Posts tagged with Abortion
It isn't unusual for a political group to accuse a rival group of doing what it is doing. This situation occurs because members of the the first group believe whatever they are doing is "right" and whatever the opposition is doing is "wrong". The best example of this phenomena is the standard claim by each party that the other party is getting special interest group support.
Democrats have been accusing the Republicans of waging a war on women while ignoring the Democrats own war on women. War involves death and Democrats support policies that increase the death rate of women by failing to regulate abortion providers or adequately test contraceptive produces.
Governments have long recognized the need to regulate the health care industry to insure that those providing medical services are actually qualified to do the job and adhere to the highest standards of safety. However, when it comes to regulating those who provide abortion related health care many Democrats act like disciples of Rush Limbaugh.
The only people who seem interested in insuring adequate regulation of abortion providers are the people who oppose the procedure. Many Democrats are so obsessed with the idea that abortions must be available that they don't care about the safety of the procedure. Some Democrats seem incapable of understanding that women don't benefit from abortions that kill them.
Although it is preferable for babies to be delivered by trained individuals, people with no medical training including cab drivers and children have been known to help successfully deliver babies.
However, abortion is major surgery. An abortion involves removing something from the interior of a body that is attached to the body. Abortions should only be performed by trained professionals operating in facilities that conform to government standards for surgical facilities. Abortionists should know how to correct the mistakes that sometimes occur during surgery. Government needs to strictly regulate the process to protect women from the type of under qualified individuals who will attempt to perform medical services if the opportunity is available. Government should require individuals and facilities that perform abortions to meet the same licensing standards as other facilities.
Failing to require facilities that treat only women to meet the same standards as facilities that treat men and women is the equivalent of the old southern Jim Crow laws. The lack of government oversight is particularly disturbing when unlicensed or under regulated facilities are allowed to operate in areas with high minority populations. A young black woman named Tonya Reaves died a few months ago from a poorly performed abortion at an unlicensed Planned Parenthood clinic in Chicago. http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/howcandreamsurvive.htm
As with many medical procedures there are potential adverse side effects to abortion. Democrats believe doctors who should be required to inform patients of adverse side effects for other procedures shouldn't have to inform women about possible adverse health effects of abortion which some studies indicate include an increased risk of breast cancer (in young women) and suicide. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/86/21/1584 http://afterabortion.org/2001/suicide-rate-higher-after-abortion-study-shows/
The primary impact of abortion on breast cancer seems to be on young women with the first pregnancy because their breasts are still developing new cells. The abortion stops this process with some cells not fully developed. If these undeveloped cells start reproducing later as something other than breast cells the result can be a cancerous tumor.
Medical authorities don't fully understand how a woman's brain chemistry changes with pregnancy and with the end of pregnancy. They know that women can become severely depressed and possibly suicidal after giving birth. An artificial end to pregnancy is likely to cause the same depression encouraging changes in a woman's brain chemistry. Women who have unwanted pregnancies may already have a negative attitude about themselves which could lead to depression and suicide.
Women who have abortions should be encouraged to contact mental health professionals after the abortion. Women who have abortions may be more likely to become severely depressed because they have a negative attitude toward the pregnancy and possibly a negative opinion about themselves associated with the decisions that led to the pregnancy.
Medical treatments often have risks of adverse side effects for some people. Patients have a right to know what the suspected adverse side effects are so they can make an informed decision. Medical treatments don't affect everyone the same way. For example, the penicillan that could save my life from an infection would have killed my mother because she was allergic to it. Some medical treatments, such as use of radiation, can increase the risk of cancer. Other treatments such as organ transplants may increase the risk of suicide.
Surgery carries the risk of infection, permanent injury or even death. Abortion can be major surgery. Complications from an abortion can include a hysterectomy or death as the family of Tonya Reaves discovered after she died from a poorly performed abortion in an unlicensed clinic a few months ago.
Democrats apparently think women are incapable of evaluating possible risks when determining whether or not to have an abortion. Democrats don't think women considering an abortion can balance the possible adverse consequences of an abortion with what they consider the negative aspects of their pregnancies.
The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "equal protection of the laws." If the law requires health care providers to warn men of possible adverse side effects of medical procedures, then health care providers must provide the same type of warnings to women including those seeking abortions. State laws that seem to allow those providing medical threatment to avoid warning women are unconsitutional.
If Democrats really cared about women they would do something to prohibit those men who molest young girls from paying abortionists to dispose of the evidence that a molester has gotten an underage girl pregnant. Children who are sexually molested can suffer for years afterwards. Proving child abuse can be difficult because courts may not consider a child's testimony to be reliable. The remains of an aborted baby provide indisputable evidence that a man has sexaully molested a child. Child molesters often molest more than one child. Failing to prosecute a molester allows him to continue to ruin the lives of children. If Democrats really cared about women they would support legislation requiring abortionists to deliver the remains of abortions on underage females to the local medical examiner for possible law enforcement action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_se...
Democrats make a big deal out of contraceptives. They want to make sure women don't have to pay for them. However, Democrats don't seem to care as much about the safety of contraceptives. If you notice the ads by ambulance chasing lawyers you've seen the ones about a lawsuit involving the once popular contraceptive Yaz.
Yaz has been discovered to have the same problem as some earlier contraceptives. It can cause fatal blood clots. If Democrats really cared about women they would insure that contraceptives are adequately tested for the potential to create blood clots or cause other problems before they can be marketed.
Democrats claim Republicans are waging a war on women, but it is the Democrats who see nothing wrong with allowing unregulated or poorly regulated individuals to perform medical procedures on women that can injure or even kill the patient. It is Democrats, rather than Republicans, who favor laws that increase the risk of death for women.
Democrats care so little about minority women that they allow unlicensed facilities to kill them. The old civil rights leaders will protest when someone shoots a black man but do nothing when a doctor in an unlicensed health facility kills a black woman. Nothing better demonstrates the hypocrisy of President Barack Obama than the fact that unlicensed medical facilities are allowed to [mis]treat women in his hometown of Chicago.
When a black man dies a violent death black leaders like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton descend on the location and ask for an investigation while sometimes alleging that racism might be a factor.
On July 20 a 24-year-old black woman named Tonya Reaves bled to death http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/03/planned-parenthood-never-called-911-for-abortion-victim/ after a botched abortion at an unlicensed Chicago Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic. I've checked Google and can find no indication that either Jackson or Sharpton have protested Reaves' death. Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she died from negligence rather than someone firing a gun? Or is it because they don't believe abortion providers need to be medically competent?
The 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "equal protection of the laws" regardless of race or sex. Illinois allows facilities run by Planned Parenthood that only treat women to operate without the licensing requirements of facilities that treat men as well as women. Are Jackson and Sharpton ignoring this violation of the Constitution because the denial of equal protection is based on sex rather than race?
Tonya Reaves received a second trimester dilation and evacuation (D & E) abortion http://women.webmd.com/dilation-and-evacuation-de-for-abortion at 11 A.M. at Planned Parenthood's Chicago Loop Health Center. She began bleeding after the procedure, but for unexplained reasons wasn't treated until she was transferred to Northwestern Memorial Hospital by a fire department ambulance at 4:30 P.M. There is no record that the clinic called 911.
Hospital personnel had to start from scratch to examine her because they received no information about her treatment at Planned Parenthood. According to WBBM's Steve Miller http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/documents-shed-light-on-womans-death-after-abortion/ reporting on documents provided by Northwestern: “at 5:30 p.m., doctors performed an ultrasound, and another dilation and evacuation procedure – basically, another abortion – this time at Northwestern. But after that, there were then more problems, and pain. That warranted a new ultrasound, and a perforation was discovered. At 10:12 p.m., Reaves was taken back to surgery – and 'an uncontrollable bleed' was discovered.”
Reaves was pronounced dead an hour later.
Dr. James C. Anderson, M.D., a 30-year veteran emergency room doctor has complained that abortion clinics never informed him about their patients’ conditions. “I have always had to evaluate the situation, come to my own conclusions, and initiate what I thought was appropriate treatment. This definitely created some time delays that were not in the patient’s best interest,” stated Dr. Anderson. “These delays can have life-threatening implications when dealing with hemorrhage or infection.”
In a written statement, http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/24/documents-shed-light-on-womans-death-after-abortion/ Planned Parenthood of Illinois CEO Carole Brite said “We were shocked and saddened upon learning of a tragic development at a nearby hospital. Our hearts go out to the loved ones of this patient. While legal abortion services in the United States have a very high safety record, a tragedy such as this is devastating to loved ones and we offer our deepest sympathies. Planned Parenthood of Illinois cares deeply about the health and safety of each and every patient. We do not publicly discuss private patient matters and we follow HIPAA laws that forbid the disclosure of patient information.” The statement that Planned Parenthood cares about the health and safety of its patients is an obvious lie. If Planned Parenthood really cared about its patients' welfare it would subject its facilities to the same rigid licensing requirements of other health facilities. Its clinics would be prepared for the known complications of abortions and send patients to a nearby hospital if necessary. Patient privacy rules provide a convenient excuse for not releasing any potentially self incriminating information about how they mistreated Reaves.
Prominent civil rights leaders may have ignored Reaves death, but the daughter of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, brother Rev. A.D. King has spoken out. Dr. Alveda C. King has protested what she calls the "tragic slaughter of Tonya Reaves, a young woman, who was butchered in a Planned Parenthood abortion mill in Chicago?" http://www.priestsforlife.org/staff/alvedaking.htm
King goes on to say the people at Planned Parenthood "are going to a lot of trouble to make it seem that murders like Tonya’s are a fluke. Planned Parenthood promised Tonya a solution to her problems, and they killed her. Now, she is dead; a beautiful victim of the nefarious liars at Planned Parenthood. Yes friends, Tonya and her dead baby are victims. For those who want to point the finger at Tonya and say that nobody made her go to Planned Parenthood, think again. Planned Parenthood is a master of false advertising, and Tonya fell into their trap. They seduce vulnerable women into their web by promising that abortion and killer birth control drugs will solve all of life’s problems. They lie!"
She continued, " I was once a victim of the lies of Planned Parenthood". http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/howcandreamsurvive.htm
One of the arguments for legalizing abortion is that it supposedly would put unlicensed "back alley abortionists" out of business. That isn't the case in Illinois where unlicensed abortionists are able to ply their trade in visible locations. They may use sterilized instruments instead of rusty coat hangers, but patients can still die needlessly. Legalized abortion hasn't put "back alley abortionists" out of business. Legalized abortion merely allows the old back alley abortionists to operate legally.
Competent caring professional health care providers should have recognized that something had gone wrong with Tonya's operation and either provided her the help she needed or taken her to a facility that could help her.
Reaves death isn't anything new. Chicago Sun Times reporter Mary Mitchell recalled that when she was a teenager two of her friends had complications from abortions. They went home afterward, went to bed and bled to death. http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/13957308-452/death-of-tonya-reaves-after-an-abortion-is-a-reminder-that-abortions-carry-risks.html
Removing any material from deep inside the body is major surgery and should not be taken lightly. Competent doctors recognize that mistakes can happen and things can go wrong for no apparent reason, They must be prepared to take immediate corrective action. Women who experience significant bleeding after an abortion should at the very least stay in a hospital for observation. Bleeding after an operation isn't necessarily the same as the bleeding associated with a woman's period. Bleeding after an operation can indicate a broken blood vessel that must be fixed.
Unlicensed medical facilities are what we might have expected to find serving black residents in southern cities like Birmingham, Alabama, or Philadelphia, Mississippi, during the Jim Crow era 60 years ago. There is no excuse for women of any color to have to rely on unlicensed medical facilities in major cities in the 21st Century.
Democrats falsely claim that by supporting abortion they are doing something to benefit women. The Democrats willingness to allow unlicensed and thus possibly incompetent personnel to provide abortion services that kill women indicates that Democrats don't care about women. If Democrats really cared about women they would have required states to provide women the same protection from poorly run health facilities that states provide men many years ago. If President Barack Obama cared about women he would have already closed down the unlicensed Planned Parenthood abortion mills in his home state instead of allowing them to kill black women.
Those arguing over the constitutionality of Obamacare have consistently ignored the fact that Obamacare conflicts with the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade. The Court's decision to uphold Obamacare may provide statements that could be used to justify regulating and possibly even prohibiting abortion.
The Court wouldn't need to refer to Roe v. Wade to in effect overturn it. The justices could inadvertently overturn Roe v. Wade by making statements that conflict with it. Attorneys could use such conflicts to argue that Roe v. Wade is no longer consistent with the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
I'm going to leave the tedious process of examining specific comments by the Justices to those who get paid to do such things. I'm more interested in the general theory involved.
There is a certain absurdity to the Roe v. Wade ruling. The ruling is based on a philosophy of limited government that is closer to the normal views of those called "conservatives" than to the views of those called "liberals". However, the conservatives have traditionally opposed the decision and the liberals have supported it.
The two groups also reverse their normal positions on regulation of abortion providers. Conservatives, who normally try to limit government regulations, favor strict regulation of abortion providers. Liberals, who normally favor strict regulation of health care providers, believe women who seek abortions don't deserve the same protective regulations of health care providers that protect those who visit facilities that treat both men and women.
The philosophy of Roe v. Wade is that health care decisions like abortion are a private matter and government has only limited authority to intervene in private health care decisions. Obamacare is based on a philosophy that there is no right to privacy in health care. Government can control what health care people can obtain by forcing them to purchase insurance that may not cover the type of health care they want or need.
For example, consider the case of a young transsexual who wants to save money he budgets for health care until he has enough money to pay for surgery to transform him into a woman. He might be unable to save his money for the operation if he had to first pay for insurance that would not cover the cost of the operation. Or, consider the case of a young woman who wants to fix what she considers flaws in her appearance, including paying for breast enhancement. Insurance companies wouldn't cover such procedures.
Congress can require people to purchase insurance that only covers conventional treatments that don't help them.. If they benefit from "experimental" treatments instead they must first pay for the type treatment that doesn't help them before they pay for the treatment that works.
Under Obamacare, wealthy members of Congress decide whether or not individuals can afford health insurance regardless of the needs and priorities of specific individuals. Under Obamacare there is no right to privacy in determining spending priorities. Government dictates what they must spend on the health care the government decides they can have.
The people who voted in Obamacare ignore the fact that a Republican president and Congress could make different decisions about health care than a Democratic president and Congress. For example, a Republican president might be able to sharply limit the medical procedures associated with abortion.
If House Republicans are serious about wanting to repeal Obamacare, they should pass a Resolution stating that some, or all, portions of the Obamacare law are unconstitutional. A House Resolution doesn't require Senate approval and cannot be vetoed as would be the case with a bill eliminating Obamacare.
The Resolution should include a statement reminding the courts that the only justification Chief John Marshall could cite for ruling on the constitutionality of an Act of Congress in Marbury v. Madison was the oath the justices took to support the Constitution. Members of Congress take the same oath and thus have the same authority to express opinions of the Constitution.
The voters provide the ultimate check on government. If one Congress acts contrary to what voters think is correct, they have the option of electing new members to correct the improper action. The House of Representatives is the closest to the people because each district is approximately equal in population and all are subject to replacement every two years.
Those challenging Obamacare in court could use such a Resolution to support their claims that the law is unconstitutional.
House members should consult with those challenging Obamacare for suggestions about what the Resolution should include. The following indicate some of the substantial constitutional problems with Obamacare.
Regulating individual behavior using the Interstate Commerce Clause sounds like a violation of the 13th Amendment which abolished slavery. Congress could regulate the behavior of humans as elements of commerce when those humans were commodities to be bought and sold as slaves. Free citizens have the freedom to engage in interstate commerce or not engage in interstate commerce.
Requiring people to pay for health care by purchasing insurance violates their right to privacy in making health care decisions. The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases has held that government cannot interfere in a person's right to make personal health care decisions. Requiring people to purchase insurance can force them to turn over health care decisions to an insurance company. Forcing them to turn money over to an insurance company instead of using it to pay for the type of health care they desire can deprive them of their right to choose health care options the insurance company doesn't support, such as plastic surgery, a sex change operation or treatment insurance companies considers "experimental".
Abortion supporters don't understand that Obamacare could eliminate abortion funding if health insurance companies considered late term or other abortions too costly or "risky". If the Interstate Commerce Clause can override the right to privacy on health insurance, then it can override the right to privacy on other health care decisions. This possibility may not be important for Obamacare opponents, but it is important to many Supreme Court justices.
Requiring people to purchase private health insurance violates the freedom of religion guarantees of the First Amendment. Some religions such as the Amish religion and Islam consider purchasing private insurance wrong. The Christian Science religion questions the use of medical doctors. Requiring members of these religions to purchase private health insurance deprives them of their right to practice their religion.
Exempting them from the requirement, creates a special benefit that amounts to a subsidy of their beliefs because they are allowed to keep more of their money for their own use, including donating it to their organization, than those who belong to other religious groups or don't belong to any religious group. Allowing members of some religions to spend money that members of other religions don't have to spend has the same impact as providing a direct government subsidy of the privileged religious groups. The First Amendment refers to government subsidy of a religion(s) as an "establishment of religion".
I have heard that the act creating Obamacare contains a provision that in effect states that if the Supreme Court finds any part of the act unconstitutional than the entire act would be invalid. Such a provision in and of itself would render the act unconstitutional because the provision would alter the powers of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison invalidated an Act of Congress for a less significant attempt to alter the Court's power.
Such a provision would drastically alter the Court's Article 3 powers both expanding and restricting them. The provision would in effect grant the Court a stronger veto power than the President has because Congress could not override the Court's "veto". On the other hand the provision would dictate to the Court by removing the option of invalidating or modifying only those provisions in legislation that in the opinion of a majority of the Court violate some portion of the Constitution. The Constitution established the judicial branch to limit the ability of the government to control the lives of its citizens by limiting the circumstances under which the government could impose punishment. The judicial branch is not supposed to function as a super legislature.
The requirement that individuals purchase health insurance from private companies at rates set by those companies involves the transfer of the government's taxing authority to private companies which deprives voters of the ability to elect those who determine their taxes.
The Resolution should remind the Court that forcing people to purchase private health insurance is unnecessary to provide people with access to health care. Government can raise revenue to pay for health care with its taxation powers and then use that money to directly pay health care costs as it already does with Medicare and Medicaid.
The comparison of Obamacare to requirements for purchasing auto liability insurance is invalid. The auto liability insurance requirement is a requirement that those who engage in the dangerous activity of driving a motor vehicle prove they can compensate anyone who suffers a loss because of their mistakes while operating a motor vehicle. Many states allow motorists to fulfill this liability requirement by posting a bond rather than purchasing insurance.
The scariest part of the Democrats "Obamacare" legislation is the fact that Democrats believe we are nothing more than elements of Interstate Commerce. The last time the federal government treated human beings as elements of Interstate Commerce was during slavery.
The federal government has traditionally excluded small businesses with under $500,000 in sales that don't sell across state lines from Interstate Commerce regulations such as the minimum wage law. So how can individual Americans be considered elements of Interstate Commerce?
Commerce involves the transfer of money or property by entities that exist for that purpose. Democrats seem to feel that if you have a job or buy food you are a business enterprise rather than a human being with the right to make your own decisions about what to do with the portion of the money you earn that the government lets you keep.
It shouldn't be surprising that Democrats think of us as slaves considering that the Democratic Party was the party of slavery. Before you bring up Barack Obama's color keep in mind that if his African ancestors had any association with American slavery it was because they captured and/or sold slaves not because they were slaves.
"Socialism" is a word that is often thrown around without anything more than a vague definition. Some people take a simplistic view that if government does something it's socialism.
The Russian government that called itself a "Socialist Republic" provides an example of what socialism is. What the Soviet Union called socialism is basically the system that existed under the Russian emperor and old European monarchies. The only significant difference was that the government was not headed by an hereditary monarch but by a small group of people one of whom served as leader until he died or was deposed by the others.
Under socialism people are treated as the property of the government (emperor). Under socialism people belong to the government. Under our system the government is supposed to belong to the people.
Under socialism the government controls the people, in some cases even determining their careers. Under our system the people are supposed to control the government.
Under socialism the people serve the government. Under our system government is supposed to serve the people
Under socialism government tells people what they must do. Under our system, government tells people what they cannot do, especially to each other.
Obamacare is socialism under this definition because government attempts to control people's private lives by forcing them to purchase insurance regardless of their personal needs and desires.
The Democrats are telling young adults they don't have an option of using money to start a business or purchase a home before starting to buy insurance. Obama is like Mr. Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life" who wanted people to pay rent to him instead of having an opportunity to using the rent money to pay on a mortgage. Many young adults would like to save the money they would spend on health insurance to use as a down payment on a home.
Medicare and Medicaid are not socialism because the money for them comes from taxes assessed to the general working population. Individuals have the option of other insurance or paying their own bills and coverage is not based on how much has been paid with the exception of the optional Medicare coverage. Medicare recipients are expected to meet a minimum residence requirement and have to have paid the tax before becoming eligible.
A government health insurance program based on general taxes that allowed individuals to have private insurance or pay their own medical costs if they wanted to would not be socialistic. Such a program would be socialistic if it prohibited people from having private insurance or restricted the treatment they could purchase.
Democrats support for Obamacare demonstrates their limited intelligence. They are like children in that they are incapable of seeing unwanted consequences of their actions.
Most Democrats believe that women should be able to make their own decisions about having abortions. The Supreme Court says government has only limited authority to restrict abortion because of the individual right to privacy.
If government can control health care decisions on the grounds that humans are elements of Interstate Commerce than individuals no longer have a right to privacy in health care decisions. Government can prohibit medical procedures, including abortions, as a means of limiting health care costs. Persons have a right to privacy, but elements of commerce do not.