The Politics of Women's Healthcare

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    I guess it doesn't even surprise me anymore ..the fixation that old white male politicians have with what goes on behind the closed exam room door in gynocologists' offices across the country.

    Recently, a federal judge struck down the North Carolina legislation which required physicians to show ultrasound images to women who were discussing abortion. The basis for the decision was rooted in the 1st Amendment. Essentially..the judge stated that politicians could not mandate the words to be spoken by a physician , especially if those words were part of a political ideological message. In other words..physicians know better than politicians how to deal with women's health issues.

    This position by by Judge Catherine Eagles seems to inject some common sense into the issue. After all...isn't it logical to assume that physicians know best? If not best..than certainly better than a politician?

    Her remarks seem particularly on point when you consider the following remark made by Rep. Allen Rothlisberg during an unrelated committee hearing on January 14th. Rep. Rothlisberg declared that "If I was a woman over 50, I would not need gynecological services". 

    Now..that is not someone I want making decisions about my healthcare. His lack of knowledge of women's health care is ..well..breathtaking.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

     

    Since abortion and free exercise of religion are both constitutional rights, maybe we should be talking about implementing some obstructions to those seeking to join a religion, similar to the obstructions put in place for abortion?   A couple suggestions: 

    -  Before any person may attend a religious service or event, he or she must submit to one hour of counseling by a certified atheist, which shall consist of the counselor reading a lengthy description of all the wars, slaughters, witch-burnings, inquisitions and general mayhem committed in the name of religion.

    -  After counseling, prospective attendees shall be required to wait 24 hours before actually attending any religious service or event, to insure they have given the matter mature consideration.

    sound fair?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    The issue with abortion is that there is another life, other than the mother that needs to be considered.  

    User's argument about religion is just silly.  For one thing, it would be making a law concerning the establishment of religion.  In essence, it promotes atheism as the standard. Deviating from this standard then requires government to initervene in your free exercise of religion?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     After all...isn't it logical to assume that physicians know best? If not best..than certainly better than a politician?



    Only if you are slamming Obamacare.

    If invading an individuals medical decisions furthers a far right goal, then have at it!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    abortion on demand is not about "womens healthcare"!

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    abortion on demand is not about "womens healthcare"!




    Except that we are not talking about "abortion on demand". If only you would stop seeing every issue as black or white and start looking at the 1000 shades of grey involved in these things.

    Consider this - A woman ( we'll say a married woman) has an illness in which getting pregnant is too risky for her. In spite of her best efforts at birth control she becomes pregnant ( it happens more than you think).

    Now..this woman has a very painful choice to make. Her doctors are advising against going through with the pregnancy ( because of her health..perhaps the medication she takes is harmful to the fetus as well). So in addition to the woman being faced with an already horribly painful situation...she should then be subjected to ultrasound images of her pregnancy? The one she has already been told she can't proceed with. How cruel would that be?

    I've simplified the scenario for you as much as I can...but I think you get my point. Women choose to end pregnancies for all manner of reasons related to their health and the viability of the fetus. I don't think politicians should be in the business of interfering with that and making an already incredibly painful situation even more so.

    Perhaps you feel differently. Perhaps you also agree that women over 50 don't need gynecological care as well.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RememberTheAndrea. Show RememberTheAndrea's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    Abortion is not a constitutional right!!!!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to RememberTheAndrea's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Abortion is not a constitutional right!!!!

    [/QUOTE]


    Judging by the number of exclamation points, you seem pretty sure about that.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jedwardnicky. Show jedwardnicky's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to RememberTheAndrea's comment:

    Abortion is not a constitutional right!!!!



    I'm not sure having a child is a constitutional right.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    abortion on demand is not about "womens healthcare"!

    [/QUOTE]

    Well, it's certainly not about men's healthcare...

    ...so you're plum out of gender excuses.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to RememberTheAndrea's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Abortion is not a constitutional right!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure it is.

    The Supreme Court said so.

     

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    55 million lives terminated since r vs w

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    55 million lives terminated since r vs w

    [/QUOTE]

    and many hundreds of millions before that and yet to come

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I guess it doesn't even surprise me anymore ..the fixation that old white male politicians have with what goes on behind the closed exam room door in gynocologists' offices across the country.

    Recently, a federal judge struck down the North Carolina legislation which required physicians to show ultrasound images to women who were discussing abortion. The basis for the decision was rooted in the 1st Amendment. Essentially..the judge stated that politicians could not mandate the words to be spoken by a physician , especially if those words were part of a political ideological message. In other words..physicians know better than politicians how to deal with women's health issues.

    This position by by Judge Catherine Eagles seems to inject some common sense into the issue. After all...isn't it logical to assume that physicians know best? If not best..than certainly better than a politician?

    Her remarks seem particularly on point when you consider the following remark made by Rep. Allen Rothlisberg during an unrelated committee hearing on January 14th. Rep. Rothlisberg declared that "If I was a woman over 50, I would not need gynecological services". 

    Now..that is not someone I want making decisions about my healthcare. His lack of knowledge of women's health care is ..well..breathtaking.

    [/QUOTE]

    Women are equally divided between pro-life and pro-choice positions, so the assumption that it is only old white men who oppose abortion is specious.

    "Physicians know better than politicians" how to deal with women's health issues? Funny, how the entire medical industry is heavily regulated and statutes exist on every conceivable issue, from politicians. The danger of malpractice lawsuits hovers over every medical visit....so you want to "deregulate" medical treatment? A bit late for that.

    The concept of informed consent is well established in the medical field. The patient must be told of the risks and consequences of a medical procedure. That is what these laws are about. if a pateint doesnt want to listen or pay attention, that is their choice. But pretending abortion is not a serious risky medical procedure is denying reality.

    The "political ideological message"  of pro-abortion advocates seems to be to get the procedure over with, quickly, and not allow the patient to consider the risks or consequences.  

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I guess it doesn't even surprise me anymore ..the fixation that old white male politicians have with what goes on behind the closed exam room door in gynocologists' offices across the country.

    Recently, a federal judge struck down the North Carolina legislation which required physicians to show ultrasound images to women who were discussing abortion. The basis for the decision was rooted in the 1st Amendment. Essentially..the judge stated that politicians could not mandate the words to be spoken by a physician , especially if those words were part of a political ideological message. In other words..physicians know better than politicians how to deal with women's health issues.

    This position by by Judge Catherine Eagles seems to inject some common sense into the issue. After all...isn't it logical to assume that physicians know best? If not best..than certainly better than a politician?

    Her remarks seem particularly on point when you consider the following remark made by Rep. Allen Rothlisberg during an unrelated committee hearing on January 14th. Rep. Rothlisberg declared that "If I was a woman over 50, I would not need gynecological services". 

    Now..that is not someone I want making decisions about my healthcare. His lack of knowledge of women's health care is ..well..breathtaking.

    [/QUOTE]

    Women are equally divided between pro-life and pro-choice positions, so the assumption that it is only old white men who oppose abortion is specious.

    "Physicians know better than politicians" how to deal with women's health issues? Funny, how the entire medical industry is heavily regulated and statutes exist on every conceivable issue, from politicians. The danger of malpractice lawsuits hovers over every medical visit....so you want to "deregulate" medical treatment? A bit late for that.

    The concept of informed consent is well established in the medical field. The patient must be told of the risks and consequences of a medical procedure. That is what these laws are about. if a pateint doesnt want to listen or pay attention, that is their choice. But pretending abortion is not a serious risky medical procedure is denying reality.

    The "political ideological message"  of pro-abortion advocates seems to be to get the procedure over with, quickly, and not allow the patient to consider the risks or consequences.  

    [/QUOTE]


    CLC..there is a big difference between informed consent and what the North Carolina legislation was mandating.

    It may be true that women hold positions on both sides of the abortion issue. I, myself, am torn on the issue. I find this idea of women using abortion as a form of birth control distasteful...on the other hand I also understand..as a woman..that pregnancies are terminated for thousands or reasons that have little to do with choice. I think that exposing a woman who is already going through a traumatic experience to more trauma than necessary to be cruel.

    As far as my comment about old white men being obsessed with what goes on the gynecologists office...well..they are the majority of faces behind this type of nonsense legislation...and the type of ignorance of medical science ( such as women over 50 don't need gynecological care). Sorry..but I don't want someone like that making laws about women's health care.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    Disingenuous to complain about excessive regulation of medical services...

    ...and then insist upon excessive regulation of abortion services that have nothing to do with the efficacy of the services themselves.

     

    Pro-choice is about protecting private access to a legal medical procedure = the moderate position.

    Anti-choice is about eliminating that access altogether and invading the doctor-patient standard of privacy = the extreme position.

     

    Meanwhile, is there anyone who thinks medical services in general should be de-regulated?  Really?!

     

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    As usual, the neo-cons want to replace medical efficacy with their moral judgements.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare


    Abortion beyond 24 weeks is illegal.

    Without a requirement for an ultrasound, the "women's healthcare decision" could be to break the law and commit murder on a viable human being.

    The doctor-patient privacy issue cannot be an excuse to break the law.

    Ergo, there needs to be an ultrasound requirement, which even Planned Parenthood requires before an abortion.

    Opposing this basic requirement clearly puts one in the camp of "abortion on demand".

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I guess it doesn't even surprise me anymore ..the fixation that old white male politicians have with what goes on behind the closed exam room door in gynocologists' offices across the country.

    Recently, a federal judge struck down the North Carolina legislation which required physicians to show ultrasound images to women who were discussing abortion. The basis for the decision was rooted in the 1st Amendment. Essentially..the judge stated that politicians could not mandate the words to be spoken by a physician , especially if those words were part of a political ideological message. In other words..physicians know better than politicians how to deal with women's health issues.

    This position by by Judge Catherine Eagles seems to inject some common sense into the issue. After all...isn't it logical to assume that physicians know best? If not best..than certainly better than a politician?

    Her remarks seem particularly on point when you consider the following remark made by Rep. Allen Rothlisberg during an unrelated committee hearing on January 14th. Rep. Rothlisberg declared that "If I was a woman over 50, I would not need gynecological services". 

    Now..that is not someone I want making decisions about my healthcare. His lack of knowledge of women's health care is ..well..breathtaking.

    [/QUOTE]

    Women are equally divided between pro-life and pro-choice positions, so the assumption that it is only old white men who oppose abortion is specious.

    "Physicians know better than politicians" how to deal with women's health issues? Funny, how the entire medical industry is heavily regulated and statutes exist on every conceivable issue, from politicians. The danger of malpractice lawsuits hovers over every medical visit....so you want to "deregulate" medical treatment? A bit late for that.

    The concept of informed consent is well established in the medical field. The patient must be told of the risks and consequences of a medical procedure. That is what these laws are about. if a pateint doesnt want to listen or pay attention, that is their choice. But pretending abortion is not a serious risky medical procedure is denying reality.

    The "political ideological message"  of pro-abortion advocates seems to be to get the procedure over with, quickly, and not allow the patient to consider the risks or consequences.  

    [/QUOTE]


    CLC..there is a big difference between informed consent and what the North Carolina legislation was mandating.

    It may be true that women hold positions on both sides of the abortion issue. I, myself, am torn on the issue. I find this idea of women using abortion as a form of birth control distasteful...on the other hand I also understand..as a woman..that pregnancies are terminated for thousands or reasons that have little to do with choice. I think that exposing a woman who is already going through a traumatic experience to more trauma than necessary to be cruel.

    As far as my comment about old white men being obsessed with what goes on the gynecologists office...well..they are the majority of faces behind this type of nonsense legislation...and the type of ignorance of medical science ( such as women over 50 don't need gynecological care). Sorry..but I don't want someone like that making laws about women's health care.

    [/QUOTE]

    There's that word, "mandating" again.  

    It is OK to "mandate" that I must buy health insurance, costing me several thousands of dollars in premiums and cost (through higher deductibles), but mandating a women to consider the life she is about to snuff out should not be "mandated".

    Interesting.

    On the womens' heath care, and not trusting government workers/officials whoare ignorant of medical issues making such sweeping pronouncements on womens health care:

    "Breast cancer. Within three months of the enactment of Obamacare, new guidelines were issued that women should get less frequent mammograms."

    So, I guess you want to kill Obamacare after all?  Have we found the people who are really waging a war on women?

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Abortion beyond 24 weeks is illegal.

    Without a requirement for an ultrasound, the "women's healthcare decision" could be to break the law and commit murder on a viable human being.

    The doctor-patient privacy issue cannot be an excuse to break the law.

    Ergo, there needs to be an ultrasound requirement, which even Planned Parenthood requires before an abortion.

    Opposing this basic requirement clearly puts one in the camp of "abortion on demand".

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice try.....these states are passing laws to require the patient to view it.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RememberTheAndrea's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Abortion is not a constitutional right!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure it is.

    The Supreme Court said so.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The Roe v Wade Supreme Court: Nine old white men....What did they know?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    The way GOP's deals with birth control is to tell the woman to just say no when it comes to having sex.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    The way GOP's deals with birth control is to tell the woman to just say no when it comes to having sex.




    Hey, it worked well for drugs.



     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from twelve_angry_men. Show twelve_angry_men's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RememberTheAndrea's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Abortion is not a constitutional right!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure it is.

    The Supreme Court said so.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The Roe v Wade Supreme Court: Nine old white men....What did they know?

    [/QUOTE]


    They knew enough to realize that women have a right to control their own bodies, that much is evident.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: The Politics of Women's Healthcare

    In response to twelve_angry_men's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to RememberTheAndrea's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Abortion is not a constitutional right!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Sure it is.

    The Supreme Court said so.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The Roe v Wade Supreme Court: Nine old white men....What did they know?

    [/QUOTE]


    They knew enough to realize that women have a right to control their own bodies, that much is evident.

    [/QUOTE]

    Control their own bodies, yes. Destroy a body living within them, that was a viable life able to live on its own, no.

    The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade made a limited decision: it only held that abortion through the first trimester was protected. Moreover, it did not hold that taxpayers had to pay for abortion.

    So you support late term abortion? Partial birth abortion?

    if you dont, then you know the cliche 'control their own bodies" doesnt give women the unlimited right to end a human life.

     

Share