Birth control rant - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/16/2012 05:42:04 PM · #226

Originally posted by Nullix:

... When you get a job, make sure they have a health plan that covers it. Don't force me to pay for it.

...and if all things were governed by this flawed reasoning, then I should not have had to pay school taxes till I was 45 since I had no kids, nor should I have had to pay for road as I did not own a car till I was 30, or pay for military expensive as I do not believe in war.

Similarly, I have seen the catholic church milk society like there is no tomorrow and been granted free lands in all of the major cities in Canada.

Get real.

Ray

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/16/2012 05:47:02 PM · #227

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... Right now I haven't heard anything to that effect and so will choose to side with the current status quo defending religious freedom of conscience.

I know you Doc and happen to know for a fact that you are not so dense as to think that any of this has anything to do with religious freedom of conscience.

Tell me that the church does not want to foot the bill and I will be at the walls supporting your views, but to suggest that this has an impact with religious freedoms is blatantly untrue. If it did, then the flock would adhere to the tenets of the church and we would see an explosion in the catholic population.

Rau

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/16/2012 06:00:20 PM · #228

Originally posted by Nullix:

Well, you're talking to someone who doesn't believe you should use birth control no matter what class you are. These are my beliefs.

...and of course you would support the position of the church that condoms should not be used by males in areas of Africa where AIDS is rampant, notwithstanding the fact that it could have a dramatic impact of the spread of the disease... RIGHT?

Ray

02/16/2012 07:15:36 PM · #229

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... Right now I haven't heard anything to that effect and so will choose to side with the current status quo defending religious freedom of conscience.

I know you Doc and happen to know for a fact that you are not so dense as to think that any of this has anything to do with religious freedom of conscience.

Tell me that the church does not want to foot the bill and I will be at the walls supporting your views, but to suggest that this has an impact with religious freedoms is blatantly untrue. If it did, then the flock would adhere to the tenets of the church and we would see an explosion in the catholic population.

Rau

Well Rau, I actually think it does have to do with freedom of conscience. We know it has nothing to do with economics because the economics says its essentially "free". Giving out birth control is cheaper for the insurance company than having to pay for pregnancies so they are quite willing to do it (this is why Obama can easily tweak the order to make insurance companies foot the bill because there is no bill to foot (otherwise you'd see the insurance companies up in arms and we don't see that)).

As far as the flock not adhering I heard one priest say that "99% of the church has lied, but that doesn't make lying not wrong" so it's not a good avenue of argument. We know the Catholic church has a longstanding argument against birth control so I'd take them at their word that this means something to them.

02/16/2012 08:17:09 PM · #230

There may have been a semi-legitimate point to this ruckus several weeks ago (although I wonder why it took the bishops so long to react; my understanding is the rule was promulgated in July 2011), but what possible justification is there now for the continued bleating and yowling since Obama has modified the rule to deal with their concerns?

02/16/2012 08:23:26 PM · #231

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I read it as just extra yapping as a defense against "the next time". We have a long tradition in our country of such stuff. :)

BTW, thanks for the links to those articles. I have only read the first so far, but I thought it was interesting. On the way home I heard this article on NPR which is a good summary.

This debate has been among the more successful in Rantsville (ie. it never degraded too far). Anyway, it's probably run its course.

02/17/2012 02:07:01 AM · #232

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm starting to question why religious organizations should be exempt from the civil laws of the society in which they exist. As mentioned, there are already limits on the practice of religion (polygamy, sacrifice, etc.) -- the question is not of whether a line can be drawn at all, but just where on the continuum between the two extremes it should fall.

I am a pacifist, opposed to war -- a deeply held conviction which is considered the moral equivalent of a religious tenet (as certified by my local board of the Selective Service System), and I experience a crisis of conscience over 20% of my Federal taxes being spent on the military -- so, should I only have to pay 80% of my calculated taxes? (Hint: SCOTUS says no.)

Pacifists that protest get beaten and put in jail. Not coddled like whinny religious babies who freak out over every little perceived slight to their "rights".

I have a marvelous solution in my own life. I don't pay US taxes because I work and live abroad. Not everyone has that option. What CAN we do about not wanting to pay for the war in the US? Nothing. Sit down and shut up. That's the message we get over and over.

But no... these people are "pro life". My @**. While people like Nullix over here are freaking out over a 2% chance that an egg MAY be fertilized, stopping some yet to be hypothetical life, that lot apparently has no problem destroying and killing thousands of people that actually are alive. Our soldiers and those abroad, including civilians.

The blatant blind spot hurts my brain to think about.

02/17/2012 02:52:21 AM · #233

Where are the women on the oversight panel? Petition.

"At a House Oversight Committee hearing, House Republicans convened a panel on denying access to birth control coverage with five men and no women. As Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney asked, where are the women?

Join Leader Pelosi in our call to Speaker Boehner, Eric Cantor, Chairman Issa and all House Republicans to demand that women be brought to the table when discussing women�s health issues. Help us gather 50,000 signatures before Congress heads home tomorrow."

Seriously, no matter where you stand on the issue, can we all agree women should get a say? What year is this?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

02/17/2012 03:03:13 AM · #234

And holy crap you wanna talk about infringing on rights...

Virgina forces women getting abortions to undergo ultrasounds first.

How can you FORCE someone to get an ultrasound?

�Under any other circumstances, forcing an unwilling person to submit to a vaginal probing would be a violation beyond imagining. Requiring a doctor to commit such an act, especially when medically unnecessary, and to submit to an arbitrary waiting period, is to demand an abrogation of medical ethics, if not common decency.�

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/17/2012 10:17:46 AM · #235

Originally posted by escapetooz:

The Doc can speak more to this, but Doctors have to do an ultrasound before preforming an abortion; they need to find where the baby is. They just don't show the woman since it has been found, most women don't follow through with the abortion once they see the ultrasound.

If you think the ultrasound is intrusive, you should read on what happens during an abortion.

02/17/2012 10:22:32 AM · #236

Slate...come on. I seem to see more and more sensationalized stuff coming out of there. Anyway, having never been in on an abortion, I don't know if what Nullix says is true, but it makes sense. You gotta know where the fetus is before you take it out and since, as noted in the article, most abortions are done in the first 12 weeks, a transvaginal ultrasound is probably necessary given the size of the fetus.

Don't go getting new information from Slate. That's probably the takehome.

02/17/2012 10:53:46 AM · #237

Are these 2 choices better doc?

Huffington Post

"During the ultrasound bill debate, Englin offered an amendment requiring a woman's consent to the trans-vaginal ultrasound procedure, which was rejected by the Republican-controlled House. "

Christina Post

Obviously there are slants in each. C'est la news.

My internet isn't working well enough to research abortion procedures at length but I think I could safely assume if a woman was getting an early chemical abortion, an ultrasound would not be necessary and the procedure would not be invasive. The revoking of consent of the woman is crossing the line.

This is reminiscent to me of the mindset of the people that aren't outraged over NDAA. The kind of "I'm not a terrorist so it would never be used on me," attitude. As in, it's ok to break the rules for THOOOOSE people (nevermind that it can and will be used on non-terrorists). Anti-abortion people think it's ok. But what about if there was a rule requiring vaginal exams for all females turning 18 for their own "safety". Would it be over the line then?

If that's not enough then try this scenario on for size. A woman is raped and for whatever reason, shock and trauma, lack of funds, lack of availability, she's too late to use plan B. She goes in for an abortion the second she finds out she's pregnant. Now she's required to have something else probe around inside her after she's just been raped. Sound ok to you?

02/17/2012 11:20:04 AM · #238

Did either of you, Nullix and DrAchoo, actually read the Slate article? It states there that the ultrasound is a medically unnecessary procedure. Did you ever wonder why such a law would be necessary if ultrasounds were already being performed prior to an abortion? Geez. You can find all this information on the Internet, by the way. And, Nullix, you are incorrect about an ultrasound's affect on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

02/17/2012 11:20:57 AM · #239

You are being too emotional about it. If there is medical necessity, then yes, otherwise no. If it's just a ploy and wasted procedure then I'm not going to defend it. If there's reason for it, then there's reason for it no matter who you are or what happened.

Let's not forget if something goes wrong the poor old doctor gets sued so if they have to make sure X,Y, and Z are in order before or after the procedure, what are you going to do?

02/17/2012 11:21:33 AM · #240

Originally posted by escapetooz:

All brought to you by the same folks who favor "smaller government." Hypocrites of the worst kind.

02/17/2012 11:23:16 AM · #241

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Yes, I read it Judith, but I'm saying that I have no confidence in the fact of whether it is or isn't mecially unnecessary given the emotional tone of the article. Maybe it's true. Maybe it isn't.

02/17/2012 11:52:42 AM · #242

Here's the actual bill. Basically it says it's necessary to determine the age of the fetus. It has exceptions for medical emergencies. The woman is not forced to watch and can decline the information provided. There is no mention that the U/S needs to be transvaginal (although it's possible that may be necessary to get an accurate age of the fetus).

The actual bill, of course, sounds much less sensational than the articles.

Mousie

02/17/2012 12:51:34 PM · #243

"The actual bill, of course, sounds much less sensational than the articles."

That's because conservatives are always so darn forthright and detailed when writing their bills. I can't say I've EVER seen a conservative bill that says one thing but is attempting to deliver another. Right.

That's sarcasm, BTW.

I can think of at least one bill about the definition of a word that's actually about anything but. Perhaps you've heard of it?

02/17/2012 12:57:29 PM · #244

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Take another look at the requirements in that bill. Gestational age is just one. The others are fetal heart tone, dimensions of the fetus, an accurate portrayal of the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus. It's my understanding that the information required by this bill cannot be accurately obtained from an external ultrasound when the fetus is extremely small. And in any event, it's not necessary to have that information to perform an abortion. There are other methods of determining age of the fetus, by the way, that may not be accurate down to the day but that can come fairly close. So if it's medically necessary to determine age of the fetus, there are other ways to do it.

02/17/2012 01:00:58 PM · #245

Here is a NY Times article about how ultrasound does not change women's minds about having an abortion.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/17/2012 01:02:22 PM · #246

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here's the actual bill. Basically it says it's necessary to determine the age of the fetus. It has exceptions for medical emergencies. The woman is not forced to watch and can decline the information provided. There is no mention that the U/S needs to be transvaginal (although it's possible that may be necessary to get an accurate age of the fetus).

The actual bill, of course, sounds much less sensational than the articles.

Take another look at the requirements in that bill. Gestational age is just one. The others are fetal heart tone, dimensions of the fetus, an accurate portrayal of the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus. It's my understanding that the information required by this bill cannot be accurately obtained from an external ultrasound when the fetus is extremely small. And in any event, it's not necessary to have that information to perform an abortion. There are other methods of determining age of the fetus, by the way, that may not be accurate down to the day but that can come fairly close. So if it's medically necessary to determine age of the fetus, there are other ways to do it.

I can't think of another way. All those measurements and assertations would contribute to determining the age of the fetus unless you just want to go by LMP (but of course that could be wrong or unknown or fabricated).

Message edited by author 2012-02-17 13:03:22.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

02/17/2012 01:51:26 PM · #247

According to the article on elective abortion at eMedicine/MedScape an ultrasound may well be part of a "routine" workup, although if it is quite early (say < 8 weeks) date of the LMP and a quantitative HCG test should be enough to establish gestational age. A few points from the article:

� Medical termination of pregnancy with mifepristone was approved in the United States in 2000 and is used in 31 countries worldwide. Approximately half of all abortions are performed with this method.

� More than 40% of all women will end a pregnancy by abortion at some time in their reproductive lives. Based on estimated lifetime risk, each American woman is expected to have 3.2 pregnancies, of which 2 will be a live birth, 0.7 will be an induced abortion, and 0.5 will be a miscarriage. Using 1996 data, this translates into 3.89 million live births, 1.37 million abortions, and 0.98 million miscarriages.

� The pregnancy-associated mortality rate in the United States from 1998-2005 among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion, and overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

� Worldwide, some 20-30 million legal abortions are performed annually, with another 10-20 million abortions performed illegally (see The Alan Guttmacher Institute). Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all maternal mortality and serious complications. Death from abortion is almost unknown in the United States or in other countries where abortion is legally available.

� Abortion has been found to be significantly safer than carrying pregnancy to term. Terminating a pregnancy avoids the consequences of most cases of pregnancy-induced or associated hypertension and the major operative morbidity of cesarean delivery. Counseling regarding the risks and benefits has become a complex, controversial and, in some cases, outside the norm for medical procedures. The state of Texas currently requires the mandatory use of a pamphlet that must be presented to patients; the pamphlet specifically cites many more complications of surgical and medical abortion versus childbirth, in direct contrast to existing data.

ETA: But, here we should be talking about contraception, not abortion:

Originally posted by Cited Article:

� In spite of the introduction of newer, more effective, and more widely available contraceptive methods, more than half of the 6 million pregnancies occurring each year in the United States are considered unplanned by the women who are pregnant. Of these pregnancies, approximately half end in elective terminations.

So, restricting access to contraception will in all likelihood lead to an increase in either abortion or maternal deaths ...

Message edited by author 2012-02-17 13:56:13.