Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs Sharpening My Pen

The War on Women Redux

Advertisement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/kansas-anti-abortion-bill_n_1258185.html
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.
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE AND WHAT FANTASY NOVEL OF A "BIBLE" DO THEY READ FROM?
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.
http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2598_00_0000.pdf
http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/hb2598/

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.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2012/feb/09/opponents-criticize-latest-abortion-bill-kansas-le/?kansas_legislature

Comments

deathpenaltyliberal 2 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months ago

http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2598_00_0000.pdf Please pay close attention to Page 3, Section 10 starting at line 25. Here is it's committee history. http://kslegislature.org/li/b2011_12/measures/hb2598/

I just threw up.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 2 months ago

Go watch some fox news and get back with us.

And don't forget to abort.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months 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?

0

verity 2 years, 2 months 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.

0

John McCoy 2 years, 2 months 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.

0

grammaddy 2 years, 2 months 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?

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months 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)

0

Liberty275 2 years, 2 months 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.

0

deec 2 years, 2 months ago

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

0

seriouscat 2 years, 2 months ago

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

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 2 months 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.

0

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 2 months 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.

0

Agnostick 2 years, 2 months ago

My wife started crying when I read this to her.

Suppose an amniocentesis reveals Down's, or worse? Rather than giving the couple advance warning--including, possibly, several months to prepare themselves, and their home--the doctor can withhold information?

Does this run contrary to the Hippocratic Oath? What about HIPAA?

0

Katara 2 years, 2 months 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.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.