Presumably they at least have to know how to do the procedure, even if they don’t actually perform one. Somehow they manage to do that now, nothing is changing that would require every physician regardless of objection to perform an abortion at some time during their internship. This new legislation seeks to end any training related to abortion, not just allowing them to choose not to perform one.
ETA: You could say the same about a tracheotomy or an IV. I mean, not all doctors work in emergency medicine, right? And IVs are inserted by nurses, so why should a doctor be required to know how to do them? The answer is that it’s required to have a well-rounded understanding of all areas of medicine. Abortion is a procedure that one in three women will have at some point in their life, and can be necessary to save the life of a woman. So they should be educated on the procedure.
Your podiatrist is not an MD and won’t be doing anything that’s not connected to feet. When people say “doctor” they usually mean an MD, or a DO, not a DPM.
Apparently, you are ignorant of the fact that many techniques used to perform abortions are used to perform other gynecological procedures that are not abortions, such as dilation and curettage - which actually is not that common for abortions these days, but I’ve met all too many pro-life types who think that is the main use of a D&C when in fact it’s one of the least frequent.
My fear is not that some pro-life person will somehow be denied a medical education but that normal and routine gynecological procedures will not be adequately taught because someone somewhere is afraid they might be used for an abortion.
A slightly more inflammatory example would be to say that Jehovas Witnesses came into some major political power. They decide that any federal funding to medical schools have to go with the stipulation that they include no training to perform blood transfusions. Well, a blood transfusion is a legitimate, and legal medical procedure. Jehovas Witnesses feel this is a supreme violation of their religious beliefs, and they don’t agree with the practice nor do they want doctors to even learn how to do them. Nevermind plenty of people do not feel this is an immoral practice. Nevermind that it can save the lives of many, and 1/3 of all people will have to have a blood transfusion at some point in their life. Is the answer that we let the legislature pick and choose which aspects of medical education will be funded through student loans? How about if extreme religious zealots came to power, and decided that HIV/AIDS was god’s curse against gays, and any medical education seeking to cure or treat AIDS was against their religious principles. None of these are acceptable uses of legislative power, IMO.
So, now we’re going to get into a semantic debate about who is and who is not a “doctor”? What does the “D” in “DPM” stand for? But pick any other medical specialty that is unrelated to the reproductive organs and that’s fine with me.
So what? Anyone advocating that all doctors (in the US) be required to be able to perform abortions is ignorant of the US constitution, amendment #1.
We all have some irrational fears, so I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
Not sure why the focus is on this spectre of “requiring all MDs be able to perform abortions”, nobody is saying that they should all be required to be able to perform them. Just that they should be educated and trained on them, as is currently (evidently) the case. Why is there a value in requiring them to pay for their own education on the issue of abortion, when it already comes as part of standard medical school education?
That’s exactly what started this little hijack:
Those damn Nazi niggers!!
Yeah because blood tranfusion or AIDS are really that controversial.
Maybe the Myanmarish Party of America comes to power and decided that non-Myanmar-descent people cannot get cheeseburgers.
John Mace do you have any knowledge in what goes into the education of a doctor? I’m not being snarky, just curious.
Yes.
I think that they should learn it. I don’t think anybody is arguing that they should all be required to perform them.
Maybe not, but the analogy is sound. The moral beliefs of one group are being used to influence the educational curriculum of doctors. If you want to shroud it in the first amendment, they are both strongly religiously driven.
Well, if enough of them came to power, then it would reflect the will of the people. Living in a democracy means that sometimes the government is going to do things you don’t agree with.
Right, but withholding funds from education which includes that part is just a backdoor way of making it not necessarily illegal, but inaccessible. Eventually, no doctors will know how to perform abortions, or at least, very few of them. You don’t have to outlaw abortions if nobody knows how to do them. Problem solved, in their eyes.
Obviously, I don’t need to be schooled on the consequences of living in a democracy. The answer is not “well the majority rules so shut up and deal with it”. We are discussing whether or not it’s appropriate for them to do it at all, regardless of the fact that they have voted it into existence.
John Mace, don’t you find it a bit ironic that the party so fervently devoted to “life” fights the hardest to withhold healthcare funding from those who need it to live?
How about that same party fighting the hardest to deny food assistance and education to the kids once they’re born? Apparently they want a life of suffering.
Why shouldn’t I see them as evil?
How many innocent people died thanks to Republican incompetence in Iraq?
I’m sure that’s part of their motive. But it’s just not going to play out like you are saying. There is too much of a pro-choice constituency in this country, and it’s only going to get more so.
But keep in mind that some of us don’t like any federal funds going to subsidize doctor training of any kind.
Where did I say shut up and deal with it? Go man the baracades if you want.
What do you mean by “appropriate”? Like I said, some of us don’t want federal subsidies of any kind of medical education. We don’t think that is “appropriate”. Whether or not it’s “appropriate” is going to depend on your political leanings. It might be seen as a violation of the establishment clause*, but if not, then there’s nothing inappropriate about the legislature passing a law that reflects the will of the people (as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution).
*per current SCOTUS precedent
No.
No
You can see them anyway you want. But if you’re going to claim, per the OP, that they “hate women”, you need to prove it. So far I haven’t seen any proof of that.
What does that have to do with whether or not this bill is evidence that they “hate women”?
Regardless of whether or not you think it’s going to play out like that, it’s an overreach.
That’s fine. But we aren’t talking about whether or not student loans are ethical in the broader scope of libertarian politics. We’re talking about whether specifically restricting funding for programs that include the topic of abortion is an ethical step by the legislature.
To me, that seems like an affirmation of the power of the majority regardless of whether or not I like it.
I mean it’s irrelevant to discuss the issue of whether restricting specifically the teaching of abortion is ethical if you don’t see the funding of education as appropriate. If you’d rather throw the whole lot out, then specifically isolating this issue of abortion is going to be a non-starter because as long as I provide a case for the teaching of abortion in medical school, you will just fall back on medical school being subsidized by the government as being an inappropriate use of federal funds. It’s not a violation of the establishment clause to teach doctors about abortion. Maybe it would be if you forced their hand after they consciously objected to the practice, but nobody is talking about that here but you.
It wasn’t.
No, your hypothetical about Jehova’s Witnesses might be a violation of the EC. If they were funding other medical training, but not funding certain training for religious purposes, then it might violate the EC. Requiring that all doctors be able to perform abortions would violate the Free Exercise Clause, unless by “be able to perform” you mean “read a textbook about”. I hope that we require our doctors to do more than read about a medical procedure before they perform it on a human.
And I don’t know what you mean by “forced their hand”, but this whole little sideshow started when **Lynn **said that all doctors should be required to be able to perform abortions. I already quoted her in response to your earlier statement that “nobody” was talking about that.
I mean that there is a substantial difference between being educated on the topic of abortion, being required to do them, and eliminating funding for physicians to learn how to do abortions. The first one is the status quo. All physicians should know how to perform abortions even if they don’t have an opportunity to perform one. There are plenty of procedures that physicians learn about that they may not actually do themselves, or have an opportunity to do during internships/rotations.
The second is the one you are referring to, requiring all physicians to perform an abortion as a requirement of their education. I will scratch the part about “nobody” talking about that, to my knowledge you and I are not discussing that issue, because I don’t believe that is happening. I don’t believe all physicians should have performed an abortion (unless they are in an OB/GYN specialty), but I do think they should receive education on the procedure, maybe watch a video, observe someone else doing it if possible. Again, more education for physicians is necessarily better, IMO.
The third is what this bill is suggesting, that is holding educational funds hostage until they do not include a curriculum that includes training on abortion. I think that it is clearly a relevant part of any medical doctor’s training, and it is an attempt by the GOP to circumvent the fact that they have been unsuccessful in outlawing abortion itself by eliminating the medical training associated with providing it.