Letters to the Editor
-
this I doubt
I do know one teen who has had a vasectomy. No laws that he have to notify his parents! Gasp!
I doubt this. Most states won't allow a teen to get a piercing or a tattoo without a parent's permission, much less an aspirin at school.
-
Making stuff up
From the transcript of oral arguments
"the findings in this case are simply unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. If you go to the findings themselves, the ultimate finding in 14o, which claims that it is actually relying on the preceding findings, it says, "for these reasons, Congress finds that partial birth abortion is never medically indicated," and then you go backwards and look at the reasons. The reasons are the findings that are not defended by the Government, that were not defended by the Government witnesses and that are blatantly false, except for perhaps one of them."
"The testimony from over, from at least 11 board-certified OBGYNs, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is that the reduction in risk is significant and that it reduces the risk of serious complications, such as uterine perforation, which can lead to hysterectomy and infertility."
To be clear. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports that "intact dilation and evacuation" and "dilation and extraction" (D&X) increasingly are viewed as the safest abortion procedures, contrary to what the deaf, dumb and blind boys in Congress concluded. Furthermore, what's disturbing in the transcript is that the justices on the one hand argue that state concerns can trump health concerns of the mother and then on the other hand argue that the state can determine the safest medical procedures. Basically arguing that the state can legislate unsafe medical procedures for pregnant woman on the behalf of the state. Lovely.
If Kennedys ruling contained the statement that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes this procedure then his ruling is not based on facts in evidence. I hope this is not true because it's bad enough for media and politicians to just make stuff up to support their world view, but if the SC feels it is ok to make stuff up in their rulings, then it's all over.
-
Founding Fathers
Pairodime apparently believes our representatives don't represent the people but instead represent God or some higher moral authority. I don't think God is aware of this arrangment, since many come to a relationship with God without the need of an elected representative.
Personally I think our founding fathers set up our system of government to protect us from people with views like pairodimes.
-
Susan Hill's Quote Says It All
"Susan Hill, president of ... National Women's Health Organization ... "Most providers I've talked to said, ... The other restrictions have been devastating -- the 24-hour waiting period, the ultrasounds. But practically speaking, this doesn't have much impact on us. It was a political battle"
24-hour waiting period, ultrasound devastating? You mean women changed their minds after cooling off or after seing what could become their child? And that's devastating?
Anyone know for a what how much pain a fetus can experience being cut to pieces alive?
There can be no middle-ground?
C'mon on.
-
I'm Not Interested in What You Doubt
Titus Pullo
To quote Jack Warden as Harry M. Rosenfeld in the wonderful *All the President's Men,* "I'm not interested in what you think. What I'm interested in is what you know." Find a state or federal statute limiting a man's right to a vasectomy and get back to me. Seriously. I can use the info in some research I'm doing.
This kid -- and he was still a kid when he told me -- said it was tough finding a doctor who would do it, but that was the only barrier: There were no laws (he was aware of) regarding the procedure. If he was just shooting the breeze, I would like to know. He has moved out of state, but I can track him down to ask details.
I'll bet you can't find me anything specific on vasectomies, just some vague laws covering all medical procedures on teens -- which can be skirted around by citing right to privacy -- which man have too. Men have never passed any laws specifically restricting access to vasectomies. They never will -- for obvious reasons.
I wonder how men would respond if everyone started patronizing them saying, "Oh you poor little dears! You just don't know science! You were just never taught where babies come from! You were told that your come is just a gloppy glop of cells, weren't you! Well, no worries. We advanced ones are here to save you from ignorance! Not that being a scientific ignoramus is a guy thing!"
Think they'd get it?
-
Anonymous
The other problem with your reasoning is that a vasectomy is a form of birth control, but it doesn't actually destroy anything. It can, in theory, be reversed, too.
Can you say the same thing about an abortion, and do you favor abortion as a form of birth control?
-
Everyone Needs to Check This Out
Titus --
That's a statute? Which state? Or is it federal?
Seriously, what part of the sententious if-your-father-had-had-a-vasectomy-you-wouldn't-be-here-today don't you get?
For that matter, if you mom had been on the pill, you probably wouldn't either. That's the whole problem with the sententious if-your-mom-had-had-an-abortion-you-wouldn't-be-here-today argument. Same goes for condoms, so in a world where millions of women die of AIDS, and pass it to their children who then suffer and die, I think it's very, very important to outlaw condoms -- or, you know, *whatever, man.*
I hate to distract you from all this manly reasonableness, but you and everyone should check out the following URL. 'Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling a Mistake: Physicians.'
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/story?id=3057704&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
Not that *they* would know anything about it.
-
Anonymous
Huh!? What in the world are you talking about? I mentioned no statute. Get over yourself and get over your anger.
-
ATSJer
The doctors oppose a ban on the procedure, not the procedure itself. Maybe it would help you understand if you did a diagram of the sentence in question.
-
Sajwan, don't get too depressed...
The Kennedy decision does not put words in the mouths of either ACOG, National Abortion Federation, or the AMA. It rules that the State may regulate a procedure even if some doctors think that it is necessary, or that alternatives create risk to health, as long as the necessity is in dispute in the medical community. But then it cites the District Court of Southern New York, and the Congress as believing that the controversy exists, and makes no further attempt to identify who the doctors are (or whether they exist) that say it is never medically necessary.
I'd say that rather than making stuff up, which would be very depressing, they pulled a "global warming" and asserted a controversy without showing that experts existed on both sides, which is...okay, you win, very depressing.