The current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association contains an article whose headline is:…
Christopher, you drink that coolaid. Both sides are about hate and demonizing the other. Partisans simply choose to ignore one side or the other based on which they favor. I suppose campaign events where singers substitute 'Mitt' for 'Bitch' is uniting and presidential. Ads where Romney was linked to a cancer death from a woman who had coverage years after a layoff of her husband somehow constitutes positivity.
Maybe your idea of a highbrow campaign is magic underwear, big bird, binders, voting=losing virginity, and mitt=bitch.
To me it's more idiocracy than unity... but then again I'm not a true believer.
People who use that horrible cliché "drinking the Kool-Aid" are, in my opinion, themselves drinking the Kool-Aid.
I think the phrase "stepping up to the plate" is the only one that makes me feel more homicidal.
As a grand finale I was going to compare something to the Nazis... but I accidentally posted before I got a chance.
Lynn, I am still here once in a while. For all of you who think Obamacare is a great thing you need to know this- democrat Senator Dick Durban said when asked by a reporter why the healthcare bill will take until 2014 to fully implement- quote: "Because it takes a long time to pass all the needed legislation to get the people completely under control".
You cannot yet imagine what is coming. As I said before, electronic medical records will be handed over to the feds and THEY will decide what you get ,have to get, and what you will NOT get. Your doctors sold you out when the feb 2009 federal stimulous bill was passed. Doctors got BILLIONS of dollars for making your records all electronic and to hand them over to the feds. ASK your own doctor. I did. My chiropractor used the money to pay a professional decorator to re-do her entire office. You will not realize you have been had until its way too late.
Read this exchange on a law forum of a woman asking is it legal for a doctor to deny birth control if she refuses a pap smear. It is so depressing. One poster writes this "I am a WOMAN, I work in the medical field and I am VERY informed about this issue. Cervical cancer is the third most common cancer in women. Outside of the US more women die from cervical cancer than any other cause and the reason the US is low is because of the use of the pap smear. One of the first symptoms of cervical cancer is abnormal bleeding which is what you want the OCP for. Any doctor that would prescribe them to you without screening you for this disease is irresponsible. "
"If you wish to buy into the feminist propaganda on some of the non-medical sites touting that GYN medical care for women is unnecessary that is your right"
Thanks Rob. People have no clue what's in that HUGE bill.
Medical care will be up to the government. As you age, less and less care will be available to you, but no one believes it.
My friend had trouble getting her anti-depressants from a GP, and started to see a psychiatrist. He's told her that there are already cuts in mental health care, and it will be one of the areas hit the hardest. The government will decide if what you are experiencing is depression, or anxiety etc. from a "list" they will have to follow.
Everyone who needs "care" will get it, but it doesn't mean it will be what you and your doctor decide.
And Rob you are right that we will be in a system that the feds can access. Again it is in the bill.
Mary, I did not find the forum depressing. It is a sign women are becoming more aware of the facts and of their rights. As one poster stated, you are free to go to other health care providers (naturopath or herbologist) or to a different dr. As Elizabeth has said, women need to take a stand and the more women who do, the less business drs will get. If all women walk out who are being bullied, the dr will eventually change in order to increase business. Same as when consumers choose one type of product over another, the manufacturers will cater to the popular choice. We have the control, not them.
To those posters who are writing about the HUGE bill, could you please provide some references to support your claims? I would be interested in learning more but not sure where you are getting your information from.
Google Public Law 111-148
The bill will come up in its original form.
@8882-Lynne: please consult a logician to correct your thinking.
First you claim that " People have no clue what's in that HUGE bill.", then you go on to claim that YOU do. And to render judgements.
Anyone who wants to read the ACA has plenty of resources to do so. You can even go and look at the original text, if you must. BUT it is much easier to read sections that apply to you simply through intelligent use of your favorite search engine. For example, there are websites that will outline your rights and responsibilities if you are a First Nation (i.e., American Indian) in particular.
And as for lists and so on, every insurance company has been doing that for decades, without any supervision nor with any recourse available to patients. The ACA IS large because it regularizes what it can and creates consistent structure for problem areas.
The ACA creates the largest benefit for US citizens since Social Security. And it will decrease the cost of care to Americans by hundreds of billions every year by re-deploying money wasted in insurance companies in the past.
Don't just decide you're against ACA because some pushy people in your friends or family are and they tell you lies. Look and judge for yourself. And use the plentiful aids that are available on the internet, that's what it's there for.
Sue, it's depressing because I thought lawyers might be a bit more empathetic to patient's rights. I wonder if they were male lawyers and I wonder how they would feel it they were denied medication if they declined a DRE. I tought they would "get it".
Lynne, thank you for the information, but I was wondering if you could be a bit more specific?
If you're asking me specifically which sections are for what I can't say, as this information was given to me by my nurse friend who knows many doctors who have read the bill.
But if a section interests you and you want to read further, a good way is to take the section number, and then google it first along with Affordable Care Act.
For example, googling "Section 3011 Affordable Care Act" will explain the "national strategy". That will be put in place. This will include collecting data and the government deciding on what is needed or not needed for "our health".
Keep in mind a lot of this stuff isn't in place yet, but now that the Affordable Care Act is well on its way, these agencies and boards etc. are now being formed.
I have to agree with you there Mary. But from the bit of research I have done it seems lawyers have their hands tied in many ways. There is a health care act that outlines patient's rights, but often "rights" do not equal "laws". Also, lawyers stand to gain business every time a patient becomes a victim, so there is a bit of a conflict of interest.
Igor if you read my earlier posts I never claimed to have had read the entire bill. However my friend who is in management in well known hospital here in Chicago knows many doctors who have.
What are you so upset about? For those of you who wanted ObamaCare - you got it.
However I stand by what I said before. Most people don't know a lot of what they are in for.
Well Graeme I post this link from ACOG about women under 21 having better odds of winning the lottery than getting cc and it looks like that was the last straw and they deleted quite a few posts. Love the censorship over at Trade Me.
Politics, politics... People, please don't ignite anger in this lovely blog. There is already way too much politics in women's health care, no matter who wins another election. US election had happened, the world is now stuck with what has been elected, and we can't do anything about it for the next 4 years. But this blog shouldn't be about fighting over who is right or wrong regarding which politician would do what if...
This blog is about personal experience and support, it's about revealing the misinformation, deception, tricks and lies that are already there in the medical system in different countries and advice on how to deal with all that to get the best health care each individual needs in their own case.
This is a place where a person can share their grief over some bad experience with medical paternalism and coercion without getting the standard load of $hit in reply:  it's all four your own god,  this can't happen.
Please, be nice to each other. There aren't that many places where honesty meets compassion. Let's keep this blog one of those rare places.
Alice - I absolutely agree.
But think about this. In the over 2 years that I've been at this blog, no one has personally attacked me.
I voice my opinion and what I have learned about the future of the US health system, and I am personally attacked twice.
First Christopher Rose tells me to "unboggle" my mind. Igor tells me to consult a logician to "correct" my thinking.
Apparently by saying to correct my thinking he is telling me to change my opinion.
The Left in the US has been truly vicious. Feminists say the Right has a "War on Women", yet had no problem with left winger Bill Maher referring to Sara Palin as a cunt.
I thought this place was also a place to discuss rationally and discuss differring opinions.
Now I see this site is just as bad as the "Pro Pap Crap" sites and blogs.
It was a pleasure to get to know all of you fine ladies.
Lynne, actually, several members of my family are in the medical profession, several close friends are doctors and nurse midwives and I've been around the medical industry enough to fully understand what I am talking about. I've also read the entire ACA, beginning to end, all 700 + pages of it. The Affordable Care Act was not passed on a whim; it was voted upon and approved by Congress, albeit with modifications.
Here's the entire law if you'd like to read it for yourself. It's always a lot better to read, and see for yourself, instead of listening to friends or the media
1. There is nothing in the law -- absolutely nothing -- that gives a list of treatments, defines the specific care you will receive for specific conditions, et al. Nothing. Nada. Zip. In addition, as mentioned, there are several governmental health plans in effect right now, such as TriCare, which again, is for members of our armed forces. Go ahead and Google TriCare. Your care is between you and your doctor.
Section 4003 notes the creation of task forces to research conditions and develop recommendations. Recommendations are just that. Not requirements. We have task forces doing that now, both in American and globally, such as the WHO.
2. Section 3011, on strategy, does NOT say the government will decide what your health care will consist of.
STRATEGY.--The Secretary, through a transparent collaborative process, shall establish a national strategy to improve the delivery of health care services, patient health outcomes, and population health.
The section goes on to discuss making health care more efficient; transparent and accountable. These are all good things.
3. There is nothing at all in the law that says that "past a certain age you will not be able to get certain surgeries." There is nothing, in either legalese or common language, that describes scenarios in which access to care will be restricted by age. In fact, in sections 2405 and 2406, among others, there is language describing extensions of benefits to the elderly and acknowledgement that the current system is not effective:
(quote) Despite the Pepper Commission and Olmstead decision, the long-term care provided to our Nation's elderly and disabled has not improved. In fact, for many, it has gotten far worse.(quote)
Section 2501 talks about extension of Medicare drug benefits and other sections talk about specific outreach and health care improvements for the elderly. Section 5501 is about extending access to general surgery and ensure payments for doctors who perform it.
And no, it is not ridiculous that Romney wanted to pass a personhood amendment. Restricting abortion was a major part of his campaign, and as a woman, I am not going to support any politician that thinks my rights to my own body are negotiable. Considering his flawed policies on the economy, social services et al, I cannot think he would have been better in any other capacity, either.
And Alice, I think you're 100% right. I'm sorry if my posts contributed in any way to a negative environment here.
I posted them because misinformation is what the medical profession thrives on: it's how women are coerced into paps and other gyn testing they don't need. Likewise, misinformation about the ACA is dangerous.
Lynne, if you think saying "unboggle your mind" in response to your remark that "to think that this election was all about birth control pills really boggles my mind" is a personal attack, you are either extremely sensitive or simply don't know what a personal attack is.
If we are going to go down the line of refined sensitivities, are you in all seriousness going to maintain that depicting the election in the way you did is anything but an attack on the people, female and male, that voted for inclusiveness, however messy that might be?
Igor is a tad on the cranky side, which perhaps tells us a little more about him than he intends, but again his words are not a personal attack as we understand it here at Blogcritics.
I fully support Alice's view that we shouldn't ignite anger in the excellent comments space attached to this now eight year old article so I regret if my words caused anything like the distress yours did in me.
Some on the left can be mean, just as people on the right can be too, but tarring all feminists in the way you do above is as harsh as it is inaccurate.
Bill Maher was very rude about Ms Palin, who can reasonably be criticised in many different ways without having to resort to such language.
This site, just as this comments stream, is a place for discussion, but rationality is as tricky to define as spirituality or proper medical practice, so patience and tolerance are more than useful qualities, wouldn't you agree?
Lynn (US) Please don't leave. I think there's been a misunderstanding here. The last line of your 8874 was: "But to think that this election was all about birth control pills really boggles my mind."
To which Christopher Rose responded "8876 -Unboggle your mind. This election was about unity versus hatefulness, togetherness versus division and positivity versus condescension..."
...which, Lynn (US) was his sarcastic way of pretty much agreeing with you. (I think. I sort of "get" British humor, but not totally sometimes.) And I agree with you, too, Lynn (US). There was some pretty vicious and dirty politics going down. From my perspective, though, I could see it coming from Democrats AND Republicans.
And Diane (US) What you need to get your head around is that a person really CAN be a feminist and have different opinions about when life begins and when it should be protected legally than you do. There are a lot of feminists who get as riled as you do with the dismissive and paternalistic attitude of some ob-gyns (even of some FEMALE ob-gyns!) towards their female patients.
And to find some common ground, in my perfect world, Dennis Kucinich would be vice president. :)
Both sides of the fierce debating that is going on during a host of issues (gay marriage, abortion, health care) need to realize this very important fact.
You aren't going to make the people "on the other side" (you know, the "wrong" ones) go away by legislating them away, by ridiculing them away, or by giving them the back of your hand in any other fashion.
We're all going to have to sit down, not with birds of our own political feather, but with the folks across the street who post signs from the "wrong" party. Sit down and REALLY try to understand each other's point of view, not just the reasoning behind it, but the emotions.
Out of those neighborhood conversations will grow local conversations, and state conversations, and national conversations that will result in the election of officials who are able to discuss opposing points of view while working toward common ends like mature statesmen, rather than like clowns in the circus the campaigning in this last election turned out to be.
Irene Athena, obviously I understand that differences of opinion exist on the status of a fetus and abortion. You have the right to your own opinions. If you try to impose your choice on others and restrict THEIR access to abortion -- whether it is based on your own spiritual beliefs, morals, or whatever -- I do care. I don't think I ever said anything about what defines a feminist.
I do agree with your other remarks. Slinging mud never solves anything.
The pro-life movement needs to look at what actually decreases abortion, rather than seeking to ban it (if their true aim is to save babies, which is rather doubtful). Banning does nothing to decrease abortion. Access to birth control and a strong social safety net for poor and single mothers does.
Lynne, it sounds as if you have been hearing the drs' reactions to the bill, and the drs don't sound happy. If the drs are complaining that can only mean good things for the rest of us. I can almost hear the sound of hard-ons deflating.
8900 Zingzing. I partly agree with you. I think that while banning will decrease abortion, it won't get rid of it, and abortion will still be available to a)those wealthy enough to travel to places where there is no ban or b) those desperate enough to take their chances with locals doing them on the black market.
A word on point b, though. Are providers in the abortion industry under anywhere near as much scrutiny from feminists as are doctors providing pap smears and mammograms and birth control and HRT pharmaceuticals? If we feminists think "legal" automatically means "safe and ethical" in one little corner of women's health care but not anywhere else in the field, we've got a huge blind spot.
"#8900...if their true aim is to save babies, which is rather doubtful." Dang neocons, Zing. They've co-opted everything, haven't they, from the pro-life movement to the Tea Party movement to the anti-war movement. Yes, the anti-war movement, too, which was gaining such a marvelously full head of steam in the Bush years, and then died out on January 20th, 2009.
The pro-life movement was originally started by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who, before having a radical change of heart, was a key figure in starting NARAL, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws in the '70's. SO yes, the pro-life movement has ALWAYS had a political bent, but that's because its founder had a political bent, and the first manifestation of the political bent resulted in Roe v. Wade, and his aim in the pro-life movement was to overturn what he had turned up in the first place.
But in the beginning, the political aims truly were limited to saving babies, not devoted to, in large part, distracting a great big honkin' voting bloc from the reality of foreign babies being trampled under in America's drive to fulfill /sarcasm alert/ its God-given mandate to take over the planet.
But there still are people who are motivated by the belief that a baby being aborted feels pain the way the way a dog being abused illegally feels pain, and they want to stop it.
Zing, I think of the way you paint all people in the pro-life movement with the same wide brush, and it reminds me of the way I used to think of people in the animal rights movement. Vegetarians? Give me a break! But then my eyes were opened to the horrible ways animals raised for food live and die.
I haven't given up eating animal products. But I want to see animals treated humanely, even if they are raised for food. Temple Grandin had a lot to say about how this could be done.
There's a lot all of us can learn about being kinder. And there is a lot being learned. That's reason to smile in a very dark and sad world. Good night.
I don't want to paint all the people in the pro-life movement with the same brush, Irene. I just wish those in the pro-life movement would actually work towards reducing abortions instead of banning them, because banning them doesn't work. And the pro-life movement has also been behind plenty of anti-birth control propaganda that makes no sense if they want to save fertilized eggs that are actually implanted.
And banning does not decrease abortion. Go google abortion rates in places that ban abortion. You'll find those rates are much, much higher than those places with liberal abortion laws. It's not just because they allow abortion, but because they are liberal enough to allow abortion and also help out with birth control and social programs to help mothers.
Being anti-abortion or "pro-life" is about the surest way to encourage abortion. Liberal policies towards female sexuality are the only way to curb it. If that seems like an oxymoronic statement, welcome to reality.
Exactly, Zing. Statistically, countries that have comprehensive sex education and access to contraception have lower rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Places with abstinence-based education (PDF) and restricted access to contraception have higher rates of teen pregnancy, abortions, et al.
It's interesting to note that the countries that have the most informed policies on paps and gyn care, such as Finland and Denmark, also have the most comprehensive sex ed programs and contraceptive access... and they traditionally have the lowest rates of unwanted/teen pregnancies. It's amazing what can happen when you can control your own destiny, you have all the information you need and the medical profession works FOR you and not to get kickbacks.
Legalization does not guarantee safety or ethical practice from doctors -- as we see on this site, so often, physicians are unethical in a lot of ways -- but it surely helps. There are plenty of studies that show that complications from abortions and morbidity went down significantly after Roe v Wade.
Irene, I tend to agree with Anne Summers on this one, you cannot call yourself a feminist if you believe a woman should be forced to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. Regardless of your personal beliefs about zygote or foetal rights, a woman is a person and her body should not be subject to legislation. Consider this, bringing an unwanted pregnancy to term can threaten a woman's mental and physical health, and her life, as well as impend her ability to achieve education and economic stability in life. Telling a woman what she can and can't do with her body directly relates to the cervical screening issues we discuss here, so I make no apologies for posting about the abortion debate on this forum.
Do women still have abortions in countries where it's illegal? Yes and they die from them, the United Nations estimate 68,000 deaths in 2000 due to unsafe abortions.
You are wrong Zing, according to google, (which does not necessarily mean "according to me," but your instructions were to go there to disabuse myself of a belief that seems to me to be a true in an a priori kind of way) bans will decrease it.
The Atlantic, hardly a hotbed of conservative thought, reports: "Using analyses that predicted which states might be likeliest to ban abortion if they could, the scientists [researchers at Yale University and the City University of New York, published in NBER] established a set of hypothetical scenarios and compared them to actual abortion data from both the pre- and the post-Roe v. Wade era. The researchers estimate that if 31 anti-abortion states made the procedure illegal tomorrow, the national abortion rate would drop by 14.9 percent. In a more extreme example, banning abortion in 46 states -- while preserving it in places where reproductive rights enjoy constitutional protection -- would result in the abortion rate falling 29 percent."
So you're wrong that banning won't reduce it, but you're right that banning won't eliminate it. Ibid.
I think it would be cruel, though, for the pro-life movement to settle for 29% with a ban, and then forget about stopping abortion in populations where desperate women genuinely have no other choice. There are places in the world where women have to make the choice of which child to let starve and which child to feed. Please don't "welcome me to reality" Zing. I've seen more of it than you may realize.
There are disagreements about the most efficient way to deliver that aid, but it needs to come.
Since we drifted to the abortion topic, I'd like to add a few words to it. I do acknowledge that any person may have a different opinion about foetus feelings and rights and the moment the life begins, their moral and religious preferences, but it should not cross the borders of their own body. That is, each should decide for themselves. If someone is against abortions - no one forces them to do one. But if someone wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy - this options must be available.
While the foetus cannot exist independently from the woman's body, it is a part of her body, not a separate individual with its own rights. And, therefore, only the woman can decide what to do about a part of her body. Full stop.
There are two things adding to lack of clarity in this discussion.
One is the difference between what an abortion ban in America would mean compared to what it means in poorer countries, where lawlessness (eg, petty theft) is a means of survival and resources for enforcement of laws are limited. There would be a positive correlation between laws against abortion and a high abortion rate here, but there is no causative relationship. And simple logic would tend to support that claim, too.
In the US, there are plenty of women, for whom abortion is neither a matter of preservation of neither physical nor mental health, who are deeply ambivalent when they come to a spot where they must choose whether or not to abort. When the state decides for them, then...29% of them I guess...would go with the state's decision.
The second issue-clouding element is confusing an opposition to abortion with an opposition to birth control. Yes, limiting access to birth control results in more pregnancies which results in more abortions, in places where abortion is illegal but those restrictions are not enforced.
Yep, I can call myself a feminist. You don't have to call me a feminist if you don't want to, Sia.
Going back to the animal rights analogy, my views on bans have actually changed over the past few years, my stint in Ron Paul's rEVOLution, and my logical arguments here notwithstanding. Eating meat that comes from animals that have been treated very cruelly is becoming a little less appetizing for me every day. But I still give in to the desire for mass-produced-burgers, either because of the advertising or the MSG, and unless my heart reaches a point where I truly think it's wrong, I'll turn over heaven and earth to get my Big Mac, no matter how hard the government might make it for me to find them. (They've done it to trans-fat. Animal fat is next. Just you watch.)
It's amazing what can happen when you can control your own destiny, you have all the information you need and the medical profession works FOR you and not to get kickbacks. Well, amen to that, Diane (US) although I may be the last person you wanted an amen from. So lets stop pretending that when you abort, you're only cutting out a blob of tissue that can feel no pain, or that could have grown up to be a child you'd thank God you decided to give life to. Let's stop singing dismissive taunts like "every sperm is sacred" when someone points those things out to a woman who may be about to make a choice she'll regret forever.
If you've made the choice to abort and don't regret it, then well and good, but don't encourage others to make the same choice by withholding from them information that didn't sway you, but might prevent them from making a choice they'll regret for the rest of their lives.
Re your 8907, Irene; "hypothetical scenarios" and estimates are not proof, they are guesses.
That said, banning abortions would probably reduce the rate, but not other things such as the need.
Personally, I tend to agree with Alice, it is nobody's business what people do with their own bodies and if a woman decides to have an abortion, she ought to be able to without being made to feel worse about it than she already does.
Without upsetting anyone I would have to say this forum is about women being forced into treatments and abused by the medical profession. So really the question is under Obamacare will doctors increase their abuse of women thrugh forced pap smears/gyn exams or will his intiative in fact reduce this abuse?
I personally don't think Obamacare will change anything about PAP smears and gyn exams. If anything it will hopefully reduce their frequency with the new (evidence based) guidelines. One of the things Obamacare is trying to do is to make medical care more efficient and cost effective. In other words, to not do unnecessary, too frequent screenings, procedures, etc. The problem will be to get all doctors and individuals on board. As it is now, so many women still think they need annual exams and PAPs and are not willing to listen to new recommendations and their doctors are only too happy to comply. The only way I see this changing is for insurance companies to only pay for the services that are recommended by the Task Force and anyone who wants things in excess of that will have to pay out of their own pocket. Otherwise, those of us (like me) who do not want to participate in recommended cancer screenings or any other regular "care" (in the absense of symptoms)will not see any change to the system. I do not ever forsee anyone being "forced" to have any of these screenings (they are recommendations only!)nor do I see anyone being denied care for specific issues regardless of whether or not they are up to date on screenings. There is a lot of fear and projecting about things that have not even happened and never will happen.
How refreshing! The last couple dozen posts here are the most informative and well-stated I've read in a long time, anywhere.
I know not every one is going to agree with each other, but I do not like the bullying I am seeing on this blog.
My observation is that the "appreciation of sarcasm as humor" gene got lost in the migration Westward in the US back in the 1800's. I was planning a move from New York to the Pacific Northwest, and was warned to be careful about the way I told jokes. And I found those warnings to be worth heeding. Sarcastic humor is an idiom that makes no sense at all to people in certain regions. Doesn't mean they are stupid, it just means they haven't acquired the taste.
Going in the other direction, I watch America's Funniest Home Videos and ask, huh? A high percentage of this footage of "hilarious accidents" has got to be taken right before a visit to the Emergency Room. (At least I HOPE it was.) It makes me wince, not laugh. Doesn't mean my tastes are more refined.
I don't know which hurts more, feeling an offense that was in no way intended, or watching a joke fall flat.
JeanArt, that is exactly how I feel on it. If anything, if doctors are held more accountable, you might be able to make a legitimate complaint if your doctor pulls the "no, you NEED a pap! You NEED a pelvic! Or no pills for you!" stunt. If a woman can say "well, the Task Force and WHO say I don't need this; you're going against their recommendations, I'm reporting you," maybe we will see less of it. Maybe we will see less heckling for these tests and for others that are overused or unnecessary, like colonoscopies. If the insurance companies are able to come back and say "wait, why exactly are you doing a cone biopsy on this 18 year old girl?!" maybe we will see less of that mutilation, too.
my concern is that medicade has a reputation for pushing paps and birth control on woman and girls. under the asumpstion that all low income woman are sleeping around . i dont know if that will change after the new health care law, but i dont want to have to deal with being treated like a slut every time i come in for a cold or sore throt.
Re:8912 Sometimes a doctor's paternalistic or patronizing attitude is borne of the best intentions. An abortion provider who neglects---so as "not to make the woman feel worse than she already does"--- to provide information about embryonic or fetal development appropriate to her stage of gestation, or to prepare her for, and establish means to support her in, the complicated emotions she may feel for a long while after the procedure, that caretaker is not doing her any favors.
Irene, to assume that a woman who has made the decision to terminate has not already thought it out is patronizing and really removes her agency. Expecting that a woman is going to feel regret is again an assumption that is not borne out. Do some women regret abortions? Sure, and some women regret giving birth, too. A former classmate of mine was forced to give birth, hated her children - yes, hated them -- and abandoned them. Do we warn them of what is to come? How about other procedures, do we warn patients they might regret having plastic surgery, bariatric surgery, et al?
The doctor is there to perform the procedure. Period. He or she is not there to second guess a woman's desire to terminate. If the woman wants aftercare it's up to her to seek it out, and if the hospital wishes to make it available, it's their prerogative. It doesn't have to be mandated by politicians who want doctors to sit and read long descriptions of fetal development, to force women to have additional procedures they don't need, et al. Frankly, all of the women I know who had abortions wouldn't have changed their minds if the fetus had gotten up and done a dance for them.
In addition, much of the information these politicians want doctors to pass on is skewered. For instance, fetal pain and anesthesia. It's a red herring, since that involves processes in the cerebral cortex that aren't even there until the third trimester (and that has been proven with tests in preemies).
That's really the last I'm going to say on the abortion discussion. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you think a blob of cells is imbued with a soul that's fine. If you think it feels pain or is sentient at the first or second trimester it's your misunderstanding, because science doesn't bear that out at all. The bottom line is that you do NOT have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body or question her decisions.
You asked me a question, and then tell me "that's really the last I'm going to say."
Thanks for letting me have the last word.
How about other procedures, do we warn patients they might regret having plastic surgery, bariatric surgery, et al?
Of course we do!!!
Speaking as a woman who had an abortion as a teenager, I regret it, many years later even more than I did at the time. I wish my society would have made it possible for me to have had the support to prevent that. However, looking back, It was still my best option. The majority (but not all) who claim to be pro-life, imo, actually create antisocial effects. Be pro-life with more than the mouth. Actually, be humble and keep the mouth closed, and instead, do actions that would help support and nourish life. Address what is wrong that this culture creates the need for abortion. That would be the way, I think. Do it as a member of a society instead of as some sort of "independent" (as if any human being could possible be independent) bystander.
If we are all going to be "individuals", with "individual liberty" to financially benefit from this society, but little financial obligation to pay back into our social human community, or put or money and actions where our mouths are, then there will be no real choices about abortion.
So, this means you--fiscal conservatives, libertarians, Republicans, right-wingers, "we built it" folks, tea party people, and others who are pro-life, but err on the side of "what is good for the gander" (individual liberty in the antisocial sense, competition, every "man" an island) is the standard that is good for all--until you become your brother's (and sister's) keeper, you are barking up the wrong tree and contribute to the rate of abortion which you claim to be.
I agree there needs to be an informed process with respect to abortion. I regret that even as a teenager, I was not offered any counseling, any discussion about options, regrets, consequences, etc.
to assume that a woman who has made the decision to terminate has not already thought it out is patronizing and really removes her agency
Can providing information really be likened to removal of a person's agency? Is not a more informed decision a better decision?
It seems respectful to acknowledge the issues that are involved in an important decision. For women to counsel other women, to insure that they are fully informed is sensible and humane. On the other hand, to refuse to discuss these things, in my own experience, is disrespectful. It is like shoving the process under a rug in some taboo refusal to be open about the process. It necessarily means women making decisions when they are ill-informed.
...you claim to be [against].
Irene, can we please stick to the subject of this blog and stop with the nasty comments?