posted on July 10, 2013 16:23
The other morning there was a picture on the front page of the News and Observer of a hundred angry women, every one of them mad as blazes, carrying signs, shaking fists and chanting, ‘Shame, shame, shame’ at Republican Senators who’d just passed a new abortion bill (that required abortion centers to meet the same standards as outpatient surgery centers).
Looking at those ladies’ faces no one could have a single doubt they were sincere.
But, at the same time, a lot of the folks who are against putting more regulations on abortion doctors favor more regulations to protect the ozone, prevent global warming, stop the seas from rising and on just about everything else.
Now, of course, I know the ladies will say the Senate bill was just a backdoor way to limit abortion – and they have a point. Gary hit the same point so strongly in his blog (“Where do you Stand, Pat?”) he gave me the political tremors. But, still, it’s odd for folks to believe there’s hardly a creature walking or breathing or moving that couldn’t benefit from a little more government regulation – except abortion doctors.
Thursday, July 11, 2013 8:30 AM
Point taken, but the key here is intent. Does anyone really believe that the intent of this legislation is to make abortions safer? No. It is to make legal abortions less common, by making access to them more difficult. The result will be to increase the number of illegal abortions, which are inherently less safe. We've seen this movie, and the ending is dreadful.
Friday, July 12, 2013 12:29 PM
Government is not good at doing much of anything. Carter makes a great point that regulation is welcome when the left gets their restrictions on how much soda I can drink at one time, but hands off abortion. A clear case of who's ox is being gored.
Sunday, July 14, 2013 6:19 PM
From what I'm reading about this abortion bill, it is about making sure there is a doctor present during an entire abortion procedure and I believe it limits how many weeks into pregnancy a woman can be before she can elect to have an abortion.
I'm a "pro-choice" advocate...but I'm also anti-abortion. Odd, I know, but it just means that I believe that a woman has to make the decision to have (or not to have) an abortion based on her beliefs but I would never want my wife to have an abortion or would I ever want one of my children to abort one of my grands. Also, I am like Jesse Helms on abortion in that I believe as he did that abortion in the case of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger should be justifiable with exceptions. Odd beliefs, I know...but, I'm honest enough to tell them here. Now, saying that, what is the problem asking there to be a Dr. present during an entire abortion procedure? I mean, c'mon, guys. How is this limiting a woman's ability to get an abortion? And, anyone...ANY HUMAN....that sees what a 21-week fetus looks like and still believes that aborting it is totally heartless and a complete and total idiot. Anyone that says that's just "tissue" should have their head examined!! It is why abortion advocates have fought vehemently against showing women that are considering abortion photos of fetuses at certain stages of pregnancy.
So, all the anxiety and rhetoric and spin that is being put out there by the left and the "women's rights" organizations and so forth is really overblown. But, it should be expected considering the source. This bill is good law. And, I agree with Carter, why is it that the left is so against limiting government but when the right decides to extend government, they are against that also? They're so silly !
Monday, July 15, 2013 10:25 AM
Again, the key is the intent of this bill's provisions. The 20 week limit is a red herring, since the vast, vast majority of abortions are performed far earlier. But that number is what partially informed people are focusing on, so their response is: 'seems rational to me'. They completely miss the other provisions of the bill whose intent is to make legal (and thus safe) abortion less available, by closing centers, etc. Like dap916, I'm anti-abortion, but as a pro-choice advocate, I accept that the choice is not mine to make for someone else. And the doctor presence requirement is not about safety, it's about tying up a limited number of physicians unnecessarily, thus restricting their ability to see other patients. Imagine if your dentist had to supervise your dental hygienist. Get the point?