In case it would upset someone, trigger warning.
In case it would upset someone, trigger warning. This is about HR 36, a bill to ban abortion that mentions rape and incest.
While I get it that it is unlikely to pass, that anyone would vote to support such abusive laws offends me deeply. These people are delusional. Taking out language that required a woman to report their rape to the police in order to get a legal abortion after 20 weeks apparently makes the rest of it ok. (This held it up because Republican women objected to that bit. [gasps, clutches pearls])
"The legislation, H.R. 36, would ban abortions at 20 weeks or later except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest of a minor."
Sounds like the standard stuff that's been used to get things passed before. Oh, we care about the mother and the abused. Except:
"Rape victims must have received counseling or medical treatment first. Young victims of incest would have to have had the crime reported to law-enforcement authorities or to a government office in charge of child abuse and neglect cases."
So
a) Rape victims still have to "prove" that they were raped.
b) Children, who are already being victimized and abused, get to be victimized and abused a second time. Because we all know how often they are in a supportive environment where all the other adults are magic, non-abusing, insightful people who rush right out to get them the help they need. Even if they try, I am under no illusion that our systems to protect children have an unlimited source of funding and support from our various levels of government that will suddenly make them universally effective. Not to mention how our systems are set up to empower victims of violence, especially children, to act on their own behalf.
But they care deeply about the children! They are trying to prevent us from killing the helpless unborn ones! Fine. They love and care for us all soooo much that they are making sure we get the best possible evidence based medical care.
"The bill also requires that when abortion were [sic] allowed after 20 weeks, a physician would be required to perform the procedure in a way that would give the fetus the best chance to survive, and a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation would have to be present. It also requires a woman to sign a consent form agreeing to these arrangements."
Iow, if there's any way we can force you to have this baby, we will, and you have to agree to it. Not to mention that the much publicized study that recently came out saying that some babies could be saved if born at 22 or 23 weeks is not so rosy that we should all rush out to claim these are viable. But I'll get to the bizarre concept of facts in a minute.
What that bill says, in fact, is that while you may get permission to have an abortion legally after 20 weeks, you still have to go through labor or a c-section. Because any other kind of termination will not give the fetus a chance to survive, because that isn't the point, and the people writing the bill know it. So you may have gotten your free sex (rape and incest are still sex, didn't you know?) with no consequences card, but you are going to suffer for it, and so is your body.
The neonatal resuscitation bit is poor language written by people who don't have a grasp of what extensive resources are brought into play in the case of a mother who is trying NOT to lose her baby but has to deliver at 22, 23, 24 weeks, etc. It's not just one doctor standing there. Give me a break. Or they know darn well what it means and are requiring you to have your abortion at a hospital with a neonatal intensive care unit. Ha ha, loser poor women and women who don't live in big cities. Good luck getting your insurance, if you have any, to pay for all that expensive neonatal care, too, since it's your fault the baby got born before term because you tried to kill it!
Before we get to Science!, one last special moment:
"Ellmers said that the new version of the bill requires women to “seek medical guidance” or speak to a counselor, and that “this may ultimately lead her down a different path – one where she embraces her unborn child and ultimately chooses life.”"
Here's a newsflash. They are choosing life. They are choosing their own life, mentally, physically, emotionally. They are a full-fledged person, even if they are a child themselves, and they have a right to self determination. They are not some incubator set for you to exercise your obsessive, misguided control over. Some women will choose to have those babies, and if that is their individual, informed, uncoerced choice, then they should be freely supported. As should anyone who chooses otherwise.
P.S. My reading of that subtext is that you are supposed to talk to someone with an MD or a DO, and/or a professional counselor of whatever credentials who will tell you how wonderful and miraculous it is to have a baby, and how you will be fulfilled as a human being, and medical science is wonderful (and apparently free), etc. That is, someone who is completely unprofessional and instead of taking care of the living, breathing human in front of them, tries to subtly or otherwise convince you that your life is of less value than the proto-life forced on you. I have nothing polite to say about that.
About that research article and the miracle babies -
In 22 week old babies who were treated,
1. 18/78 survived
2. As toddlers, 7/18 did NOT have any impairment (don't know if there's any studies following premature babies for life, so don't know what those odds are)
3. 11/18 had problems; 6 had significant problems, incl. blindness, deafness, severe cerebral palsy.
For 23 week old babies,
1. 542 were treated
2. Approx. one third of 542 survived (so about 180)
3. About half the approx 180 had significant problems (thus, half did not).
In relation to this wonderful, life-saving bill, that means that 1/4 to 1/3 of babies born at 22 or 23 weeks might survive, in some condition or other. (The bill wants to forbid abortion after 20 weeks, when there is no evidence that any fetus can live.) They also want us all to believe that every one of these babies could survive (feel free to play with statistics, here). They even want us to believe that they could lead healthy, happy, productive, independent lives.
All of which is potentially possible. As long as the female being forced to have a child is out of the equation and of no value. Then it is all about the fetus. And I absolutely cannot find that conscionable. In an ideal world, all abused and violated women would receive immediate medical care, support, and counseling. Without question, without judgment. If they were too traumatized to consider pre-emptive pregnancy prevention later follow-up medical care would be provided and if they were pregnant, counseling and support for deciding whether to end or continue the pregnancy would be given as often as needed.
Where's that bill, Congress.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/13/266544/house-passes-abortion-ban-after.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/13/266544/house-passes-abortion-ban-after.html
While I get it that it is unlikely to pass, that anyone would vote to support such abusive laws offends me deeply. These people are delusional. Taking out language that required a woman to report their rape to the police in order to get a legal abortion after 20 weeks apparently makes the rest of it ok. (This held it up because Republican women objected to that bit. [gasps, clutches pearls])
"The legislation, H.R. 36, would ban abortions at 20 weeks or later except to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest of a minor."
Sounds like the standard stuff that's been used to get things passed before. Oh, we care about the mother and the abused. Except:
"Rape victims must have received counseling or medical treatment first. Young victims of incest would have to have had the crime reported to law-enforcement authorities or to a government office in charge of child abuse and neglect cases."
So
a) Rape victims still have to "prove" that they were raped.
b) Children, who are already being victimized and abused, get to be victimized and abused a second time. Because we all know how often they are in a supportive environment where all the other adults are magic, non-abusing, insightful people who rush right out to get them the help they need. Even if they try, I am under no illusion that our systems to protect children have an unlimited source of funding and support from our various levels of government that will suddenly make them universally effective. Not to mention how our systems are set up to empower victims of violence, especially children, to act on their own behalf.
But they care deeply about the children! They are trying to prevent us from killing the helpless unborn ones! Fine. They love and care for us all soooo much that they are making sure we get the best possible evidence based medical care.
"The bill also requires that when abortion were [sic] allowed after 20 weeks, a physician would be required to perform the procedure in a way that would give the fetus the best chance to survive, and a second physician trained in neonatal resuscitation would have to be present. It also requires a woman to sign a consent form agreeing to these arrangements."
Iow, if there's any way we can force you to have this baby, we will, and you have to agree to it. Not to mention that the much publicized study that recently came out saying that some babies could be saved if born at 22 or 23 weeks is not so rosy that we should all rush out to claim these are viable. But I'll get to the bizarre concept of facts in a minute.
What that bill says, in fact, is that while you may get permission to have an abortion legally after 20 weeks, you still have to go through labor or a c-section. Because any other kind of termination will not give the fetus a chance to survive, because that isn't the point, and the people writing the bill know it. So you may have gotten your free sex (rape and incest are still sex, didn't you know?) with no consequences card, but you are going to suffer for it, and so is your body.
The neonatal resuscitation bit is poor language written by people who don't have a grasp of what extensive resources are brought into play in the case of a mother who is trying NOT to lose her baby but has to deliver at 22, 23, 24 weeks, etc. It's not just one doctor standing there. Give me a break. Or they know darn well what it means and are requiring you to have your abortion at a hospital with a neonatal intensive care unit. Ha ha, loser poor women and women who don't live in big cities. Good luck getting your insurance, if you have any, to pay for all that expensive neonatal care, too, since it's your fault the baby got born before term because you tried to kill it!
Before we get to Science!, one last special moment:
"Ellmers said that the new version of the bill requires women to “seek medical guidance” or speak to a counselor, and that “this may ultimately lead her down a different path – one where she embraces her unborn child and ultimately chooses life.”"
Here's a newsflash. They are choosing life. They are choosing their own life, mentally, physically, emotionally. They are a full-fledged person, even if they are a child themselves, and they have a right to self determination. They are not some incubator set for you to exercise your obsessive, misguided control over. Some women will choose to have those babies, and if that is their individual, informed, uncoerced choice, then they should be freely supported. As should anyone who chooses otherwise.
P.S. My reading of that subtext is that you are supposed to talk to someone with an MD or a DO, and/or a professional counselor of whatever credentials who will tell you how wonderful and miraculous it is to have a baby, and how you will be fulfilled as a human being, and medical science is wonderful (and apparently free), etc. That is, someone who is completely unprofessional and instead of taking care of the living, breathing human in front of them, tries to subtly or otherwise convince you that your life is of less value than the proto-life forced on you. I have nothing polite to say about that.
About that research article and the miracle babies -
In 22 week old babies who were treated,
1. 18/78 survived
2. As toddlers, 7/18 did NOT have any impairment (don't know if there's any studies following premature babies for life, so don't know what those odds are)
3. 11/18 had problems; 6 had significant problems, incl. blindness, deafness, severe cerebral palsy.
For 23 week old babies,
1. 542 were treated
2. Approx. one third of 542 survived (so about 180)
3. About half the approx 180 had significant problems (thus, half did not).
In relation to this wonderful, life-saving bill, that means that 1/4 to 1/3 of babies born at 22 or 23 weeks might survive, in some condition or other. (The bill wants to forbid abortion after 20 weeks, when there is no evidence that any fetus can live.) They also want us all to believe that every one of these babies could survive (feel free to play with statistics, here). They even want us to believe that they could lead healthy, happy, productive, independent lives.
All of which is potentially possible. As long as the female being forced to have a child is out of the equation and of no value. Then it is all about the fetus. And I absolutely cannot find that conscionable. In an ideal world, all abused and violated women would receive immediate medical care, support, and counseling. Without question, without judgment. If they were too traumatized to consider pre-emptive pregnancy prevention later follow-up medical care would be provided and if they were pregnant, counseling and support for deciding whether to end or continue the pregnancy would be given as often as needed.
Where's that bill, Congress.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/13/266544/house-passes-abortion-ban-after.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/05/13/266544/house-passes-abortion-ban-after.html
In magical future Star Trek world, where we can just beam a fetus from the mother's womb to an artificial one (or, hell, to a live surrogate, let's not be picky), sure, save all those children. You "pro-life"rs will also arrange to adopt them, right?
ReplyDelete