View Story | 301 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
"forced state maternity" and state's hand-off approach to your life's problems. If a state says, you are free to do with your body as you wish, but you cannot count on us for help, the state is not forcing anything, as it is not involved in the decisionmaking in any way.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 08:40:47 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
outcome if a woman carries it to term. That is hardly a hands off approach.
by Jain on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:03:06 AM PDT
State pays for some services but not for others. States will also occasionally pay for tooth extraction, but not some restorative dental work instead.
And technically, the state is not paying the woman, it is paying the child. So the woman is in the same position as she was before.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:09:43 AM PDT
by Readrock on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:11:03 AM PDT
The issue is whether the state is, as you put it, "forcing" anyone to carry the pregnancy to term. It is not. It is simply not helping anyone fund alternatives.
Suppose I am walking down the street and see a guy bleeding profusely. If I keep walking and do nothing, not even call 911, and the guy dies or suffers severe injury, I cannot be said to have caused his death or injury. That doesn't mean I should not have helped, but I am certainly not the CAUSE of whatever happened to him. So too here. The state is not FORCING anyone to do anything. It is simply "walking down the street."
by Drgrishka1 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:17:14 AM PDT
and the state has responsibilities. If you were in anyway a government employee and ignored ENDANGERED PUBLIC HEALTH you would be held accountable.
The same is true for America. American women deserve to be able to decide when to have a baby. All American women deserve life and liberty according to our Constitution. When American women are denied this EVEN IF THEY ARE POOR we need to hold those responsible accountable.
That is the point. Our policy on abortion care is hurting women and their families and our leaders are NOT speaking out.
by Readrock on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:22:10 AM PDT
Whether they are entitled to have someone else pay for those decisions is another matter entirely. And I disagree that a State has a RESPONSIBILITY to provide such funds.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:37:46 AM PDT
on behalf of the state.
by Readrock on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:52:24 AM PDT
since the state has no obligation to fund any particular medical procedure. There is no coercison here by the state.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:39:23 AM PDT
That's justifying your own inaccountability.
We are all responsible for our actions as well as our inactions. STanding by without saying anything when a country spreads propaganda and starts a genocide is contributing to the harm.
A decent human being would feel it is irresponsible to stand by and watch a child drown instead of saving them. A decent human being would not find it acceptable to stand by while someone bleeds to death without calling 911. Maybe you didn't pull the trigger making you a direct cause of injury but by failing to call 911 when you could have-- you are a contributing cause of that death.
Problem with conservatives is that they are consistently irresponsible for their actions and their inactions. They consider it "Not their problem" when their policies cause pain and suffering.
by LisaLL on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:47:50 AM PDT
technically or otherwise. It is paying for pre-natal and birth services for the woman. If no one else pays for them, the woman is the one responsible, not the baby. And when the payment is made, it is made to the provider of services, not to the baby. When the baby is born, it then gets services in its own right. The mother continues to get health services.
This is not hands off. It is not walking down the street. It is an action that says, "If you make the decision to stay pregnant, the State will pay for it. If you make the decision to not stay pregnant, pay for it yourself." btw, several states do fund abortion.
by Jain on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:42:37 AM PDT
abortion. E.g., California, New York, Illinois, and a number of others. My point is that by not funding it, they are not coercing anyone, and therefore are not "forcing" anyone into anything.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:38:45 AM PDT
Refusing to fund safe abortion care for women (much less costly than pre-natal, delivery and health care till the child is 'of age') is not coercing or forcing? Withholding public funding (of which women pay at least 1/2) for legal and constitutionally protected health care is of course forcing women who don't have the resources to obtain safe abortion to continue their pregnancies (sometimes at their own peril) and give birth - if they survive! To pretend otherwise is like saying omitting the truth isn't the same as lying.
by Womantrust on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:27:31 PM PDT
Drgrishka1,
Are you a doctor? If so, what kind are you?
by LisaLL on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:05:23 AM PDT
practice medicine any longer. i have chnaged my white coat for the barrister's wig (figuratively speaking).
by Drgrishka1 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:43:42 AM PDT
A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.
by william f harrison on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:04:30 PM PDT
by Womantrust on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:28:40 PM PDT
States tend to make it difficult for Doctors that provide abortions, so to say that the state has a hands-off approach is disingenuous.
My dream ticket in 2008? John Edwards-Kathleen Sebelius
by KansasLiberal on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:06:20 AM PDT
decisions.
by Drgrishka1 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:10:10 AM PDT
but part of the same book for many of the rest of us.
by Womantrust on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:30:58 PM PDT
by Womantrust on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 04:29:44 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 301 comments