Ah, now you’re moving the goalposts, we’re making progress (sort of).
But what if that doctor thinks referring the woman to another doctor who will perform the abortion breaks the same ethical taboo as performing it himself ? That’s not an absurd position to hold, either, as it could be construed as being complicit to and enabling the crime. God won’t be fooled !
Are you going to disallow that poor man from being a doctor unless he is willing to break his religious principles ? Tssk, tssk.
Ok, you know doctors are trained on the job, right?
You all know this?
We learn by seeing and by doing, on the job, every day.
This isn’t saying “we will no longer pay for doctors to go on a 2 week training course on how to perform abortions”.
This is saying that no doctor who isn’t fully trained in how to perform an abortion can stand in an operating theatre while one is performed, if their salary is in anyway funded by the tax-payer. Because that would be training- at least as far as how training is understood for every other kind of surgery.
Now, I’m not 100% sure, but I believe some gynaecology residencies in the USA are in public hospitals, and the residents will be paid, in some part at least, from the public purse.
Did you know that a surgical abortion- especially a life-saving surgical abortion in a hospital- will usually require a surgeon and a surgical assistant?
The assistant would usually be an intern or resident.
Now, it can’t be- it has to be someone already fully trained in performing abortions.
Do you see how that might be difficult to find that second fully trained doctor at 3am? Or on the 4th of July? Or within 15 minutes if it is a life-and-death situation?
I some how doubt that the Intern or Resident gets to say “it’s ok, I’ll do this one Pro-bono” and that will fix it.
Nope.
You understand wrong. Being in the room as a medical student on a four-week rotation while someone else performs a procedure that you can’t really see and don’t care about anyway does not qualify you to perform that procedure, unless by ‘proper assistance’ you mean someone with specialized training who will actually be the one doing it. Internship in the vast majority of cases is not a ‘teach you everything about everything and then let you pick a specialty’ year in which you set bones and perform C-sections and evacuate subdural hematomas and twiddle the dials on the LVADs in the cardiac ICU. Very few interns (and residents!) aside from surgical interns (I include ob/gyn, ortho, urology, and neurosurgery in this category) even see the inside of an OR, much less actually do anything hands-on in it. Conversely, surgical interns don’t spend any time in diabetes clinic learning how to tweak oral hypoglycemic regimens, and pediatrics interns don’t waste any time learning gerontology. The only residents in the US that learn how to actually perform abortions are ob/gyn residents or individuals who go out of their way to obtain that specific training. I’m a general surgeon, and while I have no moral objection to abortion I also didn’t go out of my way to be trained in it, and I am not qualified to perform one. Could I maybe do it in an emergency if there was no one else available, maybe after a couple minutes of panicky cramming with some OB textbook? Sure, but so could a podiatrist.
I blame mass media for this widely-held misconception; no doctor show on TV accurately represents what residency is like.
My husband works full time for the federal government and through them, we get our medical insurance. A few years ago we got a letter from out insurance carrier, that our plan, Federal Employees Plan (FEP), would no longer cover abortion procedures at all. Apparently, bowing to pro-life pressure, the government blocked these services because abortion was a very controversial issue and it it was felt that taxpayer dollars should not be used for these procedures.
WTF! My husband works for this insurance. We pay almost half of the premium ourselves. Why does the public with moral issues get to have any say about something we earn, pay for and is LEGAL?
I am frustrated with the logic that says abortion is legal, but somebody elses feelings gets to decided if my insurance company should pay for it or not, or that doctors wont get funds to pay for the training or not. If its legal, end of story, you don’t get to put limitations from a moral agenda all over it.
I have a Dr. friend who was, and still is, extremely pro-life. During his residency, he refused the training for performing abortions because of his personal beliefs. A few years later he was doing pro bono work in some of the poorest areas of Mississipi. 2 months later, he went back for the training. He still is strongly pro-life, but he says that from his experience, dealing with these women, its just not that simple anymore and anyone who says it is, needs to spend more time dealing with the reasons why women seek abortions in the first place. Thats where the true crisis is.
Damuri, you haven’t returned to this thread since starting it. I agree that a principled person can’t support this thing. But I’m curious how you categorize this as hating woman in particular. For instance, I do find tea-baggers have no concern for anybody but themselves, but not that they direct their disregard for others specifically at women. From the start of your statement, it sounds more like you are contrasting someone’s concept of woman hating as applied to you because you once said something controversial (like claiming all women are not perfect and superior to all men), to this idiotic proposal and its actual detrimental effect on women.
I think you’re mistaken. There are a few posters here who in pretty much every abortion thread claim thar pro-life people hate women. They claim that is the primary motivation for the pro-life position. Our OP generally disagrees with them, but is calling this bill out as an example when he would agree with them.
sbl: It has been long standing US policy that federal funds do pay for abortions. This is nothing new.
Still looking for the reasoning behind that. Maybe the OP will return to explain. I obviously feel exactly the same about the issue without attributing it to extreme sexism.
He must hate his thread.
You want to know someone who hates women?
I looks like a birth control device to me. And I bet it works!
Whether extreme sexism is the motivation or an unintended side effect is arguable. What we can see is that the expressed motivation and stated beliefs of anti-abortion legislators does not actually align with the legislation that they craft and pass. To wit:
If the concept is that life begins at conception or that all embryos and fetuses have an incontrovertible right to life, then we wouldn’t see bans or limitations that, if broken, have no penalties for the women involved.
If the concept is that life begins at conception and all embryos/fetuses have a right to life, then we wouldn’t see opposition to widespread education about and access to contraceptives in order to reduce (and ideally eliminate) unplanned pregnancies which may lead to abortion.
If the concept is that life begins at conception and all embryos/fetuses have a right to life, then we wouldn’t see any exemptions allowing abortion (or taxpayer funded abortion) in the case of rape, incest or the health of pregnant women.
If the concept is that life begins at conception and all embryos/fetuses have a right to life, then we wouldn’t have seen such extreme emphasis on the procedure called “partial birth abortion” because banning it did not actually stop a single late-term pregnancy from being terminated, it merely required that doctors use a more complicated procedure that put the wellbeing of the women involved at higher risk, and robbed those families of an opportunity to see their wanted but incapable-of-living (or maternal life-threatening) children outside of the womb.
If the concept is that life begins at conception and all embryos/fetuses have a right to life, then we wouldn’t have the FACE act and wouldn’t try people for threatening clinics or doctors. Very little restraint is required in cases where the law actually recognizes that murder is taking place.
If the concept is that life begins at conception and all embryos/fetuses have a right to life, then we wouldn’t refuse to contribute to the UN Population Fund, which doesn’t provide abortions, but does provide contraceptive access without which thousands of additional women require abortions, worldwide, each year.
And if the concept is that all life is precious, then we certainly wouldn’t be disregarding the lives of women who need to be able to control their fertility (hence access to Title IX programs including Planned Parenthood domestically and UNPF internationally) and to able to terminate pregnancies when those pregnancies are life and health-threatening (even if at no other time), hence needing as few barriers to that life/health-saving abortion care as possible, whether financial (Medicaid payments, insurance funding) procedural (required non-medically indicated procedures, additional counseling, waiting periods) or resource-based (scarcity of providers).
:rolleyes:
OK, first off, you just make yourself look weak by insisting that I am an idiot simply because you disagree with me. Second, ANY restriction on abortion access either puts women’s lives at risk or reduces them to the status of uteri on legs. Neither of these indicates any love for females of the human persuasion. Anti-abortionists further prove they are only interested in getting women “back where they belong” by showing zero concern with the fetus after it becomes an actual human - all they care about is forcing the woman to carry the pregnancy, not anything after that. Which is why the name pro-life is so ridiculous. They don’t care about life, they care about control.
Now, maybe these politicians are not actually versed in the consequences of whatever bill they are looking at and expected to vote on, but I prefer to believe that when someone gets to that level of power, most of them have enough brains to do at least at little research. I am confident that they are well aware of the ramifications of making abortion access difficult or even illegal, and either they don’t care or they believe a majority of their constituents want women to suffer and die.
You really need to put some thought into your position.
Oh, and you still haven’t come up with anything that affects men only.
Well there’s your problem ! 
In politics, you get what you can get, not necessarily what you want to get. The HCR Act was a huge compromise and you could pick it to pieces to show that the pro-reform guys didn’t really believe what they said they believed in the same way. It’s just politics, mainly.
Or… If Obama really cared about civilian deaths in Libya, we’d be trying to get a no fly zone over Syria right now.
More proof that you are an idiot. Draft laws and combat regulations have caused the deaths of men since who knows when. Those laws were not passed becaused the idiot lawmakers hated men, and they weren’t made because women were considered worthless.
Additional proof that you are an idiot is your continued attack on me when I have justified my position and you have not offered a shred of justification for your claim that those idiots or any others hate women.
You sound stupid enough to be a politician yourself.
I will note that Virginia Foxx is the author of the measure. She’s very folksy with the evangelicals because that’s where votes are. But my ex as a reporter did stories on her for a local paper in Western NC. One of my favorites stories involving Foxx involved her running a local community college and trying to fire an tenured instructor. The reason? Virginia Foxx allegedly used public funds on some home projects, and the teachers called her out on it. When my ex interviewed her and asked why she was disliked by teachers, she burst into tears and dragged my wife to a few classrooms in session, and tearfully asking, “You like me don’t you?” in each classroom. (Or words to that affect.). It was the most surreal interview she ever did.
Sorry I can’t provide a cite; this occurred in the late 80’s/early 90’s when my ex wrote for a small local community paper (The Mountain Times?) long before the internet archiving news stories were de rigueur
Honey, simply telling me that I am wrong and you are right is not “justifying” your position. Which is my last word to you since I do not waste my time with people who have heads of cement.
They pick a fetus over an adult living breathing woman. In addition, they support legislation which makes it difficult in general for women to do anything but have babies they don’t want if they dare to have sex. They place no such restrictions on men. To judge by the legislation they support what they say they want and what they accomplish are so radically different as to be incompatible with intelligence.
+1000
They aren’t stopping to consider the needs of the woman, any children she may have now, the needs of her job or education, if she is the caregiver for ailing relatives… They do it now with so-called morality clauses in which pharmacists can refuse to dispense birth control. Several women have posted here how difficult it was for them to get their tubes tied.
I can’t just go out and get my tubes ties either, because i haven’t had kids and i might change my mind… even though i have not wanted kids for 10 years.
I haven’t heard doper men post about jumping through hoops to get vasectomies. Am I wrong? Why are people still thinking that it’s ok for men to get all the sex they want but a woman is a slut or a whore for doing the same thing.?