It might be good for all physicians to have some basic understand of what an abortion is, and what the side effects might be since their patients might have some symptoms related to an earlier abortion. But “more education is necessarily better” is a claim I can’t get behind. You are saying that there is no point where the costs of “more” education outweighs the benefits, and that is obviously not true
It might be their hope to do so, but there is no way they can succeed. There isn’t the political constituency for it.
But, more to the point, I don’t see this bill as evidence that these lawmakers “hate women”. That is what this thread was started about. Especially since the bill author is a woman. Not that women can’t “hate women”, but if you going to claim that one does, you need to prove it.
What is obvious about the untruth of it? One-third of American women will get an abortion at some point in their lives. This is hardly an example of doctors being overtrained in procedures they will not likely have any need for.
Again, I am glad you have that faith. However, the very fact that they have passed this bill in the House seems to demonstrate that there is definitely political will and support for the idea. And no, that does not justify it.
I think this is the first time I have seen anti-abortion sentiment so strong that they would attempt to significantly influence the medical educational system in such a way to hush away the procedure itself from knowledge. I don’t think the GOP hates women. But from the perspective of a woman, it sure seems like they think I am exceptionally fragile and/or stupid.
Got a cite for that statistic? But you just said more is better, as if that in and of itself was a given. More isn’t always better. Sometimes more costs more (pardon the pun) than it’s worth.
No, they think that a fetus is a human being. You and I should be able to disagree with that without refusing to accept that it is the basis of their position.
We haven’t had a draft in ages and women are now in combat. Plus, it used to be they would only take men because they thought women were worthless.
Try again.
They are. Anti-abortion doctors should not be allowed to put their religious beliefs above whatever the best medical care is for their patient. If they cannot do that, they should not become doctors.
Oh, the “D” stands for “Doctor”, just as it does in Ph.D, and D.D., and M.D. However, in only one of those instances does it stand for “MEDICAL” doctor.
A podiatrist has some medical training, but only as it applies to the foot. That is, a podiatrist will know something about diabetes, because a lot of diabetics go to the doctor. A podiatrist would NOT attempt to treat any sort of gynecological problem, and would not attempt a tonsillectomy, or an appendectomy, because s/he’s not trained in general medicine. http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos075.htm A podiatrist is NOT a medical doctor who specializes in feet. Podiatrists are like dentists, they are called Doctor but are not medical doctors. Dentists are Doctors of Dental Medicine or Doctors of Dental Surgery.
An MD who specializes in problems of the feet CAN perform an abortion, or tonsillectomy, or appendectomy…because s/he’s an MD. But podiatrists are NOT MDs.
My podiatrist and I talk a lot, and this has come up several times.
As I understand it, any competent MD can perform these procedures, if s/he’s got access to the proper equipment and assistance. Because, you know, they covered those subjects in medical school, and then during the intern/residency, they’ve probably performed quite a few appendectomies, and possibly the other two, as well. I’ll have to ask my nephew, the doctor (medical doctor) if he’s not too busy to talk to his dear aunt, the one who gave him sacks of arcade tokens when he was a tween.
Do you have any way to show that the anti-abortion nutcases hate women? Of course not. Even if you can show that some of them are woman haters, you have no idea how congressional votes work if you think all of them are even considering the question when they vote. There isn’t any reason for a sane person to assume this stupid proposal was passed or conceived based on hatred of women. There are stupid laws that affect men, and stupid laws that affect women, and stupid laws that affect everybody, and stupid people who act like political caricatures and further entrench other morons in their unthinking knee jerk game so that no reasonable laws are ever considered much less passed.
By the way, that personal essay that was linked earlier in the thread at The Angry Black Woman blog was written by my good friend Michelle. She doesn’t mention it in the story, but that happened in the middle of a weekday at the medical center of the University of Chicago. A huge teaching hospital in the 3rd largest city in the country, a fairly liberal city, not on 3rd shift or a weekend when the staffing is lighter.
If a woman can wait for hours for care in a hospital of that size and that caliber, which is rated 29th best in the entire country for ob/gyn care, can be allowed to get to a point where the doctor is unsure of her survival, where three units of blood are necessary to maintain her life, where no one even offered her a painkiller as her placenta detached from her uterine wall and her wanted fetus died inside of her, just imagine what it’s like in the tiny hospitals in rural, deep Red State, Bible Belt America.
Well that’s a bit of cognitive disobedience then. Why do they try to save fetuses but vote to deny the safety net of universal healthcare (and proven economically cheaper and more effective)? Clearly a policy that’s more costly, and deadly for everyone must have some value to them?
You probably claim it’s some economic right or not government’s place, but hollow words for the sick. What’s the moral imperative that drives Republicans to interfere only when it will cause more suffering?
If it’s pure ideology (role of government) as you state in this thread, well history is full of the evils of pure ideology approaches, can’t they fucking read or is reading for liberals?
Is it their position that those who lost their jobs during the recent economic mess deserve death and suffering? If not why aren’t Republicans fighting for them just as much as the fetuses?
Is it the same moral imperative that makes them vote for wars biased on false claims that kill hundreds of thousands?
Why is life protection limited to one class but not the other?
Is it something along the lines of being poor being a moral failure?
If so what was the moral failure of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that their war of false claims killed needlessly? Or do you have a cite of heartfelt regret, and learning their error from Republicans? I wait with baited breath on that. Sits the recliner upright
Bottom Line America: UHC is proven to have better outcomes (including infant mortality) yet Republicans effectively favor more dead babies, suffering, and cost by opposing it.
If Republicans want to save babies (as they claim to believe fetuses to be) why aren’t they pro-UHC?
Why is interfering in a woman’s own body much more okay than interfering in the market place? Why do they feel they own women, but shouldn’t touch the market?
Is Exxon more sacred than one’s own body?
If it’s not misogyny, it’s something just as sinister, dehumanization of women, while favoring imaginary humans (corporations) to actual human detriment.
So their position is “fuck you” to the kids born in unfortunate circumstances? If not how how do they reconcile the suffering their policies cause with being for “life”?
Which I think I’ve just effectively demonstrated. One thing I’m learning in threads like this is my intuition is at about a 90 degree angle from most people. Things that seem bloody obvious to others, I have to work at. However things that seem simple and obvious conclusions to me need more explaining for other people.
See up thread. Given all innocents Republican actions killed, they don’t have a non-hypocrital way to claim being antiabortion is because they want to protect innocents.
They have the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocents dripping from their hands.
What do you mean so what? I had a miscarriage after 12 weeks and was still bleeding. The Dr. performed a D&C on me to stop the bleeding (there’s also issues with infection if all the pregnancy isn’t expelled). Your logic is completely assbackwards here. Drs., especially ER drs. and all OB/GYN’s need to be able to do these procedures for women’s health. If they are prevented from being trained in this, they are not properly trained to take care of women. You know, do their jobs. This is a bunch of assholes going AGAINST the 1st amendment by diminishing women’s healthcare because of their primitive religion.
nod. But because the abortion debate is so emotionally charged (and retarded), let’s try a different tac.
**John Mace: **imagine you’ve been in an accident, and are rushed to the ER bleeding, barely conscious and with an open leg fracture. The on duty ER doc doesn’t believe in reducing fractures and thinks it’d in fact be powerfully bad juju now that the Bone Spirit is gone. He cuts your leg off instead.
Do you want that guy to remain a doctor because hey, that’s his free speech and right to free religion right there, the government doesn’t get to infringe on that ? Or do you want that asshole run out of the medical community with torches and pitchforks ?
Oh, and don’t fight the hypothetical. You don’t get to argue his personal Holy Bones religion is spurious and somehow not as valid as Christian views.
Are you trying to shift the topic to the cost-benefit analysis of medical education in general, or are we specifically talking about abortion education still? Because I think I have demonstrated that this is not a scenario in which we are trying to throw everything but the kitchen sink at medical students, thus wildly inflating the cost of medical education. I’m sure “sometimes” more costs more than it’s worth, this is not one of those times.
I can see the application of that perspective when, say, a law banning abortion after 20 weeks is enacted. I can see it when they say you must wait 72 hours to obtain an elective abortion. This is pro-life people trying to protect “babies” (their term, not mine), and I fully see that in the previous examples. However, when you are trying to prevent medical professionals from learning about a procedure which is used to save the lives of fully grown women, your “it’s all about life” argument falls flat. They are attempting to eliminate abortion entirely, at any cost. That is unacceptable.
I don’t remember arguing that a doctor should be allowed to continue practicing if he let a woman die (or be seriously harmed) because he refused to perform an abortion, and refused to refer her to someone who would. Can you remind me of where I posted that?
The problem here is that, as near as I can make out, your position is “the government shouldn’t be paying for medical schooling, so any reduction by any means in the amount the government is paying for medical schooling is a good thing.”
And then completely ignoring the implications of the specific bit of medical schooling that they are de-funding while hiding behind the above fig leaf.
It doesn’t make you look good, to say the least–if it was about funding, it would have cut off all funding for medical schools. It’s not about that–it’s about trying to de-facto ban abortions, and only that.