Texas Senate panel OKs abortion sonogram bill

still, even if you can dispute when this happens---sonograms, so far as I can tell, will only be very useful for last trimester abortions, where the line between life is getting pretty clear to be delineated. Women getting medical/ pill abortions will just see the clump of cells you keep on referring to and I'm not even sure they'll be required to go through sonograms given how this early on, the procedure is very simple and requires little to no medical intervention.

 

The whole bringing religion into it (Perry and Patrick) also makes my blood boil. Morality should not be legislated, period.

...half of fertilized eggs die anyway...I guess God must be the biggest abortionist around?

 

Contraception in The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained. Ketting E, Visser AP.

Abstract
This article gives a review of the main factors that are related to the low abortion rate in the Netherlands. Attention is payed to figures on abortion and the use of contraceptive methods since the beginning of the 1960s up to the end of the 1980s. The strong acceptance of family planning was influenced by changing values regarding sexuality and the family, the transition from an agricultural to a modern industrial society, rapid economic growth, declining influence of the churches on daily life, introduction of modern mass media and the increased general educational level. The introduction of modern contraceptives (mainly the pill and contraceptive sterilization) was stimulated by a strong voluntary family planning movement, fear for overpopulation, a positive role of GPs, and the public health insurance system. A reduction of unwanted pregnancies has been accomplished through successful strategies for the prevention of teenage pregnancy (including sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services) as well as through wide acceptance of sterilization. The Dutch experience with family planning shows the following characteristics: a strong wish to reduce reliance on abortion, ongoing sexual and contraceptive education related to the actual experiences of the target groups, and low barrier family planning services.

People in the Netherlands consider unplanned pregnancy to be a large problem that society and decision-makers should and do seriously address. The abortion rate fluctuates between 5 to 7/1000 women of reproductive age, the lowest abortion rate in the world. Between 1965 and 1975, a shift from a largely agricultural society to an industrial society, rapid economic growth and the establishment of a welfare state, a reduced influence of the church in public and personal life, introduction of mass media, and a rapid increase in the educational level of both men and women brought about a rapid change in traditional values and family relations in the Netherlands. These changes and the introduction of modern contraception effected a breakthrough in family planning and sexual morality. Factors facilitating the rapid transition to a contraceptive society in the Netherlands were a voluntary family planning movement, fear of overpopulation, role of general practitioners in providing family planning services, and inclusion of family planning in the national public health insurance system. Acceptance of contraception preceded liberalization of abortion. Society accepts abortion as only a last resort. The sexual sterilization rate is higher than that in other European countries (25% vs. 0-23%). Special family planning programs in the Netherlands target groups at risk of unwanted pregnancy, particularly teenage pregnancy. Almost all secondary schools and about 50% of primary schools address sexuality and contraception. Sex education has largely been integrated in general health education programs. The mass media address adolescent sexuality and preventive behavior. Very large scale, nonmoralistic, public education campaigns that are positive towards teenage sexual behavior appear to be successful. Teens have wide access to contraceptive services through general practitioners who maintain confidentiality and do not require a vaginal exam and through subsidized family planning clinics.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7971545

In Texas (and other states) we de-fund Planned Parenthood, "teach" abstinence only, cut Medicaid, and limit access to contraceptives.

We are not preventing unwanted pregnancies (as well as we should), which is the best way to lower abortion rates.

 

This entire thread just pisses me off. Thanks for rubbing salt in the wound, Rashmon.

**** Rick Perry. And **** the self-righteous hypocrites who support this bill and other like it.

 

Forced sterilization of the poor or better yet the complete annihilation of everyone living below the poverty line would also have a hugely beneficial impact on crime. Nobody wants that to happen because it is barbaric. You cannot murder people because they are statistically more likely to become criminals. The same is true for abortion in my eyes.

 

Earlier in the thread other posters have already done that and Tim Tebow had a Superbowl ad two years ago along the same lines.

As I said before I don't think this is a good argument either way.

 

True they are different but I am going along with the example that you put forward.

I don't know about Canada but there is a sort of fitness tax credit here in that many health plans will lower your rate for being leading a healthy lifestyle.

 

You obviously haven't heard my solution to virtually every problem affecting our society.
Mandatory Universal Abortion

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. By definition Anthropogenic Global Warming is caused by people. Those fat cats who ruined the economy and we have to bail aren't actual cats but are people. Everywhere you look problems are being caused by people.

The solution is we obviously need to get rid of people and what better way than through mandatory universal abortion.

No people no problem!

 

So would forced sterilization or eradication of everyone in the top 10% of wealth-holders. The difference would be that more of society would benefit and fewer people would have to be sterilized/murdered.

 

As one with a Libertarian frame of mind, the Republican party's rhetoric towards abortion has always bufuddled me.

They believe in individual freedom, but not to decide this for themselves.

As one thats for the death penalty, I often wonder why democrats would be against the death penalty but for abortion.

 

freedoms don't come at the expense of others rights. For example, just because I have freedom of speech doesn't mean I can force people to come listen to me. Other people have the right to ignore me.

Since pro-lifers view a fetus as a human being, than it has the right to life(all American citizens initially have this right) and it is the government's job to protect this right. The parents do not have any freedoms that come at the expense of the fetus's right to life.

This can sometimes be complicated since a parent does have the freedom to make medical decisions for the fetus/baby/child and one parent's best medical decision for the fetus/child/baby may not be what another parent would do, but in the case of an abortion it is very black and white.

 

My example of the cheeseburger was just to illustrate the power of incentives. It was kind of a digression to explain that away, and not really that related to my argument about abortion, so sorry if that was confusing. Example has been on my mind though, ever since I was given the task of pitching Archer Daniels Midland for a presentation, and I realized it was the most subsidized piece of crap ever.

In Canada, since we have single-payer and strictly regulated provincial health plans, I don't think that is the case (though health care in Canada is a bit complex to unravel). The Conservatives however recently implemented a direct tax credit that actually allows you to claim $500-1000 in fitness expenses as tax deductible. or something like that. I don't think it's quite as powerful as directly promoting fitness (maybe have a crazy fitness test, and whoever passes gets $50000? lol) or taxing obesity, but it works. Did not know they already had that in America, but it's a good idea.

I'm all for incentives for good things, and disincentives for bad things.

 

I prefer RAPTURE.

Let's wait until 10.21.2011 before we enact your law.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2011/05/apolitical-aside-the-rapture-rescheduled

 

Death penalty is for criminals, abortion is for innocents, how can you compare the two?

Our free will, all of our rights, stem from the fundamental right to our own existence.

For someone to end the existence of another, an existence that was a consequence of that person's own actions, is the ultimate abdication of human responsibility, and as immoral an act as there can ever be.

 

It's still state sanctioned murder and more importantly how do you rationalize the possibility of killing innocents with the death penalty. Are those lives not worth the same as an aborted fetus?

If the death penalty was 100% accurate you might have some kind of argument but it isn't.

 

That's because political parties were constructed to serve regional, economic and ethnic constituencies, not philosophical ones. Abortion and the death penalty help or hurt certain demographic groups more than others.

 

Damn, this would be HUGE in the fight against abortion.

Birth Control May Become Free Under All Health Insurance Plans

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/19/birth-control-free-under-all-health-insurance_n_903732.html

WASHINGTON -- A highly influential panel of medical experts recommended to the U.S. Department of Health on Tuesday that all health insurance plans be legally required to offer free birth control to patients.

The Obama Administration commissioned the non-partisan Institute of Medicine (IOM) panel to recommend which preventative health services all insurance plans should fully cover under the Affordable Care Act. In addition to covering birth control, the IOM suggested in its report that health insurers pay for HPV testing, contraceptive and lactation counseling, HIV screening and breast-feeding equipment.

"As someone who has worked on women's rights for nearly 30 years, I can say that today's news marks one of the biggest advances for women's health in a generation," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Currently, nearly one in three women finds it difficult to pay for birth control, and that's why the United States has a far higher unintended-pregnancy rate than other industrialized countries. Making family-planning services available at no cost will help millions of women prevent unintended pregnancy and thereby reduce the need for abortion."

Keenan added she was "confident that the Obama administration will adopt the IOM's science-based recommendation and thus make affordability of contraception a reality for all women."

If the Department of Health and Human Services does adopt the IOM's recommendations, contraceptives could become affordable for women like Lindsay Cox of Lincoln, Neb., who currently can't afford the co-pay on her birth control.

Cox, 23, is a medical student at Nebraska Wesleyan University, and she has no time for a job. Although her parents pay for her BlueCross/BlueShield insurance plan, her birth control costs $40 a month, which is just out of reach on her student budget.

"Luckily my doctor [at the local Planned Parenthood clinic] gives me free samples, otherwise I just wouldn't be able to get it," she told HuffPost in an interview.

Cox said she would have a lot less to worry about if her insurance plan covered birth control.

"Just being able to pick it up regularly and not have to count on samples would be absolutely amazing," she said. "Planned Parenthood is so busy these days that if they're a week off from being able to see you for an appointment, that throws off your cycle and puts you at risk of becoming pregnant," she added.

Access to free or reduced-cost birth control and women's health services has become increasingly difficult for women like Cox as states legislatures across the country have voted to defund Planned Parenthood.

The IOM report notes that almost half of pregnancies in 2001 were unintended. It also notes that women who become unexpectedly pregnant are more likely to receive delayed or no prenatal care and to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed, and experience domestic violence during pregnancy. Moreover, a recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, a leading reproductive health research and advocacy group, estimates that unintended pregnancies cost U.S. taxpayers $11.1 billion dollars a year.

Anti-abortion rights and anti-contraception groups are calling for the Obama Administration to reject the IOM's recommendations because they believe that some emergency contraceptives function as "abortion pills."

"This is a question of whether the government should mandate every health plan to cover these drugs free of cost," said Jeanne Monahan, director of Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity. "Whatever one’s position is on the issues of contraceptives, abortifacients and such, it does not matter whether proponents of such drugs do not care about the effect on human embryos. The point is that many Americans do care, and many religious health plans would care, and that they should not be forced to violate their conscience."