I was under the impression that many/most Republicans supported legal abortion in the case of imminent death of the mother. Why are those legal and necessary (even in extreme pro-life views like the Catholic Church’s) abortions never discussed when this kind of bill comes up–even if only to apologize for the bill’s effect on them?
Have they proposed any bills that only affect a man’s right to live?
Principled beliefs or not, it still means that they are likely to end up killing women, to save a fetus that will also die. Government’s efforts are best spent when they aren’t trying to force religious belief, principled or not. Prevent the need for abortions instead of killing off women.
Ok, what if they tweak this bill just a little to withhold federal funds from any medical school which offers training in abortion procedures?
Nope. You’d have to demonstrate that without this federal funding, there would not be enough abortion doctors to perform the bare minimum allowed by pro-life politicians. That would be a tiny fraction of the ~1M abortions performed every year in the US. And there are enough staunchly pro-choice people in this country who, if they really feel that strongly about the issue, can fund any amount of abortion training they want.
There is no per se reason that this must be a government function.
FYI, I’m trained to not resuscitate people.
I’m a pro-choice libertarian leaning guy. I’m fully in favor of abortion on demand, up until some point of “viability”, as defined the current science. But I’m not in favor of government funding for any medical school training. So, you’re asking the wrong guy about that question.
However, since money is fungible, it would seem consistent with the pro-life position to agree with the tweak you are suggesting. However, politics is the art of the possible, and it is unlikely that you would get enough Republican support to essentially withdraw all funding from medical schools.
Why does the medical community have to justify the use of a legal medical procedure, and justify the value of teaching all legal medical procedures in medical school to pro-life politicians? The issue is not necessarily about the morality of abortion but rather the morality of the legislature determining what doctors are and are not allowed to learn. You seem to be under the impression that each med student gets a chunk of money that is specifically portioned out for the teaching of each area of medicine, and that they are just yanking the portion designated to teaching about abortion. It’s exactly like when abstinence only education was the only type of sex-ed that was allowed to get federal funding. So you end up with med schools having to eliminate it from the curriculum or else they don’t have any students because they’re all there on Stafford loans. That is a bad precedent for education and legislating.
That what must be a government function? Providing loans to students who want to go to med school? Because you failed to address what I said before, which was that specifically the teaching of abortion isn’t in and of itself a “function of government”, but the government does have a very vested interest in people being educated, which is why they provide federally subsidized education loans. The government also has an interest in people who go to med school being educated well, which is why you must pass a licensing board in order to practice medicine once you finish school. And again, the issue is whether it is appropriate, as a condition of those loans, to dictate arbitrarily the content of the education being provided beyond the general aptitude of students who leave the program.
They haven’t done much to change the military draft or combat regulations. I wouldn’t say those laws were passed or remain in place because they hate men.
I’m happy to hear that person ever died from medical treatment after they were born.
nevermind … misread a post.
There hasn’t been a draft in forty years and never will be, unless somebody’s eager to kill their political career. And women are in combat now, too----they just don’t get any recognition for it.
The SSS has been in place for a long time, as are the draft laws, and they were originally passed for reasons other than man hating. A scummy politician voting for an anti-abortion law is not necessarily a woman hater. They want to control the lives of men as much as they do for women. Even their ideas that limit women’s rights are a coverup for their goal of eliminating everybody’s rights and instituting a theocracy. This doesn’t make them woman haters. And some of them are just large sacks of shit wearing business suits, and couldn’t care less what the law was as long as they are better off for voting the way they do. And that doesn’t make them woman haters either.
Doctors do not have magical transportation powers. They cannot zoom from NYC to Anchorage, Alaska when a woman needs an emergency abortion. There are already a great many places in which a woman who needs an abortion cannot get one.
Being able to perform an abortion is, or should be, a procedure that every doctor must learn.
They don’t, clearly. They don’t act in ways that reduce abortions; just in ways that make them more humiliating and dangerous. Like the so-called “partial birth abortion ban”, which didn’t ban late term abortions, just the safest method of them.
To use the classic example, if you had the choice of saving one six year old girl or a canister filled with hundreds of frozen embryos, would you save the girl or the canister? Even the majority of “pro-lifers” wills say they will save the girl because despite all their speech-making they don’t believe that a few cells are a person. They just use that as an excuse in their campaign against women.
Because they are soliciting public funds. If they didn’t solicit public funds, they would not have to justify anything to anyone.
No one is forbidding anyone from doing anything. Withholding federal funds does not prevent private funds from being used.
When I was in graduate school, I didn’t have government funding of my education. I secured my own funding. Medical students can do the same.
If the residents of the state of Alaska think they need to subsidize abortion doctors (or any other kind of doctors, for that matter), they can do so with Alaska state funds.
That’s absurd. There is nothing unique about abortions that every doctor should be able to perform one. Why should my podiatrist be able to perform an abortion?
I don’t want my doctor visit costs to go up because you think he needs to be trained to do abortions. You don’t get this stuff for free.
Besides, the only way to be trained to do abortions is to, do abortions. You are now disallowing anyone who is pro-life from being a doctor unless they are willing to go against their religious principles.
And you guys think the pro-life side is crazy…
That’s ridiculous. You’re just trying to rebrand extortion, which is what they’re doing. It’s withholding the possibility of obtaining student loans to extort the schools and twist their science-based curriculum to suit the whims of the legislature.
That’s nice. Most people can’t do that. The reason we allow federal funds to be provided to subsidize education is so that education is not inherently a meritocracy, where only the rich get to continue their education presumably so they can be richer. Just as it would be inappropriate for the government to put stipulations on student loans such as “We will give you the money, but only if you study engineering”, it is ridiculous for them to say “you can study medicine, just as long as you don’t learn to do this medical procedure which we do not like.”
Podiatrists are generally not MDs, and can’t perform most medical procedures. Orthopedists ARE MDs, and cost more than podiatrists.
I go to a podiatrist, and I love him to bits, but he’s not capable of performing something like a Pap smear, for instance. And I don’t expect him to.
Because your doctor has to become a fully trained physician before he can specialize in podiatry. People don’t just go to school to become podiatrists or dermatologists, they become physicians and then specialize from there.
ETA: There is a branch of podiatry that begins with an MD or DO, but apparently there is also another branch which takes the first 2 years of normal med school and specializes at that point. My mistake.
As stated earlier, there is not an allocation of money to the degree where just “cutting out the abortion training” is going to result in any lowering in the cost of education. It’s just the cost of education, and medical school is pretty well planned to go in a specific schedule with exceptions for electives.
That’s quite a stretch, to go from the GOP disallowing medical schools to teach abortion if their students receive federal funding, from someone else requiring a med student to perform an abortion? This isn’t the thread about conscientious objection to abortion. This is the one about funding med schools to teach medicine, all of it, not just the parts you like.
Thinking that med schools should teach medicine is hardly crazy.
It’s still absurd to say you are going to require every doctor to be able to perform an abortion. What is so special about abortions that every doctor should have to be able to give one? And how are you going to get around the 1st amendment issue of requiring someone to violate her religious principles in order to become a doctor?