Change in America

[Hetta]

I AM one of those Republicans and I don't fit what you just described, nor would I say that is accurate. While I don't believe in abortion except in special circumstances, I DO believe that abortion would not be a problem for MOST Republicans if it were not first a hidden/shady affair, then a wholesale industry separate from regular medical facilities and doctors, and now a political mess.

Marijuana is no different: First shady, then special, now a political mess.

It's not hidden or shady. It's a medical procedure. The only people who made a mess of it is those Repub politicians who want to finesse who has the right to abortion and why, including all kind of shady nonsense about "real" rape.

 

[ScottA]

Sorry, can't let this one pass: it was the Republicans that forced hospitals to stop performing abortions.
tulc(in case anyone was interested in the truth)

So they went to wholesale outlet changes. Brilliant. Great PR. Great way to defuse the political fighting.

 

[JustOneWay]

So they went to wholesale outlet changes. Brilliant. Great PR. Great way to defuse the political fighting.

Women have a Constitutional right to have an abortion, so we all know who is doing their best to keep women from a Constitutionally protected right.

 

[ScottA]

It's not hidden or shady. It's a medical procedure. The only people who made a mess of it is those Repub politicians who want to finesse who has the right to abortion and why, including all kind of shady nonsense about "real" rape.

It "was" shady (past tense). "Then" a wholesale industry. "Now" a political fight and mess.

And it all could have been avoided. Like I said, Republicans (speaking as one) just want it to be under the moral radar, save, and on the up and up. But that's not what happened. Instead of moderation, things have just gotten more and more blatant.

 

[Hetta]

It "was" shady (past tense). "Then" a wholesale industry. "Now" a political fight and mess.

And it all could have been avoided. Like I said, Republicans (speaking as one) just want it to be under the moral radar, save, and on the up and up. But that's not what happened. Instead of moderation, things have just gotten more and more blatant.

Ah so you do want to control women's reproductive rights by keeping it "under the moral radar." It's not your womb and it doesn't belong under any radar but that of its owner. While at the same time, you all want to restrict contraceptive availability. So basically you want to control women's entire sexuality.

Go control your wife. She's the only one who should concern you.

 

[ScottA]

Women have a Constitutional right to have an abortion, so we all know who is doing their best to keep women from a Constitutionally protected right.

It's just bad PR to handle it the way it has been handled, and not smart. "When you're hanging on by your fingernails (a 5 to 4 ruling), you don't go waving your arms all around." So the fight (which could have been avoided) continues.

 

[tulc]

So they went to wholesale outlet changes. Brilliant. Great PR. Great way to defuse the political fighting.

You mean someone saw women were going to be forced to use back alley abortionists again to get something that was legal for them to get? I guess it's true: Republicans want a government just big enough to fit into a woman's reproductive system.
tulc(is going to need some more coffee)

 

[JustOneWay]

It's just bad PR to handle it the way it has been handled, and not smart. "When you're hanging on by your fingernails (a 5 to 4 ruling), you don't go waving your arms all around." So the fight (which could have been avoided) continues.

That ruling was over 40 years ago, and none of those 9 are on the bench today....

Today, it is still a Constitutional right.

There is no fight. Republicans have been around every day since 1973, yet here we are with abortion still legal.

 

[Jan Volkes]

It seems from what you say the republicans want to keep the US living as close to the dark ages as it's possible to get.

You do realise that religion is doing as much damage to the US as it is to the Middle East.

Think on this:
When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.
Desmond Tutu

The very rich in America did exactly the same thing to the American people,
only they didn't take the land while you all prayed they took all the money.

 

[ScottA]

Ah so you do want to control women's reproductive rights by keeping it "under the moral radar." It's not your womb and it doesn't belong under any radar but that of its owner. While at the same time, you all want to restrict contraceptive availability. So basically you want to control women's entire sexuality.

Go control your wife. She's the only one who should concern you.

No, I don't want to control anyone, I was just saying it isn't smart to do otherwise.

 

[Hetta]

No, I don't want to control anyone, I was just saying it isn't smart to do otherwise.

Otherwise than what? What does that even mean?

 

[ScottA]

It seems from what you say the republicans want to keep the US living as close to the dark ages as it's possible to get.

You do realise that religion is doing as much damage to the US as it is to the Middle East.

Think on this:
When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.
Desmond Tutu

The very rich in America did exactly the same thing to the American people,
only they didn't take the land while you all prayed they took all the money.

People aren't perfect even if they have something great to share with others. They do indeed give the news a bad name. Unfortunate.

 

[ScottA]

Otherwise than what? What does that even mean?

Sorry, I thought you would have known we were still talking about "the moral radar." In other words: I didn't bring up the idea of staying under the moral radar with abortion issues to suggest Republicans wanted control, I was suggesting that it would be "smarter" to keep a lower profile.

 

[Hetta]

Sorry, I thought you would have known we were still talking about "the moral radar." In other words: I didn't bring up the idea of staying under the moral radar with abortion issues to suggest Republicans wanted control, I was suggesting that it would be "smarter" to keep a lower profile.

Oh so women should keep a lower profile about the process that is a part of their lives from approx. 12/yo to 50/yo? How does that work? Do you mean that Repubs are going to stop opposing the right of women to contraceptives and to abortion? It was Republicans who tried to institute a requirement that women desiring an abortion must undergo an intrusive and uncomfortable transvaginal ultrasound. They were given no choice but to withdraw that law because it would have been, as they were finally persuaded, little more than state mandated rape. No, now they "only" have to have an external ultrasound. Why? If it's her body and the Republicans don't want to control it, why are they forcing women to have an unnecessary procedure? That's MORE government interference, not less.

 

[ScottA]

Oh so women should keep a lower profile about the process that is a part of their lives from approx. 12/yo to 50/yo? How does that work? Do you mean that Repubs are going to stop opposing the right of women to contraceptives and to abortion? It was Republicans who tried to institute a requirement that women desiring an abortion must undergo an intrusive and uncomfortable transvaginal ultrasound. They were given no choice but to withdraw that law because it would have been, as they were finally persuaded, little more than state mandated rape. No, now they "only" have to have an external ultrasound. Why? If it's her body and the Republicans don't want to control it, why are they forcing women to have an unnecessary procedure? That's MORE government interference, not less.

I don't disagree with you. I am just saying it would be smarter and more effective to recognize the less (government) is more desire of Republicans instead of meeting them head to head on open ground. A lower profile (subtle) approach would be more effective. Just sayin.

 

[JGG]

I don't disagree with you. I am just saying it would be smarter and more effective to recognize the less (government) is more desire of Republicans instead of meeting them head to head on open ground. A lower profile (subtle) approach would be more effective. Just sayin.

What would be lower profile (subtle) approach in this instance?

 

[ScottA]

What would be lower profile (subtle) approach in this instance?

I am sure I am not close enough to the concerns of those who would like to see things happening according to the greater cause. But what I can speak for is just what shouts make it up to the hearing of unknowing public (like myself). From this perspective, I can only say that much more could be happening quietly, than loudly.

 

[JGG]

I am sure I am not close enough to the concerns of those who would like to see things happening according to the greater cause. But what I can speak for is just what shouts make it up to the hearing of unknowing public (like myself). From this perspective, I can only say that much more could be happening quietly, than loudly.

I will humbly admit that I have no idea what this means. Could you clarify?

 

[jayem]

And it doesn't matter how close to that things already are (doctor's, safety, etc.)...it's just the worst possible PR program to have all the specialized clinics.

I don't understand. Specialized clinics aren't outside accepted medical standards. There are clinics that only do cancer treatment. Renal dialysis is done in specialized facilities. There are clinics specializing in varicose vein treatment, and cosmetic procedures. Arguably, a facility that limits its practice to certain areas of medicine can do a better job. It will be more experienced and have well-established protocols than more generalized clinics may lack.

Republicans really only object to the blatant, specialized, wholesale, mayhem, outside the medical norm.

Everyone objects to that back alley criminal in Philly, if that's what you're referring to. (Though horror shows like that might make a comeback if abortion is again widely criminalized.) But it's undeniably clear from published data that a legal 1st trimester abortion--as currently performed--is very safe for the mother. She has a greater chance of dying or developing serious health problems from carrying the pregnancy to term. And an outpatient abortion facility doesn't need to be like a cardiac surgical OR. This is the ACOG's opinion on the TX clinic regulation bill:

“The Texas bills are a compilation of over-reaching measures to control when, where, and how a woman has an abortion,” said ACOG Texas District Chair Lisa M. Hollier, MD, MPH. “The bills are not based on sound science, despite our efforts to provide the legislature with the best available medical knowledge. The bills would erode women’s health by denying the women of Texas the benefits of well-researched, safe, and proven protocols...For example, the bills would require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, allowing abortions only in surgical clinics and setting a higher standard than for other procedures with similar low risk such as colonoscopy. The fact is that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. The risk of complications from abortion is minimal, with less than 0.5% of abortions involving major complications.”

This is the medical norm.

http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News...3/Ob-Gyns-Denounce-Texas-Abortion-Legislation

 

[Jan Volkes]

I don't understand. Specialized clinics aren't outside accepted medical standards. There are clinics that only do cancer treatment. Renal dialysis is done in specialized facilities. There are clinics specializing in varicose vein treatment, and cosmetic procedures. Arguably, a facility that limits its practice to certain areas of medicine can do a better job. It will be more experienced and have well-established protocols than more generalized clinics may lack.



Everyone objects to that back alley criminal in Philly, if that's what you're referring to. (Though horror shows like that might make a comeback if abortion is again widely criminalized.) But it's undeniably clear from published data that a legal 1st trimester abortion--as currently performed--is very safe for the mother. She has a greater chance of dying or developing serious health problems from carrying the pregnancy to term. And an outpatient abortion facility doesn't need to be like a cardiac surgical OR. This is the ACOG's opinion on the TX clinic regulation bill:

“The Texas bills are a compilation of over-reaching measures to control when, where, and how a woman has an abortion,” said ACOG Texas District Chair Lisa M. Hollier, MD, MPH. “The bills are not based on sound science, despite our efforts to provide the legislature with the best available medical knowledge. The bills would erode women’s health by denying the women of Texas the benefits of well-researched, safe, and proven protocols...For example, the bills would require physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, allowing abortions only in surgical clinics and setting a higher standard than for other procedures with similar low risk such as colonoscopy. The fact is that abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. The risk of complications from abortion is minimal, with less than 0.5% of abortions involving major complications.”

This is the medical norm.

http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News...3/Ob-Gyns-Denounce-Texas-Abortion-Legislation

I don't understand the problem, not many women "want" to have an abortion in fact most would rather not,
but circumstances alter cases.
Contrary to most Americans opinion we only have the one life which we try to plan the best way we can,
but circumstances alter cases.