The Gaming Den

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179281063[/unixtime]]
Simply put, I don't want all abortions to stop, I want THIS to stop.

CINCINNATI, OH, April 5, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On March 29, 2005, Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) -associated attorney Thomas Condit filed suit against Planned Parenthood of the Southwest Ohio Region on behalf of a Hamilton County couple who claim their daughter was coerced into an abortion by an adult boyfriend with the connivance of Planned Parenthood employees. Based on the allegations in the complaint, LLDF believes that this case, Roe v. Planned Parenthood, indicates a common practice of covering up for statutory rape at Planned Parenthood.

That's a very good point. Choice theft via coercion can be just as bad as choice theft via legislation.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179281063[/unixtime]]
Simply put, I don't want all abortions to stop, I want THIS to stop.

CINCINNATI, OH, April 5, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - On March 29, 2005, Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) -associated attorney Thomas Condit filed suit against Planned Parenthood of the Southwest Ohio Region on behalf of a Hamilton County couple who claim their daughter was coerced into an abortion by an adult boyfriend with the connivance of Planned Parenthood employees. Based on the allegations in the complaint, LLDF believes that this case, Roe v. Planned Parenthood, indicates a common practice of covering up for statutory rape at Planned Parenthood.

Um... why do you want that to stop?

Let's deconstruct this:

• A young woman had an inappropriate boyfriend. She got pregnant. Her parents did not know about it, and she did not want them to know.
  
  
• The couple decides together that rather than talk about it to the parents, that they should get an abortion.
  
  
• She goes to Planned Parenthood, and requests an abortion and does not want to share this information with other people. As per doctor/patient confidentiality, PP respects her wishes, performs the procedure and leaves it up to her to tell people when and if she is ready.
  
  
• Eventually she tells her parents, and then apparently just as she feared, her parents take up a court case against everyone else who was ever involved in the whole ordeal.

Excuse me? What the heck is the problem? An underage girl decides that she doesn't want to carry a fetus to term because if she does so the father of the child will go to jail and won't be much of a father anyway and her parents are extremely non-understanding. So she asks for an abortion and then the doctor gives it to her.

Then an obviously unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen, the doctors respect the girl's right to confidential treatment, and everyone is happy except the LLDF. So the question is: what do you want to stop?

Do you want Planned Parenthood to stop respecting doctor patient confidentiality?

Do you want Planned Parenthood to stop providing safe and effective medical procedures for people who are making bad life choices?

Do you want to force underage girls into 40 weeks of work without pay or control?

What? Because from what I can tell from that little piece of bullshit you got there - Planned Parenthood is acting in a responsible fashion and the parents are being total dicks.

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1179291486[/unixtime]] Because from what I can tell from that little piece of bullshit you got there - Planned Parenthood is acting in a responsible fashion and the parents are being total dicks.

Exactly. I actually tried to find more information on this case. (I couldn't find anything on it from actual news organizations, just anti-abortion propaganda sites cribbing from each other) But as Frank points out, that's not even necessary. It's pretty clear even from LifeSiteNews.com's "reporting" that Planned Parenthood isn't the bad guy here.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179237746[/unixtime]]I often wonder how people who are for abortion are called “pro-choice” people. They are the same people who insist that abortions should not be required to have the same informed consent laws that every other operation requires.

Buh wha?

I know of no effort to make this not have the same informed conset that every other medical proceedure has... Although I do know of some right-wing crazies wanting to tag on just about everything they can imagine to the 'informed' part - things which wouldn't be told for the average gallbladder removal.

-Crissa

technomancer at [unixtime wrote:1179263736[/unixtime]]In fact, according to the abortion link I provided above, 51.8% of abortions were had by women who's family income was above 30,000 / year. Those are the people who can afford to have the child, but do not want one.

Family income... For three people, that's considered poverty. Your number is meaningless unless we know how much per member of the family. That'd be an extra child that couldn't be afforded.

That so many women make under 30K a year and can afford an abortion should be a surprise - it's larger than the rest of the population by a wide margin.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179281063[/unixtime]]

But for most abortions the simplest way is to prevent the conception from happening. Education is the key here. We may really need to radically rethink a number of ideas, including simply preventing ovulation and menstrual periods in those women who are not actively trying to conceive.

I'm all for more birth control, but I'd be pushing comdoms rather than hormonal. Making hormonal birth control available more easily to young women might help somewhat. However, condoms are safer disease-wise and more practical for many young women, particularly those who need to conceal their activity.

I'm a little put off, actually, by your talk about what "we" need to do with women's bodies. There's a creepy sense of ownership in this post. If anyone is going to decicde to menstruate, or not to menstruate, it should be the people (that is, women) who are going to have deal with the menstruation. Not some dude in an office.

In case you didn't know, hormonal birth control is great but not for everyone, and many women have dangerous or unpleasant reactions to it. I would imagine, though I haven't checke,d that most adult women who can take the Pill without adverse side effects do.

We want reasonable limitations on who can kill their unborn child and when.

Who's going to decide what's reasonable? When and how?

If there's a health exception, can a woman's doctor sign off on it, or does she need a judge? what if she's poor, or can't get time off? What if she needs to conceal this from a husband or boyfriend? What if the judge is more interested in slut-shaming than health? How long does the approval process take, bearing in mind that abortions get more expensive, dangerous, and morally questionable the later they're done?

*Any* restriction on abortion will kill women. And that is *not* okay.

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1179291486[/unixtime]] An underage girl decides that she doesn't want to carry a fetus to term because if she does so the father of the child will go to jail and won't be much of a father anyway and her parents are extremely non-understanding.

(Bolding added by me.)

That's the part where I have an issue. The father of the child is getting away with rape, and that's not cool.

The rest? It's not a situation I would ever find myself in, therefore it is of no importance to me. I just don't think child molesting scumbags should ever get away with their crimes.

wrote:That's the part where I have an issue. The father of the child is getting away with rape

In some cases and some places however the rape that would send the father to jail happens to be entirely consensual.

And I don't mean that in some "no means yes" bullshit asshole way.

I mean that as in in some parts of the fine USA for instance, where conservative "pro life", celebacy training pricks have well nigh free reign already there are rather unfortunate minimum age laws and vigorous prosecution tied with strange sex offender shaming strategies and poor sex ed that do some pretty nasty things.

As in no sex ed means teenage couple are more likely to have sex (both fully consenting, maybe even with parental approval), girl is more likely to get pregnant. Laws are passed that FORCE teachers to inform on the girl. The baby is proof that a crime has been committed. The boy is prosecuted regardless of anyones wishes, he gets jail time, or maybe he gets a big nasty suspended sentence and something rather bad in his permanent record.

Either way if out, or once he gets out, he also gets put on the state sex offender list that includes actual rapists and worse (with no differentiation) for something like ten years with photo identification and his home address made public. He can't rent property get a job or avoid vigilantes for the entirity of his twenties. His life is over, and he probably can't even move to brazil.

And things aren't much better for the girl involved, I mean how would you feel if your first relationship led to that? And you got stiffed with a baby to boot.

See now THERE the pro life "jesus" dicks have actually willfully created a situation where a discrete abortion is easily the best outcome.

And don't believe a word of it when they say its about something else.

Its all about hating sex. (and sometimes women, but mostly sex)

Edit: Infact the state name Ohio rang a bell, and a though a thorough search didn't find what I was looking for one article said it was the only state to have a civil sex offenders registry, so its probably THAT ONE. Certainly the backward parental consent law sounds like one of the same"damned if you do" clusterfvcks from that French documentary I saw the stories this post is about.

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1179316315[/unixtime]]Its all about hating sex.

Goddamn fvcking sex.

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1179303302[/unixtime]]I know of no effort to make this not have the same informed conset that every other medical proceedure has...

You don't have to, it's already New York State (the Abortion Capitol of the US) Law. Because abortion is that sacred constitutionally protected right abortion providers routinely can get away with a plethora of requirements that other doctors are required to do including informing, reporting and even performing operations in close proximity to a hospital should complications require more advanced treatment. You won't find the liberal pro-choice media reporting about this and you will need to wade into the plethora of papers that New York State generates in terms of law to read between the lines, but it's there!

(I occasionally get involved as a volunteer lobbyist for a pro-life group. There is a lot of things that Planned Parenthood would not want the public at large to know.)

I always get annoyed at "health exceptions." I know it's code words used by pro-choice people because they have already stacked the deck. It comes back to the question of choice and proper informed consent. It's not about the woman's doctor, it's about the doctor at the clinic who has a vested interest in performing the procedure. (And the wonderful ability to dodge accountbility and proper reporting procedures.) Oh my god she's having a bad hair day ... heath exception ... kill the fetus!

No should there be a real "woman's doctor" who is actually looking out for the well being of the woman and who has provided her with all the alternatives along with the pros and cons of each and the reasons are indeed serious enough that they would reasonably stand before any proper peer review of the situation, then even though the principle of double effect might not apply but I would be satisified with such a proper decision.

Phonelobster - yes there is a major problem with the Scarlet Letter sex offender parinoia that is out there seeing that a couple of kids can get barred for life with the same title that covers pedophiles. Actually my quote got off track ... my point was that the girl was "coerced into an abortion" which by definition is not "choice." Apparently some people think that it's ok to cocerce someone into an abortion but not ok to cocerce someone out of an abortion.

By the way, this is an interesting point because it allows me to bring up the Matriarch of the feminist movement, Susan B. Anthony. Back in the 19th century the feminist movement saw abortion as a way men could avoid the problems of having sex with those they were not married to by removing the problem of bastard children before they were born. Abortion was seen by them as oppression by men against women.

(Please note I was not advocating hormones over condoms; I think there needs to be a variety of methods to reduce pregnancy and they should all be used together.)

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1179314413[/unixtime]]

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1179291486[/unixtime]] An underage girl decides that she doesn't want to carry a fetus to term because if she does so the father of the child will go to jail and won't be much of a father anyway and her parents are extremely non-understanding.

(Bolding added by me.)

That's the part where I have an issue. The father of the child is getting away with rape, and that's not cool.

The rest? It's not a situation I would ever find myself in, therefore it is of no importance to me. I just don't think child molesting scumbags should ever get away with their crimes.

That's not a medical issue though. There are lots of times that people have medical issues because they have committed or are involved with crime. And as a medical professional you must give those people the medical care they need, without turning them over to the police, without breaking confidentiality.

Why?

Because otherwise people in those situations won't get medical care. It's exactly the same reason why people are allowed to say anything they want to their lawyers without having that turned over in court. Confidentiality is iron clad so that people can get the help they need.

I don't know whether the couple in question is a 17 year old girl and an 18 year old boy, or a 12 year old girl and a 40 year old man who is also her uncle. And you know what? I don't care: because either way the appropriate response from medical professionals is to give the girl the medical care she asks for and shut the hell up about it.

There are a number of horrible things that will happen if the girl in question could not count on the silence of her medical professionals. Mostly I would point out that the same rules apply to abortions as apply to pre-natal care and that if she won't get one for fear of discovery chances are she won't get the other either.

Seriously, as medical professionals it is not our fvcking job to judge people, only to provide the care they want and need.

-Username17

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179325503[/unixtime]]
(Please note I was not advocating hormones over condoms; I think there needs to be a variety of methods to reduce pregnancy and they should all be used together.)

As it so happens, the people providing "a variety of methods" are Planned Parenthood!

Here we have Planned Parenthood on birth control:
-Behavioral Methods

• 
  
• Continuous Abstinence
  
• Outercourse
  
• Fertility Awareness-Based Methods
  
• Withdrawal
  
• Continuous Breastfeeding
  

-Over-the-Counter

• 
  
• The Condom
  
• Female Condom
  
• Sponge
  
• Spermicide

-Prescription

• 
  
• The Pill
  
• The Patch
  
• The Ring
  
• The Shot
  
• The Implant
  
• Diaphragms, Caps, and Shields
  
• Intrauterine Devices

-Permanent

• 
  
• Tubal Sterilization
  
• Vasectomy

-Emergency Contraception
-Abortion

They give advice on what to do during pregnancy, how to adopt, and on being a parent.



Then we have Pro-Life America:
-Condom Warnings - They Don't Work!
-"Birth Control" Pills cause early Abortions
- Abortion Methods, "Pro-choice" Claims
-Photos - See graphic, real abortion photos #1
-See Abortion Video Online!


I'm not saying that Pro-Life America is completely bad, but I would say that they're asymptotically approaching it.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179325503[/unixtime]] It's not about the woman's doctor, it's about the doctor at the clinic who has a vested interest in performing the procedure. (And the wonderful ability to dodge accountbility and proper reporting procedures.) Oh my god she's having a bad hair day ... heath exception ... kill the fetus!

You've made this assertion twice now, but still provide no evidence for it. Just why do you think that the doctor has a "vested interest in performing the procedure"? I mean, obviously a number of doctors actually care about their patients and have an interest in performing whatever the best procedure for them is, but your hostility indicates you think it's something more than that.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179325503[/unixtime]]No should there be a real "woman's doctor" who is actually looking out for the well being of the woman and who has provided her with all the alternatives along with the pros and cons of each and the reasons are indeed serious enough that they would reasonably stand before any proper peer review of the situation, then even though the principle of double effect might not apply but I would be satisified with such a proper decision.

Congratulations, you just invented the OB/GYN. Seriously, what the hell? You just described what we already do. There's even an organization called "Planned Parenthood" dedicated entirely to doing exactly what you just described. Yet you don't like them for some reason. I'm terribly puzzled.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179325503[/unixtime]]
It's not about the woman's doctor, it's about the doctor at the clinic who has a vested interest in performing the procedure.

You know, you look like an idiot when you say stuff like this. Abortions are a fairly cheap medical procedure (especially compared to, say, not getting an abortion). They really don't make a lot of money off of them.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179325503[/unixtime

(I occasionally get involved as a volunteer lobbyist for a pro-life group. There is a lot of things that Planned Parenthood would not want the public at large to know.)

You'd better have solid evidence of that. Planned Parenthood is *not* a union for abortion doctors. In fact, there are no abortion doctors, only doctors who occasionally perform abortions-- it's not a specialty that anyone's career depends on, and IIRC often the same doctors do abortions and pre-natal care.

Planned Parenthood doesn't seem llike an organization pushing for abortions. Most of their clinics don't even perform aboritons -- they distribute birth control, do health tests and prenatal care. They even advocate abstinence as an effective form of birth control, so I don't see why you're so quick to see them as abortion-loving conspirators

I always get annoyed at "health exceptions." I know it's code words used by pro-choice people because they have already stacked the deck.

What the hell? Seriously, what the hell? You said you didn't want to ban all abortions, just regulate them, so I assumed there would be a helath exception. What kind fo exception were you planning? Exceptions for the sufficiently pure and contrite?

It comes back to the question of choice and proper informed consent.

Specifically, whether women *have* choice or informed consent.

It's not about the woman's doctor, it's about the doctor at the clinic who has a vested interest in performing the procedure.

Do you have any idea how expensive pregnancy is compared to abortion? Seriously, there are no abortionists, there are only OB-GYN and other reproductive health specialists.

(And the wonderful ability to dodge accountbility and proper reporting procedures.) Oh my god she's having a bad hair day ... heath exception ... kill the fetus!

Again, who gets to decide what is or ins't a good reason? You? Judge Scalia?

Apparently some people think that it's ok to cocerce someone into an abortion but not ok to cocerce someone out of an abortion.

I certainly don't think coercion is justified. That said, coercion is coercion-- it's not good from either side. Everyone deserves a free choice. That said, all we have so far is LLDF's statement that she was coerced, and I'm not taking their word for it. I'm too lazy to check and see whether she herself says she was coerced, but until then, I'm dubious.

Back in the 19th century the feminist movement saw abortion as a way men could avoid the problems of having sex with those they were not married to by removing the problem of bastard children before they were born. Abortion was seen by them as oppression by men against women.

IIRC, at the time of Susan B Anthony's writing, abortions were really dangerous. This is also why the Hippocratic Oath says no abortions.

(Please note I was not advocating hormones over condoms; I think there needs to be a variety of methods to reduce pregnancy and they should all be used together.)

You're advocating a society in which you decide what women need, rather than women deciding what they need.

You know I really was tempted to respond, "no you provide abortions; the condom is just a cover," but I think the joke would have fallen flat. Just like those condoms planned parenthood gave out in New York which Consumer Reports listed under the pathetic - prone to fail - category.

By the way, that's a typical PP response there. Like any liberal organization they employ more lawyers than doctors. Unfortunately most of the people I know in the pro-life community are not in the internet age. I will see if I can grab some references on some of this. Like how PP routinely sneaks into the back door of school administrations and gets the teachers to require students to attend special events outside the schools where students are told specifically not to trust their own parents!

I don't want to ban all aboritons. But I don't want the term "heath exception" to be a back door for any old excuse. It needs to be real health exceptions. Unfortunately because of the reporting excemptions most often a health excemption in a law means any reason whatsoever.

Without informed consent, there is no true choice.

Meanwhile I have a baseball game to go to.

Tzor wrote:Unfortunately most of the people I know in the pro-life community are not in the internet age.

Yes. They are in the Dark Ages.

-Username17

Tzor, what law are you talking about?

Because that honestly makes no sense.

There's no legal requirement to perform dental surgery, breast implants, liposuction, all sorts of invasive but otherwise regular proceedures as outpatient proceedures - and not at a hospital. These proceedures involve open patients, general anesthesia, IVs, etc.

-Crissa

Please, tzor, you're our guy on the inside on this. We're having a great discussion, let's continue digging at the facts.

I think this is why they have so many lawyers.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1179349408[/unixtime]]I don't want to ban all aboritons. But I don't want the term "heath exception" to be a back door for any old excuse. It needs to be real health exceptions. Unfortunately because of the reporting excemptions most often a health excemption in a law means any reason whatsoever.

Without informed consent, there is no true choice.

I can't let this slide.

You are advocating, in between spouting obvious pathetic anti abortionist loony propaganda about frail condoms and anti good christian parent conspiracies, that no woman should be allowed to choose to have an abortion and ONLY a panel of peer reviewed health proffessionals should be able to decide for her if there are sufficiently very serious health issues involved.

That is NOT an acceptable or sane position. Certainly not as far as I'm concerned, or oddly the majority of western society these days.

Without free access to abortions for ANY reason there is no true choice. Heck your preffered system is definitely a no choice system (especially with your stated prefference for some sort of mandated birth control for all undesirable would be mothers).

A woman damn well has the right to decide to have an abortion for ANY reason. I don't care if she wants it because she read a bad fortune in the tea leaves while concieving with Tim the tea brewer.

Its her body and her RIGHT to demand an abortion, with or without anyone elses knowledge or consent including her parents, the state, a peer reviewed panel, Tim the tea brewer and most of all you and the loony right.

See your ideas on the "gramar" thread and your peer review ideas here really seem to be combining to some sort of world view where inferior women aren't allowed to control their bodies or their lives.

And like I said its about hating sex, except when its about hating women.

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Let's keep it civil. I know it's hard given the subject matter, but let's keep it civil.
[/TGFBS]

The problem with health exceptions is that second guessing women and health professionals is tough - they need to make a decision within a few days, a couple weeks. They need to choose before it's too late.

What bugs me is that the pro-life laws (like in ohio and texas) charge the male spouse and doctor -but not the woman - for making a bad decision.

It's her decision. No one else's.

-Crissa

IIRC the "obvious pathetic anti abortionist loony propaganda about frail condoms" is actually true. I disagree with the Pro-Life platform regardless of what the Pro-Choice guys are doing, but I'm still interested to hear if some Pro-Choice people are being sleazy.

I this case I'm pretty sure than Planned Parenthood just got the cheapest condoms they could get, and of course the Consumer Report necessarily came out after the condoms were distributed.

Heh. One has to love people pointing to consumer reports that you had necessarily not read in order to show that your actions before the consumer report article were in bad faith.

But regardless, Catharz your links don't work. They go back to this thread. It's just like not linking to anything at all.

For an example of this in action, here
is a link to the "Pro-Life" spin on the consumer reports article. Yes, Planned Parenthood must be "conning the public" because they distribute a number of condoms, which ranged in effectiveness amongst 23 tested by Consumer Reports from 14th to 23rd. An alternate explanation might be that Planned Parenthood gives out free condoms, and that those condoms are themselves cheap and often donated to the organization.

This actually underscores how incredibly dishonest the "Pro-Life" camp really is. Consider this gem:

This poor performance comes when Planned Parenthood is vulnerable on other fronts as well. The success of abstinence programs is threatening the monopoly that PP and other abortion providers have had in getting millions of dollars to provide federally funded sex-education programs.

Success? What Success?

Oh right, they are actually saying that Abstinence Programs have been successful in getting millions of dollars from the federal government.. Actually of course, they've gotten over 1.3 billion dollars, but who's counting? And heck, according to the Federal Government which funds these programs, those Abstinence Programs have been a total failure.

But hey, the fact that the Religious Right can funnel over a billion dollars into the gaping maw of the void still indicates an area where Planned Parenthood is "vulnerable" - after all, the Religious Right could take all of the funds that are earmarked to help people and divert them all into a dark hole where they don't do any good for anyone. Yeah!

-Username17

FrankTrollman at [unixtime wrote:1179369298[/unixtime]]
But regardless, Catharz your links don't work. They go back to this thread. It's just like not linking to anything at all.

-Username17

Here is what the link should be: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/heal ... /index.htm


Of course, then you have Pro-life organizations saying things like "Planned Parenthood Propaganda Spread by Consumer Reports" (http://www.illinoisrighttolife.org/2005 ... Spread.htm) .

Whoa, that's a good one.

IRLC wrote:However, their comparative guide to contraceptives included with these ratings shows that in “typical” use, the male condom fails 15 times per 100 users per year. Statistically, in less than five years this becomes a 100% failure rate.

Wow. I don't know what they think that means, but I can't get that to add up any which way.

85% of people who have sex and use condoms will avoid pregnancy during a year of intercourse. That includes user error and people who use a condom "almost every time".

Even if it was some sort of rule that 15 people get pregnancies this year, then 15 different people next year, and so on - that would still only add up to 75 people out of 100 in 5 years. And the math doesn't work that way anyhow.

I am genuinely appalled at the state of basic science and math amongst these "Pro-Life" knuckleheads. Seriously, what the hell? And this isn't just some dude spouting off the top of his head, this is the actual arguments they are supplying to their grass roots supporters in Illinois. This non-think comes from the top.

-Username17

What they're saying is that it has an 85% failure rate per year, and after 5 years that becomes 100%. This is, of course, an outright lie, because the actual failure rate from 5 years of 85% success per year is 66%. Even after 20 years it's only about 97%. I mean sure, 97% is really fucking high, but that's 20 years and it still hasn't gotten to 100%.