LJWorld.com weblogs Sharpening My Pen

The War on Women Redux


My head just exploded. The tl;dr on this is that doctors can deliberately lie and withhold information from pregnant women that could seriously impact their health, even killing them, to prevent them from aborting and be exempt from being sued for anything but wrongful death if the woman dies. This means a woman can have hidden from her that a fetus has serious birth defects or that she is open to having a stroke and suffering life long disability.
Welcome to the REAL "War on Women".
And why hasn't the LJW reported on this?

Edited for further information.
This is the bill in it's entirety followed by it's committee history. Please pay close attention to Page 3, Section 10 starting at line 25.

Edit #2
The LJWorld finally reported on this bill on 2/9/2012. However, nowhere in the article does it mention the provision that I reported here.


Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

It sure feels great to know that my life and health are worth nothing to these folks. It is great to know that my rights can be trumped by a fertilized egg in my uterus.

Any doctor who lies or withholds information that is part of the patient's care (and the woman is the doctor's patient, not the fetus) should always be subject to a malpractice suit and should have their licenses permanently revoked.

Additionally, any doctor who lies or withholds info about any birth defects the fetus might have in order to prevent an abortion, should be required to pay lifetime support to the family for the care that the fetus may require.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

To answer your questions, Ag, the Hippocratic oath is not law but a self imposed "ethic" open to twisting and interpretation. Many physicians could simply justify that by saying they were protecting the "life" of the fetus over that of the woman. HIPAA only covers designated "protected" health information from being shared with an outside source. NOT sharing health information with a patient is not part of that. What I do think may stop it (and I sincerely hope this is the case) are the various civil rights acts passed at the Federal level.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

I have to tell you, Ag, I REALLY hope this gets struck down FAST by Federal courts. Not only is it cruel and inhumane, it's a clear violation of civil rights.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

In the past, I've voiced some concerns in regards to the abortion debate. As an example, I've mentioned a couple of times my opposition to abortion for the purposes of gender selection. Twice I've read about this, only to be told in this forum that the instances of abortion for gender selection are so rare, that no formal action need be taken to prevent it. In regards to the issue, Cait48 brings up, I wonder if there has been any documented cases or is this too so rare that no formal action need be taken?
You ask (rhetorically, I think) who are these people. Yes, who are they? Do they really exist?
You state (rhetorically, I think) welcome to the REAL war on women. Is there REALLY a war? You ask (rhetorically, I think) why the LJW hasn't reported on this issue. Perhaps because it's still just a hypothetical? I do agree with you that should real cases be documented, then a serious problem exists and action would be needed. Until then, this is just an exercise in rhetoric.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

jhawkinsf, gender can't be determined in a pregnancy until it's far enough along that laws have kicked into place that prohibit abortion without a good reason; i.e. the fetus is malformed or the mother's health/life is being threatened. Therefore, abortion for purposes of gender selection has to be extremely rare (and extremely illegal). No legal abortion provider, given the microscopic scrutiny under which they operate, would dare to provide such an abortion. My questions are not rhetorical by any means. Although I doubt any physician has actively lied to or misled a pregnant patient to date (if for no other reason than the fear of being sued), if this legislation passes then, ipso facto, physicians will be given passive permission by the state to do so. I fully believe that there are physicians who will take full advantage of it. The question, "Who are these people?" is a rhetorical one to an extent. I know they exist because they are toying with legislation that will have a serious impact on pregnant women. What I truly want to know is who is it that believes they can play dice with women's lives? The question as to why LJW is not reporting on this proposed legislation is a very serious one and far from rhetorical. It's a sad state of affairs when legislation of this gravity and impact is being reported at the national level and not at the local level. It leads one to impugn the integrity of a news source that picks and chooses what to report for the sake of politics. And yes, there IS a war on women being waged by political forces in this country. I truly hope that you never find yourself in a position to feel it's full effects.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

Cait - You make several good points, but you are in error in a couple. I was reading a N.Y. Times (magazine) article about 2-3 months ago where the discussion was around pregnancy reduction, conceptions that resulted in twins, triplets, etc. (interesting that many of the women had sought fertility treatment which, as we know, increases the chances of multiple fetuses). The focus of the article was on the new trend to reduce from twins, to single fetus since there is no medical reason to do this. (again, more than two fetus does increase risk). In years past, doctors did not reduce from two to one, though it is more common now. The argument went along the lines of if the woman could choose to reduce from one to zero, surely she should be allowed to reduce from two to one, even though there was no medical reason to do so. It was simply a choice. However, when exercising that choice, she could make gender part of that choice. The clear implication is that gender is known well within that window when abortion is legal and not a threat to the mother. Which brings me to my next point. All pregnancies have some risk. Let me repeat that, all pregnancy has some risk. As does all abortions. At some point a determination of reasonable has to enter the discussion. If not, then every single pregnancy can be terminated at any time and for any reason based on that extremely small risk that all pregnancy carries. If that's the argument being made by zealots on one side, you'll lose the support of the huge middle who do believe in a woman's right to an abortion but that reasonable restriction can be placed on that right. (as reasonable restrictions are made on all our other rights). You correctly point out that there are probably doctors out there willing to hide from women information they are entitled to. Just as there are doctors out there willing to preform abortions because the pregnancy is "bumming" her out. Just as there are doctors out there willing to preform abortions for the purposes of gender selection. The question is this, as long as the conversation is dominated by those on the two extremes, people such as myself, those seeking a reasonable middle ground, will continue to sit on the sidelines. I won't write my representatives about the bill being considered, urging defeat as long as reasonable accommodations going the other way aren't being considered. As long as the zealots dominate, I'll remain silent, to your cause's detriment in this case until I see a moderation on my other very legitimate concerns (gender selection, mental health exception, etc.).

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

My "cause" is the health and safety of women; already born, living, breathing, thinking, feeling human beings. If that cause isn't good enough for you then I hope and pray you never have to face it's consequences. As you (apparently) live on the west coast where politics are very different, you most likely won't have to. You just wish to condemn the women of this state to it. If you believe women are aborting for (what you think are) spurious reasons then PROVE it and speak out for it. But to tar all women with the same brush and refuse to speak out on an issue that threatens THEM in retaliation is unfair and just as much of a mark of "zealotry" as the people marching in front of Planned Parenthood. Personally, as a woman, I don't think I COULD not speak out on this.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

I live right here in Lawrence, though I did live on the west coast for some time. I don't view having reasonable standards, and a reasonable discussion as a condemnation. What I do condemn is the voice that zealots on both sides use, a voice that drowns out civil discussions about an important subject that like it or not, involves us all. I mentioned the article in the N.Y. Times. Is that not proof enough? You may look it up, or not, that is your choice. You may believe it or not, again, your choice. I read it. It gave names, dates, circumstances. I saw no need to dispute it.
Again, my point is that the louder the zealots on both sides shout, the less I listen. I believe in a women's right to an abortion. My silence hurts your cause in this instance. I also believe in reasonable restrictions, something you apparently don't believe in, and my silence helps your cause in that. The question is, when you do need my support, will I be there for you or will I remain silent. The tone of your voice and the content of your message will have equal bearing on my decision.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

There's no evidence that cait, or most of the pro-choice folks don't believe in "reasonable restrictions".

In fact, Roe vs. Wade contains those.

The interpretation of reasonable is open to discussion and debate, of course.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

I suspect there is some evidence Cait views certain restrictions as unreasonable. She seemed to dismiss my concerns out of hand and dismissed the article I gave as an example. I would have preferred to hear her respond to those things, but the tone of her last comment seemed hostile. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope so.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

What article? You provided no sources or references. Present me with your research. I'm not trying to be hostile. I'm just putting you in the same category as those people who:

"First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

O.K., Cait, bear with me. I'm still somewhat new to the computer world and I've never learned to cut/paste or drag something from here to there. However, I did look up the article and with pen and paper, wrote down the site. I hope it works, www.nytimes.com/...magazine/the-two-m... It was published on Aug. 10, 2011. In the article, you'll note the ethical concerns expressed when one woman chose to reduce one of the fetuses based on gender. So this is happening within that window where a woman can choose and the gender is known.

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

The link does not work so I am unable to read this "proof" of abortions happening for gender selection.

From your description of the article, it appears that you do not have much experience with prenatal care. I've numbered my thoughts just to make it a bit more organized.

You are taking a high risk pregnancy (because of fertility issues) and trying to extrapolate this info on to the majority of pregnancies which are not high risk. There are several reasons why this is a false comparison.

1) In non-high risk pregnancies, the earliest time a woman can find out the gender is at the time of the first sono (approximately 20 weeks). At that point you are at well into the 2nd trimester & restrictions on abortion kick in. Non high-risk pregnancies have no reason for the more invasive (such as amnio) and more "thorough" tests that a high risk pregnancy requires so those pregnancies will not have an opportunity to gender select as they are too far along to be able to have unrestricted access to one.

2) High risk pregnancies (such as one with fertility issues & multiple fetuses are able to determine the sex of the fetuses at an earlier because the tests (such as amnio or chorionic villus sampling) are screening for problems on the chromosomal level.

3) Fetal reduction is an entirely different situation than abortion. With an abortion, the goal is to end the pregnancy. With fetal reduction, the goal is to have at least one healthy child as the outcome. Additionally, how does one make a choice which fetus to keep to ensure this outcome? You could randomly select which ones go and which ones stay but if this is your one shot at a pregnancy going full-term (since you have reproductive issues), most women are going to make the best of it and select what factors they can control (such as gender).

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago


4) I am curious as to why you take such a rare occurrence (and it is in our society in regards to gender selection) and use it as the basis for your opposition to abortion.

5) I am not if you realize it but your 8:18am post has some language in it that suggests you have little faith in a woman's judgment as to what is best for her and her family (for reference - "Just as there are doctors out there willing to preform abortions because the pregnancy is "bumming" her out."). This is part of the war on women in particular with the Brownback Administration. It is inherent in the language used. Very rarely does a man's judgment in this administration get questioned but if you are a woman, you don't get the right to make your own decisions. We just recently had a member of the Brownback administration tell the public that the EITC should be eliminated because they can't know for sure that a single mother would spend the money on her children. The whole debate on access to birth control and abortion revolves around the woman and never seems to involve anything on the man's part. There is no responsibility required by this administration for the man. A man is not held accountable for his decision to forgo birth control in this administration. You can say child support is it but the time & money involved to get it collected is great and the burden for doing that still falls on the woman.

Sorry about the wall o' text :D

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

I hope my lack of computer skills does not cloud the issue. When I hit the send button, only half of the very long link was printed. However, a 30 second google of N.Y. Times Magazine and Pregnancy Reduction and the article popped up. Let me be clear, I am not opposed to all abortions, though I am opposed to some. I believe there are about 10% of the population that I characterize as zealots dominating the conversation, 5% on either side. Through civil discourse, I would like to see that number reduced to 8%, four on either side. And then down to 6%, three on either side. Last year, a freedom of speech case was making it's way through the courts. It involved our own embarrassment, Rev. Phelps. I mention this only because that particular freedom has been around for a long time. The right of abortion is much more recent. It's healthy that we discuss it. It's good that concerns be brought before the courts so that differences can be resolved. It's exactly things like this that make our Constitution a living, breathing document. Now Cait's original post, dealt with an issue making it's way through the Kansas legislature. I mentioned my opposition to it. But I also believe it would be struck down in short order in the courts, should it pass. Because the bill has yet to pass, it's now just a hypothetical. We may certainly discuss it, but it's not real, not now. I don't know if Cait ( or you, Katara) fall into that 10% I mentioned. I do believe that if those in the 90% can gently nudge that 10% into civil dialogue, getting consensus on one issue, we might find consensus on another, and then another. Then the 10% can become 8%, and on. I'll tackle your fifth point, then continue my comments with another post. You are correct in that I don't trust all women's judgement. The same is true for men and it is true for doctor's. If I trusted all of my fellow citizens (of the planet), there would be no need for laws, no rules. We would all instinctively do the right thing. It's not an attack on any one group as much as it is a recognition that we all have flaws and that those flaws come to light more often in certain circumstances.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

Now to the article. The focus of the article was a new trend in medicine, the reduction from twins to a single fetus. The article clearly made a distinction between twins and three or more fetuses. The reason is simple, three or more fetuses does indeed increase the risk to the woman and therefore, reduction has been somewhat common for some time. And there has been little controversy in this regards, specifically because there is an increase in risk. While mentioned as a backdrop, that was not the focus of the article. What was the focus was the rather new trend of reduction from two fetuses to one. And again, they focused on healthy twins. Again, the elimination of non healthy fetuses has been common and is only controversial in the small group of zealots I mentioned. This article focused on healthy twins. The dilemma doctors faced was why should this procedure be done, when according to them, there was no additional risk to the mother because she was carrying twins as opposed to a single fetus. The article implied that if she should be allowed to reduce from one to zero, surely she should be allowed to reduce from two to one. That was how many doctors solved their dilemma. But then the tricky problem of which fetus to eliminate. Most women simply had the doctor choose randomly. But not all. And there's where the issue of gender selection came in. And that's where you lose me as a supporter of a woman's right to choose. I support her right to make many, yes most choices. But not all. That's what makes me part of the 90% and not part of the 5% who would support a woman's right to make 100% of the decisions. I can't get around the fact that gender selection is abhorrent, in my opinion. And that though rare, I have no problem limiting that part of a woman's right to choose (just as I have no problem limiting your right to yell fire in a crowded theater). Unlike Cait's original post, which was about a hypothetical, this is very real. And Unlike Cait's assertion that gender cannot be determined within the time frame where a woman can legally make a choice, I think this article disputes that claim.

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

I am not sure why you are comparing fetal reduction to abortion. They are not the same. As I said above, abortion is used to completely terminate a pregnancy. Fetal reduction has the goal of continuing the pregnancy with an outcome of a healthy child(ren).

This bill is not about fetal reduction and does not address that procedure.

Your issue over gender selection is strange to me. As I've explained, a high risk pregnancy is able to find out the gender of the fetuses much earlier in the pregnancy due to the tests one has when one has a high risk pregnancy. Amnio & CVS are used to detect chromosomal/genetic issues and with those methods one can determine the gender of the fetus.

These tests are not used in a "normal" pregnancy and because of that, the earliest one can determine gender of the fetus is by ultrasound/sono. That is typically done at about 20 weeks in the pregnancy. This is in the 2nd trimester and restrictions on abortion have already kicked. Further, many insurance companies do not pay for sonos for the purpose of determining gender. If one has to know the gender of the fetus, one has to pay out of pocket and schedule another sono. It is difficult to schedule a sono very quickly for this purpose. A followup sono is usually weeks after the 1st one unless a problem is detected with the fetus or the pregnancy.

Additionally, there are not many abortion doctors that would perform abortions that far into the 2nd trimester.

I am trying to understand why you are taking something that is not a normal occurrence (fetal reduction) and that is used in high risk multiple fetus pregnancies and are using that explain why you have some reservations about abortion (where the goal is the completely terminate the pregnancy). I have no issue with you not supporting abortion without restrictions but I am not understanding why you are using this as one of the reasons for it.

Your article really has nothing to do with abortion for the purpose of gender selection.

Out of curiosity, do you consider the removal of a parasitic twin to be an abortion too? I think you are considering abortion to be the elimination of any fetus but the definition of abortion is very specific. It is a procedure to completely terminate a pregnancy.

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

One of the nice things about civil discourse is that one provides the information to support their argument for all to view. It is rude to expect others to go hunting for your supporting evidence.

If you have difficulties with the links, I would suggest copy/pasting it to this site.


It helps keeps the links from breaking and allows others to view what you want them to read.

I think you miss my 5th point. The language you used suggests that women are flighty beings and emotional (i.e. a pregnancy "bumming" them out so they have an abortion). This implies that women are not capable of making rational decisions for themselves and their families. It is similar rhetoric that you see with the Brownback administration.

It is the same thing with this bill for consideration. It is okay for a doctor to lie to a woman because she is not to be trusted to make a decision with the truth. It is okay for a woman to die and for the one responsible for her death by lying or lying through omission cannot be held responsible for it. A woman's life has no value to the author and supporters of this bill. Her own family cannot even recover damages that may be needed to care for the surviving infant due to the doctor's lie. It is adding insult to injury.

You may not trust all citizens (men or women) but you may not do something that restricts their rights because of it. This bill does more than restrict the right a woman has to seek an abortion. It restricts the right to seek recourse for damages incurred. It restricts the right to go the court for wrongful death and wrongful life (I don't think this one is used that much here but I have seen cases in other countries). The right to address legal issues in a court of law is a very important right. Not only is the woman denied this right but her family is denied it too.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

Sorry about the cut/paste problem. I'm at a time in life where that's more likely to involve scissors, Elmer's glue and a grandchild on my lap. I just never learned how to do it with computers. Pretend I'm an ESL speaker, overlook my grammatical mistakes, while listening to what I might have to say. Are women flighty? The original argument against the bill in question assumes some doctors might behave unethically. Is that an attack on all doctors? Sure, I assume that some women might be flighty but that's no more of an attack on all women than saying some doctors might behave unethically is an attack on all doctors. Some men are jerks. That's not an attack on all men. There's an old expression; if it looks like a duck and waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. A medical procedure to remove a fetus sounds like an abortion to me. The medical community might have it's own definition and the legal community might have a different definition. And my common sense, along with a collective common sense of a large segment of the population would say that removing one of two fetuses is an abortion. We might be playing a bit of a word game by calling it a reduction, but it's looking like, waddling like and quacking like an abortion to me. Add into that equation the issue of gender selection and we have what I believe is an area where the rights of one person are coming into conflict with the values that we as a society hold. I would very much like to find common ground on this issue. I would like to stand side by side with people who would oppose bills such as these. But I will not stand side by side with people who will not compromise on any part of this debate, the zealots as I call them. It's like having a Toys for Tots organized by a hate group. I like the idea of toys, but dislike the group enough to avoid the whole thing.

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

It is important to use correct terminology particularly when talking about medical procedures. I've explained why they are not the same thing. There are no word games. It is difficult to find common ground if you cannot agree on what terminology should be used. Communication should be precise to better everyone's understanding of the issue.

You will not find common ground if you insist on calling something that it is not. Throwing in red herrings such as fetal reduction (which is not even remotely a common procedure and no matter how you want to insist on it, is still not an abortion) or abortion for the purpose of gender selection (not in this country since any non high risk pregnancies will find out after abortion restrictions have already kicked) will not help you find common ground.

Frankly, your line of argument puts you in the class of the zealots that you are not fond of as you use the same arguments that they do. Zealots are found of distracting from the issue by taking the most extreme example that can be found & using that to emotionally manipulate (abortion for gender selection!!!!) people to agree with their position.

jhawkinsf 6 years, 1 month ago

I don't wish to belabor the point, so I'll make this my last comment on the subject. Some time ago, maybe a year and a half, maybe two years ago, I ran across an on line article from Australia about a woman who had an abortion for the purposes of gender selection. It troubled me and when I mentioned it in this forum, a poster assured me it was probably just an urban legend, something not to be believed. (If memory serves, it was Cait, the original blogger here, though I could be wrong about that). One of the things that disturbs me most about this whole gender selection issue is that it will almost certainly turn out bad for the female fetuses. Look around the world, girl babies born in China under the one child plan were routinely killed. True also in poor countries such as India. Females are marginalized all over the world and there is no reason to believe otherwise should we embark down this slippery slope. If woman's rights is an issue you are concerned with, then this whole gender selection should be high on your list of priorities. What is unfortunate but true is that there have been a couple of other reports of this happening, leading me to believe this is less urban legend and more real than I was led to believe. The article I mentioned again suggested as much. I brought this subject up precisely because it's real, as opposed to the proposal making it's way thought the Ks. legislature. Legislation such as that needs to be guarded against, as does real issues such as I mentioned. But to your comment about medical terminology needing to be precise, it can also mislead. We can name things simply because we are uncomfortable with another name. But a woman choosing to have a fetus removed, with no medical necessity, no increased danger to her health, no issue whatsoever with the fetus, no reason at all other than she is exercising her choice, is very much an abortion. Someone can call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich if they want. But it is what it is. And what it is is abhorrent, and it needs to be guarded against with equal vigor as the proposed legislation.

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

You do understand that the examples you are providing are not ones that are occurring in the U.S.?

And you do understand that this bill is regarding U.S. law?

You've not addressed anything that I said that explains why abortions for gender selection are not occurring here. All you have done is said you've read an article here and there regarding abortion practices in other countries. It is your burden of proof to show that women in this country are seeking abortions for the purpose of gender selection. You've not been able to prove that and you won't be able to for the reasons I've listed several times.

This site further backs up what I've explained to you. Here is a sample from it if you don't wish to click on the link. http://tinyurl.com/6kl2bns

"Only 5% of abortions in this country are even potentially gender related, because only 5% occur when it is likely the mother knows the baby's gender."


"In the U.S., only a small percentage of abortions happen when it is even likely that the mother knows her unborn baby's gender, and there is no evidence that either gender is aborted more often."

You've decided to make your own definitions in attempt to support your argument. That is not how civil discourse works. And it certainly is not a way to achieve common ground.

It is interesting in how you define an abortion above. If it is not medically necessary, it is an abortion. So what exactly do you wish to call removing a fetus because of medical necessity due to increased danger to her health or issue with the fetus? A ride in the park?

You've ignored many major issues with this bill and chosen instead to focus on a medical procedure (fetal reduction) that is not common and not considered abortion. At this point, I will just have to believe that you are no better than the zealots you believe are the problem as you are using the tactics that zealots use to emotional manipulate (If woman's rights is an issue you are concerned with, then this whole gender selection should be high on your list of priorities!!!) people to agree with their point of view and to con into passing horribly restrictive law.

I bid you adieu.

seriouscat 6 years, 1 month ago

wow thank you the above commenter for elevating the abortion discourse above grade school level. I echo jhawkins observations.

deec 6 years, 1 month ago

If you want to end abortion, mandate sterilization of all men. Voila. Problem solved.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

Or the Anti-Christ Brownback and his "Christian" Taliban of a legislature :P

asixbury 6 years, 1 month ago

Last time I checked, Obama is a Christian. This, frankly, does not matter when it comes to politics. Politicians only use the "religion card" when they think it'll get them reelected. I remember Sebelius being a hell of a lot better governor then the current one. If you don't agree with Obama's policies, that's fine, but don't attack him personally.

Liberty275 6 years, 1 month ago

LOL... Huffpo.

Liberals, I encourage you to abort at every opportunity. That's what god wants. The anti-abortion loons just missed the memo.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

Does the source make any difference to the reality of it? Would you have believed it any less/more if it came from Fox News? Are you saying that we DON'T have legislators in committee at this very minute considering this?

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

Bottom line. the people trying to pass this legislation are NOT "pro-life". They are anti-abortion and pro-forced birthers, no matter what or how severe the consequences are to the woman, and "life" has nothing to do with it. I say this because there is a complete and total disregard for the lives of women in this legislation. These are people who believe whole heartedly in Martin Luther's statement that, “If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her only die from bearing; she is there to do it." "...because abortion isn’t really what interests them. They want purity. They want righteousness. They want designated breeders. Even those who don’t overtly promote more births are unable to see that competitive breeding was baked into the desert religions from the beginning. " (http://new.exchristian.net/2012/01/righteous-abortion-how-conservative.html)

verity 6 years, 1 month ago

"...because abortion isn’t really what interests them."


Maddy Griffin 6 years, 1 month ago

The pro-lifers (pro-forced birthers) are trying to set Women's Rights back 50 years. Once they have control over your uterus, where do you think they'll strike next?

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

I dunno, gramaddy, but if I were you I would keep a burqa handy.

John McCoy 6 years, 1 month ago

Alas, we have a similar bunch of fascists here in Texas, men who take an unseemly interest in my daughter's uterus. But I do believe that Kansas takes the cake. You are even more broke than we are, and here your lege is preoccupied with this issue while the rest of the state's problems, education in particular, go unaddressed. As much of a blockhead as our Governor Perry is, I believe I would take even him over Brownback.

verity 6 years, 1 month ago

"Among the most contested provisions of the bill is the section that would exempt a doctor from a medical malpractice suit if a woman claims the physician withheld information about potential birth defects to prevent her from having an abortion. In addition, a woman would not be able to sue if she suffers health damage from a pregnancy as a result of information withheld from her to prevent an abortion."

You can argue about the fine points of abortion all you want, but the point here is what is stated above. The rest of your arguments are irrelevant. A doctor can play God and lie to a woman because he thinks he knows what is best and we as women have no recourse. And being able to sue after death is hardly recourse.

Let's say a doctor examined one of you men and found that you have a heart condition that could cause you to drop dead at any minute. Surgery would repair the fault, but the doctor decides not to tell you about it because he doesn't believe you should have the surgery.

You OK with that?

Call me extremist if you like, call me hostile. I care not one whit. I am an extremist when it come to civil and personal rights for any person and am hostile when anyone tries to take them away.

This law is sadistic to say the least. And it is only aimed at women. The idea that a doctor can legally lie to me, or anyone, is repulsive and abhorent beyond belief.

This is conservative? Really? This is way beyond conservative or liberal and you who try to use this as a liberal/conservative fight are disgusting. Pro-life when it means a woman could die because she doesn't have proper information? I don't think so.

verity 6 years, 1 month ago

Yes, it will most likely be found unconstitutional, but the idea that it is even thought about, let alone considered, is reprehensible. Just another waste of time and money. If it does pass, what law firm will the state hire to defend them?

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

I would suggest a different example for the men.

Let's say a doctor examined one of you men and found that you have prostate cancer and that if not treated will spread throughout your body and you will die a wasting, lingering death.

Surgery, aggressive chemo & radiation will destroy the cancer but you will lose all reproductive capabilities, including the ability to have an erection. The doctor decides not to tell you about the cancer because he believes you are better off having sex while you still can and he knows that your wife really wants a baby and does not believe she should be deprived of the ability to conceive your child. He also decides that he is not going to give you the option to freeze your sperm for later usage because he believes that the only real way to conceive a child is through intercourse.

verity 6 years, 1 month ago

I stand corrected. Your analogy is much more apt.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

This was supposed to have come out of committee and gone to the House floor today. Again: WHERE IS THE STATEHOUSE REPORTING ON THIS?

Liberty275 6 years, 1 month ago

Go watch some fox news and get back with us.

And don't forget to abort.

Katara 6 years, 1 month ago

HB 2598 Short Title Creating the no taxpayer funding for abortion act; amending statutes concerning late-term abortion restrictions. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Um. I think the bills involves much more than taxpayer funding (which does not exist anyhow) and late-term abortions.

Deceptive at every turn.

Cait McKnelly 6 years, 1 month ago

I ignore him, dpl. His credibility is shot to he77 and back. This is a pretty serious thing, here. If it gets passed there will be lawsuits out the kazoo that the state will have to defend and I fully expect it to go down in flames. (At least, I sincerely hope it wouldn't get past the Feds.) Where is the money going to come from to defend it? But, as Verity said above, the very fact that we have legislators even thinking along these lines, much less considering it, is reprehensible.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.