The executive order on abortion does not consider the health of a woman

[madfloridian]

as a good reason for an abortion to be covered and funded.

The only reasons given in the executive order signed by President Obama on March 24, 2010, are rape, incest, or when the life of the woman may be endangered.

From the White House website:

Executive Order -- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Consistency with Longstanding Restrictions on the Use of Federal Funds for Abortion...Section 1

Section. 1. Policy. Following the recent enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the "Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this order is to establish a comprehensive, Government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors -- Federal officials, State officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers -- are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

No exception for the health of the woman. That is not a good thing. There are many problems that can arise in which a woman might not want to risk a pregnancy, but there will be no exceptions for her health. There is nothing to indicate that a doctor and his patient can make a decision based on the woman's health.

Conservative Democrats and Republicans have said that allowing the health exemption gives too much leeway and would allow for too many abortions.

Many Democrats voted for the partial birth abortion ban in 2003, otherwise known as a late term abortion.

Harold Ford

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life.
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003

Tom Carper:

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life.
S. 3 As Amended; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. Those who performed this procedure would then face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable. This bill would make the exception for cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger.

Also voting for the so-called "partial birth abortion" ban were other Democrats. The bill did not allow for a woman's health to be considered. Just a life or death situation.

In the Senate:

John Breaux, Harry Byrd, Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle, Byron Dorgan, Fritz Hollings, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Patrick Leahy, Blanche Lincoln, Miller (GA), Ben Nelson, Pryor AK, Harry Reid.

Not voting.
John Edwards, John Kerry, Joe Biden.

Another thing to consider about setting such limits on women's rights. One woman experienced a terrible thing at the hands of the insurance company.

Insurance tells woman her life was not in danger, demands repayment

Her voice breaking, D.J. Feldman, a Washington, D.C. federal employee, recently spoke to the press about her struggles with her insurance company after she aborted a much-desired pregnancy because of a fetal diagnosis of anencephaly (the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp). The insurance would only cover abortion in the case of rape, incest or a threat to her life, so the fact that if Feldman had continued the pregnancy, it would have been both physically and emotionally grueling—resulting either in a fetal demise, a stillbirth, or a live birth of a newborn who would quickly die—had no effect on the insurance company’s decision.

The primary culprit in this situation is not really Feldman’s insurance carrier, however, but the U.S. Congress. For decades it has imposed such unconscionable restrictions on abortion coverage for federal employees, as well as on women in the military, Native Americans using government provided health facilities and women on Medicaid in a majority of states.

The bill Tom Daschle offered in 1997 is a perfect example of the controlling way in which women have been treated.

"We believe the Daschle approach is unconstitutional, as is the Republican ban that denies a woman the right to an abortion to preserve her health -- a right that Roe v. Wade and other cases have consistently protected," Gandy said.

"Daschle's so-called compromise bill, as quoted in the New York Times, permits an exception to the ban for `a severely debilitating disease or impairment specifically caused by the pregnancy (emphasis added),' but makes no provision for a pre-existing, life- and health-threatening `debilitating disease or impairment' that is being exacerbated by the pregnancy. This could include kidney disease, severe hypertension and some cancers. Nor does the Daschle bill allow for an abortion in cases of severe fetal abnormality where it is unlikely the fetus would live long outside the womb, even with technological support.

"The physician certification requirement and the potential loss of a medical license in the Daschle language invites government scrutiny of private medical matters and threatens doctor-patient confidentiality

Consider the wording of that, the harm that could be done when such decisions are taken from a woman and her doctor and put into the hands of politicians.

On edit: The executive order extended the Hyde amendment to the new health care bill. It just seemed surprising for Democrats to do it.

[cali]

1. that exec order changed exactly nothing.

[boston bean]

35. That's the problem! nt

[NYC_SKP]

2. What do you propose should be done about this?

Does Congress have the will to pass some additional legislation to expand the protection to include the health of the mother?

Should it be tackled state by state?

What can be done?

:shrug:

[Eg-ptiangirl]

3. Why is abortion so important issue in your country?

It is very personal.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Indeed, it should be very personal.

I can't speak for the 307,000,000 others here, but I think it's the fact that government often seeks to interfere with that very privacy that you and I expect we should enjoy.

Pro-choice advocates argue that it's a private matter between patient and health care provider.

Others would prefer that the government control womens' decision's in these matter or prevent them from maintaining that privacy.

x(

[midnight]

75. Republican's like govt. control over women, but not the banks?

[cali]

5. I can't explain it any better than Skip

for myself, as a woman, I'll simply say it's my body and I'm the only one who has the right to decide whether to bring a pregnancy to term.

[katandmoon]

6. Because the Puritans came here.

[madfloridian]

7. It should be very personal.

I would say politicians got their priorities out of order. It should be a personal thing.

[ehrnst]

11. Because it concerns a woman's ability to have sex

without the negative consequence of unwanted pregnancy.

We have a puritan ethic in this country that astounds the rest of the civilized world.

[cstanleytech]

23. Are you saying women need abortion to be legal because it eases the consequences?

If so i am not buying that at all since there are other means of preventing a pregnancy thus a women can indeed have sex, there is nothing puritan about that at all.
Now for me, I personally don't usually oppose a women seeking a voluntary abortion though I am hesitant over late term ones unless the mothers life is at risk but otherwise its a womens choice to make for the most part.

[madfloridian]

24. It is not your choice to make. Men have taken it on themselves....

to decide women's rights issues.

It is judgmental of men to decide what only a doctor and a woman should be deciding.

[LeftyMom]

26. I don't know if this is news to you, but birth control methods all have a failure rate.

Which means that, even if they are used perfectly every time, some women will get pregnant anyhow.

Also, not all pregnancies, whether they are wanted or not, will proceed healthfully to term.

[cstanleytech]

31. Yes, I am aware of all of that and i stated also its a womens choice for the most part.

I just personally dont think its wise to think of abortion as a means of birth control since there are other ways to achieve that but thats just my opinion.

[ehrnst]

45. Abortion *is* birth control. I think you mean to say "instead of contraception."

And there is no evidence that women plan to have multiple abortions instead of using contraception, simply because abortion is legal.

And no, not using contraception when you think that you can't or won't get pregnant is not the same as planning to use abortion instead of contraception.

[LeftyMom]

49. This "abortion as birth control" meme assumes that women get pregnant on purpose or through laziness

It is an anti-woman, anti-choice talking point designed to give the impression that women who choose abortion are callous, uncaring and acting on a whim, and thus that abortion is not a reasonable response to a legitimate medical need women have. It is, quite simply, complete fucking bullshit.

First of all, there's no reason to believe that women who have other options use abortion as their primary method of birth control. Why on earth would they? Even if medical professionals would go along with this, abortion (whether medical or surgical) is comparatively difficult, expensive and time consuming. Actually preventing pregnancy is preferable in every way.

Please do not post ill-considered misogynist nonsense on DU. Thanks.

[FreedomRain]

69. just the sort

that do not need to be mothers, after all.

[ehrnst]

74. PLs will argue that such women can "just" have the baby and give it away

Because there are nice white childless Christian couples out there that in need of infants.

PLs separate the fetus from the woman, and the woman from the impact of childbearing. In order to do this, they diminish the woman to incubator, and childbearing to "a change in location of the baby."

[awoke_in_2003]

81. not only is that meme anti-woman...

it is also right wing in origin.

[LeftyMom]

27. I don't know if this is news to you, but birth control methods all have a failure rate.

Which means that, even if they are used perfectly every time, some women will get pregnant anyhow.

Also, not all pregnancies, whether they are wanted or not, will proceed healthfully to term.

[laughingliberal]

41. There are really only 3 reasons a late term abortion is ever performed

If the life or health (far reaching, negative effects) of the mother is at risk or the fetus is grossly abnormal. Most of the cases of late term abortions for fetal abnormality involve anencephaly. Two examples where the health of the mother could be permanently damaged are when kidney damage is occuring (often due to toxemia where blood pressure is dangerously high), a rapidly advancing cancer which can not be treated while she is pregnant.

Late term abortions are almost always a tragedy involving a wanted child and it is almost always a grueling choice for the family which involves choosing between several very bad options.

The idea that women carry a pregnancy into this stage and then change their mind is somewhat ludicrous and is promoted by the anti-choice zealots. It is equally laughable to think there are doctors who perform this procedure without a serious reason.

And, yes, a large part of the anti-choice movement is about making sure women don't achieve control over their reproductive health. Many of the same forces also target birth control, although they are not as vocal about this as it will be their next step after getting abortion outlawed. We live in a country where insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control pills. There are 2 forces behind this. One is the puritanical idea that sex should only be for procreation-that women should not be allowed to enjoy sex unless there is the possibility of pregnancy. The other is an economic force designed to make sure there is always a glut of workers thereby keeping wages cheap. In countries where women achieve control over their reproductive health population growth slows and labor winds up at a premium, thereby, creating demand and driving wages up.

[defendandprotect]

59. Bravo--!!! Should be required reading -- K&R . . .

[awoke_in_2003]

82. +1000. nt

[ehrnst]

44. Women need abortion to be legal in order to avoid death from illegal abortion

I should have stated that PLs want the negative consequence of unwanted *childbirth* as a deterrent to sex.

Many also oppose contraception for the same reason. Not to mention those that oppose the vaccination that helps prevent HPV.

Also - the notion that women have impulsive abortions post 22 weeks, or take very long to decide to have an abortion after they find out that they are pregnant is a myth (PLs have done a great job of convincing people that pregnant women are apt to suddenly decide to end a healthy late term pregnancy after months of being fine with it, and laws are needed NOW to keep these women pregnant....)

You might as well say that you are "hesitant" about people being allowed to have that a limb be amputated, unless the person's life is at risk. There is no need to tie physician's hands with legislation - they know how to deal with the very few that would actually demand either a post 22 week healthy pregnancy (that was known about) or someone demanding a healthy limb be cut off.

Also - how about the woman who discovers that her 5.5 mo. old fetus has no brain, and will die within hours of birth? The pregnancy does not endanger her health. Do you still think that she should forced to carry to term?

[defendandprotect]

61. Nice post . . . and this is the stuff too rarely heard -- !!

[cstanleytech]

72. I've not been saying otherwise but thanks for posting.

[defendandprotect]

16. Because the majority of the people on the planet are female . . .

including in US --

and because we are a majority with minority rights ...

[Mithreal]

30. +1

[lark]

55. America is a nanny state

with the authorities trying to control and enforce their version of morality.

[femrap]

67. Because it controls the

destinies of women. Women aren't free if they can't control their bodies. Compulsory motherhood is how patriarchy keeps women busy and poor.

[lark]

54. Yes, Congress should absolutely pass a bill

that allows abortions for the health of the mother or when the fetus is non-viabale.

It seems totally crazy to me that so many teacrazies and wingnuts are calling Obama socialist, when he's not very far left of GWB. When it comes to military issues, meet the new guy, same as the old guy. In any other country, he would be center right.

[madfloridian]

8. 14 Pro-choice Dems attended the quietly done signing.

Unlike the healthcare bill signing that was held in front of a swath of lawmakers, television cameras and other media Tuesday, the order signing is closed to the press. But 14 anti-abortion rights Democrats who supported the healthcare bill have been invited to the signing.

Here is a list of them:

Sen. Bob Casey (Pa.)
Rep. Bart Stupak (Mich.)
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Rep. Nick Rahall (W.Va.)
Rep. Jerry Costello (Ill.)
Rep. Chris Carney (Pa.)
Rep. Steve Driehaus (Ohio)
Rep. Charlie Wilson (Ohio)
Rep. Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
Rep. Alan Mollohan (W.Va.)
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (Ind.)
Rep. Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Rep. Mike Doyle (Pa.)

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88725-obama-will-sign-stupak-executive-order-on-abortion-wednesday



Stupak front and near the center, as this was all about him.

[n.michigan]

15. Gag me. Neo-Romans mascarading as representatives of the people (WOMEN).

Cheap, unprincipled and hypocritical asses all.

[defendandprotect]

17. Marcy Kaptur should be ashamed . . . . and I like her most times . .!!

We should be targeting these Dems and replacing them with more liberal Dems --

[lark]

56. Payback for their votes?

[madfloridian]

9. Achieved at the expense of women.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/24/AR2010032403128.html?hpid=topnews

"President Obama, who quietly signed an executive order Wednesday reaffirming that no federal funds can be used for abortion, is facing fury from a core part of his constituency: women's advocates.

.."The White House agreement to issue the order to reassure some antiabortion Democrats about the health-care legislation has stunned and infuriated many women's groups and abortion rights advocates.

"Women elected him," said Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women. "He campaigned as a pro-choice president. We wished he would storm the ramparts for every one of our issues. It really pains me to conclude that on balance this law is not good for women. It's health reform that has been achieved on the backs of women and at the expense of women."

Frankly I have seen little fury on this. Women seem quite accepting overall.

[madfloridian]

10. TN will try to ban abortions coverage. They claim exec order not enough.

They want to make very sure that there are no loopholes that will allow women to get an abortion paid for.

http://wpln.org/?p=16550

"The state House of Representatives passed the bill Monday, banning any use of state government funds to pay for an abortion. Now the Senate companion bill has cleared the Senate Commerce Committee on a unanimous vote.

One argument against the state bill has been that President Barack Obama signed an executive order barring abortion funding under the federal health care reform. But Gallatin Republican Diane Black, who’s sponsoring the state measure, says the executive order is just a statement, not a law.

“That’s what people think, that that is the case, that if the president writes an executive order that, that will be the same as having something in statute, and we all know that that is not so.”

The bill could go to the Senate floor as early as Monday.

The federal health care law has a specific provision that allows states to pass language barring funding for elective abortions."

Seems like Bush's exec orders were considered the law.

[ehrnst]

12. Of course not. Women's reproductive health has always been a card to be played.

The universal response by those that play the card is, "Keep your knees together, and you won't need to worry about it."

[WinkyDink]

13. If abortion is murder, as anti-choicers claim, then the "rape or incest" exceptions allow murder.

I cannot figure what Obama might think is logical about the exceptions.

Just allow the funding and stop the continual punishment of poor women.

[McCamy Taylor]

14. If the woman had carried her anacephalic to term, her insurance would have refused to cover

its NICU care. The message is "do not get pregnant on our insurance".

[laughingliberal]

42. +1000

and most don't cover birth control so don't have sex, either.

[defendandprotect]

62. + another 1000% --

[unabelladonna]

18. HYPOCRITES.

you can bet that if the daughter/wife/girlfriend/mother sister/aunt/niece of these turds had an unwanted or embarrassing pregnancy they would and could have an abortion.
wouldn't it be interesting to know?

[flyarm]

19. Does this Exec order mean , if you as the Preg mother have cancer, insurance does not have to pay

for an abortion ..even if it puts the mothers health and life at risk??????

If it does, then we know exactly what kind democratic principles have been sold out !! It leaves nothing to doubt..if it doesn't ,well it still stinks..and is against everything I have ever fought for or think of as a principle of the democratic party.

I dislike this completely.

[elleng]

20. FYI,

'The original measure made no exceptions for cases of pregnancies that were the result of rape or incest or that threatened the life of the pregnant woman, provoking an outcry from women's rights advocates. As a result, beginning in 1977 language was added to provide for such circumstances; however, the exact wording has varied from one year to the next, subject to the outcome of Congressional bargaining on the issue.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

[riderinthestorm]

21. Exactly. I've brought this up several times: what effect does Obama's executive order have on Hyde?

Nobody seems to have a legal answer.

Lots of opinions. Lots of emphatic "nothing's changed!!!111!!11" rhetoric. Lots of defensiveness and accusations that this is some kind of "red herring".

But in abortion politics and abortion law, Hyde is deeply troubling and enormously important since every year it MUST be addressed.

Does Obama's Executive Order now mean Hyde is permanent? Enshrined without the legalese of "health of the woman"?

It matters. A lot.

[truedelphi]

22. As far as I can tell, it seems to mean that Hyde is enshrined.

And about the only way that I think we can undo the Hyde Amendment is to insist - okay, we lost. No abortion except in those limited circumstances.

Never ever ever. And so MR R.W. Christian American, you damn well better clean up your paper mill factory - so that women working there don't find out that they are not infertile - but that for the entire time they worked for you, they were having pregnancies that miscarried early on due to toxins in your workplace.

And in your semi- conductor clean rooms, Mr R.W. billionaire Republican and anti abortionist, let's see you clean up the air in those places so women who think they are infertile and then come to find out that no, it was just too dangerous for their pregnancies for them to be inside that work environment.

In other words, beat them at their own game. Make them suck up to the reality that this whole thing of "Abortion is evil that God will not tolerate!" is not a real belief of theirs at all - at least not if it affects the profits of their corporations. It is only when some one not working on the floor of one of their companies who chooses to have an abortion that you RW nutcases consider it a sin. When it is a pregnancy that early on terminates due to the pollution your work environment allows, you RW creeps don't mind it at all!

[marshall]

25. It is partially implied in "life of the woman"

I suppose that refers to her health, although it could also refer to some other kind of danger to her life.

[madfloridian]

29. I disagree.

I think it means only that her life is in danger. Read the bill I posted that was supported by Harold Ford and others.

They do not include her health anymore as it is believed to allow too much leeway.

[marshall]

40. But isn't one's life in danger a part of one's health?

It's a tightly focused part, but it is a part.

I understand what you are talking about is a broader coverage of health that includes non-life threatening conditions. The thing to do is take the existing wording and build on it.

[madfloridian]

46. The thing to do is keep politicians out of it. Let women make their decisions

about their health care.

[marshall]

47. But the politicians will always control the purse strings

The decision is thankfully the woman's (thank you, Roe v. Wade). How it's paid for is another matter, and one we continue to struggle with.

[madfloridian]

48. That is not true. It really is no longer the woman's decision.

There are tremendous restrictions on abortion in most states already.

There is a state by state map by NARAL with all the restrictions.

There are already bans on late term abortions

Chuck Schumer:

""So I called up Governor...our number one target is Rick Santorum...let him go back to wherever he lives, Maryland, you know you heard about it, he is Pennsylvania but he tried to get exempt from the school tax there cause he lives in Maryland even though he is a registered citizen of Pennsylvania. In any case I called up the Governor of Pennsylvania, Governor Rendell, I said who is the best candidate to beat Santorum. He there is only one person who could beat him but he won't run and B you wouldn't want him to. I said why wouldn't we want him to run, he said he's pro-life. He's a deeply religious Catholic man. Bob Casey."

"I said, those days are over Ed. Yes I'm pro-choice, but we need the best candidate. We can't insist that every democrat check off 18 different issues before they get (unintelligible) we could do that, we can't anymore. And so, we persuaded, Harry using his very...Harry has amazing insights into people...and we together persuaded Bob Casey to run. A poll yesterday...national...all the polls they did...Casey 51 Santorum 40. You should see Santorum nervous and walkin on the floor."

And with the Obama presidency, more restrictions:

Religious right got their "abortion reduction" as a top goal of the Faith-Based Council.

"By laying out Obama's expansive plan for the OFBNP, and the sprawling policy role the president has given his 25-member advisory council, DuBois ultimately raised more questions than answers about why religion -- and politically active religious figures -- must play such a prominent role in carrying out the administration's goals."

[defendandprotect]

63. Notice that pregnant women lose the right to self-defense ...IF a fetus is involved -- !!!

[lark]

57. Yeah, those stooopid women don't know what's good for them

so we will pass laws protecting their poor babies, too bad if the baby isn't viable or the mother can't take care of it due to her ruined health. :sarcasm:

Too bad politicians like Stupak and Obama only care about the wins, not the actual women involved.

This law is so freaking dehumanizing. Can you imagine congress passing a law telling men what they can and cannot do with their bodies? Never!!

[ehrnst]

73. Depends on the health issue, and the "chances" of survival

I read about a case where a woman with a heart condition (on medicaid) was declined funding for an abortion, because there was a greater than 50% chance that she would survive the pregnancy full term.

PLs have intimated that the health exception is constantly violated as a loophole.

If a federal employee takes medication to manage bi-polar disorder, or other mental illness, and would need to stop taking that medication in order to continue a healthy pregnancy, would an abortion be covered? Those are the sort of questions that need to be answered.

There was also a case recently where a gov't employee was denied coverage under the Hyde act for terminating a pregnancy of a fetus that had no brain. She would have had to endure 3 months of pregnancy knowing that she would deliver a child that would die within hours. Mental health is not considered "health" when it comes to women and pregnancy.

[SmileyRose]

28. So much for medical care being between us and our doctor........

I dearly hope the pencil neck at the insurance companies who do this to people never ever have to face the same shit.

[JoeyTrib]

32. Totally sucks

Dumbasses.

[RBitt]

33. just wait

The big hit will come when the subsidies kick in, because if you get even one dollar for insurance from a subsidy, your entire policy is then forbidden from covering you if you need to make this personal and harrowing choice. Obama has show himself to be the same old, same old unprincipled Democrat as the rest. Shame on them, I won't vote for the lesser of two evils as long as they are evil, and from the way I saw that picture it was a bunch of men , with the token women thrown in, celebrating this horrible turn of events, and that Obama had to have his signing party seals the deal for me, Why are people still calling this reform? And now I am really getting sick.

[feslen]

34. so I guess

this means women have no rights? so which "minority" needs to be controlled next? so much for Civil Rights movement...back to the Dark Ages-!!

blech, this makes me want to scream and punch the wall, or something. I guess Big Brother really wants to control every aspect we do...

[Lyric]

36. Republicans tend to oppose "health of the mother" exceptions because

that often includes mental health, and they don't consider a woman's mental health to be a "good enough" reason. They couch it in their own spin, of course, but it boils down to the fact that they don't want women to be able to get abortions in order to avoid depression. In other words--they don't think that depression is a "real" illness. In their barbaric little minds, unless there's something they can see on an MRI or in a blood test, then it doesn't exist. Funny how they apply the strict "proof" standard to illnesses, but not to God. We're supposed to doubt mental illness because we can't see it on an x-ray, but believing in God without a single OUNCE of proof is a-okay by them.

It's rather sad to watch how clueless and confused these primitive moral and intellectual infants really are.

[madfloridian]

37. Now so do Democrats apparently.

[Lyric]

38. Oh come now, MF. Everyone knows that the best way to fight right-wing extremism

is to appease it. Because, you know, it's worked SO WELL in the past.

[madfloridian]

39. Oh, yeh. Neville himself.

Very telling picture.

[n.michigan]

58. The best way to fight RW extremism is LEFT WING EXTREMISM!

[defendandprotect]

65. Dem take on "bipartianship" . . . do what the Repugs want you to do -- !!

[defendandprotect]

64. Agree . . . and I'd add that they are generally against women acting in their own interests--!!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

43. too late to Rec...kick

powerful post.

I can't believe so few REcs :wtf:

[havocmom]

50. Could women get some consideration if we formed a giant corporation?

Seems to be the only way to get real protections anymore. x(

[femrap]

68. That's a very interesting idea....

Use their rules against them.

[bertman]

51. Here's another kick. Too late to rec.

[branders seine]

52. The chocolate ration has been increased!

Be grateful, citizens!

[ehrnst]

53. SCOTUS - bans must make exemptions for health of the woman. (nt)

[madfloridian]

60. Not last I heard. Here's a link

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0419/p01s03-usju.html

"n a major ruling dealing with abortion rights in America, the US Supreme Court has upheld a federal law banning certain late-term abortions.

In a 5-to-4 decision announ-ced Wednesday, the high court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The move comes nearly seven years after the Supreme Court declared a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a woman's health.

This time a different lineup of justices upheld a federal version of essentially the same law, even though it does not contain a so-called health exception that would permit the banned abortion procedure when a physician deemed it necessary to safeguard a woman's health."

[femrap]

66. So women have to put their

lives on the line before granted some sort of 2nd class type of existence? Does the doctor toss a coin? 'Gee, she might not make it.'

And :wtf: about all of these Unwanted Children we have already?????? Foster children growing up and going straight into the Corporate Prison System?

I'm sick of patriarchy. I'm sick of male politicians giving lip service to women. They don't care.

I not voting for any of them anymore.

IMHO, I don't believe that HRC would have done this. I don't think she would have thrown women under the bus so easily.

I'm sick of looking at the underside of this fucking bus.

Poor women provide the next generation's cannon fodder.

[FreedomRain]

70. rape or incest?

So, do you need to prove it?

If not, hmm , might lead to lot of false accusations. Maybe men should think about that.

If so, how? Conviction, which usually takes longer than pregnancy, is by no means assured. And while I would certainly encourage a girl or woman to try to bring the jerk to justice, she may feel more violated than ever to be forced to go to court.

This has been law for some time now - anyone know how that works?

[madfloridian]

71. I tried to research that, but what I found make me sick inside.

Hit after hit saying that if a woman wanted an abortion because of rape...then that meant she thought she was better than the rapist.

Yes, I really did see that over and over.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rape%2C+incest%2C+abortion%2C+proof&btnG=Search

[izzybeans]

76. Your title reads: The executive order on abortion does not consider the health of a woman

and your first sentence reads:

"The only reasons given in the executive order signed by President Obama on March 24, 2010, are rape, incest, or when the life of the woman may be endangered."

It seems federal funds can be used when the health of the woman is in doubt, so technically I suppose it does consider the health of the woman.

On edit: I see what you posted above in response to a similar comment. Makes sense (your response) but I'm having a hard time imaging an abnormal birth scenario that doesn't simultaneously impact both health and life at the same time. Most health related problems during pregnancy are life threatening. So even under the restricted language in the "Ford" bill you posted I think the doctor and patient have a large amount of room to make decisions.

[madfloridian]

77. Her life and "health" are 2 different things.

The religious right is deadset against allowing one even if pregnancy will hurt the woman's health.

The exec order does not mention health. The quotes I gave specify NOT for health in previous rulings.

Please explain to me how you come to that conclusion.

Unless the pregnancy will "kill" a woman, the abortion can not be paid for with public funds.

States are moving now to put an end to any insurance covering abortion....so it's basically a done deal with Democrats on board.

A lesson on how to sell out a constituency.

[izzybeans]

78. see my edit.

I saw a response you gave to a similar point. I agreed with what you said.

My point is really rhetorical, because it distracted me from the point you were trying to make. If we are going to push any legislative changes on this issue we need to be clear what health means otherwise they'll stick us with the "death" thing over and over again. There are health conditions that increase the risk of death substantially during pregnancy. The legislation provides no guidance on them, which is why I believe as it stands doctors would have a large amount of leeway as to what constitutes a threat of death to the mother.

I suppose the question is should health be operationally defined or not (e.g. what specific health conditions should be covered?) This issue isn't going away now, unfortunately so it will have to be dealt with legislatively, meaning the doctors hands are already tied to a degree. Is it better to keep health undefined in the law or to define it specifically and perhaps limit them to very specific conditions without discretion.

[Nikki Stone1]

79. +1

.

[BrklynLiberal]

80. k n r