I don’t understand this joke, but the only version of this aphorism I had ever heard was “the proof is in the pudding”. After Googling, I discover that it did apparently originate from the longer form ending in “eating”.
Freedom of reproductive choice is a firm liberal principle, and, yes, that includes doctors’ rights too. No one is compelled to have, or to perform, an abortion.
However, the phrase “Between a woman and her doctor” is meant to imply her freedom of choice, unconstrained and untrammeled by regulations and laws and other onerous obstacles. It does not, itself, refer to the doctor’s choice.
Words mean things. If you just want to say that you believe in a woman’s right to choose, then there’s no need to invoke her doctor. That is actually an appeal to authority, to invoke a trusted person who shares the decision on whether to abort a pregnancy.
But I do realize that when Democrats say that it’s just more political talk. Democrats do not believe that the decision to prescribe pain pills is strictly between a woman and her doctor.
Anyone paying attention knows that I take on **adaher **as much, and as agressively, as anyone (in fact, s/he’s one of the few Dopers I really keep track of in terms of knowing by name “what their deal is”). But **adaher **is right on this one: Democratic messaging on abortion is confused and illogical to say the least. I’m personally pro-choice without any restrictions for the first trimester, but I do think it should be treated like other medical procedures. And that includes not only what **adaher **is referencing here, but also parental notification. To say that a doctor can’t give my daughter a Tylenol without my or her mother’s consent, but she can get an abortion without it, is patently absurd.
And politically, the problem for Democrats is that the party is caught in a vise between the sensible majority of the public that agrees with me on the one hand, and a hardcore segment of the Democratic base on the other that insists on this illogical and extreme position. So to avoid getting killed in general elections, Democratic politicians have to mumblemumble a lot of nonsense like “between a woman and her doctor” and try to change the subject. It’s painful, cringe-inducing, to watch and hear.
And yet Slacker the principles of minors having the ability to give independent consent regarding sexual health is well established in medicine and law in many states. Here’s my state, Illinois, for example.
This is basic established medical standards.
Here’s a broader discussion, albeit dating back a while.
I thought it was clear that I wasn’t saying those special carve-outs don’t exist. Of course they do. I’m saying they *shouldn’t *exist, and I’m pretty sure without even looking up polling data that the *vast *majority of parents agree with me. That makes for a politically very unstable situation, since laws can be changed.
If minors are capable of handling their own sexual health, they can handle their health care in general. Again, carveouts that exist due to politics need not and should not be recognized as legitimate by the SDMB community. Bullshit exists. Let’s shine the flashlight on it when we find it.
Speaking as doctor for children I would fight very hard against changing the laws that allow minors to obtain confidential care regarding sexual health. The impacts would be seriously negative, especially to those teens whose parents are most likely to believe that their children should be denied care for those issues without their parental consent. In those families in particular many teens would rather have untreated STDs for example than have those parents know. What it would not do however is stop those teens from having sex.
This is no bullshit.
And if you actually looked for polls you’d find that those done actually have a solid majority of parents endorse minors being able to obtain sexual health resources without getting explicit permission from their parents.
This was in face of efforts to make the law more restrictive.
But again, if they can do that, then they can also make decisions about their health care in general.
Such does not follow as there is no evidence of harm from requiring consent for routine care issues: a teen would not rather have appendicitis than tell a parent about their pain.
The potential harm is a reason for the exception, but not a reason for the general principle that minors must have their parents consent. Either minors are qualified to get care without their parents, or they are not. If they are not, then you can justify reproductive health care as an exception, with the understanding that they are kids and cannot be trusted to make good decisions, but we accept that tradeoff. You’ve done the opposite: you’ve stated clearly that they are quite qualified to make those decisions, which means they are qualified to make health care decisions in general. No exceptions are therefore needed, in the same way that I don’t need my wife’s permission to get a vasectomy OR a tooth filled.
Honestly what you are saying is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. It makes me wonder if maybe you should need your wife’s permission before you get medical care.
To me the point is simple and it has been made. I will not engage here dealing with distortion games. If you want to start a GD on it and notify me that it is up then maybe I’ll play.
Fair enough, I just wanted to know if minors were competent to seek their own medical care or not.
Gallup says otherwise, at least regarding abortion. Their most recent poll number is five years old, but here are the percentages who favored a parental consent requirement in the polls they have conducted since 1992:
1992: 70%
1996: 74%
2003: 73%
2005: 69%
2011: 71%
Hard to discern any trend there, so I highly doubt the number has dropped significantly since 2011.
I suppose it’s possible that parents themselves feel drastically differently than the public at large, but it would greatly surprise me. That would necessarily mean that something like 90+ percent of non-parent adults, including young unmarried people, believe parental consent should be required for abortion, but that a majority of parents feel the opposite. That doesn’t scan.
Additionally, in 2012 two polls asked about contraception for teenagers. One found that by a margin of 52% to 46%, respondents favored allowing kids 16 and older to get contraception without parental consent. But another asked the same question but this time with “14 and over”. That was enough to tip it solidly the other way: the “disagree” camp won 55% - 41%, with the “completely disagree” side outnumbering the “completely agree” camp 36% to 23%.
ETA: Note that the contraception survey did not have a conservative sample overall. A solid majority said employers should be required to provide contraceptive coverage at no cost; and a plurality of 49% even said religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to. That means nearly one-fifth of that latter group peeled off when it came to allowing teens 14 and up to get contraceptive services without parental consent, and you can count me among that set.
A funny Washington Post spoof of the debate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/03/10/the-washington-postunivision-democratic-debate-abridged/