Skip to main content

View Diary: This week in the War on Women: No, actually, letting women die does not protect their rights (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The law... (0+ / 0-)

    ...dosn't say women can't get the abortion, right?  It just says that a faith based hospital who believes that abortion ends the life of a fetus who also has rights should not be forced by law to always choose one life to save.  As long as the law allows for free choice (i.e. the woman can CHOOSE to go to another hospital/doctor), and the woman/doctor can CHOOSE to do whatever they want without interference from the gov't, I don't see the problem.

    Obviously, it's a slipery slope, but making Catholic hospitals perform abortions will continue the shift of independents toward the pro life side, which will lead to less choice for everyone.

    •  Hobson's Choice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pandoras Box

      There are many parts of the country where the ONLY hospital is a Catholic one.  If a pregnant woman is in an emergent situation, a secular hospital will be outside the "golden hour" distance.  The life expectancy of women in poverty areas of the United States is already falling because of religion and politics trumping science in medical care.  

      Catholic hospitals, until legislation compelled them otherwise in Illinois, refused post-coital contraception or information about post-coital contraception to rape victims brought into their emergency rooms for treatment.  Of course, medical facilites are free to impose sectarian protcols on the unwary, they just don't get state funds.  Catholic facilites are perfectly fine with ignoring priniple if government money is involved.

      Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

      by arlene on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 08:16:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm still not buying it... (0+ / 0-)

        ...I'm not sure this happens very often.  A pregnant mom facing a "baby vs mom" life and death decision has only one hospital to go to in the entire city and dies because the doctor refuses to abort the baby and lets mom die, despite the family's insistance that they want the mother saved.  The law can be easily written to carve out a narrow exception for the dozen or so times this happens in a blue moon.  

        I think this is really about making religious hospitals do abortions for whoever wants them.  It's like forcing an attourney to defend someone they believe is guilty of murder.  People need addequate defense, but no one should be forced to defend them or lose the ability to practice law.

        •  but it DOES happen (0+ / 0-)

          what the hell does it matter how often it happens?  is it okay to you that even ONE woman dies in this situation?  is it is, then fuck you very much.

          who is forcing people to become doctors...or attorneys?  you do the job or you find something else to do

          •  See, this is the problem... (0+ / 0-)

            ...Whether or not you want to admit it, Abortion is a really tough issue for most Americans.  At some point between a sperm/egg and a baby is a long, slow developmental path.  Somewhere in that path, the blob of cells becomes a real person with the same rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness as its mother.

            People differ on where that line is crossed.  Some say it is at conception, others say it's when the baby is willingly birthed and completely out of the mother.  Most people struggle with the issue and think it's somewhere in the middle.  To thorw F-bombs at anyone who thinks the answer is somewhere in the middle only serves to alienate independent voters.

            No one is saying these women can't get their abortions.  What the law is saying is that if I want to start my own hospital with my own money and people can volunteer to come to my hospital, than who's business is it where I define where life begins?  What ever happened to getting the Feds out of a womb.  It's a private hospital.  It's a choice, right?

            Besides, we're not talking about putting a woman to death by firing squad.  It's a question of balancing the right of the baby with the mother.  It's a difficult issue and deserves a serious debate, without F-Bombs and hyperbole.

            •  so, other kinds of gratuitous death for women (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              enhydra lutris

              are okay with you I guess.

              what that law says is it is OKAY - there will be no punishment - for a hospital or doctor to leave a woman who needs an abortion in order to LIVE - for that hospital to just let her die

              •  Letting women die for no reason is already... (0+ / 0-)

                ...illegal, and will continue to be.  This just says that the hospital can make a judgement to save/protect the unborn child while putting the mother at risk, which is perfectly OK to do once the child is outside the mother.  It also further protects religious hospitals from being forced to perform voluntary abortions that could be done elsewhere.  That's the real issue here, not the one or two women each year who fit your narrow circumstances.

                From their perspective, it's a judgement call between savings two lives.  This is hardly gratuitous death for women.  But they would argue that abortion is gratuitous death for the womb.  That kind of rhetoric goes both ways.  

                Somewhere along the line, the fetus becomes a baby, and that baby has rights.  It's an important issue that you will lose every time with your inflamatory F-bombs and hyperbole.

            •  btw, NO it doesnt...not legally until BIRTH (0+ / 0-)
              Somewhere in that path, the blob of cells becomes a real person with the same rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness as its mother.
        •  Not Very Often? (3+ / 0-)

          Whay does anyone have to die unwillingly for someone else's religion?  If you look at a map of the U.S., there are big spaces where there is no city but are still inhabited by people.  Joe Liberman made a similar argument about providing preventive contraception to rape victims brought to emergency rooms.

          Hospitals have an obligation to treat emergency patients.  They do not get to move them outside the door to let them fend for themselves.  As I said, it is about the money.  Schools that practiced discrimination based on sex and race decided to end their practice once Title IX passed and they weren't going to get any government goodies if they continued to discriminate.

          Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

          by arlene on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 09:37:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're wrong... (0+ / 0-)

  's not about the money.  These people really believe that the mother and baby both have equal rights.  I'm not sure what the right answer is, but it's a difficult question.  Either way, I don't like the Feds telling a private hospital where to draw that line.

            My guess is that the bill in question allows for a life-or-death decision to be made by the paitent and their doctor in an ER.  That can easily be written into the bill and most American's are on board with that.  But you will lose independent voters if you force a priest at a private hospital to do a voluntary abortion.  That's simply not fair, and only invites a ban on abortion if the wrong people get into power.

            •  Since when do priests do abortions? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KateCrashes, Pandoras Box

              A hospital is a medical facility.  If they want to practice sectarian medicine, they are free to do so, they just don't get funded for it.  No one is forcing a sectarian practicitioner to do anything against their religious principles, including Jehovah's Witness, Christian Scientist or any other religious praticioner.  Polticians need to accept generally accepted medical practice for the science it is and quit promoting their sectarian agenda at the expense of women of reproductive age who seem to be the target du jour.

              Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

              by arlene on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 01:37:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The issue... (0+ / 0-)

       that the priests think they are saving a baby in the womb with equal rights as the mother to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness.  Most people who are pro choice don't hate women.  Many of them are women.  To ignore this fact makes the whole debate tough to settle reasonably.

                •  The priest's belief (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pandoras Box

                  ends where a woman's body begins.  Catholic priests don't have uteri, so they have no skin in the game.  As I said, they are free to hold their beliefs, whatever they are.  They just aren't entitled to impose them on unwitting women.  If a woman wants to be a martyr, that is her choice also.  She doesn't live in another woman's skin, whose beliefs may be entirely different from hers.

                  Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

                  by arlene on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 02:57:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  They're not looking for a reasonable settlement (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pandoras Box

                  They're looking to politically impose their spiritual beliefs on others, and it doesn't stop with making it impossible to get a safe abortion under any circumstances at all, it extends to making birth control unavailable.  

                  "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

                  by KateCrashes on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:01:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  right in this very diary, a woman (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          speaks about her experience of nearly losing her life...and had she been made to transfer to another hospital she surely would have.

          you think pregnancy is a fucking walk in the park?  it has the potential always to be life threatening!

          •  Don't forget... (0+ / 0-)

            ...that pregnancy is more dangerous for the baby than it is for the mother.  There is a balance here, and forcing priests to perform abortions at private hospitals is on the wrong side of it.  I'll grant you the life-or-death case in the ER where the woman can't be transferred, but I doubt that's contemplated in most of these types of bills.

            •  ??? (0+ / 0-)
              forcing priests to perform abortions
              •  I'm assuming priests are in the leadership (0+ / 0-)

                of a Catholic hospital.  I'll bet there are more priests working in a hospital than moms who die from an abortion-now-or-I-will-die-in-the-ER-and-I-can't-go-anywhere-else circumstance.

                •  How many hospitals ARE run by priests? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Pandoras Box

                  Nuns have actually been far more likely to run Catholic hospitals than priests have been, but as of today, only 8 of 636 of the hospitals are headed by either nuns or priests.  I think you'll find this August 20, 2011, New York Times article interesting.

                  "Injustice wears ever the same harsh face wherever it shows itself." - Ralph Ellison

                  by KateCrashes on Sun Oct 16, 2011 at 03:13:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  really? not contemplated? that's what you think? (0+ / 0-)

              and I would surely like to know where you got your statistic that pregnancy is more dangerous for the baby than the mother.

              •  Go to any labor/delivery hospital... (0+ / 0-)

                ...and ask them.  How many women died on your floor?  The answer is very low.  Then ask how many babies didn't make it off the floor?  My guess is that they lose a lot more babies than moms.  

                •  death doesn't just happen at delivery (0+ / 0-)
                  •  Same for the babies... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...ever been to a neonatal unit?  Lots of babies in there.  Where is the unit housing all the moms who barely cling to life after child birth.  I'm not saying it's not dangerous, but more pregnant moms die driving in cars than giving birth.  Life is dangerous.

                    This is also why most child life insurance policies won't cover you until you've been alive for a few months.  But insurance companies don't hesitate to write a policy on a pregnant mom.

                    •  so what is this? (0+ / 0-)

                      a competition?

                      women against fetuses?

                      by the time you get to delivery, you aren't running into a lot of women who suddenly have decided to get an abortion

                      in fact pretty much the only time it happens anywhere near delivery is to save the life of the mother

                      i'm not even sure what your point is anymore...are we still talking about the bill which allows medical personnel to allow a woman to die without any repercussions - a woman who may very well already have family who need her and depend on her

                      or is this now a contest about who is pregnancy more dangerous for?

                      i guess you are more pro-fetus than pro-woman

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (129)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Culture (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Rescued (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site