payer, and get the efficiency in healthcare that every other nation on Earth has found--better results on half the expense.

You know it's really rather simple, there's three markets, not just a free market. The free market has no relation to medicine. The professional market ostensibly describes your relationship with your doctor. But, major hospitals are more of a utility. This level of healthcare inevitably divorces the payer and patient. Professional markets are destroyed when this occurs (see banking) It's not crazy for medicine to be socialized, nor most retail/commercial banking.

Consider all of your utilities. Perhaps the best is water/sewage, which is totally socialized. Somehow, the water dept. beat me home to turn on service, while it took cable, phone and electricity days to weeks to turn on service. What's more perverse is that someone actually had to come to my house to turn on the water, while phone and cable simply had to flip a switch in their own offices.

I don't support gov't intrusion in markets that can be managed without regulation. The free market and professional markets are generally able to manage themselves. Though, we need to unreform torts so that we can sue bad companies. That is a more efficient, and less compromisable system than the regulation (and indemnification) that accompanies regulation.

Scottie
Scottie

Ah yes, but a miscarriage is Abortion by god's plan, so that's totally cool with them.

Guest
Guest

I love watching people like you reveal yourself for the racist you are by bringing race into a subject it has nothing to do with. And btw, all you people bitching about small government? Yeah, when you quit forcing government into every aspect of peoples lives, including healthcare, then we might take your concerns about small government seriously, until then though, we'll just laugh at you and note your hypocrisy. And one more thing, don't forget to only talk about women and not the babies you're killing, wouldn't want people to think about all the innocent lives you've murdered now would we?

Brenda Marks
Brenda Marks

@cd27c20834bf24c49d171472eb110f3a:disqus  -- Exactly.  And far more middle class professional women need to speak up, in their own names, and say enough is enough.  That's why I do it.  Lot's of people in Dallas know me.  I have lost (thankfully) the ability to remain silent even though all things I say may be used against me.  I tell my Republican women friends (and yes, I have quite a few) they too need to come out of the closet and find their power.  My fear is that, once this legislative session and special is finally over, it may be too late.  I don't do this for me -- I'm 53 and my fertile days are well behind me -- I do this for my niece, my nephews, and the daughters of my friends and family.  It saddens me to no end that the fight for reproductive rights for women, that began with Griswold v Connecticut (prior to which women could not obtain birth control) are being fought all over again.  So much for modernity.

Annie Williams
Annie Williams

The Republicans aka Fundy Christians believe that if they pass enough anti-women laws, women will simply put their knees together and only have sex within the context of marriage, using the Catholic-inspired rhythm method as birth control.  They believe sex is dirty and shameful, and only for procreation. They don't care about any of these things because to them the women having the babies are sinners and should not have had sex in the first place, therefore they have no issue with punishing the women and their children. Of course they aren't passing any anti-viagra or other laws punishing the fathers of the children. It's up to the women to "just say no." Christian attitudes about sex are completely f****d up.

Maiathebeegrrl
Maiathebeegrrl

You brought up this third trimester abortion thing several times now and I wonder, are you under the impression that there are scads of women out there trying to have abortions after 24 weeks who are only prevented from doing so by regulation?

Just FYI, abortions after 24 weeks are less than 1/10 of 1% of abortions performed in the U.S., and that has been the case since LONG before the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban was passed.

You seem to have missed the point of "Frustrated Woman"'s statement. Nowhere does she say that all abortions are morally equal. The gist of her point (as she reiterates below) is that she, like other women, is CAPABLE OF MAKING AN APPROPRIATE MORAL DECISION WITHOUT STATE (or men's) SUPERVISION.

We're not saying abortion isn't a moral choice; we're saying it's not YOUR moral choice.Get it?

Frustrated Woman
Frustrated Woman

I think you're missing my point in the above.  It only matters what I believe for myself and not for anyone else. My Body, My Choice. Her Body, Her Choice. Not yours, not mine, not anyone elses; only the person it is effecting.

Brenda Marks
Brenda Marks

@Guest (or he who is too cowardly to use his own name) --

"...people like you" "reveal yourself for the racist you are..."Really?  Excuse me, but allow me state the obvious.  Zedler is a white guy.  Can't say for sure, but I'd buy into repressed just from looking at the photo and reading his bio.  And your "babies you're killing" is tired, hysterical, old and over-used.   We just don't buy into the life begins at conception and ends at birth routine.  Medical science rules with me.  And my gynecologist as well.  I'll take her professional opinion over your flaming rhetoric any day.

Kath Harper
Kath Harper

What's racist about a white woman callin' out the majority? In my state, as in many, the majority of legislators are white guys. AND they want to restrict or ban abortions, for your information, you, the anonymous "Guest." It's a fine line between asking for invasive information about a woman and putting her in jail for "breakin' the law" as the predominantly white men in power see it. Which, frankly, for some of my state's "legislators" means "disobeying" the men. I don't see it their way, so I'm saying so, "Guest."

scottindallas
scottindallas

Brenda, and everyone else, Abortion is a bad thing.  It's expensive, is morally wrong and we must admit that.  I believe in human and civil rights.  Those must extend, to some degree to the fetus.  I don't believe it's rights trump that of the mother's, but we must admit these things.  I support the right to abortion under the prohibition idea--that gov't is incapable of regulating this, and the effects of prohibition will likely harm more than the status quo.  Finally, I fall on the "possession is 9/10th of law" and since the mother is the landlord, and the universe for the unborn, it's up to her.

I wonder how people feel about partial birth abortion bans; those don't offend me as much.  And, perhaps we should throw this concession to them.  It also allows us to share an interesting story.

The GOP forced a vote on partial birth abortion under W.  The Dems voted FOR the ban.  Only, there was one rider inserted by the GOP.  They wanted NO exemption for the life of the mother.  They wanted this hoping and knowing the courts would never allow it.  This would give the GOP the ability to paint the courts as liberal activists, and kill the bill.  Killing the bill keeps an issue festering for donations to "solve." 

Libertarians are conflicted on abortion.  They get tangled up on this issue of the rights of the unborn.  (Which, btw, I think should ALWAYS exceed the rights of the undead)  Our bundle of rights are not fully conferred upon at birth, we must wait at least 21 years before we are granted the full panoply of normal rights offered adults.  This progression goes backwards too.  We've limited rights to abortions based on the trimester; perhaps we should have a first half and second half.

Do you agree that abortions in the second half of normal gestation, are more problematic than those in the first?  Would you support limitations on abortions in that 2nd half of the (avg) pregnancy?

Maiathebeegrrl
Maiathebeegrrl

Allow me to repeat, in case you  missed it:

"Nowhere does she say that all abortions are morally equal. The gist of her point (as she reiterates below) is that she, like other women, is CAPABLE OF MAKING AN APPROPRIATE MORAL DECISION WITHOUT STATE (or men's) SUPERVISION.

We're not saying abortion isn't a moral choice; we're saying it's not YOUR moral choice.Get it?"

To clarify in advance, when I am saying that abortion is morally neutral, I am talking about the physical medical procedure. I am not claiming that deciding whether to have an abortion is not a moral choice; deciding whether to have an abortion IS a moral choice. But sometimes abortion IS the morally right choice. If abortion is sometimes good, and sometimes bad, and sometimes in-between, then it logically follows that the procedure itself is neutral (although the choice of whether to have one is a moral choice).

Maiathebeegrrl
Maiathebeegrrl

It seems much more to me that you've chosen to ignore the thrust of the arguments I've made, in favor or creating your own straw man to argue against.

Please go back and actually READ IN FULL what I've said about the morality of abortion.

Repeating your arguments is not the same as responding to the points I've made.

scottindallas
scottindallas

I don't think late term are common at all.  I think the most interesting thing about LTA's is that the Dems voted to ban them, but the GOP insisted on inserting no exemption for the life/health of the mother.  So, it seems to me this is an example of GOP grandstanding, and inserting a poison pill to show the courts as activist.  I do think late term abortions are more clearly morally complex, though I don't think they really amount to but the smallest percentage of abortions.  I do think they should be banned, with the reasonable caveats above.

Earlier you wrote that abortions are morally neutral as any medical procedure.  That's wrong.  The fetus has some rights, that I'd argue grow with time.  I don't think they trump the mother's rights, but there are rights there.  I actually like to point out that those rights aren't fully realized until age 21 or even later.  So, those are a gradual and progressive thing.  Removing a pancreas doesn't bear this moral component. 

I think it's important that you acknowledge this moral aspect, so that dialog and some agreement can be found.  I support abortion rights principally for libertarian reasons, don't like prohibitions, and ultimately the woman owns the uterus, and possession is 9/10ths of the law.  Abortions are your right, but not all these rights are yours--the father and the fetus deserve some consideration, though ultimately it's the woman's decision. 

Lora
Lora

Like the baby?

Guest
Guest

Well monte, i would hurry, but since i'm not religious i just don't have much use for that bible. But hey, thanks for reminding everyone that you folks here at Unfair Park are religious bigots as well as racists, i'm sure Wilonsky will put up a post soon enough about those oh so horrible Baptists for you and your buds to get your hate on, so hang in there!

Montemalone
Montemalone

Look, over there, it's a biblebook just waiting for you to go thump it. Hurry, now, Hurry, hurry!

Ed D.
Ed D.

You could at least choose a consistent identity rather than the shadowy "Guest" dodge. Some of us are bold enough to use our names (or part of 'em) but at least register so we always know it's you when you post, not the next random 'Guest'.

Guest
Guest

Hi Brenda, just wondering, why didn't you feel the need to call "very frustrated independent..." a coward for not using his/her real name when you responded to his/her comment? Or "RW1961" when you responded to his/her comment? Is it like attacking people for the color of their skin, it's fair game as long as you don't agree with their politics? 

scottindallas
scottindallas

The minorities won't control the city, as the Whites do.  So that is not a legitimate argument by substitution. 

Guest
Guest

I see, so if someone is a member of the race that happens to be in the majority, they're fair game to be racially attacked, or "called out"  for no reason at all other than you disagree with their politicsl? Dallas is only a few years away from becoming a majority hispanic city, when that day comes will you be attacking mexicans for the color of their skin if you disagree with their politics? Somehow i doubt it, have a great weekend Kath, and don't forget to keep looking  over your shoulder because those white boys are comin' for ya!

Maiathebeegrrl
Maiathebeegrrl

You seem to be confusing "rights" with "morality" - these are not the same thing. Please go back and re-read my argument... Then explain to me how, if some abortions are morally right, some morally wrong, and some debatable (which is what I ACTUALLY said), that doesn't mean that abortion itself is neutral, and that the context of an abortion - which is best judged by the person living it - is what makes it right or wrong. If you see some flaw in logic here, please let me know.

You are ignoring my arguments and making up your own straw man. When did I say ANYTHING having anything to do with "viability" as a moral standard? If it was, it would not be a very effective or clear one.

On what basis of medical facts do you "believe" that halves are a more accurate division of pregnancy than trimesters? Are you more expert than the American College of Gynecologists & Obstetricians?

scottindallas
scottindallas

the fetus has some rights, and those are destroyed by an abortion.  Your left kidney doesn't have the same rights.  And, your judgment of my medical knowledge as evidenced by my comments above is stupid.  "Viability" is a term that is used by legislators in crafting policy.  I don't like the 'trimester" delineation but I didn't choose that.  I'd probably rather divide pregnancy into first and second halves.  And, yes, I'd restrict abortion in the second half of development.  I believe the second half would also better describe "viability" than the trimester formulation. 

Maiathebeegrrl
Maiathebeegrrl

Exactly! Abortion is EVIL...

As long as you can conflate an zygote, embryo, fetus, and person as if they're the same and pretend that DNA = person is some sort of actual scientific standard...

As long as you can pretend that "inside my body" and "outside my body" is "just a matter of location" (tell me that again when I go marching up your butt - it's just location!)...

As long as you can distort the real history of racism and your real anti-woman agenda to make your anti-choice attacks on women of color sound like you actually care about people of color...

As long as you can pretend that "birth" is some arbitrary line, which feminists just made up in the 20th century and hasn't been understood to be the beginning of a person in almost every major religion for thousands of years...

As long as you can demonize women who have abortions (1 in 3 by the age of 45 in the U.S.) and women who support the right to a legal abortion (almost 2/3 in most major surveys) as "twisted" (hey, that's a lot of us that don't measure up to you, eh?)...

Just as electricity, splitting the atom, and cars are evil. It's possible to hurt people with them, so I should get to control every "helpless" woman's access!

Maiathebeegrrl
Maiathebeegrrl

That's a whole lot of rhetoric that doesn't actually mean anything, spiced with ignorance about the realities of life.

P.S. Before you ask if "I'm glad my mom was pro-life", let me just tell you know that my mom is pro-choice, and she had an abortion, and I am thankful that she did so every day.

Maiathebeegrrl
Maiathebeegrrl

Just because you assert that abortions and car accidents are analogous does not make it so.

Some abortions are unquestionably bad; take, for example, the abortions forced on women of color throughout the US throughout the mid-20th century. Certainly we ALL agree those were bad?

Some abortions are unquestionably good; take, for example, the abortions provided for the 11 year old incest survivor to preserve her physical and mental health or the adult woman with aggressive liver cancer to allow her to receive treatment. Certainly we ALL agree those were good?

Some abortions are in a grey area; take, for example, the abortion provided a young, broke, single mother of two young children who has just gotten on her feet and absolutely cannot afford another child. I think that's, if wanted, a good abortion - a gift from a mother to the children she already has. You might think that's a bad abortion (since you seem to be very into the whole moral judgment thing). Certainly we cannot all agree about these. "Abortion" is a term that includes a variety of medical procedures, all if which are (like all medical procedures) morally neutral and can be used for good or bad. This means, by definition, that abortion is morally neutral (this is not the same as saying that any particular decision about abortion lacks moral content).

So, given what words mean in the English language, abortion IS morally neutral (which STILL allows for any abortion decision to be a moral decision).

Also, as a side note, many of the points that you are making reflect a lack of understanding the medical realities of pregnancy, gestation, birth, and abortion.

Mateusz82
Mateusz82

Exactly! There's nothing morally wrong about abortion. I mean, as long as you declare that someone doesn't have human rights, you can do whatever you want to, up to and including killing them, without it being morally wrong. It worked beautifully when we declared blacks to not have human rights when we needed slaves, or we declared Native Americans not to have human rights when we needed to get our genocide on, and it's working when we declare the unborn not having human rights. Just some people are lives unworthy of life.

Catbird
Catbird

As a former fetus myself Sybilskelton, I would take the extreme position that abotion is murder sanctioned by the political left to guarantee a voting block of liberal women who have a twisted view of their role in society...but hey, I'm just one little voice who made it out alive. Don't let me influence your "choice".

Maryanna Price
Maryanna Price

Women would LOVE to terminate their pregnancies earlier, but 87% of counties don't have an abortion provider, meaning women have to drive (often hours) to reach one, get mandatory counseling from people who don't think she understands that abortion will make her un-pregnant, wait twenty-four...or forty-eight...or seventy-two hours to "think about it." After that, she may need to listen to a script that lies to her ("Abortion causes breast cancer"), not to mention the very real possibility of having to find childcare for her already extant children, missing work, finding a place to stay overnight if she can't drive five hours each way, miss the abortion provider who only does abortions one day a week and having to deal with protestors holding up pictures of stillborns.

How can YOU act so glib about a nation that treats women trying to control their bodies and do the responsible thing as impulsive children who aren't to be trusted? We need to get abortions out of the clinic and into the hospitals, like every other medical procedure. And this claptrap about "taxpayer money" needs to stop. I'm a taxpayer, too, and I would welcome my money being used for elective abortions (which taxpayers are *not* funding now, so don't even try). My religion forbids war, but I sure as shit have to pay for that. 

scottindallas
scottindallas

You're making my point.  We'd hope that if the pregnancy is unwanted, that we'd interdict at some far earlier point.  Whether through prevention, or morning after pills; once we're talking about abortion, we're pretty far down a road of mishaps.  I've written here that any potential complications for the life/health of the mother are paramount.  Abortion is not a risky procedure when done in a clean, clinical setting with trained...  though there IS some risk.  My point is that there are many steps prior to considering an abortion that are less costly, less dangerous for the mother, and for most less morally complicated. 

Monica
Monica

Scott - for the most part, you sound reasonable.  However, your comment "Abortions are ... expensive... and can be dangerous for the mother." seems to miss the very important point that PREGNANCIES are expensive and can be very dangerious to the mother.  If you can argue against abortion based on price and risk to the mother, then you must certainly be able to argue against pregnancy on those same grounds.  I don't have the statistics at hand, but perhaps someone could provide the rate at which women die during pregnancy, childbirth or after birth complications compared to the rate that women die as a result of abortions performed by licensed medical professionals.   Yes, a woman's life IS in danger with pregancy. 

RW1961
RW1961

I'm just upset you brought zombies into this discussion.

scottindallas
scottindallas

Abortions aren't bad?  Really?  I guess car accidents are neither good nor bad. 

Personhood is not cut and dry.  I don't have much problem with early abortions, again, I support a woman's right to choose.  But, everyone but you agrees that abortions should be prevented, with proper planning, birth control, education etc.  Abortions are far more expensive, they terminate what would be another life with rights and liberties, and can be dangerous for the mother.  None of the alternatives carry all these costs.  So, indeed, abortions are bad, they are a last resort, and should be avoided as much as possible.

Once the fetus becomes viable, most people would confer some rights to that.  You offer no such balance.  While you say, partial birth abortions are fictional, you'd be wrong to say they don't happen.  I doubt many occur where the mother's life/health isn't an issue.  That makes it a reasonable thing to concede on as the Dems, did and the GOP refused to. 

Keep your militantcy, but understand the attitude that you espoused if frankly reckless and  I doubt many would really support that.  Abortions aren't like removing an appendix, there's a fast difference between a person and an organ.  Perhaps you'd wish to argue that a baby is like an infected organ that is due to bust, endangering the life of the organism to which it's attached.  Your argument is reckless and beneath you. 

I agree that men don't have the right to ban abortions.  Though, I'd suggest the father has a say in the matter (49%)  Abortion is not a simple question, it involves some degree of human life.  That fetus has some varying level of rights as it develops.  Terminating that makes abortion a morally far more complex issue than getting a mole frozen off.

Sybilskelton
Sybilskelton

No, Scott, we will not admit that "abortion is a bad thing". It's a completely amoral issue, a medical procedure totally between a woman and her doctor, no more right or wrong than an appendectomy. Morality is only assigned by the holier than thou types, and Republicans, mostly the white male ones. When will we admit that vasectomies are bad? Doesn't the bible say that a man shouldn't waste his seed?

As long as it's in my body, it's mine. Not yours, not the Republican Party's, and most assuredly not the government's. Of course, in my case, that's purely theoretical, because like Brenda, my fertile days are long gone. But I have a daughter, and a granddaughter, and a niece, and those choices are theirs to make. Nobody else's. Especially not people with penises - you got a cock, you get no vote. I remember many years ago, I was ranting and raving about this subject, and my late father calmly advised me to not take it so personally. Only a woman would understand just HOW personal this issue is.

And incidentally, "partial birth abortion" is a fictional term, invented by anti-choice fear mongers. It is not a recognized medical term.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...