PLNews grab, 7-8-08
by JivinJ
In a speech before Planned Parenthood last year, Barack Obama said that he was well-equipped to defend a right to abortion because “I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional law.” But during the past week, Obama has proven to be woefully ignorant of abortion law, or he has been deceiving voters about the legality of abortion, as well as his own position on the issue.
But if Obama is saying that “mental distress” is already not a legal exception for abortion bans, then what was the point of what he told Relevant?
If Obama’s position is that late-term abortion shouldn’t be allowed for women who are “feeling blue,” and he believes that late-term abortions currently aren’t legal for women who are “feeling blue,” then why did he say it was appropriate for states to prohibit late-term abortion as long as there is a well-defined health of the mother exception which shouldn’t include “mental distress?”
Downes was being investigated because she encourages women considering abortion to consider other options, and a pro-choice doctor involved in the pro-choice movement filed a complaint against her.
[Photo courtesy of The Daily Mail]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Thank you Tammie Downes!! To prochoice doctors choice means only ONE choice, then??
Jill, do you realize that feeling blue and mental distress are two totally different things? “Feeling blue” does not cause a person to break open a razor and carve out pieces of their flesh. “Feeling blue” is not schizophrenia. Have you ever known anyone with schizophrenia? I have, and I’m not going to lie it is one of the scariest things to see one off their meds. Guess what? They can’t take their meds when pregnant. I bet you would change your tune if a pregnant schizophrenic stabs you for getting too close to them.
In regards to the Tammy Downes story, what is wrong with them? She legally doesn’t have to do anything regarding abortion, she tells women their others options. As long as she’s not lying to them “maybe if she said she preformed abortions only to get patients into her office” then she’s not doing anything wrong.
And what’s the deal with the bullying?
Jess, what does that have to do with animal rights?
Huh?
Jess, the picture of a 7 month pregnant raving schizophrenic is a gigantic red herring.
First of all, yes I have seen how schizophrenia can damage families. My schizophrenic uncle killed himself, and one of my mother’s cousins abandoned her family during a delusional episode.
However, it is absurd to think that a late term abortion will somehow “fix” anything. If someone is in a psychotic episode and absolutely needs to get medical help, there is no reason why they can not be induced. Women are given c-sections all the time preterm when they have a medical condition that necessitates immediate delivery.
Why in the world should the child be instantly killed simply because it needs to be delievered early? It’s absurd. My son was born at 31 weeks because I was beginning to get an infection that could have been dangerous to us both. However, my water broke at 23 weeks, and they would have delivered him at any time had the infection come sooner. While he wouldn’t have had much chance of survival at 23 weeks, it still makes alot more sense to deliver him and give him a fighting chance than to randomly kill him.
There’s never a good reason for a post-viablity abortion. For the most part we pretend that they’re somehow related to bodily domain, but the reality is that they are used almost exclusively for eugenic purposes.
I find it insane that the pro-choice side can defend late term abortion with a straight face.
Lauren, your post indicates a misunderstanding of the word “eugenic”, which refers to an effort to CHANGE SOCIETY by getting rid of genetically inferior people. Abortion of genetically-diseased fetuses is chosen in order to avoid the personal experience of having one, not in order to change society.
Jess, 10:44p: What’s your point? Are you trying to argue for Barack’s inexplicable point? (And he calls himself a constitutional expert?)
Great comment, Lauren!! I am grateful that you shared the experience about your son.
No, SOMG, I have a perfect grasp on the word. Abortion is used to cleanse society.
Perhaps you have missed the societal pressure put on women to abort “defective” children, but it certainly exists. When my son’s tests results came back abnormal, I was basically told that to do anything other than an amnio to confirm, followed by an abortion “if necessary” was not only bad parenting, but also socially unacceptable.
Drs. present abortion as THE ONLY socially responsible response to a negative prenatal diagnosis.
Don’t believe me?
Peter Singer-
“It does not seem quite wise to increase any further draining of limited resources by increasing the number of children with impairments.”
Bob Edwards, the embryologist who created the first test-tube baby through in vitro fertilization-
“Soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children.”
I have personally been told that I was wrong to birth my son. His disability? Growth Hormone deficiency and a hypospadias. Apparantly those two things are enough of a “drain on society” that he should have been snuffed out before birth.
A parent facing a poor prenatal diagnosis doesn’t have to actually *raise* this disabled child. There are waiting lists for people looking to adopt a child with Downs. However 90% of women who find out prenatally that their chld will have DS abort. I wonder if it has anything to do with statements like this?
“
“Jess, what does that have to do with animal rights?”
Truthseeker, you’re on the wrong thread.
Lauren, if that were true then why do perfectly healthy babies get aborted?
For the record, I’m totally for passive eugenics. If you’re stupid enough to light a firecracker off in your hand, you really had it coming.
Jess, it isn’t true 100% of the time, but it is the image that pro-choicers want to foster.
In 2003 Senetor Clinton argued against the PBA using the “what about the disabled children?!” line.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863886/posts?page=51
It’s rather a rather disjointed puzzle that is presented as the justification of late term abortions.
They start with the right to privacy, but quickly realize that there has to be another more compeling reason to abort a child who could live outside of the womb. Then they switch gears to saying that no one willing chooses to have an abortion this late, and that there is a health issue with either the child or mother.
The net result is that they say “late term abortion should be ok because we should be allowed to kill disabled individuals before they are born.”
Of course, they would never actually *say* this, and that is why things are so murky for those who defend late term abortion.
They are faced with two equally unappealing options. Either late term abortion is ok because it’s ok to kill someone who has the misfortune of being attached to you even though they could survive on their own, or it’s ok to kill someone because they have a disability.
Neither inspire much public support.
Jess, The Obama issue has many relevant analogies to animal rights. People say they love them and care for them but then continue to treat them with such hatred and disdain. Just like the way Obama says he supports restrictions to abortions but then votes against them.
That Obama as Uncle Sam pic on the Jake Tapper link would make a great poster or bumper sticker.
I don’t see a copyright on it. Is it legal for me to save it and have posters or bumper stickers made up?
Isn’t it interesting that the complaint didn’t come from a patient, but from a pro abortion doctor.