Isn't this exactly the kind of thing Roe was suppose to eliminate? ..... Liberals and the feminist movement threw in with Planned Parenthood.... Little did they know that Planned Parenthood was nothing more than a chop shop enterprise with an eye to the long game...... Planned Parenthoods sole purpose in helping promote women's 'reproductive freedom' was and is to make abortions an everyday convenience item.
Next step is for them to go public then everyone can have a vested interest in the number of abortions they perform every year.... hell, they might offer a profit sharing plan or a punch card plan - Bring in Three, Get one Free!
Maybe Occupy will go and picket the clinics because the owners are part of the 1% taking (literally) from the other 99%
From the San Jose Mercury:
ReplyDeleteCalifornia on Wednesday became the only state in the nation this year to increase access to abortions, as Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill allowing more medical professionals to perform abortions.
AB154 by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, would let nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives and physician assistants with special training perform abortion by aspiration -- in which the uterus' contents are suctioned out -- which is the most common kind of first-trimester abortion. The Assembly passed the bill on a 50-25 vote in May, and the state Senate passed it on a 50-25 vote in August, with most Democrats and no Republicans voting for it.
Wow. When I read your headline I thought we were returning to the good old days of the basement abortionist with the his dirty coat hanger. Instead they are just qualified professionals who have been certified by the state. Dang! There goes my new part time job.
ReplyDeleteEverything is a slippery slope my friend when it comes to progressive interests
ReplyDeleteWhat started with a need for women to extricate themselves from abusive relationships has now evolved from an important life commitment to one that looks more like dating high school students who can now dissolve what was intended to be a serious commitment because they no longer agree of which movie genre to watch.
What started as the right to privacy in one's own home has now turned into a right which will irreparably damage the nuclear family
What started out as a plan to standardize core education subjects has become a tool of social engineering right down to telling young people what is right and wrong.
What started out as distributed government where communities designed their own environment governed only by basic federal guidance to world of consolidated federal power and support for someone who wields his powers of office like the king we said we would never have again.
What started as a plan to insure that people who worked hard were insured some basic subsistence in old age has turned into an entitlement society where over 50% of the population now gets a check from the kings coffers and people who want to work hard and invest their time and money into a business have to hire who the government wants, pay them what the government wants, provide amenities for workers that may not fit their business model and tailor their products so as to not offend the sensibilities of anyone even thought the business was intended to serve a specific clientèle...
So when you say the bad old days of the coat hanger... who knows... with socialist guidance just what planned parenthood clinics will look like down the road when assistance start taking over for an overworked nurse and the desire for profit overrides their duty of care ... I mean, in 50 short years, we have taken the sanctity of live from paramount to convenience and from a procedure so serious it needed an operating theater and an attending physician to a routine outpatient procedure done by a nurse. Not to minimise the knowledge and dedication of nurses but believe me... this change isn't about the ease of the procedure... its about the bottom line.... I guess that’s all right when its profit that serves a liberal agenda....
Scott do you ever go to the doctor. There are nurse practitioners and phys asst that do a lot of medical stuff to you and you don't complain. People trained by doctors and experience to do certain functions. Happens everday. You know I had a tooth break off my partials, 3 trips to the dentist and he couldn't get the to fit right once they were repaired. On the fourth trip a dental asst got them to fit and fit better then they ever have. Just a case in point.
ReplyDeleterick,
DeleteI think you missed the point of TS's post, yes?
I find the CA law a little discomfitting myself. Just a new envelope to push.
Jean
rick......Since the wife is a Nurse Practitioner and does some routine procedures her thoughts are this is not one. She prefers to try to help live a life not the other way around.
DeleteI can guarantee that she did not cut your gums. AB154 redefines downward the aspiration abortion as non surgical. Everywhere else in the world defines it as a surgical procedure.... the evidence for this bill came from an internal study provided by the University of Southern California-San Francisco (UCSF) otherwise known as “America’s abortion training academy”
DeleteReview of their study shows that evedence of complecation shows almost twice as high as physisian preformed procedures and 35% of the patients in the study were never contacted for followup but were included in the results as successful.
The justification for this bill is that women in outlying areas do not have access to abortion without traveling a great distance but the fact is that these women only comprise 1% of the population and California has one third of the nations abortion providers and California already has the highest abortion rate in the nation.
It is interesting to note that in the pro literature about the procedure it talks about inserting a vacuum tube into the uterus and sucking out the reminents of the 'baby'.... they can't even call it the residual scum that they think it is...
Pro abortion groups... again supported by Planned Parenthood oppose AB 980 which would hold abortion clinics to the same building standards as other primary care facilities, instead of the stricter rules that some cities and counties would like to impose. Even that is opposed by people who want to make life safer for women.
Liberals care so much for women that they are allowing untrained medical staff to perform such things.... nice, real nice.....
ReplyDeleteThe bill clearly states: Certified nurse-midwives and physician assistants with special training perform abortion by aspiration. In what sense are these people untrained?
DeleteDo you oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest? (Yes, raped women can get pregnant.) How about fetuses whose DNA shows they will be born with Downs Syndrome or other genetic defects? What if a new tests are developed to show whether a fetus is homosexual? Even worse, what if a test is developed to show if the fetus is likely to be a Liberal ?
ReplyDeleteNot entirely sure the point of your question with relation to this article but hey if you want to talk about my position on abortion that’s fine, just be kind enough to answer mine.
DeleteMy personal opinion is that abortions are bad for several reasons. Having said that, my personal opinion doesn’t matter in conversations about Federal law in specific and, with qualification, to state governments. The federal government has no business legislating any moral behavour that does not infringe on another person, in my opinion. The only question the Supreme Court should have answered in the Roe v Wade case was the definition of ‘Life’.
While Christians will call for absolutely no abortion because their belief is that life starts at conception, while properly spirited, they are wrong headed in the argument because they must remember that this republic is now and always has been a secular nation. Scripture serves as moral compass, as we were founded on Judao-Christian principles, but not as law. During the entire period from prerevolution, post ratification of the constitution, abortion was legal in all 13 colonies BUT it was HIGHLY SOCIALLY FROWNED UPON. (This is an important point). I do not believe that the founders considered life to be from conception.
Now there certainly should be considerable moral consideration, even in a morally ‘lax’ society, to late term abortions as it has been proven that these unborn children can and do feel distress. Now, this is where the left skews the process. Progressives have, through lots of laws, stopped the ability of a society, community, neighbourhood or business to present moral consternation to the behaviour of an individual or group of individuals. A business for instance use to be able to turn away any patron for any reason... It was after all their business and if they chose a personal moral position over profit, so be it... and if enough people turn someone away for their behaviour then they know they either put up with the treatment, leave or changed the behaviour. (it has remained in one small instance.... “No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service”. The law should always shield one from physical abuse unless they are harming someone else.. But the ability to express social indignation must be allowable to self correct societies bad behavers(sic)... remember it is pursuit of happiness with the operative being ‘pursuit’. Over time this ability to reject someones behaviour corrects a bad patron, bad employer, bad service providers and bad citizens. Yet, it is no longer tolerated in a progressive society that gives everyone a trophy just for showing up.
We now term all sorts of social rejection as bullying and forbid ‘society’ from shaping the country IT wants to be rather than some ill conceived law that protects the worst of society in an attempt to help those wronged by incidents such as you relay in the case of abortion - rape, incest etc.
Growing up, I was repeatedly informed of my duty to respect women/girls and if one were to get pregnant, I would be expected to ‘Do the right thing’, which in short was to accept responsibility for my actions. No get out of jail free card if the girl named you as the father. Now today women accept no responsibility for their actions other than the inconvenience of an afternoon at the abortion clinic. (we hear that it is psychologically traumatic but given the numbers conducted one must deduce that it ain’t that disturbing)
What is odd to me is the circular justification for free and easy abortion. Apparently this is because young women in specific and women in general are impulsive and cannot control their sexual urges. This is an interesting point of view from progressives as we are told that men must control theirs because, ‘We have evolved’, but for a woman we must suppose that it is an uncontrollable natural desire and of course we are told that girls are easily manipulated by emotion... but also more mature at an earlier age than boys.... curious.
And You?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that conservatives are for states rights until a state uses those rights to enact something you don't agree with. Where are the unwavering principles you like to flaunt. Just Curious. You can't pick and choose. States rights are states rights always, not just when they come to questions of immigration, guns, voting, unionization. Hell you want the right of abortion given to the states. California used it's states rights to pass an abortion law. End of story.
ReplyDeleteHow do you edit these damn comments!
I'm not trying to be contrary here but please tell me what cases have been brought to the federal government and indeed the supreme court that were not first pressed to the federal level by the left. As I said, not trying to be contrary and their may indeed be cases... I just don't know off the top of my head.
DeleteAs far as what California passed with respect to Abortion.... it was law created off the back of Roe v Wade which was brought to the federal level by the left to overturn state laws that they didn't like....
You really can't think of one. It's not hard. It's the massive one that has put our campaign finances out of control, pressed to the supreme court by the right. It is called Citizens United pressed by the right to the supreme court because conservatives thought they could buy the last election. Didn't work did it?. I am sure there are others.
DeleteAre oppressive state laws that strip people of rights, such as the Jim Crow laws of the south better because the states passed them? I think not. The stripping of ones freedom of choice, ones freedom of liberty, ones basic human rights is wrong whether the state or the fed does it. Your whole concept of the left constantly pushing these things higher begs me to ask, which party is really for freedom and liberty? Sometimes the fed does have to intercede on behalf of the residents of the states. Roe v Wade, Brown v board of education, Chambers v Florida, Sipuel v U of Oklahoma, Henderson v United states, Hernandez v Texas, NAACP v Alabama, etc etc were all cases pushed to the courts to right wrongs being committed in state laws.
I never said that the Supreme Court didn’t serve a purpose in addressing grievances that someone might have with state law ‘as it pertains to the constitution’, the supreme law of the land. Sometimes states get it wrong and the Supreme Court is there to bounce these state decisions against the constitution. It is when the Supreme Court gets activist and starts pronouncing rights and wrongs that have no relevance to the constitution or the federal government’s decision making authority. Remember the clause in the constitution that states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”....
DeleteFirst of all, it is my opinion that social issues are not the purview of the law. They are what a society decides day by day and community by community. They are what determine the values and morals of a country, a society, a community... its conscience. Social mores can change rapidly for various reasons and be different in various places and should not be constrained by law and in fact there is no provision for social beliefs in the constitution with the exception of the first amendment right of religion. I can’t force you (a person IE... Man) not to do something as long as it doesn’t harm me ( Your ‘Pursuit of Happiness) but I have every right to object to what you by verbalizing my displeasure (Freedom of Speech) and withholding my services and custom. (Liberty) If enough people in any given group do not approve of a persons behaviour then they have the right to object to your ‘Pursuit’. Of course we have set the constitution on its ear and now we are compelled to serve, hire and live with anyone regardless our difference of opinion and speak ill of no behaviour... except for those that are ‘universally agreed’ which is the very definition of the constrain of Liberty and the development of a cohesive society.
Society (noun)
1) An extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization
2) The conventions and opinions of a community
3) The customs and organization of and ordered community
There is nothing wrong with people taking a grievance through the court system.... It is however not a provision of the federal constitution to deal with social mores.
Roe v Wade - abortion is not a right anywhere in the constitution.... neither is driving, scuba diving, nudity or body piercings. The only thing that a prudent court should have done in this case is to decide the definition of life. They abrogated their responsibility and decided some arbitrary social norm... In my opinion they should have decided that life was, as people saw it during the revolution through the ratification of the Constitution as beginning, at birth, as abortion was legal in all 13 colonies but was socially highly frowned upon.... and allowing local communities to decide, as they did then, what the social stigma would be for getting one.
I will give you an example of what I mean. In Germany for instance, there is no law for public nudity. You will not be jailed for being nude anywhere. How the public in a given place acts towards that nudity will, have you evicted from a business because the owner does not condone it, the people who frequent that business threaten the owner with their patronage if the nudist isn’t evicted or in the case of a public place, if the majority of people find it objectionable.. the police will arrest you for creating a public disturbance... If a bar owner in the middle of a city wants and attracts nudists to their business and which to forgo business from clothed patrons... that is the owners decision... not the law. This is the same with sex in public... it is a social moral decision and not one dictate by law... That is liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Brown v board of education - Simple... any prudent individual could see where this one would end... it was a public school, regardless of who funded it, and the individual mattered only perhaps if they were a citizen...
DeleteChambers v Florida – Again, forcing a confession is against the constitution period... but some other forms of federal interrogation are ok.... just ask the CIA and NSA.... they have a secret court.
Sipuel v U of Oklahoma – Same as Brown -a taxpayer funded law school and a person under the law
Henderson v United states – A very grey area for the commerce clause but that is what was used. But the outcome was correct... both the black and white bought and were sold and equal class ticket and should have been served equally.
Hernandez v Texas - Again, equal protection under the law and jury of their peers....
NAACP v Alabama - Here I believe that the decision is only as correct as it is applied to agencies of the United States Federal Government..... Here the Fed has taken a case against Alabama and turned it on its head for federal incursion into, as the proximate law states:
“In the domain of indispensable liberties, whether of speech, press, or association, abridgments of such rights, even though unintended, may inevitably follow from varied forms of governmental action. Compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute an effective restraint on freedom of association.”
The Citizens United case might have just as well been brought to the Supreme Court by the left. Citizens United challenged an existing federal law...... the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. It felt and the court upheld that the law as unconstitutional. While it opened up unlimited funds to campaigns, it did so equally as we have seen by the amount of money giving to Obama by the financial industry. By the way the case wasn’t necessarily about unlimited campaign funds... it was a movie about Hillary Clinton and the desire to advertise that movie on tv that sparked the case.
Now while I think that we should get money out of campaigns, we must find a constitutional way of doing it.... and I think that would require an amendment...