Daily Kos

Support Universal Abortion Care in America

Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:45:29 AM PDT

We have a crises in America today and women and their children are suffering.  Women in the middle of the United States and in the deep south are trapped.  When unintended or fatal pregnancy strikes, women are unable to find abortion care.  If they can travel they will be fine.  If not, they will be forced to carry a potential life threatening pregnancy against their will.  On behalf of the state.  Now there are many things Mississippian’s need but a poor woman forced into motherhood is not one of them.

Abortion care is increasingly unavailable to women in America because of the ongoing assault to make abortion rare by making it impossible to deliver care.  Look at Mississippi if you want to see what ten years of legislation has done to limit access to women the most in need of abortion care.  For a compelling look at the problem in Mississippi please view The Last Abortion Clinic produced by PBS's Frontline in 2005.  It is available to watch for free on line.  Please look at the strategy of the very clever and well funded anti crowd.  This video is even more true now than it was then as the assault on the PROVISION OF ABORTION CARE continues in the statehouses with no relief at the federal level.  

In The Last Abortion Clinic there is the exploration of the judiciary which also unfortunately remains right on target.  We are losing our ability to appeal to the courts to protect reproductive rights.  We can no longer assume the courts will protect American women guaranteeing their right to THEIR LIFE AND LIBERTY. When do American WOMEN represent LIFE, anyway?

We never know when a pregnancy will be life threatening for a woman.  A woman may require medication that is toxic to the pregnancy because of a long, long list of conditions from bi polar disease to cancer.  And a pregnancy induced clot is frequent enough that women with high blood pressure issues may choose to forgo another pregnancy.  The list of health related reasons is endless and we haven't even gotten to other reasons women need abortion care.  They may have abusive partners and cannot imagine bringing a child into that environment when they cannot yet protect themselves and the children they already have. They may have children they already are struggling to feed, clothe and shelter.  And the list goes on...too young, too old.  The youngest patient we have ever seen was eleven and the oldest was 55 so the spectrum of women seeking abortion care is HUGE.

There is a crises in America today as large numbers of American women are being forced to bear a pregnancy against their will on behalf of the state.  How can we not recognize that this problem MUST be addressed?  We do not have to wait for Roe to be overturned for Mississippi women.  There is only one remaining abortion clinic located in Jackson so women without transportation outside of Jackson have no "Roe" protection.  And the same is true for women in rural Alabama and Louisiana and Arkansas...and even South and North Dakota...and on and on.  The number of places you can go to receive abortion care continues to drop as the state regulates providers out of existence.  So many laws are going into place because the anti's introduce piece after piece of legislation to "regulate" abortion to make it safer for women.  IF THE STATE IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF WOMEN WHY NOT OPEN UP ITS PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE ABORTION CARE? Seriously.  Louisiana has a large state run medical system including seven hospitals and three medical schools.  Most states have a similar system.  So if the health and welfare of women is so important why not open these systems up to provide abortion care, from teaching it in medical schools to offering hospital based care for high risk women?  Why hasn't this been done if the HEALTH OF THE WOMAN is what is important here?

The truth is that no one cares about the health of poor pregnant women with unintended pregnancies.  Or at least cares enough to do the right thing and help provide abortion care.  Or support provision of abortion care.  We have no leadership on the issue of universal abortion care.  Senator Hillary Clinton, a wonderful contender for the US Presidency, is seemingly the perfect leader on the issue of universal abortion care but she has yet to utter the phrase "universal abortion care".  That seems like an easy enough strategic step to take in order to LEAD and offer support.  "Safe, legal and rare" has been used for fourteen LONG years.  Senator Clinton shared just recently an update on this current American crises in abortion care.  She added "And when I say rare, I do mean rare".  Ah well.  Let poor pregnant women fend for themselves.  Don't look.  Statistics will tell the tale as maternal and infant mortality and morbidity rates rise and we will work to combat those consequences along with abject poverty forced maternity breeds.  And this human suffering could have been prevented by providing universal abortion care in America.  

Forcing women to bear pregnancies against their will on behalf of the state because abortion is rare appears to be MORAL these days.  American values at work.  Gosh, aren't we proud?  Forget the Constitution.  Forget life and liberty of the woman.  Forget it all. There are bigger problems and abortion is a losing issue for Democrats, so we say.

Oh well.  This is nothing new.  Poor women suffer.  Many of these women are mothers already and their children suffer as well.  These women are voiceless and faceless.  They have no lobby in Washington and serve as political chips to be brokered.  But they also are the canaries in the caves and the first warning signs the democracy is failing and basic human rights are being lost.  And unless the Democratic Party rises up and does the right thing on behalf of poor pregnant women seeking abortion care the assault on human rights will continue.

How much backbone does it take to start discussing UNIVERSAL ABORTION CARE, anyway?  After all don't we all have common ground on making sure abortion is SAFE AND LEGAL? If ever there was a time, it is now.

Tags: abortion, poverty, women, Constitution (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 301 comments

  •  American women deserve better (12+ / 0-)

    Universal abortion care must become a priority NOW!

    •  No Way (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Wee Mama, Southside

      I can't tell if this is a troll diary, or just an unrealistic proposal.

      You make a lot of valid points, but I disagree vehemently with your conclusion.  Although a majority of Americans believe a safe and legal abortion should be available, I believe you'll find yourself in the single digit minority insofar as state provided abortions go. Maybe in 20 years this dynamic will change, but for now, I don't want any part of it.

      I'll bet Michelle Malkin already has a link to this article up at her website.  And the howling, the howling, I can hear it now ...

      1/20/2009 will mark the end of an error.

      by winstnsmth on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 07:56:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Marvelous diary, Readrock (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      venice ca, Womantrust

      Simply marvelous. I'm so sorry that I missed it this morning, since I was busy providing the quality abortion care which so obviously ought to be UNIVERSAL ABORTION CARE.

      Please keep giving them hell (i.e., telling them the truth they think is hell).

  •  I'd like to discuss it (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    william f harrison

    But I'm not sure what it is. What would enacting universal abortion care do from a policy perspective?

    Incidentally, I agree with the "safe, legal and rare" statement. I don't see what's wrong with it. Abortion should always be available to those that need it, but we have a responsibility to shrink the number of people who need it.

    •  Let's start with teaching abortion care (7+ / 0-)

      in medical schools.  And offering high risk women abortion care in public hospitals.  We could enact this at the federal level and it would help tremendously.

      •  More questions: (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        moiv

        Abortion care isn't taught?

        Women are not offered abortion care in public hospitals?

        Pardon my ignorance, but there's a lot I don't know about the subject.

      •  It is taught in all medical schools (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        moiv

        that are not religiously affiliated.  It is just that students have a right to opt out.

        •  THIS IS NOT TRUE (6+ / 0-)

          It is not taught in Louisiana and Mississippi run medical schools.  And not taught in South Dakota and North Dakota...and many other state run medical schools...which is where poor women receive care and a large portion of our doctors are trained.

          I guess it is just easier to stay ignorant and believe most American women have access to quality abortion care.

          •  That sounds pretty unbelievable (0+ / 0-)

            Abortion care is generally taughtduring an OB-GYN rotation.  Even in state hospitals there is abortion care, it is just that abortion is provided only for specific medical reasons.  And students can learn during those procedures.

            •  spontaneous abortion or D&C is taught (5+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              annrose, moiv, Beket, irishwitch, choice joyce

              when the pregnancy ends spontaneously then residents are taught to evacuate the uterus.  But beyond that it is not taught.

              I apologize for not having more relevent statistics with links at my fingertips but am struggling to learn how to hyperlink etc.  I know that Guttmacher and Medical Students For Choice have good information.

              BTW, there is no current Medical Students for Choice chapter in Louisiana or Mississippi.

              •  And the fact that there is no such chapter (0+ / 0-)

                says exactly what?  Have you considered the possibility that the position of that organization is not palatable to the vast majority of medical students in those states?

                •  abortion care training should be offered (3+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  annrose, moiv, Beket

                  in all medical schools, period.  With or without Medical Students for Choice.

                  •  I disagree with the breadth of that (0+ / 0-)

                    statement.  I certainly believe that religiously affiliated schools have a right not to offer training in that procedure.

                    Second, it may be quite hard to offer the training if the training facility simply does not offer the service.

                    •  NY and CA offer good programs (4+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      annrose, moiv, Beket, irishwitch

                      but when you get into the middle and deep south parts of America training is not available in the provision of abortion care in medical schools, religious or otherwise.

                      This would make a great investigative piece or another diary.

                      Note Docswede's reply also.

                      •  He's mostly anti-choice, doesn't do abortions (3+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        annrose, moiv, Beket

                        Not worth arguing with him over this. He'll drag it out forever,and never gives an inch.  

                        The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                        by irishwitch on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:47:02 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I was realizing this Irishwitch (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          irishwitch

                          thanks for the advice.

                        •  Ha! And you give an inch?! nt (0+ / 0-)

                          •  Not when it comes to (4+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            moiv, venice ca, stitchmd, irishwitch

                            womens lives and health!  Nor should you IF you're really a dr. and cared about your patients.

                            •  Caring about patients does not mean (0+ / 0-)

                              providing them with whatever service they may want at any given time.  Caring about patients means providing those services that you do provide competently.  If the patients do not like the range of services you provide, they are free to seek out another physician.  Doctors are not indentured servants and can decide what services they will and what services they will not deliver (as well as the price they will charge for those services).

                              •  Caring about patients (2+ / 0-)

                                Recommended by:
                                venice ca, LisaLL

                                does mean that if there is a procedure a patient needs that you do not provide, you have a duty and an obligation to provide referrals or other information so that the patient can get those services, if they are available.

                                A well-established principle of ethical practice.

                                As for your last comment:

                                Doctors are not indentured servants and can decide what services they will and what services they will not deliver (as well as the price they will charge for those services)

                                methinks you are not likely a member of PNHP, eh?

                                Civil marriage is a civil right.

                                by stitchmd on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 11:07:18 AM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                                •  No I am not a member of PNHP (0+ / 0-)

                                  But even PNHP does not believe (as far as I can tell) that when patients say jump, doctors must ask "how high."

                                  I have no quarrel about referrals.  I would, however, point out that there must be a definition of "need."  Is it a medical "need" or just a really really strong "want" unrelated to the medical indications for the procedure?

                                  •  when it comes to elective procedures, (0+ / 0-)

                                    is that for you to decide, or the patient?

                                    The patient states she needs abortion services; you think it's a want. Do you or do you not have a duty to refer?

                                    From everything I have read in the medical literature, you do have that duty.

                                    Civil marriage is a civil right.

                                    by stitchmd on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 12:01:51 PM PDT

                                    [ Parent ]

                                    •  You have a duty to refer (0+ / 0-)

                                      but not a duty to perform.

                                      •  which is all I'm saying n/t (0+ / 0-)

                                        Civil marriage is a civil right.

                                        by stitchmd on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 12:47:44 PM PDT

                                        [ Parent ]

                                        •  And I have agreed with that (0+ / 0-)

                                          2 posts ago.  My problem is that many people on this thread and elsewhere believe that you are obligated to perform any service that the patient want (or at least abortion service) whether you want to or not.

                                          •  I misinterpreted (0+ / 0-)

                                            and linked your comment about referrals to the comment about needs and wants.

                                            I agree with you that the doctor should not be obligated to perform any procedure a patient wants, particularly if or when said physician is not trained or qualified to do the procedure, or when the physician feels in his/her medical judgment that the procedure has a likelihood of causing harm to the patient.

                                            For example, there is a patient who has been on Oprah and other places who is addicted to plastic surgery. I would not refer a patient such as that to a plastic surgeon without a very strong medical reason because of the great risk of harm.

                                            OTOH, although I may not agree with 21 year olds getting tubal ligations, or 16 year olds getting nose jobs (not equating the two,) do I have a duty to refer these patients to providers I believe would do a good job? I would say I have the duty to provide the information even if I disagree. Of course, I might be more likely to refer the patient to a provider who is likely to agree with me, right?

                                            Furthermore, when you're dealing with such a charged issue as abortion, who has the right to decide whether it's a need or a desire? My personal and professional belief is that only the woman, the patient, can determine that sufficiently for herself. Adequate, rational, and professional counseling is necessary, of course.

                                            I could ramble on; it's hardly a black/white issue.

                                            Civil marriage is a civil right.

                                            by stitchmd on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:21:56 PM PDT

                                            [ Parent ]

                                            •  I agree with pretty much everything you said (0+ / 0-)

                                              And I agree that it should be up to a woman to decide whether it is a need or desire or whatever else.  But however that decision comes out, said woman has no claim on any particular doctor's services any more than a given criminal defendant has a claim on any particular lawyer's services.

                                  •  Women's health activists fought against (1+ / 0-)

                                    the doctor-god concept in the 70s and 80s.  I guess it is still alive and kicking.

                                    On the other topic of want and need that you seem to have difficulty grasping.  If a woman WANTS to not be pregnant, she NEEDS an abortion.  

                                    •  No, you have difficulty grasping (0+ / 0-)

                                      a difference between an elective procedure and a medically necessary procedure.

                                      And having patient autonomy (instead of "doctor-god") is not the same as having doctors do whatever the patient demands whenever he demands it.  Both parties (i.e., the doctor and the patient) have personal autonomy.  Perhaps you need a refresher court on the 13th Amendment.  

                                      Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

                                       

                                      What you want is doctors to provide a service to people against their own will.  That is a very definition of involuntary servitude.

                                      •  No I just want to get rid of the BARRIERS (0+ / 0-)

                                        for women seeking abortion.  Barriers include doctors who tell her it is immoral, they won't refer, abortion is unsafe, etc.  

                                        Even if abortion were "medically necessary" (you didn't define it though), many doctors still can't or won't do an abortion -- because of physician skill or facility cooperation.  The other present medical conditions to define "medically necessary" are rarely defined leaving a woman in a medical crisis at the whims of professional staff and facilities who may not help her.

                                        •  Well, if a physician is unskilled (0+ / 0-)

                                          he shoudln't be doing procedures.  I don't want an unskilled person cutting out by callouses, let alone having someon sticking sharp instruments into internal organs.

                                          And, while I agree that doctors should not be lecturing patients on what is and is not moral, neither should they be obligated to perform procedures that they do not wish to perform (for whatever reason).

                                          •  So it comes back to training then (0+ / 0-)

                                            ...and disclosure.

                                            If I were seeing an OB/GYN and s/he would refuse to do or arrange for an abortion during the course of pregnancy if I wanted it (within the legal limits of course), s/he should be obligated to tell me that before I ever sign up with him/her.  Women have an expectation that their OB/GYN has the experience or will arrange for it.  It is part of caring for the patient.  The OB/GYN would not have to tell me they couldn't fix my ACL.  I wouldn't expect that of an OB/GYN

                                            •  And I said many posts ago (0+ / 0-)

                                              that I fully support disclosure requirements.  I think that such requirements are fair to both the doctor and the patient.

                                              But that is quite different from requiring the doctor to perform the procedure whether he wants to or not.

                                              •  Glad to hear you support disclosure to refuse (0+ / 0-)

                                                to provide medical treatment that would/should be expected of a certain type of provider.  

                                                Maybe I missed it but I only saw that you supported referral....which comes far short.

                                                Then again it comes back to training...and yes, I think there should be mandatory training for OB/GYN in abortion.  It would be one of the most commonly needed skills.... but that discussion is elsewhere in this diary.

                          •  WHy should I? I am right (1+ / 0-)

                            Recommended by:
                            moiv

                            and YOU are living int he 19trh century./

                            The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                            by irishwitch on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 08:23:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            •  I believe that I am right, though (0+ / 0-)

                              And it is hardly living in the 19th century, when I champion choice for everyone, women AND doctors.  You on the other hand seem to view doctors as indentured servants.

                              •  But you really onluy champion choice for doctors (0+ / 0-)

                                who dont' do abortions. And when it coerms to women, ytour mindset is pure 19th century,a nd every woman here sees through your protestations, whcihi s why uyou get taken on, and never convince anyone.

                                The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

                                by irishwitch on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 07:21:15 PM PDT

                                [ Parent ]

                    •  religiosity is not an excuse for substandard care (5+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      annrose, moiv, Beket, choice joyce, Readrock, Granco

                      Religiosity is not an excuse for substandard medical care. And you should know (lest you lump all of "religion" as anti-choice) that many religious groups support women in the decisions they make about contraception and safe abortion.

                      If an institution has beliefs or administrative rules that prevent them from offering abortion care and contraceptive care at their site, they should ethically be obligated to offer offsite rotations to their Ob/Gyn residents.

                      Should a Jehovah's Witness Surgical Department be able to run a training program in which they teach their surgical residents nothing about the indications and specifics of transfusion? No. If they have a problem, they should provide offsite training. Same thing.

                      Patient Care comes first in medical training. If dogma gets in the way --it needs to be recognized as dogma and accommodations need to be made to ensure the training of competent doctors.

                      •  The problem is that abortion (0+ / 0-)

                        (as being discussed here) is an elective procedure.  Hospitals have a right not to perform elective procedures whether they are abortions or breast enlargement, or, penile implants.

                        And it is not "substandard care."  Hospitals are under no obligation to provide a whole array of services.  They can limit their services to particular procedures.  Hence, for instance, mental hospitals.  They just don't provide appendectomies.

                        •  training programs (3+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          moiv, Beket, Readrock

                          If a hospital does not provide abortions and they are training obstetricians/gynecologists, they should be required to provide that training elsewhere. To fail to train obstetrician-gynecologists in abortion and contraceptive care is absolutely substandard. Many residency programs have several hospitals and clinics at which their residents train.

                          Every obstetrician-gynecologist and every family practice person should be trained to understand the indications of abortion, to understand the risks and benefits and thus be able to provide accurate counseling, and should be trained to take care of complications occurring from abortion (as well as complications from childbirth, spontaneous abortion, etc, etc).

                          Abortions are not always elective and physicians need the training to act in case of emergencies.

                          •  Hospitals do train in emergency (0+ / 0-)

                            abortions.  The disussion here was focused on elective abortions, not the medically necessary ones.

                            •  sorry (3+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              moiv, stitchmd, Readrock

                              Sorry to inform you but physicians need to be trained enough to be competent.

                              Institutions that is refuses to do abortions are also reluctant to provide abortions needed for specific health indication, as well. I went to med school where they had two hospitals for Ob/Gyn--one that was owned (unethical IMO) by the catholic church. They would be unlikely to provide training for abortion even those that are categorized as medical.

                              •  Why is ownership of a hospital (0+ / 0-)

                                by the Catholic Church unethical?

                                I went to a medical school that had 3 hospitals that provided OB/GYN training and all provided abortion services.  However, many medical students chose to opt out.  Furthermore, in my school, OB rotation lasted 6 weeks, of which maybe only a half was dedicated to OB and the rest to GYN.  Elective abortions in my hospital were performed if I recall twice a week.  Times 3 weeks that's all of 6 days.  How much training do you think (even if I did not opt out) would I have received in 6 days?!  Medical school really doesn't teach you all that much, other than the very basic things, and mostly how not to screw up.  Real training happens (as I am sure you know) during residency.  And if abortion training is that important to you, you can choose a program that will provide it.

                                •  all (3+ / 0-)

                                  Recommended by:
                                  moiv, venice ca, Readrock

                                  All ob/Gyn training programs and all family practice training programs should provide training in contraceptive and abortion care. It is an essential component of maternal and child health. Not just some Ob/Gyn programs--all.

                                  The goals of hospitals need to be providing appropriate medical care. When religious groups have beliefs that prevent them from using evidence and prevent them from providing basic services it is unethical for them to run hospitals that way.

                                  •  Hospitals need not provide (0+ / 0-)

                                    ELECTIVE services of any kind.  

                                    Under your theory, it is unethical for a hospital not to be a Level I trauma care and a tertiary care center.  Trauma care is a basic service, yet not all hospitals provide it for a variety of reasons.  Psychiatric care is a basic service, yet not all hospitals provide it.  Pediatrics is a basic care, but not all hospitals provide it (e.g., VA hospitals).  Hospitals and organizations that run them have a right to provide whatever services they wish to provide.

                                    You would rather they shut their doors and not provide ANY service?!  Because that's the only alternative.  Catholic hospitals will not provide elective abortion care.  So your choice is either have Catholci hospitals that often serve the poor and the needy, but without abortion care, or have no hospital at all.  your call.  

                                    •  false choices (1+ / 0-)

                                      Recommended by:
                                      moiv

                                      Now you're being silly and making up false choices.

                                      The choice isn't between a catholic owned hospital vs no medical care for the needy. Nor is it between closing down trauma centers if they don't provide abortions.

                                      If a hospital provides obstetrical and gynecologic care they need to include contraceptive care and abortion care as part of that. COntraceptive and abortion care enable women to protect the health of their families. Whether you try to diminish that by calling it "elective" does not change the health implications. Just as any cardiac center needs to provide cardiac care. ANy surgical center need to be able to provide blood if needed.

                                      If a Catholic organization decides that it wants to open up a cardiac center but refuses to provide cardiac care to patients--(maybe they think that if god wants someone to survive a myocardial infarction, god will take care of it)---is that acceptable ? No. If a lemonaid company wants to open up a hospital but instead of providing medical care, they provide lemonade---is that acceptable? No. Sure, lemonaid would be refreshing to people who are thirsty but it surely isn't obstetrical care and shouldn't be billed as such.

                                      •  Acceptable to WHOM? (0+ / 0-)

                                        Again, the choice is as follows:  Either Catholic hospitals operate as they do now OR they do not operate at all.  That is the choice, because they will never provide abortion as is their right.  Either they provide a limited service or no service at all.

                                        Catholic hospitals are private institutions.  As such they can choose which services to provide and which not to provide.  Even in Roe, the Supreme Court said that abortion decision is between a woman and her doctor, JOINTLY.  It did not say that if a woman wants an abortion, any doctor whom she wants to shall perform the procedure.  Both have to agree.  And both have a choice.  You are of course aware that there are plenty of OB/Gyns who do only Gyn but not OB (and vice versa).  That does not mean that they provide "substandard care."  They simply provide one particular service, but not another, as it their right.  Hospitals are the same.  They can choose which services to provide.  And if it not "acceptable" to you, you are free not to take up employment there or seek care there.  (And before you say "but many people can't choose," remember that mandating abortion care will not increase choice, but decrease it, as these hospitals will close down).

                                        Nor do I see elective abortion as being part of NECESSARY Ob care.  to be sure, it may be important to many many people, but that is different from being medically necessary.  

                                        And if a lemonade company wishes to serve lemonada instead of antibiotics, they can, so long as there is disclosure that that is their method of treatment.  

                            •  if they offer ob/gyn services (2+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              moiv, Readrock

                              If a hospital offers any obstetrical and gynecologic care they should include abortion and contraceptive care which are both essential components of reproductive, maternal and child health.

                              Women make contraceptive and abortion decisions in order to maximize the health and long-term well being of her family and future family. If we care about the health of women, children and families, we need to make sure women have access to the care they need.

                            •  Wrong again- (1+ / 0-)

                              Recommended by:
                              moiv

                              thats why they call on abortion providers to help.

                        •  honesty (4+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          moiv, Beket, Readrock, Granco

                          And of course, any hospital that provides gynecologic or obstetrical services that chooses not to provide abortion care or contraceptive care needs to make sure they make that clear to all patients who enter the building.

                          I've seen many instances where patients who plan to deliver at one hospital and are unaware that they will not be able to get their postpartum tubal ligation or contraceptive prescriptions after deliver. Similarly, I've seen patients transferred to an obstetrical hospital (if they needed a higher level NICU) and then once there find out that they are unable to receive the rest of the care that they need.

                          It is unethical for hospitals to fail to disclose that information. It is unethical for hospitals who do provide obstetrical and gynecologic services not to provide contraceptive and abortion care.

                        •  Then they certainly should not (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          moiv

                          expel students who wish to learn on their own.
                          But this does mean immediate expulsion from the program.  This is o.k. with you?

                    •  DUHHHH- what a copout! (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      moiv
                •  The students want it but (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  moiv

                  the schools policy is to expel them from the training program if they 'participate' in abortion care in any way.  MSFC contacts medical schools regularly- and are regularly rebuffed by the administration- who must approve if the students are to be contacted and join the local chapter.  Educate yourself!

            •  Having performed abortions in a county-run (7+ / 0-)

              facility myself, as a member of a large OB/GYN residency program affiliated with a medical school, I can tell you that such opportunities for student learning are few and far between.  Moreover, the bureaucratic hassle of doing abortions inside of institutions which are not supportive of a woman's right to access abortion care is no fun at all.  At best, the administrative process is not helpful, at worst, it is obstructive.

            •  you really, really don't know much, do you. (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              moiv, venice ca

              A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

              by william f harrison on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:10:21 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Not true... (8+ / 0-)

          I recently gave a lecture to a medical school in Illinois on contraception.  It was the first offical lecture they had ever had on CONTRACEPTION, EVER!  Never mind a lecture on abortion - forget about it...

          This was a PUBLIC state medical school by the way.

        •  you really don't know much, do you. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Womantrust

          A private gyn office offering full gyn services including abortion care to 18 weeks.

          by william f harrison on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 12:09:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You are dead wrong! (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          moiv, stitchmd

          Abortion care is NOT taught in the vast majority of medical schools- no matter how much the students may want it.  You must have been out of medicine and away from medical school reality for a long time- this is not a recent development.

    •  Each woman's abortion should be safe and legal. (9+ / 0-)

      Which woman's abortion should be rare?  Droogie, I understand that it is a snappy saying but there IS something wrong with it.  It is extremely judgmental, implying that women should not have abortions.  

      •  it is not meant to imply that women should not (4+ / 0-)

        have abortions, but that they should not be in the situations where they need abortions: there should be adequate pay, contraception, prenatal care and so on so that the occasions when abortions are needed are rarer than they are now.

        •  Yes (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          irishwitch, mamamedusa

          And education.

          That is what I meant. See my comment below.

        •  Regardless of what it is meant to imply (5+ / 0-)

          it doesn't come across to me with its intended meaning.  I realize that "rare" is not meant to imply that women should not have abortions. What I hear is what droogie says about abortion below.

          ..not a morally good thing, either

          No doubt, a good portion of the 1 in 3 or 4 women who will have an abortion in their lifetime hear the same thing I hear.  That is a lot of women to judge and second-guess their decision.  No wonder abortion is stigmatized.  

          Of course I support giving women more control over their bodies and lives.  I bet fewer women would get pregnant when they didn't intend to if they  had access to the services and information that would all her to have more control over her reproduction.

        •  Yes, but (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          moiv, Readrock, Womantrust

          what a great many hear is that abortion should be made "rare" by overregulating and restricting it as far toward oblivion as possible. Less available and less accessible = rarer.

          Why should you care at all how many women have abortions? And "rare" is so totally subjective a concept here that it defies definition. In addition, as Jain wrote above there is an unmistakable and harsh judgment implied.

          As I wrote in my diary:

          The implication of the word "rare" in this slogan is that there are now "too many" abortions. I have to wonder how many "too many" would be. How many would be "too few?" And how many would be "just right?"

          To those who so-call themselves "pro-life" we know that just one is "too many," "too few" is inconceivable, and none is "just right." This regardless of the sure knowledge that such attitudes written into law result in death, injury, illness, and extreme life disruption, with excruciating pain, suffering, and hardship, for uncounted hundreds of thousands of women and teenage girls and their families and friends - women and girls who are known, among other quite respectable names, as "mother," "wife," "sister," and "daughter," in answer to "What do you call a woman who has an abortion?"

          I've never seen any reasonable, rational way to argue that "too many abortions" is anything but a completely subjective judgment that would realistically make concrete, rational sense only if we humans were on the verge of underpopulating, underexploiting, and underpolluting the planet. There should be as many abortions as there are women and teenage girls who, for their own reasons, want or need them. Period.

          No matter how fervently you believe that you know what you merely believe, you merely believe it, and you might be wrong - very wrong.

          by Beket on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:44:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You don't have to agree with the position, but (0+ / 0-)

            for political effectiveness you need to be aware that there are significant numbers of people who are uncomfortable with abortion as the primary form of birth control. Not saying what my own position is, only that polls show lots of folks both support complete freedom to choose an abortion and simultaneously feel that other forms of birth control should be the front line ones.

            •  According to an expert researcher in the field (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              venice ca, stitchmd

              of reproductive health, abortion as primary birth control would translate into a total of about 30 abortions for the average woman. No provider of abortion care has ever even heard of such a thing -- and we are the ones who would know. It simply does not exist.

              "Abortion as birth control" is an anti-abortion myth on a par with Reagan's "welfare queens." The sooner we shake its mud off our feet, the better off women are going to be.

      •  asdf (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        irishwitch

        I'm not saying a woman who needs an abortion should be told, "Sorry, you can't have one. We want them to be rare."

        I am saying that we should be focusing on the root causes of the issue so that fewer women will have to make that choice to have an abortion -- or be forced into one by a lack of options.

        I didn't mean to imply at all that women should not have abortions if one is needed. They should not be forced to have one. They should have other options first, only having an abortion when there are no other options.

        •  This just confirms that it creates confusion (7+ / 0-)

          to use the term "rare." It means and implies different things, it's ambiguous, and that's why we're constantly fighting here over what it supposedly means. It's just not a good word. It's propaganda. Also see my comment below titled "Rare" just doesn't work.

          To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. Elbert Hubbard

          by choice joyce on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 08:25:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure it's propaganda. (0+ / 0-)

            You say that like it's a bad thing.

            The statement, I think, is designed to reflect the view that most of us have here. It's the view that abortions should be available, but that they should also be made less necessary to people through education and birth control.

            <