From yesterday's mailbag:
New Holland, South Dakota - Concerned Women for America (CWA) of South Dakota applauds the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for upholding South Dakota's 2005 informed consent legislation (HB1166). "We are pleased that the court got it right," stated Linda Schauer, State Director of CWA of South Dakota. "The court wisely recognized that Planned Parenthood's argument that the Act violates a physician's First Amendment right was supported only by speculation and opinions, not facts.
"A woman seeking an abortion is often in a crisis situation or is under pressure from the child's father or her parents. She deserves to be fully informed with accurate and scientific information concerning a procedure that ends the life of her baby and is likely to have a detrimental effect on her for the rest of her life.
"The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld the ban on the gruesome partial birth abortion, gave credence to South Dakota's informed consent legislation," continued Schauer. The Supreme Court acknowledged the "special relationship that a mother has with her unborn child that ought to be respected in the eyes of the law." HB1166 requires that the woman seeking an abortion be told that she "has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution."
The Supreme Court affirmed informed consent statutes by saying the "state has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well-informed."
Women have been sold a pack of lies by abortion providers, who tell them that they were pregnant with a "blob of tissue." According to the deposition for HB1166, abortionists at Planned Parenthood in Sioux Falls use dehumanizing terms for the baby such as "remove the pregnancy" or "contents of the uterus." The staff fails to provide any information on fetal development unless requested by the woman. Furthermore, neither the state director nor the "patient educators" have any knowledge of fetal development.
Any responsible doctor would reveal all the known risk factors regarding a condition, procedure or drug. Why should we expect anything less for a procedure that ends the life of an unborn child and causes deep emotional trauma and many times causes physical risks to the mother?
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
5 comments:
You need to separate this from the particular issue at hand, and consider that what you're supporting is that medical consultations should include the patient, the doctor, and a cop.
Part of the problem with health care is that the lawyers and accountants have far too much influence and control on what should be medical decisions. You're advocating the expansion of legal and government intervention in health care decisions.
I thought that conservatives were in favor of less government intrusion and control of our lives.
You would expect to be protected by the law if a doctor raped you as his patient, correct? You would expect to be protected by the law if a doctor failed to provide you as his patient vital information regarding your medical treatment, right? You would expect to be protected by the law if a doctor failed to advise or warn you about the possible side effects, consequences and effects of a medical treatment, right?
It's no different here. Women who have abortions have a much higher rate of not only direct health problems (infertility, breast cancer, etc.) but greater problems with depression, substance abuse and suicide. They also deserve to know exactly what the abortion will do: end the life of their child.
Conservatives are in favor of less government. But conservatives also recognize that a minimal level of government is necessary for good order and the preservation of public safety.
An unborn child has DNA from conception which is unique from both father and mother or any other human being on earth. That DNA is not dog or cat or aardvark; it is human. Abortion is not the removal of a piece of the mother's tissue or an organ of the mother; abortion ends a unique human life.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Again, you're avoiding the issue. It's a red herring to equate the rape of a patient by a doctor with a conversation about medical procedures involving consenting, competent adults.
Try again, Bob -- do you really think that there should be a cop in the room when a patient is having a conversation with his or her doctor?
Because what you're really talking about here is the legal regulation of speech, private speech no less, and in a situation that most reasonable people would agree should be confidential.
You were the one who implied there should be no law or law enforcement in the doctor/patient relationship (which is a joke in this situation anway--most women in South Dakota only see the doctor a few minutes before the abortion, and some are already under anesthesia when the doc shows up--doctor/patient relationship? Go pull my other leg now).
Have you ever seen the stack of papers and requirements of what doctors and other medical authorities MUST tell patients? It's disingenuous or a flat-out joke to contend that requiring doctors to inform patients about this very serious ramification of abortion is somehow new, odd or improper.
You're arguing that legal regulation of doctor-patient conversations is an established practice. Ok, but the question I asked was whether you think that that should be the case.
Certainly doctors have an obligation to inform their patients of documented medical facts regarding the potential consequences of medical treatments and procedures. The things you refer to are not. For example, it's well documented the abortion-breast cancer link does not exist.
That some women have regrets is understandable, especially with so many people shouting publicly that they murdered their babies.
Sorry, Bob, you don't get to make stuff up, and I really wish you'd consider trying to stop being mean to people.
As it happens, in my town, the offices of the local domestic violence/sexual assault services agency is just down the block from Planned Parenthood. Some of the local "Christians" occupy that corner regularly, with gigantic posters of dismembered fetuses (of dubious accuracy, but that's not my point here).
I support their right to demonstrate, but those posters are a form of violence.
Several times I've tried to talk with these people. I confirmed that they knew that the local DV/SA agency was right there. I've asked whether they have any hesitation or reservations about further traumatizing people who have already been victims of horrific, unwarranted violence.
They said no, they don't.
Post a Comment