Bullcrap. The government funds prenatal care for women and there are many programs available. Doctors ask about testing because, trust me, the cost of raising a child with serious birth defects is far, far greater than the cost of testing. The government foots the whole bill and many disabled children wind up in foster care that way. Hopefully you are not operating under the delusion that many poor women don't give up their children when they are born with disabilities.

However, if you live in the middle of Alaska, for instance, you might want to invest in something called birth control (maybe condoms) if pregnancy is just not an option and abortion is too expensive. Just a thought.

For a feminist, you have a pretty bleak view of women and what we're capable of. Frankly, I think what you want is a total cop-out of responsibility.

Please explain how a third-term abortion would be medically necessary for a physically healthy (but mentally unstable) woman.

In case you didn't know, there are women with schizophrenia and Bi-polar disorder who have been mothers (not only given birth). Please explain then what in the treatment protocol would mandate an abortion based on psychological factors during the 3rd trimester?

This is not, as you and the other poster so inaccurately put it, about "parity." This is about demanding a surgical abortion of a viable fetus for a person who has apparently survived the first 6 months quite well. A mentally ill person may be asked about terminating a pregnancy early on due to problems with the drug treatment protocol.(possible birth defects) Where is the necessity for ending the pregnancy several months later?

You wrote:

"ha

You disgust me AlecsMom. You want to talk about 'pretty bleak view[s] of women' - look in the mirror."

___________________________________________________________

Oh. Boo. frickin'. hoo.

I'm not a doctor. I'm a special ed teacher. I work with (some) children who have been born with birth defects.

But you refer to "complications." What complication is there that mandates third-term abortion? The fact is that any complication that risks the health of the mother is an exception to the third term rule. Remember? Or are you just making stuff up now?

Have you ever been pregnant? You seem incredible ill-informed about the whole process. For your edification, most women go through it with few problems or "complications."

BTW- You STILL didn't describe the treatment protocal for a mentally ill person that mandates third-term abortion based on mental distress.

The statute has nothing whatsoever to do with coverage or medical care for those with mental illness. The mental health portion of the Doe ruling is so broad as to invite attack, which is what is happening now. Basically, it allows a person to get a 3rd term abortion for any reason at all. It deserves attack on that basis. The argument against limiting 3rd term abortions is really just the "slippery slope" argument. "Don't give an inch." I guess it doesn't matter what medical science tells us or common decency suggests at that point.

Please let's not confuse the issue. The vast majority of fetal abnormalities are apparent through blood or amnio testing. A very detailed ultrasound can also do the job and before 6-7 months. Doctors will inform any person who gets testing to understand that there is a limited time frame to terminate a pregnancy. So the time issue is one that is clear from the get-go. There's no, "if the abnormality is REALLY bad, then we terminate later." There's a window of opportunity.

This is why 3rd trimester abortions are so rare. There's very little medical reasoning for them unless the physical health of the mother is threatened. Personally, I don't think that learning you have a baby with spina bifida at 7 months is a reason to terminate either. If you are that concerned with having a baby without birth defects, get the screening and discuss outcomes with a professional and your partner.

Piss off your valued employees for virtually nothing at all. This is just proof positive that many so-called smart people are dumb as wood when it comes to dealing with people.The great benefit with on-site daycare is the parent being able to actually see their child during the day. It matters far less what educational program you use (almost ANYTHING would be effective for goodness sake!).

Hopefully the parents wise-up and see the scam for what it is, go down the road and place their children in a reasonably priced school or one close to their own home. Hey, screw google and leave work a little early each day so you can see your kid more.

Many opt out of family practice because of educational debt and malpractice insurance. This hits other areas as well and these are even more dire than loss of family practices. OB-Gyn practices are at critically low numbers in some regions.

The answer is for states (or feds) to reduce educational debt for students pursuing family practice and then to enact tort reform for medical malpractice. Medicine is really a public service that all must use. It's unfair to demand both many years of rigorous study and then to slap doctors with enormous bills for both study and practice of their profession. It's literally not worth it anymore.