Abortion
It had to happen eventually: I'm writing about abortion.
Today, President Bush signed a ban on partial birth abortion. Yes, it is true that in some sense this is the beginning of an assault on "a woman's right to choose." But the opposition to this bill is almost entirely a reaction not to the bill itself, but to that assault it represents.
Tonight on News Hour, a doctor, Paula Hillard from U. of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said this bill is "chilling" because it represents the government getting in between a doctor and patient. "The law will limit the physician's judgment in an individual situation, a situation in which they might judge this particular procedure, or any other abortion procedure, potentially, to be appropriate for that individual woman, and I think that's a chilling effect on the practice of medicine, and I think that effect is and should be viewed as chilling to American women."
OK, let's start with the easy part first: this bill does not potentially have any effect on any other abortion procedure. The opponents of this bill say this, but it's a lie. The bill outlaws one abortion procedure, period.
But more outrageous than that lie is the proposal that this is chilling because the government is taking away a choice from a doctor and patient. This is said as though the government doesn't already have hundreds, thousands, of laws that take away choices, whether they are doctor-assisted suicides, or types of medicine, or types of medical procedures. The medical industry is very highly regulated by the government, and to say that it is chilling because it does something -- takes away choice from doctors and patients -- that is done all the time, in the same way and in different ways, is absolutely ludicrous.
There's only one other argument I've heard against this bill, and it is that there is no provision for the "health of the mother." That argument is a non-starter. The proponents refuse to define what "health of the mother" is, and they could easily say the mother needs to have an abortion for her mental health, thereby making the bill absolutely useless, which is the point of having that provision. And the bill does have a provision for the threatening of the life of the mother. But since that doesn't make the bill useless, it is not good enough for opponents.
When asked when this procedure is necessary, Hillard would not answer. She said, "that is between the doctor and the patient." She couldn't even provide a hypothetical example, or a past actual example.
It's a shame that the opponents of the bill will not argue the text of the bill itself, in an honest way, and instead argue lies. I understand it, as they are reacting to the assault on abortion itself. But I guess that there is no real argument against the text of this bill says something about how good the bill is.
Today, President Bush signed a ban on partial birth abortion. Yes, it is true that in some sense this is the beginning of an assault on "a woman's right to choose." But the opposition to this bill is almost entirely a reaction not to the bill itself, but to that assault it represents.
Tonight on News Hour, a doctor, Paula Hillard from U. of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said this bill is "chilling" because it represents the government getting in between a doctor and patient. "The law will limit the physician's judgment in an individual situation, a situation in which they might judge this particular procedure, or any other abortion procedure, potentially, to be appropriate for that individual woman, and I think that's a chilling effect on the practice of medicine, and I think that effect is and should be viewed as chilling to American women."
OK, let's start with the easy part first: this bill does not potentially have any effect on any other abortion procedure. The opponents of this bill say this, but it's a lie. The bill outlaws one abortion procedure, period.
But more outrageous than that lie is the proposal that this is chilling because the government is taking away a choice from a doctor and patient. This is said as though the government doesn't already have hundreds, thousands, of laws that take away choices, whether they are doctor-assisted suicides, or types of medicine, or types of medical procedures. The medical industry is very highly regulated by the government, and to say that it is chilling because it does something -- takes away choice from doctors and patients -- that is done all the time, in the same way and in different ways, is absolutely ludicrous.
There's only one other argument I've heard against this bill, and it is that there is no provision for the "health of the mother." That argument is a non-starter. The proponents refuse to define what "health of the mother" is, and they could easily say the mother needs to have an abortion for her mental health, thereby making the bill absolutely useless, which is the point of having that provision. And the bill does have a provision for the threatening of the life of the mother. But since that doesn't make the bill useless, it is not good enough for opponents.
When asked when this procedure is necessary, Hillard would not answer. She said, "that is between the doctor and the patient." She couldn't even provide a hypothetical example, or a past actual example.
It's a shame that the opponents of the bill will not argue the text of the bill itself, in an honest way, and instead argue lies. I understand it, as they are reacting to the assault on abortion itself. But I guess that there is no real argument against the text of this bill says something about how good the bill is.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
Leave a comment