Skip to main content

Few issues incite Republican fury like medical malpractice. For conservative ideologues, malpractice lawsuits are a double affront which interferes with the righteous operation of the free market while lining the pockets of trial lawyers who help fund the Democratic Party. That's why, despite the near-total debunking of GOP mythology that frivolous lawsuits and "jackpot justice" are responsible for skyrocketing health care costs and physician departures, Republicans at the state and federal level are trying to curb damage awards and limit plaintiffs' access to the courts.

All of which makes the GOP's latest wave of draconian abortion restrictions all the more disgusting. As developments this week in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Texas legislature show, Republicans are legally requiring that American doctors commit medical malpractice. In many states, physicians must withhold potentially life-saving care or, conversely, provide unneeded tests and procedures. When it comes to topics like "fetal pain," so-called "post-abortion syndrome" and the mythical breast cancer link, doctors are mandated to lie to their patients. And if they remain silent about severe fetal conditions which might lead a woman to terminate her pregnancy, physicians would be immunized from liability.

For starters, consider a typical definition of medical malpractice like this one published by the National Institutes of Health:

Medical malpractice is defined as any act or omission by a physician during treatment of a patient that deviates from accepted norms of practice in the medical community and causes an injury to the patient.
For the likes of Arizona Rep. Trent Franks or Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the patient doesn't even enter in the equation. As the Dallas Morning News explained this week's debate in Austin over legislation that could force the closure of 37 of the state's 42 clinics:
The House will meet at 2 pm Sunday to debate the bills that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, increase standards for abortion clinics, make doctors who perform abortions gain admitting privileges at an area hospital and mandate protocols -- opposed by the American College of OB/GYNs -for pills used to induce abortions.

The three bills were passed along partisan lines.

Follow me below the fold to see that when it comes to mistreating and misleading American women, a quick glance around the country shows that Lone Star State Republicans have a lot of company.

Consider, for example, the unprecedented bill signed earlier this year by Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback. While the current draft dropped a provision "that would have banned abortion clinic workers from volunteering to bake cupcakes for their children's schools," the scope of the legislation is startling. As Huffington Post reported:

The state House Federal and State Affairs Committee passed a 70-page bill that would tax abortions, establish life beginning at fertilization...and prohibit state employees from performing abortions during the workday. The bill also would require doctors to tell women that abortion causes breast cancer, even though the claim defies scientific fact. The bill is likely to pass.
To say that the mythical abortion-breast cancer connection "defies scientific fact" is an understatement. That link has been firmly rejected by organizations including the American Cancer Association and the National Cancer Institute, which concluded that "abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer." Nonetheless, the Bush administration repeatedly claimed otherwise on federal government websites aimed at teenagers and pregnant women. As a 2006 Congressional investigation found, 20 of 23 federally funded "pregnancy resource centers," facilities often affiliated with antiabortion religious groups, incorrectly told women "that abortion results in an increased risk of breast cancer, infertility and deep psychological trauma." Nevertheless, when Kansas legislators held hearings on the subject of supposedly cancer-causing abortions, only one witness was asked to testify:
The testimony in front of the committee on Federal and state affairs came from Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, an oncologist specializing in breast cancer. The committee did not hear any other testimony before drafting H.B. 2598.
But Republicans don't merely want American doctors to proactively lie to their patients in order to discourage abortion; they want them to withhold the truth as well. Kansas, like Arizona and a growing number of red states, is seeking to ban so-called "wrongful birth" lawsuits. As the AP explained last year, "Those are lawsuits that can arise if physicians don't inform pregnant women of prenatal problems that could lead to the decision to have an abortion." In Kansas, SB 142 declares:
"No civil action may be commenced in any court for a claim of wrongful life or wrongful birth, and no damages may be recovered in any civil action for any physical condition of a minor that existed at the time of such minor's birth if the damages sought arise out of a claim that a person's action or omission contributed to such minor's mother not obtaining an abortion."
Think of it as a Republican's anti-choice, anti-trial lawyer dream. As President Bush famously proclaimed back in 2004:
"We need to do something about these frivolous lawsuits that are running up the cost of your health care and running good docs out of business. We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country. See, I don't think you can be pro-doctor and pro-patient and pro-hospital and pro- trial lawyer at the same time."
Apparently, you can't be pro-life and pro-women's health—and pro-truth—at the same time.

(Last year, an Oregon couple won a $3 million judgment in a case where the hospital's negligence, and not the doctor's silence, led to birth of a Down's syndrome child the mother would not otherwise have carried to term. As The Oregonian noted, "The judge prohibited media in the courtroom from photographing or recording images of the couple, whose attorney said had received death threats.")

The Republican obliteration of the doctor-patient relationship manifests itself in myriad other ways as well. As ThinkProgress noted earlier this year, despite a clear scientific consensus to the contrary, Texas, Georgia, Arizona and other GOP states have passed—or are seeking to pass—so-called "fetal pain" bills banning abortion after 20 weeks. That effort follows the almost decade-long effort of South Dakota and several other states to require doctors to advise women about mythical "post abortion syndrome," the utterly unproven risk of depression and suicide supposedly more likely to result following an abortion procedure.

When it comes to that supposed "deep psychological trauma," the conservative Supreme Court of the United States has made junk science - and condescension - the law of the land. In 2007, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy issued his shocking opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart. Kennedy put the nonexistent "post abortion syndrome" at the heart of his reasoning in upholding the federal ban on what Republicans deemed "partial birth abortion." As Ruth Marcus lamented, Kennedy basically decided that doctors had no right to perform the rare but medically necessary procedure because, in essence, women might get the vapors:

"Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child," Kennedy intoned. This is one of those sentences about women's essential natures that are invariably followed by an explanation of why the right at stake needs to be limited. For the woman's own good, of course.

Kennedy continues: "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained." No reliable data? No problem!

In the five-plus years since, a mountain of studies (including a new analysis in the Journal of Psychiatric Research last year) has debunked Kennedy's dangerous pseudo-science about abortion and mental health. Sadly, that these conservatives' claims aren't true has been no barrier to continuing to repeat them—and mandating that doctors and so-called "pregnancy crisis centers" warn women about them.

(Speaking of the dangerous nexus of junk science and legal paternalism, Oklahoma Republicans are seeking to prevent insurance plans from covering contraception for women "because it suppresses and disables who they are.")

Of course, conservative anti-choice leaders aren't content to violate the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. In state after state, they are violating women's bodies and privacy as well.

In Tennessee last year, GOP lawmakers tried to invite scrutiny—and intimidation—for women and their doctors with the Life Defense Act. Among other things, House Bill 3808 would "require the Department of Health to release more information on abortions, including the name of the doctor who performed the procedure and demographics about the women who receive them." (Similar laws in Oklahoma, North Carolina and Texas are currently facing court challenges.) As sponsor Rep. Matthew Hill, R-Jonesborough, put it:

"The Department of Health already collects all of the data, but they don't publish it. All we're asking is that the data they already collect be made public."
Sadly, that is not the only abomination that results when Republicans codify their philosophy of "Your Bodies, Our Minds."

Texas, Virginia and Alabama are just some of the red states demanding that women seeking abortions undergo and pay for medically unnecessary ultrasound tests their physicians oppose. Even leaving aside the "forced rape" bills considered in Virginia, Alabama and other states, Republican legislators are dictating the terms of the doctor-patient relationship with the ultra-sound laws. Last year, a Federal Appeals Court upheld Rick Perry's new statute in Texas requiring abortion providers "to show or describe an ultrasound image to a woman of her pregnancy and to play sounds of the fetal heart." As Reuters explained:

While a woman seeking an abortion can decline to view the legally required ultrasound, she cannot decline to hear the physician's description of it unless she qualifies for an exception due to rape, incest or fetal abnormality.

A coalition of medical providers sued in June to block the law, arguing that it made doctors a "mouthpiece" for the state's ideological message. The First Amendment includes protections against compelled speech.

The challengers, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, also argued that disclosure of the sonogram and fetal heartbeat was not "medically necessary" and therefore beyond the state's power to regulate the practice of medicine.

In Wisconsin, Republicans are pushing a bill mandating that women considering an abortion must first undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound. (Asked his position on the needless process required by the legislation, GOP Congressman Sean Duffy responded he didn't know what a trans-vaginal ultrasound is because "I haven't had one.") Meanwhile, Indiana recently adopted its own law mandating a trans-vaginal ultrasound before abortion, but only after dropping the requirement for a second violation two weeks after.

Republican states aren't just mandating what false statements doctors must say to and which unneeded and costly procedures they must perform on American women. Now in states like Virginia and Mississippi, GOP leaders are dictating where these affronts to the doctor-patient relationship can legally take place. Since in 2006, all Magnolia State facilities performing second and third trimester abortions must meet the same regulatory standards as full surgical hospitals, 36 pages of rules in all. As a result, the entire state of Mississippi, one of the poorest in the nation, now has only a single abortion clinic (the Jacksonboro Women's Health Clinic). For now. Meanwhile in Alabama, the so-called "Women's Health and Safety Act" would effectively close the last five clinics in the state:

Critics charged the bill sets impossible standards that have little to do with patient safety and that the bill stems from a template created by the pro-life group Americans United for Life.

"This bill targets regulatory standards of architectural structure, equipment and staffing that are totally unnecessary and cannot be met by the clinics," said Gloria Gray, director of the West Alabama Women's Health Center in Tuscaloosa. "How does requiring a six-foot hallway make it safer for a woman to have an abortion?"

And so it goes. In Arkansas, Republicans overrode a governor's veto to pass the harshest abortion bill in the nation. Banning abortions after 12 weeks, the Arkansas law takes on Roe v. Wade directly by defining fetal "viability" at 12 weeks when, it is claimed, a heartbeat is first detected. While three-quarters of U.S. counties have no provider of abortion services, Iowa and other states are proposing law that would prohibit doctors from prescribing and administering abortion-causing medication via tele-medicine video conferencing systems. (As the New Republic recently documented, "Several states have recently passed or are considering legislation to limit access to abortion drugs online and off.") And while another Iowa legislator seeks to define abortion as murder and a New Mexico Republican briefly sought to have victims of rape or incest having abortions classified as felons for destroying evidence, Alaska is taking a new path to standing between a woman and her doctor:
A bill that would decide what makes an abortion medically necessary got its first hearing Wednesday, getting the stamp of approval from a developmental psychologist and two doctors with histories of opposing abortion rights.
Of course, Republicans long ago decided that they, and not American women, men and their doctors, will decide what constitutes "medically necessary" and is vital for the "health of the mother." During the 2008 presidential election John McCain used air quotes to dismiss "an exception for the mother's health and life" altogether:
"Just again, the example of the eloquence of Sen. Obama. He's [for] health for the mother. You know, that's been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, 'health.'"
Back in 2000, future GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan took an even harsher line during a debate over the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban. (As NPR explained, the very rare intact dilation and extraction (used only 2,200 times out of 1.3 million procedures performed in 2000) was resorted to precisely to protect the health of the woman in certain late-term pregnancies.)  Ryan declared:
"The health exception is a loophole wide enough to drive a Mack truck through it. The health exception would render this ban virtually meaningless."
What is really being rendered meaningless, of course, is the very doctor-patient relationship Republicans pretend they want to protect. To prevent abortion procedures from being performed in the United States, GOP leaders insist that American physicians must engage in medical malpractice. To borrow a phrase from tort reform advocate George W. Bush, it will be impossible for OB/GYNs "to practice their love with women all across this country" when the law requires them to deceive and deny their patients.

Originally posted to Jon Perr on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by Pro Choice, Abortion, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Did any of the bills taxing abortions become law? (7+ / 0-)

    I would think that taxing abortions would be clearly unconstitutional.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:32:17 AM PDT

  •  this makes my blood run cold (7+ / 0-)

    How do these legislators sleep at night? Mostly men, no doubt.   Why do their women let them...?

    I would not begin to tell another woman what to do if uncertain about her pregnancy and would seek only to support  her decision.  I am bemused at those who are sure that they can - and no doubt still claim that they are decent people!

  •  Welcome to the Rethuglic of Gilead, people (7+ / 0-)

    By people, I mean anyone male, and embryos.  Women are not people, according to the Rethugs.

    How long do we have to put up with this insanity?

    "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

    by Diana in NoVa on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:51:01 AM PDT

  •  Exceptionally good diary (11+ / 0-)

    on this most horrific threat to women, families and now physicians.

    Can't rec enough and I hope you will keep hammering away on this topic.  

    (minor quibble:  please don't use the term "pro-life."  It gives the anti-choice crowd a high ground that they don't deserve)

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 10:55:16 AM PDT

    •  This is the exact comment I would have written. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meralda, Radiowalla, WheninRome

      Thank you and thanks to Jon Perr.

    •  I prefer "anti-choice" or "anti-woman" (4+ / 0-)

      There's no way these people are "pro-child" on any level.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:36:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Forced birth seems the most accurate description. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      myboo

      As in, shame on you women, you had sex for a reason other than procreation and now you have to bear the consequences of your shameful actions, so the government of the United States of America (or xxx state) will force you to give birth to a baby as punishment.

      “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

      by ahumbleopinion on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:12:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not as narrow as merely 'forced births.' (0+ / 0-)

        For these folk, what they want is women returned to a century when pregnancy was a very risky matter and a man might have several wives because the first one or two died of various complications of childbirth. It's only a matter of time before childbed fever and other perils of pregnancy and delivery begin to rise again, because it will be illegal for women to protect themselves and even the babies they want against them.

        They want a world where everything after the act of sex itself, however perpetrated, is controlled by men, and the consent of the woman at bottom is not required, and she can't do anything about it, no matter who she is, because she is until she lives to menopause, always a subordinate and secondary person who lives solely to perform a single function, to which the entire rest of her life is subordinated.

        And these jerks mean it. The vision of the speaker of a legislative house smashing his gavel down to avoid debate on these laws and shrieking, and the legislators who stopped hearing testimony from citizens, so they could move forward on the legislation the next morning, is ghastly.

        . I would never have thought I would see legislation providing that the governor of a state, Terry Branstead of Iowa, would reserve to himself exclusively the right to determine on an individual basis whether any Iowa woman could or could not have an abortion, but he did it, and should be the poster child for the kind of control these guys want over all women. Others have proposed that every miscarriage be criminally investigated, so that any woman who did not take care enough that it not happen could be criminally prosecuted. Even dealing with a medical complication of the mother is to be banned, or her failure to do so which they claim adversely affected a fetus.  Or where an impregnated victim of rape or incest cannot terminate the pregiancy or limit the damage it does to the entire balance of her life, because that in the mens' minds constitutes destruction of evidence in the usually highly unlikely trial of her violator. Her life is unimportant. I have already seen screaming public complaints when a pregnant celebrity is photographed smoking a cigarette or drinking a presumably alcoholic beverage, claiming she should be arrested, the one step away from the prosecution of mothers who were addicts and the baby was born the same. how long under these regimes will it take to have women prosecuted for not taking medicine X, folic acid being one, when a baby's birth defect is traceable to a want of folic acid during pregnancy, not a cigarette or a half glass of wine.

        And doctors are not being protected from angry litigants, as noted in the diary but are being required to tell affirmative untruths which can be life threatening to their patients, or flat out withhold information from them whenever they are women, in order to preclude their making choices about treatment of their own bodies because the doctor won't be obliged, in this matter only, even to tell them what that condition is.

        This matter of doctors having to be admitted to hospitals is another way of making sure all doctors conform to the standard of the antiwoman doctors in such places, as you will have noticed that in the places where that requirement exists, the doctors who do abortions cannot be admitted to hospital practice.  And that hospitals are now merging into practice groups in which religious doctrine is part of the package so that even if admitted, doctors cannot do these procedures in said hospitals, because the Bishops have prohibited it ever since 1931, when Pius XII went against what Pius XI ruled, and made law about this, and the religious hospitals will force their views on those which are not,  another way of making sure that the hospital facilities laws eliminate these procedures.

        The worst part of it politically is that the rise of the Tea Party candidate with the gerrymandered district, and who is already a millionaire, has produced whole legislatures whose majority does not believe it has any duty to represent constituents at all, and choose to do what they themselves alone prefer, because they can do it until the next election. And this is the kind of man making these decisions.

        This leaves sensible women with the sole choice of absolute chastity as to men, else her entire younger life will be subject to a police state now being set up where she might as well be in a coma until menopause otherwise, so little does she have to say about her own life and the body in which she lives it, if it is affected by the consequences of sex in a society where those chaste are either called old lady nuns or accused of other faults. In a world where now forty percent of children in this country live in single parent households because the selfsame men who reserve the right to make these decisions for her are not in those homes by their own choice, and a very substantial number do not pay child support of any kind.

        This is a nightmare.

  •  I have long wondered (11+ / 0-)

    how the non-medically trained people such as the overwhelming number of legislators have been allowed to practice medicine without a license.  In effect, that is what many of these bills are doing.  Legislators are dictating medical practices without being licensed physicians. They are also interferring in the sacred private relationship between a doctor and patient. I simply do not understand why the medical community has not been in an uproar over politicians practicing medicine.  

    "Growing up is for those who don't have the guts not to. Grow wise, grow loving, grow compassionate, but why grow up?" - Fiddlegirl

    by gulfgal98 on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:08:56 AM PDT

  •  SIX week limit? WTF?! (4+ / 0-)

    Some women don't even know they're pregnant until after six weeks since conception.  Not all women have regular (monthly) cycles.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:17:48 AM PDT

    •  Ah yes ... the notorious "heartbeat" bill. (4+ / 0-)

      That's the one that applies an approximately six-week limit, banning abortions if a fetal heartbeat can be detected by any method. It has received many hearings in the Ohio legislature, although it hasn't passed yet.

      Guess how many hearings the overhaul of Ohio's school funding system, declared unconstitutional by our state supreme court for the first of several times in 1997, has had?

      Oh, that was probably too easy.

      Yes, you're right.

      Zero.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

      by anastasia p on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:30:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, and just an aside ... (5+ / 0-)

        Hey DCCC, could we PLEASE stop recruiting a candidate for Congress who supports this? No, you will NOT win a conservative district in southeastern Ohio by running a Democratic who is just going to sit there and nod in agreement with Teabagger Bill Johnson on this issue.

        Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it. http://www.edfitzgeraldforohio.com/

        by anastasia p on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 11:38:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  hypocritical oathes of junk sciences /nt (0+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:01:00 PM PDT

  •  One of the tactics the anti-abortion side is using (9+ / 0-)

    that has received little attention in the media is new clinic regulations.  Things like requiring that procedure rooms be a certain square footage, that hallways and door ways be a certain width, and that expensive equipment, like ventilation systems and ultrasound machines (ding, ding, ding!)be purchased and installed. This will close more clinics than anything else, yet I haven't seen any specific pushback by the pro-choice side on this.

    I am an anesthesiologist that mainly works in office based and free-standing (not connected to a hospital) outpatient surgery centers, and there is NOTHING unsafe about abortions being performed in such settings.  A facelift is way more invasive, takes longer, and the patients are usually older and have more medical problems than young, pregnant women, yet tens of thousands of facelifts (and other such totally elective surgeries) are done in office O.R.s and surgery centers every year.

    In the last few years, insurance companies have incentivized performing endometrial ablations (for excessive menstrual bleeding) and tubal occlusion procedures (for permanent sterilization) in OB/Gyn offices.  If you can safely cook the lining of a woman's uterus, or put a scope in a uterus and thread coils into her fallopian tubes, in an office procedure room, then abortions are safe to do in such settings too.

    •  Your perspective is very valuable (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greengemini

      as you are in the front lines and know what is, and isn't, at stake.  Maybe you would consider writing a diary from the professional's point of view?  

      The onerous clinic restrictions (square footage, etc) have been the subject of push back in Mississippi and elsewhere.  Planned Parenthood spends an inordinate amount of time and money just fighting this harassment-via-regulation.  So do NARAL and  the Abortion Rights Action League.  

      It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

      by Radiowalla on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:31:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wish I could recommend this comment (0+ / 0-)

      (but I didn't see it in time.) All you have to do is require that the doors are an inch wider than standard to cause huge havoc.

      (And eesh, facelifts are creepy surgery.)

      Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

      by elfling on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:06:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My question is this: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, gulfgal98, myboo

    Why has the AMA not told all doctors that they will hold disciplinary hearings for any doctor that complies with the demand that they conduct unnecessary medical procedures?

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 12:50:51 PM PDT

    •  Hmmm ... I didn't really (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mayfly, greengemini, myboo

      think this through.

      I do not want to see the few doctors who are prepared to accommodate the health needs of women, disciplined.

      Maybe they should be looking long and hard at the legislators who hold a medical license, yet who vote to pass laws that are contrary to their medical oaths.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:00:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent diary, thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mayfly, Radiowalla

    SOS - Save Our Sigs!

    by blueoregon on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 01:10:54 PM PDT

  •  Repubs & Teabags in DC detract from their chaos (0+ / 0-)

    by passing yet another egregious bill against women's rights -
    while GOP legislatures realize they've lost the gay wedge issue and frantically fire up their Taliban base by tackling women's rights - as true Libertarians grin and bear it, knowing it's a means to an end - gaining more federal and state seats.

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Sat Jun 22, 2013 at 02:54:50 PM PDT

  •  unintended consequences of advocacy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    in the long run an extended welfare programs for trial lawyers

    "We need to do something about these frivolous lawsuits that are running up the cost of your health care and running good docs out of business. We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country. See, I don't think you can be pro-doctor and pro-patient and pro-hospital and pro- trial lawyer at the same time."

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 06:55:17 PM PDT

  •  I am a peaceful man (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    I am known for measured, temperate commentary.

    But I gotta tell ya ... I'm an old-fashioned guy who can't help feeling that I should be part of protecting women.

    When I see them being abused in this manner, a large part of me wants simply to punch the bastards lights out.

    Normal service will be resumed shortly.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 06:59:07 PM PDT

  •  It's OK though, see the same states LIMIT... (0+ / 0-)

    ... the size of damage awards the Mal-practiced upon can win in court. So see, a win win in Talibanistania.

  •  You know what causes deep psychological trauma? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Being someone's mom. Giving birth to a child. Having responsibility for a child.

    I say that both flippantly and with deep seriousness.

    I would add that c-sections lead to infertility. If one has had a few successful live births, physicians consider it less of an issue. But you can't have them indefinitely, which is a real problem if the issue is fetal defects and a wanted pregnancy.

    Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

    by elfling on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:04:13 PM PDT

  •  Fear and ignorance vs reason and science. (0+ / 0-)

    That's the choice American's face. It seems simple but it trumps all other single "issues." One has a future. Choose wisely, America.

    What is so unnerving about the candidacy of Sarah Palin is the degree to which she represents—and her supporters celebrate—the joyful marriage of confidence and ignorance. SAM HARRIS

    by Cpqemp on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:11:57 PM PDT

  •  They are Destroying Themselves (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    One Ignorant and Stupid Anti-Women Bill at a Time.

    My sympathies and Condolences for the Sane People
    that have to deal with this Bullshit.

    On Giving Advice: Smart People Don't Need It and Stupid People Don't Listen

    by Brian76239 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:21:10 PM PDT

  •  It's not just the abortion issue though it is the (0+ / 0-)

    most likely to become a treatment issue.

    JCAHO is the national organization that annually inspects, sets standards etc. for all American hospitals.  (They were the ones who shut down hospitals in New Orleans after Katrina.)  And there are other professional organizations, that inspect, test and certify hospitals, labs etc.

    The result is that here are recognized and uniform medical standards for all hospitals, medical labs etc from coast to coast.

    As soon as the government legally allows, say faith based, health care professionals/institutions to refuse or neglect treatment, that would be given in any other hospital, it is legalizing medical malpractice, abuse, man slaughter, and murder.

    Remember the Republicans accuse the Dims of what the R's are dong.  So there is your death panel.  The spineless Dims need to say that loudly and often.

    Once that erosion begins, where do the exceptions stop?

    It these cheats get away with this, there need to be lots and lots of law suits, because this cannot be allowed to happen.

    There are too many towns and cities that no longer have community owned hospitals, they only have faith based hospitals, so their citizens are in a death trap created in the name of God and possible legally approved by our government.

    Incidentally faith based hospitals make tons of money.  They do not pay taxes, can charge what they want, and do not have to care for the poor.  The might do charity but they don't have to.

    It is those advantages that have allowed them to run local tax based hospitals out of town.  
    There is no way for truly non profit, hospitals that have to take the poor to compete, and all the rich folk go to the better for profit and stop supporting the local institution.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site