Miscarriages Illegal In Utah

Just more proof that the libs are the most racist people in America. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atx2PjrqiQw
One of the biggest lib supporters in America. Then he says this about his leader. AND NOTHING IS BEING SAID ABOUT IT?

Rev the Republicans never tried to shut down Roe. They wouldn't because it would be political suicide.

Beyond unacceptable, inhuman. That's what this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6vnOaq7nWU or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kdWN5WllGc
When your leader disregards life this much and then says a baby is a burden or penalty, whatever, what does that say for America.
Disgusting….

The "abortion" debate cannot be fully understood until you realize there are two parts to it: Is someone allowed to control another person's body? And is a person allowed to choose whether or not they become a parent? The ethics of who controls another's body has been pretty thoroughly covered by the progressive side of the issue. But the ethics regarding the choice of parenthood don't usually get addressed.

A major reason abortion has ultimately become a bitter debate is that there is a party involved with rights that are not being acknowledged or equitably protected. This party is not the fetus. It is the father. What rights? The right to choose whether or not he becomes a parent.

Even acknowledging this part of the debate makes this complicated issue a very, very thorny snarl. But there will never be agreement, or respect of women's rights, until men have their own rights in the matter equally protected. Right now, women have the right to choose whether or not they wish to have sex, and even when they choose to, they still have (if the states don't erode it away) the right to choose whether or not they become a parent. There are many tools available that allow women this choice (of which birth control is the most used, and would be used in place of abortion far, FAR more often if the use of birth control was encouraged and respected instead of implicitly linked with sin as it sometimes is).

The problem is, men don't have the full range of tools available to them to choose whether or not they become parents when they choose to have sex. There are not equally effective birth control methods available to men, and their right to choose fatherhood has hardly been examined by the court system. For a man, the choice to have sex means he gives up/has no practical or legal control over whether or not he becomes a father (with all the attendant responsibilities and privileges). For example, a man lied to by a woman about birth control is not considered to have his rights of fatherhood violated, and there is little discussion about whether non-custodial mothers should ever be required to pay child support to custodial fathers.

The lack of genuine discussion of and consideration for the rights of both parents is fundamentally unfair and keeps the whole rest of the abortion issue unbalanced. If Man rights to choose parenthood even if he chooses sex, are not protected by society, Woman's rights will end up poorly protected as well.

(There is, of course, an even more snarled issue of how the rights to choose parenthood, and the rights of control of one's body(/uterus) intersect. I believe this is not impossible to untangle mostly fairly, but I won't try to do that here.)

Of course, there are people that say "If you have sex, you should have to deal with the consequences (meaning negative consequences)." Sometimes this comes from bitterness, since it is partly true for men and not women. But most often it comes from people that believe there is something implicitly wicked about sex, and that people should not be allowed to have it unless they forfeit their rights to choose when and whether they create a family out of it.

Those people are out of their minds.

Well said. You raise an important point with the father's rights stuff.

"(There is, of course, an even more snarled issue of how the rights to choose parenthood, and the rights of control of one's body(/uterus) intersect. I believe this is not impossible to untangle mostly fairly, but I won't try to do that here.)"

That's where the rub is.

Here's what the right is doing. They are working to build up a caseload of fetal-rights cases…where fetuses were given full human rights,…murders, car-accidents, etc. Then, they're going to push a case up to the Roberts' Rogue Court….which will rule that a fetus has full legal rights. The legal mess created will be fought over for years.

Eventually, though, the woman, and only the woman, has the right to determine what happenes inside her body. A woman's right to decide what goes on inside her own body takes precedent over a fetus' right to develop inside the woman's body. It may sound cold and clinical…..but that's how I see it.

Yes. Tumor cells are genetically different from their bearer, and contain all the information needed to grow a whole human being. But no one would say they have a right to live inside the body of their bearer, even if they are classified as 'benign'. Some say a fetus is different, because it is on its way to becoming a whole human being. But it must live inside a woman, and take control of her bodily systems for a definite amount of time before it is able to relinquish intimate control of her body and still remain alive. No one is physically and intimately allowed to use another person's body against that person's will. It doesn't matter what anyone has 'done', who is seen as at fault, who is blameless. No living cells in need, no matter how complex they are, even if they are a fully grown adult person, has the right to force a person to give the use of his/her flesh to secure the needy cells' life. A parent is not obligated by law to donate organs to children. The use of the parent's flesh is the parent's business. If we legalize 'forced pregnancy', shall we make forced breastfeeding a law as well? Of course not, even if breastfeeding is the healthiest food for a baby. The law has no right to force such intimate usage of flesh on a woman or a man. If we wish to increase the amount of voluntary caring and nurturing that people do, education and support are the way to get the desired results, not the failures of Prohibition.

Abortions are not fun and joyful events. But since birth control is not 100% effective, even when used exactly as directed, and abstinence is just not 100% user effective (or desirable/healthy for most adults in consensual relationships, who would like to choose how many children and when), sometimes they are the best of the bad alternatives (bearing unwanted children, unsafe illegal abortions).

I won't get into a long debate on the subject. Most of us that have posted knows how each other feels about certain subjects, I guess we just have to accept each others opinions. But you can rationalize it all you want, you can psychoanalyze it all you want, you can say that our judges and great thinkers of society have determined this or that but what it all come down to is the killing of a potentially healthy innocent American child. Our govt rationalizes it's stance as womens rights when in reality it is population control. it's all how you sell it..
I have my own f'd up opinions on the suject of popilation control, it too is Hitleresque, because I beleive in the right to assisted suicide and the limiting of treatment and testing for terminal patients except for comfort and pain control,, would that put me on palins death panels? Maybe. I also feel that if a child is born with a severe handicap that the financial burden to keep that child alive must rest on the parents and not the state or social security roles or insurance companies. Some times you have to cut the weak and sickly from the herd for the sake of the ability to thrive for the rest, If instesd of killing the potentialy healthy and innocent, if we let the weak and unproductive die a natural death we would be a much better off society those people wouldn't lead a life of pain and agony. I think we have it backward, ( Like giving treatmant to and post poning the execution of a murderer because he tried to commit suicide. It cost us almost $100K)

I'm am pro-choice, but I think there should be limits, which is why I asked the following question (that neither the Rev nor anyone else answered): "Is the Reverend saying it's okay for an 8-month pregnant woman to intentionally kill her own baby ? SHOULDN'T that be illegal ?"

And to Big Head – the part where I said the Rev should expand abortion until two years after birth is known as SATIRE, meant to illustrate my previous point that there should be limits to abortion. But nice comment arguing against what I didn't say.

Abortion is legal in America…therefore your question has no relevancy, other than to express your opinion on the matter.

Abortion is legal in America UP TO A POINT. There are limits. As I said before (why do I always have to keep repeating myself for you to understand what I'm saying ?), a woman who intentionally kills her 8-month old fetus isn't engaging in legal abortion, she's committing a crime.

Not in all states, she's not. And when abortion is intentionally made difficult for women to get, some women find themselves not able to procure one for many months. Who is at 'fault' in that situation? Shouldn't those who made it difficult for her to get an abortion in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, months, feel some shame here?

Jacquie,
I'm not talking about late-term abortions or even partial-birth abortions. I'm talking about an 8-month pregnant woman killing her fetus outside of a doctor's supervision (intentional "miscarriage"). Where is that legal ? If it is legal anywhere, it shouldn't be.

And since when is it difficult to get an abortion in the U.S. ?

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. I don't know if it is illegal, but I don't think it necessarily has to be because, if legal abortions are available, virtually no woman would try it. A woman is highly likely to 'bleed out' (as in die) from an 8th month non-doctor-supervised abortion. People don't do home-grown abdominal surgery on themselves when (A lot of desperate women did this in the pre-Roe decades. Police photographs of those scenes are horrifying and pathetic to see.) People don't do home-grown abdominal surgery (of any kind) on themselves and risk their lives when they are allowed to have a doctor do it safely.

As to the difficulty of getting an abortion:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20051228&slug=abortion28
http://www.abortionsources.net/
Check the amount of clinics listed for Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota. There are other sites online (both "pro-life" and "pro-choice") that corroborate this page.
I'm sure the citizens of North and South Dakota, and the eastern half of Montana and Wyoming, find it more than a little inconvenient to travel several hundred miles to the nearest abortion clinic. At that distance, they will surely have to book a hotel or two along the way. Can they get time off of work for this? Will it be time that the abortion clinic in Fargo, ND, for example, has scheduled a doctor to be flown in? Do they have the savings or insurance (ha) to pay several hundred dollars for the procedure and travel expenses? The lack of available clinics is not due to low populations, low 'demand', etc. Doctors are afraid, in many cases, to work in clinics in areas where anti-abortionists have shown they will do violence to abortion providers.

How much difficulty would you consider misleading information to present?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701145.html

How about counseling and waiting periods?
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_MWPA.pdf

It's also hard to buy a Lazy-Boy sofa in many parts of Wyoming, N. Dakota and S. Dakota, Jacquie. Or find a endontist who can perform a root canal. People out there are pretty used to driving long distances.

Oh, so what you're saying is, being 'used to' something, makes it less difficult? It must be pretty easy for you to work to pay the electric bill and the phone bill and the house payment every month, then. Are you saying driving 100 miles (or 200 miles) takes less time and money if you do it more often? And since when is the availability of medical services comparable to the availability of a Lazy-Boy sofa?

How about the citizens of Mississippi? They 'used to' driving long distances?

"And since when is it difficult to get an abortion in the U.S. ?"

Answer….in some states….for quite a while.

Jacquie covered this quite nicely.

Mississippi has become so crazy on this topic….there are no in-state abortion providers. Doctors fly in from other states.

Would that qualify as "difficult?"

Oh..and larry….did the Supremes rule that Americans had a Constitutional right to own a Lazy-Boy? I must have missed that one.

I don't know that much about Mississippi but believe it or not I did need an endontist there once to get a root canal after breaking a tooth. I had to go about 100 miles out of my way.

It wasn't a big deal. I knew that breaking a tooth would inconvenience me, as would many physical ailments. But I guess abortion shouldn't be an inconvenience in your thinking.

Nearly 50 million abortions have been performed in the United States since 1973. I'd say that makes an abortion pretty easy to get here. I find the Reverend and Jacquie's argument that a woman might have to drive a ways in some areas to get an abortion to be unpersuasive.

But after larry's comment, I do look forward to the Reverend's post condemning Mississippi for not having a dentist on every corner.

Larry and King, from the content of your comments, I am led to believe you either did not read the information in the links, or a sudden stroke has made you forget it was there. And King, lest you forget, the entire reason we are talking about 'difficulty' is that, if an abortion is going to happen, we would like it to happen as early as possible in the pregnancy, yes? The closer to viability, the more hazards there are, from any perspective. My original point was that if a woman gets an abortion in the 8th month, because it has been difficult for her to get one, shouldn't those that MADE it difficult feel some shame, if anyone should? You are being disingenuous if you think people that have full time jobs can just up and take time off (an abortion is not necessarily covered under 'medical leave') and drive 300 miles, get the cash together for a hotel (ever heard of the working poor? lack of savings? or do you just believe that when people don't have cash to throw around, it's cause they've been bad and lazy and deserve all the punishments of not being able to pay unexpected expenses), and that's IF they can wade through the sea of disinformation and forced waiting periods.

But, I can't force you to see parts of reality you wish to deny exist.

I'd like to chime in first on the "forced" waiting period. Most would agree that this falls under the umbrella of informed consent. Informed consent is defined as "the process by which a fully informed patient can participate in choices about her health care."

Hence, the counseling and also the waiting period of 24 hours. This gives those who wish to have an abortion performed the time to mull over the risks associated with abortion. I agree that misinformation that is provided should be eliminated but I'm not sure where a waiting period of 24 hours is unreasonable.

The interesting thing is that Montana, one of the states you listed as a problem, according to your own link has is listed as "Enforcement permanently enjoined by court order; policy not in effect." Nor is it listed as having misinformation in its counseling sessions. North Dakota is listed as accurately portraying the risk associated with abortion. As for "Will it be time that the abortion clinic in Fargo, ND, for example, has scheduled a doctor to be flown in?" According to http://www.redriverwomensclinic.com/index.htm They have doctors on staff and they are not "flown in" so I'm not quite sure where you found that information.

As far as the lack of clinics goes in Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana, your claim that it is fear that causes this MAY be justified. But you also failed to recognize that these all have less than 1,000,000 people according to the Census Bureau in 2008. (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/ranks/rank01.html) Wyoming is 50th, less than the population of the District of Columbia. North Dakota is 48th, South Dakota is 46th and Montana is 44th. That's in total population. Now look at that per capita, They occupy the 49th, 48th, 47th, and 46th positions, while Alaska occupies the 50th for obvious reasons. Can you honestly claim that the smaller amount of abortion clinics is not to due, at least in part, to population levels.

Also, as far as your logic concerning availability, there is not constitutional guarantee of medical services as of this moment. If I have cancer, I am not guaranteed medical availability. That doesn't meant that someone has the right to attempt chemotherapy on me because I don't have the means to travel to a clinic that is a distance away. There are certain requirements that must be met by the clinic as well as myself before I can undergo the treatment. (This is an analogy. I saw how you flew off earlier where satire was used so I thought I would clear this up early on.) The other difference here? My cancer doesn't affect the formation of a sentient human life. In the 8th month the fetus has reached viability, even during the 7th month according to the March of Dimes (http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1196.asp) 90% of birth during the 27th to 28th week survive. So if the fetus can survive outside the womb at this should it be given the chance to do so?

Basically what I've pulled form Jacquie's arguments are that A. Abortion should be allowed up until the umbilical cord is cut since "No living cells in need, no matter how complex they are, even if they are a fully grown adult person, has the right to force a person to give the use of his/her flesh to secure the needy cells' life." Since the umbilical cord is still attached to the child at this point, the mother still has the right to end that life? B. It should be either inexpensive or free C. People shouldn't have to drive more than 100 miles to receive an abortion even in the lowest per capita populated states and the only reason they do so is because of fear.

Holla,

Name another medical service that has the low health risks of abortion and a mandatory waiting period of 24 hours.

Not sure what you're talking about in your third paragraph, except I did make a mistake identifying the ND clinic. That should have been the Sioux Falls, SD clinic.

Those states have low populations, yes. What explains Mississippi's lone abortion provider?

The point was about the consequences of making abortions difficult. You neatly ignored that aspect by talking about the constitution. Weasel words.

Larry doesn't do satire. He trolls.

*laughs* You didn't pull anything in your last paragraph from my arguments but the quote. Attributing foolishness to me that I didn't say won't invalidate my actual words. I said nothing about umbilical cords (which is the embryo/fetus's flesh anyway, not the mother's), what market prices should be, or what people deserve. What I did was state facts that showed that in some places, abortions are difficult to get. Some of the factors that make them difficult are artificial, only done out of moral disapproval, and this causes needless suffering. Anti-abortionists must be thrilled that they're causing later-term abortions instead of early-term ones. I can't fathom what they're getting out of it otherwise.

There's more than one abortion clinic in Mississippi, Jacquie. At the risk of "trolling," that's a fairly idiotic statement to make, though I've seen you make dumber ones.

If you've never been outside NE Ohio, you should at least widen your scope of reading material. You're obviously "at risk" when it comes to progressive propaganda.

Jacquie…..anti-abortion advocates will never "see" the obstacles purposely put in place to discourage, humiliate, and deter women from exercising their legal right. Never.

Those who can't "see" those things fall into two categories. Those who know what all the obstacles are for and pretend they don't. They are dishonest and will always be dishonest, because it serves their overall ideology.

Then there are those who actually do not know about all the obstacles the forced-pregnancy folks have set up over the last 40 years. When people like me explain those obstacles…then the first group…..the dishonest group….steps in to muddy up the reality of those obstacles so the second group can't grasp the reality.

It's laughable to see you whining about dishonesty, particularly in a blog post in which you claim Utah has outlawed miscarriages, Reverend. How many women have been prosecuted for that in Utah? Or are you just betting on the kind of parochial bigotry that makes people believe outright lies such as Mississippi having only one abortion clinic?

Well then Larry, we all eagerly await your sage knowledge of the secret locations of these multitudes of Mississippi abortion clinics. Out with it, man.

Here's some people that hate abortion clinics – they call them Death Camps.
http://www.ldi.org/deathcamps/DeathCamps.cfm#MS

They say, "Rest assured, Life Dynamics will not stop until every one of these death camps is closed and the American holocaust is over." I do believe they're serious about knowing where abortions are being performed so they can try to stop all of them. They even have a fax and phone number and request people to call them if they've made any mistakes or omissions in their listings.

Guess what Larry. They too say there's only one abortion clinic left in Mississippi. Or am I at risk for conservative propaganda? Uh-oh. You'd best get on the horn and correct these parochial bigots, quick.

See, that's what trolling is. I wasn't intending to hurt your tender feelings – but calling people idiots and liars, without explaining what is irrational in their reasoning, or showing evidence that a claimed fact is wrong, is something trolls do. It's hard not to occasionally mistake you for one of them.

But take heart. At least you're not intentionally trying to muddy up the facts, to prevent others from grasping the reality of events, like the first group of anti-abortion advocates the Rev described. I mean… you're not, right…? *crickets*

Google "abortion clinics" and "Mississippi," Jacquie. Post the first clinic you come up with. I'll do the same and post the second clinic. Then maybe you[ll see how your parochial bigotry has left you open to propaganda. You're being played.

The one in Vicksburg doesn't do abortions. You, and many pregnant women looking for the facts, are being played. They call themselves a "crisis pregnancy center" which means they tell women who come there looking for an abortion how horrible abortions are and that they must adopt the baby out or keep it or they'll get cancer and depressed and probably suicidal and regret it forever and ever. They are liars and they've even fooled you. You really need to be more careful. You tell everyone how they are taken in by deceptions all around them and here you are falling for your own side's bullpucky.

The first and only real abortion clinic, as in one that provides abortions, is in Jackson, MS.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1518788/posts?page=1
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/35708.php

What about the Planned Parenthood abortion center in Hattiesburg? I drove by it about a week ago.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/centerDetails.asp?f=2753&a=90330&v=details

I've also seen listings for centers in Tupelo, Gulfport and Biloxi, before I became disinterested.

Planned Parenthood
Hattiesburg Center – Hattiesburg, MS
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/centerDetails.asp?f=2753&a=90330&v=details
"This health center doesn’t provide abortion services…"

There are so-called "Pregnancy Resource Centers" in Tupelo, Gulfport and Biloxi. None of those places do abortions; they tell women abortions are bad and they want her to keep or adopt out the baby. If you don't believe this and you really drove by one of these places, go in and ask them sometime. I'm sure they will be happy to reassure you that they would never do an abortion and horrified that you have that misconception of them.

Stop accusing anti-abortion centers of providing abortions! You're 0 for 4. You might as well admit that you're misinformed (have YOU ever been out of NE Ohio?) before you embarrass yourself further.

The center in Hattiesburg is far from an anti-abortion center, Jacquie. It's a well-known abortion mill, providing services to the co-eds at the university just across the street. Abortion.com lists it as an abortion clinic and I'd guess planned parenthood did too until they decided to spread this current false talking point. You should tell the planned parenthood folks they're running anti-abortion centers in the other places, too.

http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_state.php?country=United%20States&state=Mississippi

From this list, it looks like there are at least two clinics providing abortions in Ocean Springs, MS.

http://www.abortion.com/abortion_clinics_state.php?country=United%20States&state=Mississippi

Well, gee. You say they do, everyone else says they don't. Except abortion.com. Why does abortion.com have the Hattiesburg center listed under Jackson? Why does it have a Montgomery center listed under Birmingham and Memphis, cities in Alabama and Tennessee, on the Mississippi centers page? Why doesn't it list the info for the Jackson center, certainly a self-proclaimed genuine abortion provider? I find it hard to trust the information on a page that is so obviously sloppy in fact-checking.

Google show no links for Planned Parenthood centers in Tupelo, Gulfport or Biloxi. There is nothing about any abortion clinics in Ocean Springs, either (and your provided link is a repeat).

"Well-known"? Really? You think Wikipedia would accept that kind of nonsense as a source? Planned Parenthood does not provide abortions at all their locations. Your fantasies, illusions, and paranoias do not count as proof of what reality provides. In the state of Mississippi, there is one provider of legal abortions, in Jackson. It's the only place state licensed. All these other places you're dreaming up could be easily shut down with one report to the state, if they really are providing under-the-table abortions. Get them shut down, show the news report, and I'll believe. Otherwise, I'm not bothering with refuting this foolishness any further. My original statement stands.

http://www.msdh.state.ms.us/msdhsite/_static/resources/451.pdf

Mississippi State Department of Health (Health Facilities Licensure and Certification) Directory of Mississippi Health Facilities
Revised: December 2009

Pg. 80
Abortion Facilities

National Women’s Health Organization of Jackson, Inc.
2903 North State Street
Jackson, MS 39216
Phone: (601) 366-2261

.

Here's a USA Today link which says there is one abortion provider in Mississippi.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-16-abortion-protest_x.htm

Here's a tasty morsel to chew on….

"Six clinics have closed throughout the state during the past decade because of stricter laws governing reproductive health and increased pressure from groups that oppose abortion, says Michelle Colon, president of the Jackson chapter of NOW. For two years, the Jackson clinic has been the only abortion clinic in the state."

As I've often said, the goal of the forced pregnancy movement, many of whose participants are steeped in the fundamentalist, evangelical and Catholic traditions, is to make access to abortion as difficult, humiliating and punishing for women as they possibly can. Dr. Tiller's assassin came from this group. You know, who you associate with, and all. Punishing women for seeking an abortion has been the agenda for 4 decades. For 40 years, anti-choicers have taken their vengeance, over not being able to overturn Roe, out on women seeking an abortion.

Despicable….but Jesus has saved them….so, you know.

Yes, Reverend. It's widely reported. But it's not true. Jacquie, why are multiple doctors listed as providing abortions from the same addresses in Ocean Springs?