Archive for Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Sebelius vetoes abortion report measure
May 22, 2007
Advertisement
Topeka — Saying it would open private medical records to public viewing, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Monday vetoed a proposal to require doctors to tell the state exactly why they aborted fetuses able to survive outside the womb.
The measure also directed the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to summarize the information it received from doctors about why they performed the procedure and include it in annual reports the agency already publishes.
Some abortion opponents had hoped the increased reporting would give legislators data they could use to set policy - and influence public opinion. Lawmakers included the new requirements in the year's final spending bill.
While Sebelius signed the bill, she used her power to veto individual items in spending measures to block the tougher reporting requirements. Sebelius said doctors would face "open-ended" questions and be required to divulge details about patients' medical condition.
"Rather than collecting sound data that is able to be properly analyzed and protected, this proviso is likely to have little substantive effect, yet opens up patients' private medical information to public viewing," Sebelius wrote in her veto message. "This measure runs counter to Kansans' strong belief in the importance of medical privacy."
Backers of the proposal said patients' privacy already is protected because doctors assign patients numbers and don't submit their names to the state. Mary Kay Culp, executive director of Kansans for Life, the state's largest anti-abortion group, called the governor's statement about privacy "a blatant, outright lie."
"This was the very, very, very, very least she could have done to protect unborn children and their mothers, and once again she couldn't do it," Culp said.
Sebelius, a strong abortion rights supporter, also vetoed an abortion reporting bill last year.
Julie Burkhart, a lobbyist for the abortion rights group ProKanDo, said anti-abortion groups sought the increased reporting so they would have information to guide them when they sought to ban certain abortions.
Top ads RSS
- Systems Specialist I - KU Information Services
- Kids Fitness Instructor - Basehor, Bonner Springs, Tonganoxie, Eudora Looking ...
- BAM! You found it! Sign on Bonus Interviewing Wednesday. First ...
- AWESOME $ Year round work + full time positions. $1,600/ ...
- Wheat State Pizza General Manager or Assistant Managers Must be ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- ‘Tea party’ is Palin’s people February 7, 2010 · 228 comments
- Kansas Legislature considers poverty waivers for those looking to get married, but unable to pay fees February 9, 2010 · 35 comments
- Proposed constitutional amendment to block federal health care reform considered February 9, 2010 · 47 comments
- UT forward miffed February 9, 2010 · 13 comments
- Open house to discuss Highway 56 moved to Baldwin City school February 9, 2010 · 9 comments
- Rep. John Murtha, Iraq war critic, dies at 77 February 9, 2010 · 89 comments
- Poll: Paper, plastic or, no thanks, I brought my own tote bag? February 8, 2010 · 47 comments
- The only choice February 9, 2010 · 53 comments
- Tehran moves closer to warhead capacity February 9, 2010 · 42 comments
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010 · 71 comments
- Under her wing: Parent writes book on developmental disabilities February 8, 2010
- KU employee suspected of charging personal items on university credit card February 9, 2010
- KU communication studies professor is a finalist for MU post February 9, 2010
- Eudora man hospitalized after head-on crash into tree February 9, 2010
- Open house to discuss Highway 56 moved to Baldwin City school February 9, 2010
- HealthGrades releases list of hospitals with lower mortality, complication rates February 9, 2010
- Aldrich’s father gets to ‘live a dream’ — in Lawrence February 9, 2010
- Bill would allow big-cat hunting February 9, 2010
- KDHE orders salvage yard to change practices February 9, 2010
- Love bonds February 8, 2010
22 May 2007
at 5:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
Our governor lying again for political gain. She knows that medical records are safe. She also knows if the people of Kansas knew how many perfectly healthy children (yes, children, not fetuses) were being killed, they'd sh!t a brick. That just goes to show you that the lefties concern about the “deaths in Iraq” is a bunch of crap too. They don't give a rat's ass about people dying. They're just political whores, Sebilius being one of the most prolific. She's got to make good on those political contributions!
22 May 2007
at 7:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
davidnta (Anonymous) says…
Our governor is doing a service to women in Kansas. She is protecting their identities from those righties, and keeping women safe from men. Unborn fetuses are fetuses until they are born. Right-wing people don't care about people dying. Look at the war in Iraq and how miserable those soldiers are. Bush just needs to do one or two more screw-ups, and it appears that the Democrats will be in power for a long time afterwards.
22 May 2007
at 8:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
davidnta says:
Our governor is doing a service to women in Kansas. She is protecting their identities from those righties, and keeping women safe from men.
******************************************************************************
People who use this argument including the governor know this is bogus. If they really believe this then why don't they argue against medical information that is gather for cancer, AIDS, or many other medical conditions. The Kansas Department of Health collects information and has registries for many medical conditions but the governor doesn't argue to eliminate those in order to protect those individuals medical information.
22 May 2007
at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
This article is summed up in the first paragraph. “Gov. Kathleen Sebelius on Monday vetoed a proposal to require doctors to tell the state exactly why they aborted fetuses able to survive outside the womb.” Are you serious Sebelius? If they can survive outside the womb? You better believe they should have to tell the state why they murdered a viable child. There is some gray area for people when the child isn't viable outside the womb, but when they are viable and can survive outside of their mother, it becomes very black and white. This isn't about a women's right to choose, this is about a viable baby's right to live and if Sebelius wants to cover up murder then that's fine. You can call me a fanatic, whatever you wish but from discussions on this board before, the questions that are the toughest to answer for all of us is when life begins. And this article shows that our governor doesn't want to protect children that are obviously alive since they can survive outside the womb.
22 May 2007
at 8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
www.kfl.org
22 May 2007
at 8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Good job, Governor Sebelius.
This is just another obvious attempt of the nanny-state socialists to pry into the private lives of American citizens. It is another attempt to drive a wedge into the rights of individuals to have control over their bodies without harrassment and intimidation.
Rave on, christian lunatics, about when a human embryo is a human being. Your attempts at social engineering and nanny-state regulation will be met and countered by true defenders of American freedom and liberty.
22 May 2007
at 9:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
ywn, I'm glad you stand by this measure to protect murdering children. You are the one that always comes up with the question of when a embryo or fetus becomes a life. I can't believe that you would support doctors not having to give reasons for killing viable children and yes i can call them children because they are viable outside of the womb. Killing them inside the womb is no different than waiting for the baby to be 3 days old and then deciding they don't want the baby and aborting it then. The location of the baby doesn't determine whether it is a a life that needs to be protected.
22 May 2007
at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Since it is sometimes helpful to know exactly what was vetoed: I took it upon myself to do a little homework, rather than make an assumption like some of the extremists have.
I believe what we're talking about is “HOUSE Substitute for senate bill No. 357”… a PDF of which can be found right here:
http://www.kslegislature.org/bills/20…
People seem to be missing that this was not a “wholesale veto,” but a line-item veto (legal in Kansas, *should* be legal in the White House, IMHO!) of two or three select items.
Text in question appears in my next post…
22 May 2007
at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
My understanding is this was a redundant measure. Abortion providers already fall under reporting provisions. In addition, given kline's recent foray into clinic files, Kansans in fact know their medical records are NOT safe.
22 May 2007
at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
“juvenile justice authority
(a) There is appropriated for the above agency from the state general fund for the fiscal year or years specified, the following:
Operating expenditures
For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008………………… $37,980,426
[Sec. 57. (a) On and after the effective date of this act, no expenditures shall be made from moneys appropriated from the state general fund or any special revenue fund for fiscal year 2008 for the department of health and environment-division of health as authorized by chapter 142 or chapter 216 of the 2006 Session Laws of Kansas, by 2007 House Bill No. 2368, or by this or other appropriation act of the 2007 regular session of the legislature, except upon the approval of the director of the budget acting after ascertaining that the department of health and environment has established and implemented procedures requiring each report by a physician pursuant to subsection (b)(4) of K.S.A. 65-6703, and amendments thereto, to specify the diagnosis and either the condition necessitating abortion to preserve the life of the pregnant woman or the substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman which continuation of the pregnancy would cause.
[(b) On and after the effective date of this act, no expenditures shall be made from moneys appropriated from the state general fund or any special revenue fund for fiscal year 2008 for the state board of healing arts as authorized by chapter 142 or chapter 216 of the 2006 Session Laws of Kansas, by 2007 House Bill No. 2368, or by this or other appropriation act of the 2007 regular session of the legislature, except upon the approval of the director of the budget acting after ascertaining that the state board of healing arts has established and implemented procedures requiring each physician performing an abortion for which a referral is required by subsection (a) of K.S.A. 65-6703, and amendments thereto, to submit to the state board of healing arts evidence satisfactory to the board that the referring physician is not legally or financially affiliated with the physician performing the abortion.
22 May 2007
at 9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
[(c) On and after the effective date of this act, no expenditures shall be made from moneys appropriated from the state general fund or any special revenue fund for fiscal year 2008 for the department of social and rehabilitation services as authorized by chapter 142 or chapter 216 of the 2006 Session Laws of Kansas, by 2007 House Bill No. 2368, or by this or other appropriation act of the 2007 regular session of the legislature, except upon the approval of the director of the budget acting after ascertaining that the secretary of social and rehabilitation services has established and implemented procedures requiring any agent or employee of the secretary to report to the appropriate law enforcement agency any act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child under 16 years of age which is reported to or becomes known to the agent or employee of the secretary.
[(d) The terms used in this proviso shall have the meanings provided in K.S.A. 65-5701, and amendments thereto.]
22 May 2007
at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
“People who use this argument including the governor know this is bogus. If they really believe this then why don't they argue against medical information that is gather for cancer, AIDS, or many other medical conditions. The Kansas Department of Health collects information and has registries for many medical conditions but the governor doesn't argue to eliminate those in order to protect those individuals medical information.”
________________________________________________________________
1) Are we talking about full records here? Records with name, address, phone number, SSN etc.? Or are we talking about redacted records, which leave intact all the pertinent details, but initially omit all the personal identifying info? It's worth noting that when Philllllll Kline first requested abortion records in 2004, he wanted full records, not redacted ones ( http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:k… )
2) This information for cancer, AIDS etc…. are we talking about statistical information here, or patient medical records? Full records or redacted? Do you know? If you know, what is your “source,” please?
I actually favor much of this “reporting”… but not at the expense of patient privacy. The “clinics” should provide redacted records when they suspect a crime (incest, molestation etc.)… let the LEOs put together a case, and then go before a judge for a subpoena. Once the subpoena is issued, then the clinic can discreetly provide the detailed identifying patient info to the investigators, and they can take it from there.
Why won't any of the abortion opponents actually support a common sense proposal like this?
—Ag
22 May 2007
at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
“…procedures requiring any agent or employee of the secretary to report to the appropriate law enforcement agency any act of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child under 16 years of age which is reported to or becomes known to the agent or employee of the secretary.”
This will make it much easier for SRS to track down all the pregnant minors who apply for medicaid. I hope they go after the boys as well.
22 May 2007
at 10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Baille (Anonymous) says…
The legislature could have accomplished its stated goals by using a warehouse approach wherein the reasons for each abortion were gathered without any corresponding identifying information whether that be name or number.
As it stands, if doctors are required to report each reason through an association with a number, the woman seeking the abortion is identifiable by name through court order. Women then face prosecutorial abuse by such zealots as Phill and Friends.
It is our legislators and the special interest groups that are playing politics in this situation.
22 May 2007
at 10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
chic (Anonymous) says…
Thank you Governor Sebelius!!!!! This is NONE of anyone else's business but the female involved and her doctor.
IF the male involved were capable of doing what the female is doing/choosing NOT to do, he could have a “say” in what happens, next. If that male does NOT trust the female to do what he wants done, he should not have made his donation. Notice that I say “donation”, which implies giving up ownership.
For anyone who is NOT the male involved or the doctor, he/she has absolutely NO legitimate interest in the female's health choices - that is, unless he/she is capable of carrying on. Maybe science and economics will allow that someday? But, even at that, even “donating” organs is still (thankfully) at the discretion of the donor.
22 May 2007
at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
First you say it is a health choice, then you say it is economic. I believe the government does have an interest in knowing if a viable life is ended for purely economic reasons.
22 May 2007
at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“I believe the government does have an interest in knowing if a viable life is ended for purely economic reasons.”
Why? Isn't this one of the big reasons a woman has a choice to make? If a woman is left on her own and cannot support a child, she should be able to make a choice on whether or not she can have the child without government interference. Economic reason isn't the ONLY reason but it's one of the many reasons.
22 May 2007
at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Economic reasons?
Aren't you one of the same people always spouting hate toward “welfare mothers”, and saying that if women can't afford to support their children, then they shouldn't have them?
So…you don't want to have taxpayer dollars going toward providing abortions for these women. Yet if they give birth, you still don't want taxpayer dollars going to these women.
Make up your mind…
22 May 2007
at 11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
“ywn, I'm glad you stand by this measure to protect murdering children”
-Thanks for your reasoned, moderate response….NOT!
“You are the one that always comes up with the question of when a embryo or fetus becomes a life.”
-Yes I am, and no one has convinced me of when a human being is a human being. I have only heard religious dogma and ideology, which as we know if subjective and not accepted by everyone.
“I can't believe that you would support doctors not having to give reasons for killing viable children and yes i can call them children because they are viable outside of the womb.”
-They COULD be viable outside the womb. The fact remains that they are connected to the mother and depend upon her totally. Also, the only reason some of these fetuses are “viable outside the womb” is because of recent medical advances. 100 years ago this would not have been the case.
“Killing them inside the womb is no different than waiting for the baby to be 3 days old and then deciding they don't want the baby and aborting it then. The location of the baby doesn't determine whether it is a a life that needs to be protected.”
-Oh how wrong thou art. There is a huge difference, ethically, legally, morally. This difference has been recognized by our legal system for centuries. Only recently activities from fundie xtians have tried to impose their view of life on the legal system.
Grow up and face facts, craigers. Not everyone shares your views on when a human being is developed. In America, a religious group cannot impose its dogmatic views on the entire society.
If you want theocracy, move to Iran.
22 May 2007
at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shockchalk (Anonymous) says…
Grow up and face the facts yourself YWN. In this country, when someone murders a pregnant woman, they also get charged with killing her baby (you know, the fetus in the womb that you want to throw away). That one always makes the pro-choice people uneasy. I mean, the court system obviously thinks it's a life worth living, why don't you???
22 May 2007
at 11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Crazyks is so crazy that she/he/it has me confused with multiple other posters.
22 May 2007
at 11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
These aren't your views?
If I have you confused with someone else, I apologize.
So many people post on here every day, it's difficult to keep up with everyone.
22 May 2007
at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
drewdun (Anonymous) says…
RonaldWilson, bringing the comic relief yet again. His statement “That just goes to show you that the lefties concern about the “deaths in Iraq” is a bunch of crap too. They don't give a rat's ass about people dying. They're just political whores” is so detached from reality, so far into Rush-land, so hysterically ridiculous that the person making the claim can only be described as a fanatic. I can just see him, sweating in front of his computer screen, saying “I know those librulls want to kill all them babies. Hell, if they had the chance, they'd probably eat 'em too. Us noble Christian soldiers won't let them baby-eatin' librulls get away with it this time, though. Hooooweeeee!” What's sad is that, judging by his earlier posts, I can really see him believing such bile, and then regurgitating it here.
22 May 2007
at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“I mean, the court system obviously thinks it's a life worth living, why don't you???”
Well, the pregnant woman who was murdered was obviously choosing to have a child, then the murderer should be charged with also killing her baby. Seems simple enough to me.
22 May 2007
at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
I used to work for KDHE, and I know that nothing is kept confidential. You'd be shocked to find out how easy it is to get private health information. The pro-lifers just want to have a way to get private info and publicize it. Then, their goons can place the woman's name and address on a website and encourage violence towards her. Plus, it'll give them something to please themselves with, since they claim not to like dirty magazines.
22 May 2007
at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shockchalk (Anonymous) says…
So, you want the judge and jury to determine whether or not the woman was going to carry the child to term? Well, that sounds simple enough to me……..right!
22 May 2007
at 12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
“So, you want the judge and jury to determine whether or not the woman was going to carry the child to term? Well, that sounds simple enough to me::..right!”
Uh, yes. It could be based on character witnesses/people that knew her. That's how the judicial system works here in the US.
22 May 2007
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shockchalk (Anonymous) says…
You've obviously never been involved in the judicial system here in the US. How would you prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that she intended to carry the child to term? You couldn't, and even if you could, the defendants attorney would say there was no way that any of us could no, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she was indeed, going to have the baby. Your idea and argument are idiotic, which is pretty much par for the course with you RK.
22 May 2007
at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
ywn, what about babies in incubaters then? Can we just pull plugs on them all once they are born since they are dependent on those systems? You can try to taint my post with what you call my religious beliefs but when a fetus is viable outside the womb, then they are alive whether you want to put “could be” in front of it or not.
22 May 2007
at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
shockchalk,
Yep, that's where the jury would come in and provide what one would call a verdict. I've never heard of case but I'm sure it's happened numerous times with various outcomes. Since your the expert on this one, go ahead and provide specific cases and outcomes.
Also, your name-calling makes you look like an inferior debater and childish so keep it up.
22 May 2007
at 1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shockchalk (Anonymous) says…
And the fact that you can't EVER admit you're wrong makes you look like an inferior debater who is too proud to be honest. You acusing someone of name-calling is like the pot calling the kettle black.
22 May 2007
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shockchalk (Anonymous) says…
If men could get pregnant……………..
Now Scene, that kind of statement could start one heckuva thread now couldn't it?
22 May 2007
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
So let me see, choice is good if you want to kill your viable unborn child, but it's bad when you want to educate the child in your own home without the aid of the government. You left wingers make NO sense.
22 May 2007
at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Godot (Anonymous) says…
Morrison has had access to the Tiller medical files now much longer than Kline ever did. I wonder what he and his staff find so interesting in them?
22 May 2007
at 2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
I don't really see anyone admit their wrong on this issue or this board for that matter so it looks like we're all inferior debaters. I'm sure you've admitted your wrong on this issue, though.
I'm still waiting on specific cases that all support your theory. I'm sure there are some that support your theory and I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if so. However, I'd bet that it has gone both ways depending on region.
22 May 2007
at 2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
drewdun (Anonymous) says:
drewdun (Anonymous) says:
RonaldWilson, bringing the comic relief yet again. His statement “That just goes to show you that the lefties concern about the “deaths in Iraq” is a bunch of crap too. They don't give a rat's ass about people dying. They're just political whores” is so detached from reality, so far into Rush-land, so hysterically ridiculous that the person making the claim can only be described as a fanatic. I can just see him, sweating in front of his computer screen, saying “I know those librulls want to kill all them babies. Hell, if they had the chance, they'd probably eat 'em too. Us noble Christian soldiers won't let them baby-eatin' librulls get away with it this time, though. Hooooweeeee!” What's sad is that, judging by his earlier posts, I can really see him believing such bile, and then regurgitating it here.
RonaldWilson, bringing the comic relief yet again. His statement “That just goes to show you that the lefties concern about the “deaths in Iraq” is a bunch of crap too. They don't give a rat's ass about people dying. They're just political whores” is so detached from reality, so far into Rush-land, so hysterically ridiculous that the person making the claim can only be described as a fanatic. I can just see him, sweating in front of his computer screen, saying “I know those librulls want to kill all them babies. Hell, if they had the chance, they'd probably eat 'em too. Us noble Christian soldiers won't let them baby-eatin' librulls get away with it this time, though. Hooooweeeee!” What's sad is that, judging by his earlier posts, I can really see him believing such bile, and then regurgitating it here.”
Wow, that's…. that's just….. really intelligent, fella. Enjoy your studio apartment. You're going to be living in it a long time.
22 May 2007
at 2:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
imastinker (Anonymous) says…
I wonder if this'll get her excommunicated.
22 May 2007
at 3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
“You've obviously never been involved in the judicial system here in the US. How would you prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that she intended to carry the child to term? You couldn't, and even if you could, the defendants attorney would say there was no way that any of us could no, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she was indeed, going to have the baby. Your idea and argument are idiotic, which is pretty much par for the course with you RK.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Oh, Jesus H. Tap-Dancin' CHRIST!!!
ultra-maroons!!!
Easy. You prove it by checking a bit of info in her personal life, like her calendar and her credit card statements, and by interviewing family/friends. Oh, and visit the local abortion clinic, too.
1) Did she have any upcoming medical appointments? Were they with an OB/GYN, or Dr. Tiller?
2) Was she registered at Target for baby gifts?
3) Did family/friends have a baby shower in the works?
4) Did family/friends even KNOW that she was pregnant? If hardly anyone knew, she was at least trying to hide it… dontcha think?!?!?
Yes, I am being condescending. Yes, extremists from both sides are ignoring the facts about this in favor of lobbing the usual conjecture and diatribe back and forth.
Even smurf_daddy pokes up from the haze of the extremist crack pipe to utter at least one halfway-intelligible sentence:
“Give them privacy, if either side really wanted abortion abolished it would have been so.”
Very true. As I've said in other places around here (in fact, just a day or two ago), abortion opponents don't *really* want abortion to go away. They enjoy the drama, the street theatre outside of the clinics, the dancing around with pics of aborted fetuses, the mindless diatribe on internet forums etc. (Don't belive me? Look at right_idiot's most recent post—his life would fall to pieces if he didn't have the “left” or “libs” to tilt at on a daily basis!) If they *really* wanted to reduce the business at the abortion clinics, they'd spend less time ranting and more time “doing.”
The #1 cause of abortion—truly, the ONLY cause—is the unwanted pregnancy.
The only foolproof way to reduce the number of abortions, is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
Wanna reduce unwanted pregnancies? Promote abstinence (both sacred and secular, in their appropriate environments), make birth control more accessible, make abortifacients more accessible.
This will effectively stem the flow of “patients” to the clinics, and they will shut down from “lack of business.”
http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07…
Encouraging adoption is also good, as long as we work to 1) protect the privacy of the mother; and 2) make adoption cheaper and quicker.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
22 May 2007
at 3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…
Confrontation wrote,
“The pro-lifers just want to have a way to get private info and publicize it. Then, their goons can place the woman's name and address on a website and encourage violence towards her. ”
Confrontation, your deductive reasoning skills are unparalleled in all of society. Verily.
22 May 2007
at 3:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
shockchalk (Anonymous) says…
Ag. You are usually pretty accurate in your post but not the last one. Thanks for attacking mine though. Your circumstancial evidence wouldn't hold up against an attorney who graduated at the bottom of their class. The argument that abortion hasn't gone away because no one really wants it to is truly “ultra-moronic”! Pro-life people want abortion to stop because they believe someone is taking an innocent life. They protest because it's still happening. You are right on with your advice on the only way to reduce the number of abortions so you didn't get it all wrong.
In regards to adoption. It is a wonderful option although it is extremely expensive. They do protect the privacy of the mother unless she chooses for a more open adoption.
22 May 2007
at 3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Roadkill_Rob (Anonymous) says…
I don't know, shockchalk, it seems like pretty good evidence to me. You seem so sure but I'm still waiting on specific cases that prove your point. I mean you're obviously refering to these cases to back up your claims, right?
Also, if you want to stop killing innocent people, what are you doing about innocent Iraqi children being killed? Or, do you believe that they're terrorists too.
22 May 2007
at 3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Confrontation (Anonymous) says…
“Confrontation, your deductive reasoning skills are unparalleled in all of society.”
Awwww, how sweet! No one told me that this site is an extention of Match.com.
22 May 2007
at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
This reporting requirement is not for all abortions ….. only third trimester or late-term abortions. Today in the Kansas Senate David Haley gave a speech supporting the override of the Governors' veto. If you know Senator Haley, he has been one of the strongest supporter of choice. His reasoning was that the current law lays out conditions which allow for late term abortions and currently doctors are not providing the information that is required by law.
What they are wanting is information regarding why third trimester abortions are being performed and current reporting system allows doctors to be very vague.
22 May 2007
at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deec (Anonymous) says…
How do you know the stats aren't being kept? Will the State also pursue minors who opt for birth?
22 May 2007
at 4:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BigDog (Anonymous) says…
Will the State also pursue minors who opt for birth?
**********************************
If there is question as to possible sexual abuse of the minor, I sure the heck hope so.
22 May 2007
at 4:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
30 years ago, this whole conversation would have at least included some discussion of all of the problems associated with global overpopulation. Now, however, religion has so thoroughly co-opted the whole topic that all meaningful discussion of population issues has effectively ceased.
22 May 2007
at 5:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
Newell, I think “global overpopulation” is a very, very relevant issue. And I would agree with your view on religion.
However…
I think the question of global overpopulation is better debated in the “Birth Control” thread, or the “same-sex marriage” thread, or even the “Sex Education” thread… but not this thread, or any other thread about abortion.
Abortion is not the way to control population—that's what birth control is for.
—Ag
22 May 2007
at 5:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
“What they are wanting is information regarding why third trimester abortions are being performed and current reporting system allows doctors to be very vague.”
_____________________________________________________________________
Does this same system allow the doctors to *initially* withhold all identifying information on their patients?
That's the key issue in all this, for me.
—Ag
22 May 2007
at 5:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
craigers wrote:
“ywn, what about babies in incubaters then? Can we just pull plugs on them all once they are born since they are dependent on those systems?”
-Wow, you really have no respect for women, do you? A woman to you is equivalent to an incubator. Dude, there is a huge difference between a premie in an incubator and a fetus that “could be viable outside the womb”. This is a facile and incorrect comparison. You said it yourself. The baby in the incubator has been born.
“You can try to taint my post with what you call my religious beliefs…”
-I am not tainting your post. You do that well enough yourself. I am simply pointing out that you argue from religious belief rather than reality and reason. Why do you believe that an unborn fetus is equivalent to a human being? What is your reasoning? I expect you won't answer but just come back with more whiny, injured puppy dogma.
“…but when a fetus is viable outside the womb, then they are alive whether you want to put “could be” in front of it or not.”
-How do you know this? Why do you say this? What is your reasoning? I know I ask too much of you. I fully expect an answer steeped in ideology and dogma rather than reality and reason.
craigers, not everyone shares your beliefs and religious dogma.
22 May 2007
at 5:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
newell post, I also share your view that overpopulation is fundamental to nearly every problem facing the world today, and that religion, namely christianity, has effectively sileneced all talk about global population control.
However, I will second what Ag said. Abortion is not and should not be a means of population control. Contraception, education, and behavioral modification are the means to combat overpopulation.
22 May 2007
at 5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
purplesage (Anonymous) says…
She's wrong again. Shame on KS for voting for Sebelius, Boyda, and the rest of the Dems who sold their souls for political contributions. To the middle of the road Republicans who crossed over to bring this lot upon us - shame on you!
22 May 2007
at 6:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KawValleyKid (Nick Yoho) says…
Actually abortion should be allowed retroactively up to one year.
For population control.
You folks take life much to seriously,life is not sacred.
There are to many humans on the planet.Let the ones who don't want there kids not have them.Babies are a dime a dozen,and would make good lion food.No dogma here.
“and no one has convinced me of when a human being is a human being. I have only heard religious dogma and ideology, which as we know if subjective and not accepted by everyone.”~Earlier poster.
I'd say a human being arrives at the “human state” when they are capable of critical thought,unlike many here.
22 May 2007
at 6:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KawValleyKid (Nick Yoho) says…
I wrote that first line for shock value.
22 May 2007
at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…
Ew, and heart surgery is gross, so it shouldn't be allowed.
Just think if icky things like colon cancer surgery and liver transplants were televised. Ewwww. Gross. Icky, disgusting things shouldn't be allowed, like surgery and other yucky things.
Idiot.
22 May 2007
at 7:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Craigers, it is the fact that the mother has given BIRTH to the baby that makes that baby be considered alive, and also a separate human being.
Why do so many abortion proponents have difficulty understanding that concept?
As for that baby in the incubator…of course it would be murder if someone tried to kill it, after it was born. You guys aren't really that ignorant, are you?
As for that baby in the incubator being truly viable…well, that could be another matter entirely. If the baby isn't capable of surviving without an incubator, is it really viable?
150 years ago those babies wouldn't have been viable at all. The cemeteries are filled with them. Someone else mentioned that current medical technology makes babies that would have certainly died before viable now.
My grandmother gave birth to a daughter in 1929 that was called, at the time, a “blue baby”. Now treatment exists for this condition, though there are still no guarantees. Back then, no. The procedure to save these babies wasn't even performed the first time until 1944.
Her grave is in a nearby cemetery.
22 May 2007
at 7:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
Would that also apply to people who choose elective surgery, rt, like plastic surgery?
22 May 2007
at 8:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
crazyks (Anonymous) says…
But if you want government to be involved in personal and/or medical decisions, rt, then shouldn't it be involved in all of them?
Shouldn't people who think they need to have a different nose in order to look better for other people, even though the nose they already have is perfectly fine be forced to go to therapy?
And by the way…if my analogy wasn't brilliant, then neither was yours…people don't have to have guns either, do they?
22 May 2007
at 10:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KawValleyKid (Nick Yoho) says…
Good thing this indecent folk doesn't believe in hell then ,eh?
22 May 2007
at 11:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
“The backers of abortion will go to hell. They have no excuse, they no the evil that they do, they have no defense when the Lord judges them. They will go to hell.”
____________________________________________________________________________
Yeah, Freak_Factor, right.
And where exactly shall we look for you, there? The Lake of Fire or the Pool of Lava? The Brimstone Beach, perhaps?
The Eternal Nuclear Tanning Beds?
Welcome back to the LJW forums, crackpot. Only the nick is new—your rantings are all too familiar.
Marion, we all know you only care about the pre-partum embryonic children. Once they're born, you wouldn't spend a dime on their welfare.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
23 May 2007
at 5:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
New bumpersticker to replace the 'bigoted' one: “Kansas, as barbaric as you think”
23 May 2007
at 7:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fletch (Anonymous) says…
“If they really believe this then why don't they argue against medical information that is gather for cancer, AIDS, or many other medical conditions.”
Because that information is voluntarily given (you sign a waver). What was proposed in this bill amounted to legislative bullying, which is exactly what traditional conservatism calls for. Smaller government that doesn't stick it's nose in people's private lives. Good for the governor.
23 May 2007
at 8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RonaldWilson (Anonymous) says…
“What was proposed in this bill amounted to legislative bullying, which is exactly what traditional conservatism calls for. Smaller government that doesn't stick it's nose in people's private lives.”
WTF? Are you serious, are you implying that the Demoncrat Party is for smaller and less intrusive gov't? Come now feltch, you know better than that. Or, are you one of the Libertarians I keep hearing about. (I know I misspelled Democrat, but it was such a small mistake that I didn't see the need to fix it.)
23 May 2007
at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Agnostick (Anonymous) says…
shockchalk (Anonymous) says:
“Ag. You are usually pretty accurate in your post but not the last one. Thanks for attacking mine though. Your circumstancial evidence wouldn't hold up against an attorney who graduated at the bottom of their class.”
____________________________________________________________
Okay… been giving this some thought the past 18 hours or so…
The key phrase of yours that got me thinking, shockchalk, was “against an attorney.” All trials have two sides, usually identified at the “plaintiff” (or “prosecution”) and the “defendant.” Now, I'm no legal expert—I'm not a lawyer, and I've never even played a lawyer on TV . But it seems to me that in a trial, both sides have opportunities to present their evidence, and they also have a chance to shoot down the evidence on the other side.
You say that my circumstantial evidence wouldn't hold up in court. My question is, what kind of “direct evidence” will the other side be able to provide to hold up their case, or to shoot down mine? If they have no direct evidence, history suggests that they will also resort to circumstantial evidence. Our end result? “Circumstantial evidence” vs. “circumstantial evidence.” I guess we eventually reach a point where the jury has to pull out Occham's Razor and work with that.
Here's what Wikipedia says about circumstantial evidence:
************
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.
Much of the evidence against Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, “Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence”. [1] The recent Scott Peterson trial was based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is also used in civil courts to establish or deny liability.
However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another their innocence, the 'benefit of the doubt' principle would apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumst…
************
There's a lot more out there if you Google it.
And maybe you've forgotten, but I actually *support* the notion of charging a “double homicide” when a pregnant woman is murdered.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
—Ag
23 May 2007
at 1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
ywn, you are saying that a baby inside of the mother is dependent completely upon her for it's life, no? Then what is the difference between that and an incubater. Please enlighten us all for your knowledge is so vast and powerful. This is not being demeaning to women, but you are once again trying to evoke other's emotion to negate the point I have made. However, refering to the life growing inside of the woman as nothing until birth is also pretty demeaning to the woman carrying it, virtually saying it isn't a baby until it is born. I bet if you asked a woman what they were carrying when they were pregnant at 4-5 months (Baby has a good chance of survival from here on out), they wouldn't say a fetus. They also wouldn't say it was a fetus the day they were going to give birth. I would say that a baby once it is born is completely dependent on whatever caretaker they have for quite awhile outside the womb. How is the life in the womb any less worthy of our protection. If a baby is viable inside the womb, it would be viable outside in a incubator if it was born prematurely, wouldn't it? Majority of the time this would be true. Sorry no links with statistics so I will wait for the part of your post that says prove it, so you can please post something that proves otherwise to bolster your claim. Please tell me why this comparision is so wrong. I would think that constitutes life. Viability outside of the womb should designate life to all of us. And according to your posts above as long as the baby is inside it's mother then abortion is a choice until birth because after all it's still a fetus is it not? I see you hold tight to your beliefs on choice and that is admirable but I don't see how you can ethically or morally draw the line of abortion being okay unless the baby is a life (and according to your posts it is all about location and if it is in the womb, then it isn't a life). Please address ywn… I look forward to hearing what you have to say.