First, I will quote portion of the article being discussed, then I shall include Jack's comments followed by my response.
1. Making women carry still-born fetuses to full term because cows and pigs do. This week, Mr England, you supported a bill, the net effect of which, taken tandem with other restrictions, will result in doctors and women being unable to make private, medically-based, critical care decisions and some women being effectively forced to carry their dead or dying fetuses. Women are different from farm animals, Mr. England, and this bill, requiring a woman to carry a dead or dying fetus is inhumane and unethical. By forcing a woman to do this, you are violating her right not to be subjected to inhuman treatment and tortured. And, yes, involuntarily carrying a dead fetus to term, although not torture to you or to a pig, is torture for a woman. It is also a violation of her bodily integrity and a threat to her life and as such violates her right to life.
Jack wrote:This is article is full of lies and misleading garbage.
#1, don't really know how true this one is. The source quoted says largely the same things this author does. If it is true, then that is a crap law and needs to be amended. But I doubt the veracity of this story.
Firstly. Here is the original statement by that Georgian Representative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEfVLPWPvwAnd a link to the changes made in the bill (HB954) which was soon-after passed by the Georgia legislature.
http://www1.legis.ga.gov/legis/2011_12/ ... /hb954.htmWhat it sums up is that an abortion may not occur after 20 weeks unless it is a "medical emergency". Legally defined as any medical reason which may cause the death or permanent disability of the mother or the death of an unborn child (like a twin).
What I doubt is that Soraya Chemaly (the author of the original article) read through the legal document of the bill before becoming angry and blasting it in her article. However, she is correct in that this bill does not allow for the abortion of a dead fetus unless it meets one of the "medical emergency" requirements. So yes, they are saying a woman will be forced to carry a dead fetus until miscarriage unless it's going to kill/disable her. The woman is also unable to abort the fetus if informed the child will not live long after birth and will need to birth the dying baby knowing it will only live a few short moments/hours.
If a woman induces an abortion through any medical, chemical, or physical means after the fetus is 20 weeks old, she will go to prison for 1-10 years. That is a pretty broad range. My bet is it will pretty much always be a standard 10 year sentence.
2. Consigning women to death to save a fetus. Abortions save women's lives. "Let women die" bills are happening all over the country. There is no simple or pretty way to put this. Every day, all over the world, women die because they do not have access to safe abortions. Yet, here we are, returning to the dark ages of maternal sacrifice. Do really have to type this sentence: this is a violation of women's fundamental right to life.
Jack wrote:#2 The author attempts to make it appear as though the laws prohibit abortions in life or death situations, where really what she references are women that die from ILLEGAL abortions. Sorry, but I have zero sympathy for someone that is killed while doing something illegal. Perhaps we should create a law providing body armor to all home invaders so as to reduce their chance of death as well.
Actually, what she is referring to are laws which prohibit medical coverage in health care plans for abortions if their health care coverage provider receives any funds from the government in any way/shape/form, be it medical premiums paid by an employer which receives government funds (like in a state/federal contract) or funding for a different program provided by the same provider. Essentially saying Planned Parenthood can't perform abortions and still get federal funding. (See the US House Bill here:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr358/text as an example). The same bill also prevents entities like the Catholic Church to be discriminated against for not providing abortions.
Thus, women will seek abortions where they can. Typically at much higher cost with much less competence on the part of the doctors performing the abortion. More of them will die than they would without these bills being enacted all over the country (each with their own provisions; I only examined the federal bill).
3. Criminalizing pregnancy and miscarriages and arresting, imprisoning and charging women who miscarry with murder, like Rennie Gibbs in Mississippi or at least 40 other similar cases in Alabama or like Bei Bei Shuai, a woman who is now imprisoned, is charged with murder after trying to commit suicide while pregnant. Pregnant women are becoming a special class subject to "special" laws that infringe on their fundamental rights.
Jack wrote:#3 Here the author opens her statement by claiming that women are being arrested for the heinous crime of a miscarriage. What the author fails to mention, is that the woman was a coke addict at the time of her pregnancy. Last I checked, negligence was still a crime. It would seem as though the author desires to carve out an exception in negligence laws granting women immunity. Talk about creating a special class.
There is no proof that Rennie Gibbs's drug addiction caused the death of the fetus. Many "drug babies" are born each year (I can't be bothered to find a statistic right now). Bei Bei Shuai is being tried for murder for trying to commit suicide by eating rat poison after her lover told her he was not only leaving her with his wife and kids, but moving out of state. The fetus died 8 days later, but the woman survived. Another woman, Amanda Kimbrough is serving 10 years because her baby died 19 minutes after a premature c-section. She was informed during her pregnancy the child would be born with Downs Syndrome and it was suggested she terminate pregnancy, but she doesn't believe in abortion and chose to have the child. Six months later she is arrested for "chemical endangerment" for allegedly taking drugs while pregnant, which she claims never happened.
These three cases are just a few of hundreds sweeping across the US. There are over 40 others facing the same charges as Amanda Kimbrough in Alabama alone. I personally disagree with the notion that if you attempt suicide and fail but the baby dies you should be tried for murder. She was already suicidal, save the tax payers some money and just let her kill herself. But seriously....this kind of legislation is yet another drain on our tax dollars. There is such a thing as negligence, but I think this is getting out of hand.
4. Forcing women to undergo involuntary vaginal penetration (otherwise called rape) with a condom-covered, six- to eight-inch ultrasound probe. Pennsylvania is currently considering that option along with 11 other states. Trans-vaginal ultrasounds undertaken without a woman's consent are rape according to the legal definition of the word. This violates a woman's bodily integrity and also constitutes torture when used, as states are suggesting, as a form of control and oppression. Women have the right not to be raped by the state.
Jack wrote:#4 Involuntary my ass. They are given a choice, no one is holding a gun to their head and forcing them to have an abortion. Unless this law also applies to abortions that are medically necessary. In which case, the law is utter crap and needs to be amended. But again, I seriously doubt that.
The law not only applies to all abortions, but is also applied to miscarriages and stillborns. Any woman who wishes or needs to abort a fetus for any reason is required to have an ultrasound at least 24 hrs before the abortion. Because these determinations are done so early in a pregnancy, they use a trans-vaginal ultrasound wand-thing. Basically the 6-8 inch probe the article author mentioned shoved all the way up the vagina and pressed against the base of the uterus. Now, guys don't have to experience this, but just getting tested for cancer/disease causes a lot of pain and discomfort. I won't get into details, but it can hurt some women and even cause bleeding.
5. Disabling women or sacrificing their lives by either withholding medical treatment or forcing women to undergo involuntary medical procedures. We impose an unequal obligation on women to sacrifice their bodily integrity for another. For example, as in Tysiac v. Poland, in which a mother of two, became blind after her doctor refused to perform an abortion that she wanted that would have halted the course of a degenerative eye disease. If my newborn baby is in need of a kidney and you have a spare matching one, can I enact legislation that says the state can take yours and give it to her? No. We do not force people to donate their organs to benefit others, even those who have already been born. One of the most fundamental of all human rights is that humans be treated equally before the law. Denying a woman this right is a violation of her equal right to this protection.
Jack wrote:#5 This one is a little different. In one hand, if it were my wife, the decision would be hers. However, the argument you gave for it can easily be flipped around. So it's a stupid point to make.
First off, the article author is using a case involving the country of Poland vs. a Polish citizen. Secondly, the court found Poland to be in the wrong for not providing her with legal access to an abortion to stop the eye disease from getting worse.
Secondly, most every abortion law I have read allows for abortion in cases which can cause physical disability or harm to the mother.
6. Giving zygotes "personhood" rights while systematically stripping women of their fundamental rights. There is too much to say about the danger of personhood ideas creeping into health policy to do it here. But, consider what happens to a woman whose womb is not considered the "best" environment for a gestating fetus in a world of personhood-for-zygote legislation: who decides the best environment -- the state, her insurance company, her employer, her rapist who decides he really, really wants to be a father? Anyone but a woman.
Jack wrote:#6 is little more than fear mongering based on conjecture founded on theoretical technology. It also, even if indirectly, argues against the development of new, life saving technology. Again, basing the opinion on conjecture founded on theoretical technology that is still long ways off. Further, the author pits women against men. Something she's really been doing this whole time, but this instance is the most hypocritical. The author wants the right to abortion, but wants to deny the right of the father to keep the child. It would seem to me that this is a great middle ground solution. The mother no longer has to be pregnant, and the father gets to keep their child. Reproduction rights have been all about the women, and have completely ignored the fact that it takes two to reproduce. Should there not be equal rights?
I believe the concern addressed here, though I may be misinterpreting it, is that a mother will become obsolete with the introduction of artificial wombs. I see no problems with it as an alternative to abortion, but I do believe what the author is speculating is legal proceedings where a father can take a pregnant woman to court and say she, "she is not ___ enough to carry this child" and have a court ordered artificial womb to which the zygote should be transplanted. It takes away the naturalness to reproduction. A couple can chose to have twins, triplets, two completely different children at a time, whatever with some money and biological samples. In vitro fertilization is one thing, but allowing such a process to take over (which could very well happen in 100 years) is disconcerting to the author. I'd probably be more against it if I had/wanted kids. But it's a great alternative to give men kids without forcing their rights on women.
7. Inhibiting, humiliating and punishing women for their choices to have an abortion for any reason by levying taxes specifically on abortion, including abortions sought by rape victims to end their involuntary insemination, imposing restrictive requirements like 24 hour wait periods and empowering doctors to lie to female patients about their fetuses in order to avoid prosecution. In Arizona, Kansas, Texas, Virginia, Colorado, Arkansas and other states around the country bills that make women "pay" for their choices are abounding.
Jack wrote:#7 I don't have much to say here. 24hrs wont kill you, but in the event that it could, then it obviously shouldn't be required and probably isn't.
This discusses the laws which do multiple things. 1) Stop tax breaks for organizations which provide abortions. 2) Require the mother to hear the fetal heartbeat before aborting. 3) Mandates doctors inform the women of a potential risk of breast cancer from abortion (a connection heath professionals say does not exist). 4) Protect doctors from malpractice suits for lying to a patient during pregnancy. This includes withholding birth defects, potential problems or disease, and anything that may incite the woman to want to terminate the pregnancy (which really sucks for those who want to have the baby and doesn't find out about the problems until after birth). It also allows them to do things like tell them it will cause X disease/side effect, even if it does not.
Personally, I dislike the idea of a doctor being able to lie to me about a medical condition I may have. If you can't trust your doctor to tell you the truth (you're fat, you've got a bad heart, that leg has to go, your kid may be born blind, whatever), who can you trust to give it to you straight?
8. Allowing employers to delve into women's private lives and only pay for insurance when they agree, for religious reasons, with how she choses to use birth control. In Arizona, which introduced such a bill this week, this means covering payment for birth control as a benefit only when a woman has proven that she will not use it to control her own reproduction (ie. as birth control). As much as I am worried about women and families in Arizona though, I am more worried about those in Alabama. You see, as recently revealed in a public policy poll in Alabama, conservative, evangelicals who support "personhood" related "pro-life" legislation and are fighting for their "religious liberty" -- 21 percent think interracial marriage should be illegal. So, what if they decide that an employee involved in an interracial marriage should not, by divine mandate, reproduce? Do they switch and provide birth control for this employee? Do they make contraception a necessary term of employment for people in interracial marriages? This violates a woman's right to privacy. My womb is one million times more private than your bedrooms, gentlemen.
Jack wrote:#8 is more of an employer vs employee rights issue, not so much an abortion issue. I strongly support the 2nd amendment and constitutional carry movements, but I would say the same thing if the topic was whether or not an employer could prohibit their employees from carrying.
Actually, it's a privacy issue. An employee who must inform their employer as to why they are taking a specific medication is having their privacy violated. If I'm on anti-depressants, the pill, or any other prescription medication, it is no my employer's business, whether they help pay for my health care or not. They should also not be informed of why I was admitted to the emergency room over the weekend, or which doctor I see. These are details which are not any of their business.
The jab at evangelicals in Alabama being against interracial marriages is simply a cheap shot at Republicans and has no relation to this article aside from that.
9. Sacrificing women's overall health and the well-being of their families in order to stop them from exercising their fundamental human right to control their own bodies and reproduction. Texas just did that when it turned down $35million dollars in federal funds thereby ensuring that 300,000 low-income and uninsured Texas women will have no or greatly-reduced access to basic preventive and reproductive health care.
Jack wrote:#9 Like #8, is not an abortion issue. It's a state vs fed issue. Texas rejects a lot of federal aid, not just health related.
True. The author is simply bitter that a side effect of rejecting that money will affect the health care of low-income and uninsured citizens. She brings up preventative health care (such as vaccines and checkups) as well as the reproductive health care she has been arguing throughout the article. Yes, the poor don't get near as much as the rich. That's the crappy thing about being poor. That we have poor, starving, homeless, unhealthy individuals who can't get what they need only proves this country is not the utopia everyone wishes to believe.
10. Depriving women of their ability to earn a living and support themselves and their families. Bills, like this one in Arizona, allow employers to fire women for using contraception. Women like these are being fired for not.
Jack wrote:#10 see #8.
Again, I argue an employer need not know the reasons behind personal prescriptions, including birth control. The mere fact our state and federal governments would even consider passing a law which allows employers to fire employees for using prescriptions like contraception (and who knows what else) is idiotic. How is that not an invasion of privacy?
Those women who are being fired for being pregnant are simply not protected from discrimination in the workplace. They aren't disabled so the Americans with Disabilities Act does not apply. This means that pregnant women who ask for accommodations like additional bathroom breaks, a chair, or help preforming their normal duties can be fired without the employer batting an eye. There are no legal repercussions against the employer for firing a pregnant woman. I think they should be allowed to fire pregnant women, but only if the cause is due to provable poor performance that is unrelated to her pregnancy.
NOTE: As I said in IM, Jack. I never stated I supported or agreed with this article and all of its contents. I merely shared it on Facebook.
![Brick wall ](*,)](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif)
Lesson learned.
PS: Given the fact that I've spent far too long on this reply. Any spelling errors or blonde moments are not my fault and should be given leniency (pretty please).