Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 7:00 AM ET, 02/ 7/2011

After 'forcible rape,' another abortion restriction

By Jonathan Capehart

Oh, good grief. No sooner have I celebrated the Republican retreat on the gambit to make "forcible rape" -- whatever that meant -- one of the few exceptions for federal funding of abortions than a new, more dastardly threat to women's right to choose arises.

Under the guise of protecting hospitals, medical clinics and health workers from discrimination because they refuse to perform abortions, H.R. 358 would let them do so without fear of penalty. The "nondiscrimination on abortion" provision is part of the nine-page Protect Life Act, an amendment to last year's health-care law introduced by seven-term Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) on Jan. 20. In a copy of the manager's amendment I obtained from a source, the odious term "forcible rape" no longer appears. But here's the problem: If enacted this bill would trump the 25-year-old law that guarantees public access to emergency care, including abortions.

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented.

Since 1986, a patient with an emergency medical condition who goes to a hospital participating in Medicare must be treated. Such stabilizing treatment could include abortion care for pregnant women. If the hospital can't provide the requested treatment it must refer the patient to a hospital or medical facility that does.

The overly broad Pitts amendment would void this requirement for hospitals, which would be considered a "health care entity." Unlike the nebulous "forcible rape," the key definition here is clear: "an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan." So, in contravention of EMTALA, hospitals would be allowed to refuse to provide abortion care or refer the patient to another hospital. Most troubling is that there are no exemptions -- not even if the life of the mother is at risk.

Abortion is an issue fraught with emotion. The decision to have one is among the most personal and wrenching a woman will ever have to make. That's why control over her body should rest in her hands, especially during a medical emergency. I'm not saying there should be no limits on when, how, where and why a woman can have an abortion. But her constitutional right to have one has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings. And if her life is at risk only the hardest of hearts would take that choice away from her. Unfortunately, the hard hearts now control the House. After sublimating their right-leaning social agenda in favor of a jobs agenda to wrest control from the Democrats in the midterms, they are picking up where they left off.

By Jonathan Capehart  | February 7, 2011; 7:00 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: So does Mubarak stay or go?
Next: Sarah Palin needs her own wake-up call

Comments

So, your point is that because the bill states that there can be no discrimination (in funding) or otherwise against those who refuse to take training, offer training in abortion services, it then also voids a patients right to emergency treatment?

How exactly? On staff at any hospital will be Ob/Gyn's who are trained in the assisted termination of partial spontaneous abortions which occur all the time and in some case require emergency treatment. Those same Ob/Gyn's would be on call to "take" a baby early if the life of the mother warranted it.

You are grasping at straws - twisting the reality of this bill.....sounds like when those "death panels" were being screamed about two years ago to me....only that was the other side doing it then....

Posted by: LMW6 | February 7, 2011 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me there should more laws like this to protect abortion providers too.

Posted by: ideallydc | February 7, 2011 9:08 AM | Report abuse

How about women physicians and nurses refusing to care for angry old sexist males who try to make rules about women's rights to choose what happens to their own body?

Posted by: 10bestfan | February 7, 2011 9:25 AM | Report abuse

Republican wedge issues are never thought through- if they were, we could see the results of their ambitions: In order to implement control mechanisms on females with unwanted pregnancies, there would be a need for forced gestation camps in which the potential criminal females would be held and monitored 24/7 until their due date.

After that, the potential female criminals could go wherever they want to pay for their own delivery and after that anywhere they might want to live.

I suppose visitation would be restricted to Catholic clergy and doctors, but even those visits would need to be monitored by audio and video surveillance.

Or, as an alternative, Republicans could simply get their noses out of other people's business. (How likely is THAT?)

Posted by: rowens1 | February 7, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

There is an element missing in all this ridiculous and endless attempt to prevent abortion and that is the fact that pregnancy is a two-part endeavor. It seems to me the only way to be certain that a woman can't get pregnant is to eliminate sex altogether.

Men, what do you say? Where is your responsibility in all this? Perhaps the death penalty for rape is in order as well?

Posted by: Jem248 | February 7, 2011 9:45 AM | Report abuse

I hate (not a word I use casually) it when men insist on telling women they can't/shouldn't get the health care they need/deserve.

Posted by: rlj1 | February 7, 2011 9:56 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if people who voted for Republicans are feeling they are victims of bait and switch?
The Republicans were all about jobs and now they're all about their same old agenda.

The Republicans are concentrating on these social issues because they have no idea how to create jobs - they prove it everytime they're in the majority or have the WH.

When will Repubicans display the same concern about the living, breathing people? Their concern ends at the moment of birth. Then we just become lazy consumers of their tax dollars.

Posted by: FauxReal | February 7, 2011 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"Abortion is an issue fraught with emotion ?"

Have you been following the news lately ?

Try the nightmarish case of the Philadelphia abortionist Gosnell and the sting video of a counselor at a Planned Parenthood clinic cooperating with a pimp and under-age sex slaves.

The 261-page grand-jury report in the Gosnell case could have been written by Stephen King.

Gosnell’s gruesome operation had the good doctor performing traditional abortions, occasionally butchering woman in the process. Other women had delivered babies before he arrived. Here, he cut the spinal cords of the newborns with scissors - yes murder in a "regulated abortion clinic".

In liberal free-condoms, early sex education-friendly New York City.. 41% of pregnancies end in abortion - 60% for minorities. Eugenicist founder of Planed Parenthood Margaret Sanger would be proud.

Planed Parenthood in 2008 reported high-profit abortions up over 300,000+, low-margin adoption referrals down to less than 3000. Business is GOOD ! A 100 to 1 kill ratio !!


Who promised legal, safe and rare ?

Posted by: pvilso24 | February 7, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Oh, well. Time to write my Representative and Senators, time to send another email to the state and national GOP offices.

We may as well have a dictatorship of the Republicans, if physicians, nurses, hospitals are not even required to discuss scientifically based health care options nor required to advise someone of a facility where alternative care is offered.

I guess individual liberty and individual rights are only granted if the liberty or right is approved by evangelical christians.

Posted by: amelia45 | February 7, 2011 10:57 AM | Report abuse

For a party that continually states that it wants a "smaller, less intrusive government", the 'pube party sure are the party of absolute hypocrites.

If EVER there was one place where the government should NOT intrude it should be in doctors' offices, hospitals, ER's, etc.

Posted by: spike591011 | February 7, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

They are trying to have it both ways: PPACA - can't have this because, according to them the government will be able to dictate what type of healthcare we get.

On the otherhand - isn't this kind of telling folks what kind of healthcare that can access...

golly it must be nice to have financial resources and access FEHBA....

Posted by: anonymouslurker | February 7, 2011 12:14 PM | Report abuse

"Abortion is an issue fraught with emotion. The decision to have one is among the most personal and wrenching a woman will ever have to make."
So true, and as a medical professional who deals with surgical informed consent, I find it apalling that women are not given the information they need to make an informed decision about an abortion. A lot of abortion hyperbole could be eliminated if women were given the truth about risk, benefit and alternatives to abortion. Often the choice isn't even hers. Parents or lovers giving a woman the choice to abort or leave is not choice, and it is not the carefully reasoned decision between a woman and her doctor that the Supreme Court described in the Roe v Wade decision.

Posted by: waterbabies | February 7, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the left thinks there is no problem in forcing others to go against there beliefs but do it to them watch out!

Posted by: Pilot1 | February 7, 2011 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Call this bill "Now Tucker Carlson can get some poontang act."

I'd say the GOP are pigs, but pigs are useful, the GOP is not.

Posted by: dcp26851 | February 7, 2011 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Abortion isn't Health Care.

Perhaps Obamacare can just "mandate" that women bring their babies to term.

Posted by: oldno7 | February 7, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Many dermatologists choose not to perform heart surgery. Many oncologists choose not to deliver babies. I don't see the big deal in health care workers deciding what they will and will not do.

Posted by: forgetthis | February 7, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

People opposed to abortion are of the conviction that a fetus is a living human being with the same human value you ascribe to yourself. Thus for us, killing a fetus is murder. I do not think a democratic government should be able to require one of its citizens to commit or assist in murder.

Posted by: Hector6 | February 7, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have a fetish with the womb. Seems that have always had a womb issue, since they have been dominated by the christian right.

American woman are being fooled, your Mothers and Grand Mothers labored for years for equal medical justice. You are allowing a bunch of right wing christian zealots to dictate your life.

This is the same old Republican party, dominated by big business and obsessed with right wing christian zealots.

It is now that American women should march to their "Tahrir" Square to preserve their control over their own body.

Posted by: COWENS99 | February 7, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Republicans have a fetish with the womb. Seems that have always had a womb issue, since they have been dominated by the christian right.

American woman are being fooled, your Mothers and Grand Mothers labored for years for equal medical justice. You are allowing a bunch of right wing christian zealots to dictate your life.

This is the same old Republican party, dominated by big business and obsessed with right wing christian zealots.

It is now that American women should march to their "Tahrir" Square to preserve their control over their own body.

Posted by: COWENS99 | February 7, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Furthermore, there are ob/gyns who will not perform a hysterectomy on a healthy woman if she simply wants one for vain reasons. Plastic surgeons will refuse to treat a patient who clearly has body image problems and/or mental illness. Doctors refuse requests they consider to be unethical ALL OF THE TIME. This is their right. Do you really want a doctor to perform a treatment on you that he/she considers wrong? GOOD LUCK!

Posted by: forgetthis | February 7, 2011 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Republicans, if you drop the abortion issue, you will have more women voting your way.

Posted by: shewholives | February 7, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Once again, tolerance is not sufficient. Everyone must acccept and support the liberal agenda. No one is allowed to oppose abortion. No doctor or hospital can refuse to perform them. If their religious beliefs are in conflict, too bad. This is the liberal idea of freedom and diversity.

Here's an idea, any doctor or hospital who has moral objection to performing abortions should immediately refuse all Medicare and Medicaid patients. That seems to be the only out.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | February 7, 2011 12:42 PM | Report abuse

The only way that we can drop the abortion issue is for Republican men to start getting pregnant with unwanted babies, due to forcible rape and just plain old rape, incest, and a whole slew of other sexual abuses brought on by men.

Only then can Republican men have a say so in the control and the rights of a woman's own body.

Posted by: lcarter0311 | February 7, 2011 12:48 PM | Report abuse

In September I should be a grandfather at last. My wife and I follow the development of the unborn baby almost daily. We marvel at the pictures, were ecstatic about the first audible heartbeat. We are in awe of the miracle growing in the mother's womb.

What monster, what ghoul can even contemplate the destruction of this life!

Posted by: rsliazas | February 7, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

So much for less intrusive government. What is the GOP's obsession with telling women how to control their bodies? The Daddy State is alive and well.

Posted by: jckdoors | February 7, 2011 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Speaking as a liberal who believes in restrictions on abortions, especially where federal funding is involved, I have to say that so many of you are missing the point here. Not all liberals believe in unfettered abortion and funding for it! In fact, I would venture to say that most do not! The demonizing of people who believe that it should be allowed is a typical stance of the anti-choice movement. Here's what I believe: do NOT provide funding for abortions willy-nilly, but to save the life of the mother? Yes. Unequivocally. The anti-choicers would rather LET A WOMAN DIE than allow her to have an abortion if having that abortion means saving her life or preserving her health. There are plenty of women (I have known TWO) who have OTHER children at home who would lose their mother. That's ok, say the anti-choicers: let her die or mar her health.

This and the so-called devout Christians' stance on the death penalty ("kill 'em!") gives the lie to their agenda and their Christianity itself. It's pure hypocrisy.

And this comes from someone who does not believe in abortion for any reason, as some (I conjecture a minority) of liberals do.

You're hypocrites and your "Christianity" is hypocrisy.

Posted by: Truejen | February 7, 2011 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Furthermore, there are ob/gyns who will not perform a hysterectomy on a healthy woman if she simply wants one for vain reasons."
=================================
What are "vain reasons"?

Posted by: Skowronek | February 7, 2011 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm still trying to understand how the republicans think this issue is a priority. With the economy in the tank, you would think the republicans would come up with some solutions to creating jobs. After all, when the dems had control, the republicans were all over the media claiming that republicans had solutions if they just had control. Now, republicans seem to have forgotten all about those solutions and instead want to limit the rights of women while simultaneously working to cut funding to social programs.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | February 7, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

How many abortions are performed each year for women who are received into the emergency room?

If you're seeking an elective abortion, you probably don't want to go a hospital with a religious affiliation.

But I understand that all this stuff is about scenarios that take place at 3 a.m. in ERs that are already chaotic.

Posted by: blasmaic | February 7, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

truejen, I guess you haven't had a state sponsored execution in your state lately. Here in my state, members of the catholic clergy begin vigils AGAINST the death penalty days before the scheduled date.

Here's an example: Evangelium Vitae, by Pope John Paul II clearly states that the death penalty is not appropriate if the state can protect the citizens from wrong doers without resort to it.

Evangelium Vitae was written in 1995. Where have you been for the past fifteen years?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 7, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

As a retired prof. emeritus from a 30 career in basic research and teaching on fertilization and early development, it is so discouraging to watch the Dark Ages level of biological ignorance mistreat pregnant women.

Fact! The dark ages groundless notion that a fertilized human egg, blastula, gastrula, embryo or early fetus with no FUNCTIONING brain is a human "Baby" with a human "Soul" is, in a word....scientifically "STUPID".

Fact is, the Vatican embraces and spreads other stupid dark ages nonsense as well, e.g. wafers that actually become Jesus' flesh, and wine that actually becomes Jesus' blood, and exorcism of imaginary totally non-existent demons.

MADNESS! We might as well go back to the Middle Aqes of scientific ignorance!

The TOTAL stand against all abortions , in my mind is evil!

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 7, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

«Republicans, if you drop the abortion issue, you will have more women voting your way.»

Posted by: shewholives | February 7, 2011 12:40 PM

O Shewholives, these women, ¿where are they? Hollywood, Upper East Side Manhattan, Montgomery County MD, Scarsdale, Cambridge, Palo Alto, ¿do you think women in these places will vote Republican even if Republicans hand out «get an abortion free» cards for elective, «emotional-health» abortions through all nine months of pregnancy? Of course, these women will not vote Republican, they reject Republican «stand on your own two feet» philosophy in favor of «Big Sister» and the «Nanny State». Sellout, even if Republicans sell out their principles and support «choice», they will not win these women's votes.

Lose votes, O Shewholives, ¿are not Gentile American women even more «pro-life» than American men? Will Republicans not Lose Votes among working-class, Gentile American women who presently vote Republican on «pro-life» grounds even though Republicans stand for «tax cuts for the rich»? «Pro-life», take away «pro-life» from Republican platform, these Gentile American working-class women will drop the Republicans in a heartbeat, they will listen to their Union Bosses or their husbands' Union Bosses, they will vote Democratic, «pro-life» is the only thing keeping these Gentile American working-class women in the Republican column!

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | February 7, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Why is it that protecting the innocent unborn from being murdered in a horrific manner so angers the Left?

Who do you serve?

Posted by: JustJoe3 | February 7, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

The big deal is if I go to the ER with abdominal pains and it turns out I have an intertubular pregnancy, which is an egg becoming fertized while still in the eustacian (sp) tube, and some nut decides he/she doesn't want to kill an egg and save my life, I won't have time to drive to another ER and wait for another group who might say the same thing.
Hospitals CANNOT be allowed to pick and chose. What about AIDS?Shouldn't hospital staff be able to not attend to patients with AIDS? They cannot. Same with any other diease or condition. We can't start making exceptions!

Posted by: hebe1 | February 7, 2011 2:13 PM | Report abuse

This is the real agenda of the forced-birthers, imprison or execute women who undergo an abortion, even one necessary to save the mother's life.

And when the Catholic church starts excommunicating elected officials who support the death penalty, as it does with people who support choice, at least then it will be ethically and logically consistent.

The GOP now agrees with the idea of out-of-touch bureaucrats, with no medical training whatsoever, getting involved with the most intimate of medical issues and decisions, a reality that also goes against the party's easily-debunked blather about shrinking government.

"Conscientious objector" status should have just as much legal sway in the medical field and for pharmacists as it does in our military, namely, none.

These wingnuts pushing this "conscientious objector" crap never think their BS through, such as, under this legislation, it will be just fine and dandy for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense medications if there's an objection to testing done on animals, or if the pharmacist dislikes members of a religious group, say, evangelicals.

If your religious beliefs require spurning medical care and medications for others, you need to find a different line of work.

Don't want an abortion, then don't have one.

Problem solved.

Posted by: kingcranky | February 7, 2011 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Capehart writes: “Oh, good grief…a new, more dastardly threat to women's right to choose arises.”
Abortion kills human beings, what more dastardly threat to human life is there then that?

“But here's the problem: If enacted this bill would trump the 25-year-old law that guarantees public access to emergency care, including abortions.”
Does it not say, “emergency care” and does this not protect the patient and the doctors if they are not equipped to perform an emergency abortion instead of being forced to provide it.

“So, in contravention of EMTALA, hospitals would be allowed to refuse to provide abortion care or refer the patient to another hospital. Most troubling is that there are no exemptions -- not even if the life of the mother is at risk.”
Capehart is twisting the proposed amendment; it does not mandate that emergency care will not cover abortions. It redefines what emergency care is so that what ever medical treatment is used it is used strictly for emergencies, giving the discretion of what an emergency is to the provider and not the insistence of the patient.

“That's why control over her body should rest in her hands, especially during a medical emergency.”
NOT. Again, the key word is emergency; who deems the incident an emergency and who performs the care?

“And if her life is at risk only the hardest of hearts would take that choice away from her”
Again, Capehart putts his spin on the truth. His article hones in on “medical emergency” not on “choice” of what an emergency is. The determination of what is or not an emergency needs to be in the hands of the doctors or else, everyone and her aunty will consider the slightest of fevers an emergency. This in itself has driven medical cost up.

“Unfortunately, the hard hearts now control the House. After sublimating their right-leaning social agenda in favor of a jobs agenda to wrest control from the Democrats in the midterms, they are picking up where they left off.”
Correcting the “emergency provision” in the law, curbing the abuse of it, and putting the decision of what an emergency is into the hands of the physician is one part to lowering cost. That frees up more money to the consumer that drives it back into the economy; the free market system that creates more jobs. This is a completely different philosophy then that of Capehart and the socialist Democrat programs. That’s why the Democrats lost in the midterms.

Mr Jonathan Capehart, the “hardest of heats” do not recognize the right to life of human beings still in the womb. In fact that is called a cold heart.

Posted by: hanocul6 | February 7, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

This proposed amendment has nothing to do with morality - nothing to do with right and wrong, good an evil - it is pure politics!

It is contrived to server as a cover, a diversion for the failure to have a substantive, detailed legislative and governing agenda for the all of the American people. if they had this they would have to explain it, defend it and run the risk that it might offend their corporate overlords.

When your primary political mission is to protect, improve and set in stone for all time the financial interest of global corporations then you have to have distractions to keep the "little" people from realizing what is going on. You have to find ways to convince them that voting against their own economic best interest is the thing to be done, hence the continual heating up of the "culture" wars by stoking the flames of fear, hatred and prejudice.

They find willing conspirators in the clergy who make a fat living off of their sheep.

How many of them have given substantive money to support unwanted and abused children, at least until they become incarcerated in some prison? They will gladly support prisons, but not orphanages, homeless children, abused mothers, etc. Prisons after all are now a good and profitable business.

O' but they are righteous and godly and practitioners of the Word (the ones that they have very carefully cherry picked from the Bible).


Posted by: dotto | February 7, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

«Why is it that protecting the innocent unborn from being murdered in a horrific manner so angers the Left?

«Who do you serve?»

«Posted by: JustJoe3 | February 7, 2011 2:07 PM»

O JustJoe3, this is bad grammar, you should rather ask, ¿Whom do you serve?, but I will answer your question anyway:

Invidia, she is the goddess of equality and envy, her other name is Nemesis, it is she whom they serve!

Moloch, ancient Canaanites, they used to make their children pass through fire to Moloch, this is forbidden by Christian Bible book of Leviticus, eighteenth chapter, verse No. 21. Placating this idol, this false god, this Moloch, placating him was more important to those idol-worshipping Canaanites than their own flesh-and-blood children. What a pity!

Invidia, she is the goddess of equality, Republican men do not get pregnant, Democratic men do not get pregnant, no man has to worry about being pregnant when he does not want to be pregnant, the goddess Invidia decrees, «No woman should have to worry about being pregnant when she does not want to be pregnant».

O JustJoe3, those Leftists of whom you speak, Rush has a word for them, I cannot use it here on WAPO blog but it starts with "F" and ends with "azi", they are angered when «pro-life» people try to protect the innocent unborn from being burned with saline or poisoned with potassium or torn to pieces in a horrific manner, they are angered because they serve Invidia, goddess of envy and equality. Placating this idol, this false goddess, this Invidia, this Nemesis, placating her is more important to these equality-worshipping «pro-choice» fanatics than the lives of their own flesh-and-blood unborn children. What a pity!

Posted by: abu_ibrahim | February 7, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

"In September I should be a grandfather at last. My wife and I follow the development of the unborn baby almost daily. We marvel at the pictures, were ecstatic about the first audible heartbeat. We are in awe of the miracle growing in the mother's womb.

What monster, what ghoul can even contemplate the destruction of this life! "

Posted by: rsliazas

=========

rsliazas,

If an emergency late-term abortion was the only way to save this mother's life, what monster, what ghoul can even contemplate the destruction of this mother's life?

Seriously.

Posted by: Freestinker | February 7, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I am thrilled to learn that lufrank1 has retired from the professoriate. Thus he (she?) (it?) can no longer lie through the teeth in the general direction of students.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 7, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Seems to me statutory rape can be a form of rape that is not "forcible"

Posted by: GeneWells | February 7, 2011 2:52 PM | Report abuse

As has happened over many, many years, before abortions were made legal, women went to back-street butchers to get an abortion. That will not disappear, and there will be a lot of money to be made by these butchers (ah, capitalism at its best, eh?).

If a woman wants an abortion, she will get one. Period. And if she dies from a perforated uterus or other problem, well, I'm assuming that all you self-righteous jerks will say that it serves her right, that she would deserve it.

Pro-life, my a$$.

Posted by: ftb3 | February 7, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Capehart, could you explain why it is "fraught with emotion" and why the decision is "wrenching?"

Of course, we ALL know the answer to that question, and so do you. It is fraught with emotion and wrenching because there is more than emotions and feelings ... there is one tiny, overwhelming indisputable fact that even the coldest-hearted liberal cannot overcome. And your flippancy about people who recognize that one tiny, overwhelming indisputable fact who causes the emotional wrenching only demonstrates that you, my friend, are an ideologue, who is more interested in partisan politics than the cruel reality of abortion.


Posted by: jpfann | February 7, 2011 2:58 PM | Report abuse

jpfann wrote: " ... there is one tiny, overwhelming indisputable fact that even the coldest-hearted liberal cannot overcome. "

========

jpfann,

How is saving the mother's life or protecting her reproductive health and her ability to bear children in the future in any way cold-hearted?

Seems to me allowing her to die or allowing her reproductive system to be unnecessarily harmed is the most cold-hearted position here.

How is allowing a mother to die not the most cold-hearted course of action here?

Posted by: Freestinker | February 7, 2011 3:10 PM | Report abuse

this is specious at best:
==================
How is saving the mother's life or protecting her reproductive health and her ability to bear children in the future in any way cold-hearted?

Seems to me allowing her to die or allowing her reproductive system to be unnecessarily harmed is the most cold-hearted position here.

How is allowing a mother to die not the most cold-hearted course of action here?
=======================

The underlying assumption, of course, is that the vast majority of abortions are performed to protect the mother. That is pure nonsense. Abortion is the birth control method of choice for millions. We've all seen the ghastly stats coming from NYC, so using a "mother's health" argument to support all abortion is simply specious.

jpfann has it right, it is a tough decision because liberal protestations to the contrary it involves another human.

spare us the nonsense freestinker. Get real

Posted by: skipsailing28 | February 7, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

This latest stage in blocking access to abortions has the usual cast of players:

-The Congressmen played by relatively wealthy individuals, people who will never have a problem getting an abortion for any woman that they think needs it

The Poor women, played be random women who will suddenly need an abortion but who, being poor, will have no money to pay for it

The play consisting of The Congressman strutting about doing very well and The Poor Women trying to survive yet another life threatening disaster in their struggle to survive.

The whole thing sounds like Genet , but is horribly real for Americans.

Posted by: hairball2 | February 7, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Why don't Rep. Pitts, Smith and the others go a step further and advocate for the zygote or fetus be eligible for the child tax credit. Every tax season you would have couples sitting at their kitchen tables or in their accountant's office figuring out when junior was conceived. "Honey was it that night we got busy during Leno or that weekend at the summer home"

Posted by: MerrillFrank | February 7, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"The underlying assumption, of course, is that the vast majority of abortions are performed to protect the mother. That is pure nonsense."

======

Skip,

Enlighten us then.

What percentage of late-term abortions are performed to save the life or protect the future reproductive health of the mother?

And what percentage of late-term abortions are performed for other reasons.

And please post your sources.

Posted by: Freestinker | February 7, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

As of now, abortion is legal via Roe v. Wade and other case law. Legal = lawful.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Unlawful = illegal.

Therefore, under the law, which is what controls in this country, abortion is not murder.

If one had to choose between saving a fetus or embryo and saving a woman, what do you think should happen? This is the situation posited by this bill. The problem is that this woman who is dying because of a fetus or embryo (unborn baby, if that makes you happy) likely has other born babies and a family that will suffer greatly if her unborn baby's life is chosen over her own.

Most scientists, based on studies and facts, not pure belief and literature, have found that life begins at birth. Even if you don't believe that life begins at birth, who are you to say that an already living person's life is less valuable than that of an unborn person's life?

Women's health care issues need to consider the woman's health before anything else. It's really pretty simple.

By the way, what in the Lord's name does this have to do with jobs???

Posted by: cartoonsrock | February 7, 2011 4:14 PM | Report abuse

As of now, abortion is legal via Roe v. Wade and other case law. Legal = lawful.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Unlawful = illegal.

Therefore, under the law, which is what controls in this country, abortion is not murder.

If one had to choose between saving a fetus or embryo and saving a woman, what do you think should happen? This is the situation posited by this bill. The problem is that this woman who is dying because of a fetus or embryo (unborn baby, if that makes you happy) likely has other born babies and a family that will suffer greatly if her unborn baby's life is chosen over her own.

Most scientists, based on studies and facts, not pure belief and literature, have found that life begins at birth. Even if you don't believe that life begins at birth, who are you to say that an already living person's life is less valuable than that of an unborn person's life?

Women's health care issues need to consider the woman's health before anything else. It's really pretty simple.

By the way, what in the Lord's name does this have to do with jobs???

Posted by: cartoonsrock | February 7, 2011 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I haven't followed this legislation at all, as Mr. Capehart apparently has, but it is obvious to me that any reference to "forcible rape" is meant to distinguish it from "statutory rape." Is Capehart ignorant or just being cutesy to make some point? Also, I find it disturbing that many posters here think that not having the government pay for abortions is putting their nose in your business, sounds more like the are doing what you ask for: Staying out of you business by not paying for it.

Posted by: GnirJ | February 7, 2011 4:43 PM | Report abuse

How about women physicians and nurses refusing to care for angry old sexist males who try to make rules about women's rights to choose what happens to their own body?

Posted by: 10bestfan | February 7, 2011 9:25 AM

I second that!

Posted by: missgirl | February 7, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"I haven't followed this legislation at all, as Mr. Capehart apparently has, but it is obvious to me that any reference to "forcible rape" is meant to distinguish it from "statutory rape.""

======

GnirJ,

By definition, statutory rape is non-consensual sex (i.e. rape).

Why shouldn't there be there any exceptions to abortion laws for non-consenual rape involving minors?

Would you really force your own 14 year-old daughter to carry her rapist's baby to term, even if it risked her life or reproductive health?

Posted by: Freestinker | February 7, 2011 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Freestinker,

Let me answer the question for gnirj. No, he really wouldn't force his own 14-year-old daughter to carry her rapist's baby. But he would force YOUR daughter to carry her rapist baby. That's the problem with these hypocrites. They really don't have a problem with government interference in health care. If so, they wouldn't back bills like this one.

Posted by: wmwilliams14 | February 7, 2011 5:15 PM | Report abuse

and this creates how many jobs? typical repulican lies, get elected on a jobs platform and then do nothig but pander to their base while the coutry goes to h_ll in a hand basket. this also smells of more government interference in our daily lives which they say that they are against. when you look up hypocrite in the dicictionary it says "see repulicans."

Posted by: RalphE2 | February 7, 2011 5:36 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats' decision to further involve the government in health care means that we can look forward to treatment dictated by the whims of Capitol Hill for many years to come.

Posted by: morattico | February 8, 2011 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Yes! One victory for our unborn children! Protecting their lives is more important than "woman's lib". Who made women GOD? The courts.

Posted by: JBfromFL | February 8, 2011 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The GOP is starting to sound more and more like the Taliban....

Posted by: abbydelabbey | February 8, 2011 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Well said rowens1....you won't see any responses from Republicans on this comment, becuase, as you have pointed out, they don't think these things through, ever....which is why they always lose.

--------
Republican wedge issues are never thought through- if they were, we could see the results of their ambitions: In order to implement control mechanisms on females with unwanted pregnancies, there would be a need for forced gestation camps in which the potential criminal females would be held and monitored 24/7 until their due date.

After that, the potential female criminals could go wherever they want to pay for their own delivery and after that anywhere they might want to live.

I suppose visitation would be restricted to Catholic clergy and doctors, but even those visits would need to be monitored by audio and video surveillance.

Or, as an alternative, Republicans could simply get their noses out of other people's business. (How likely is THAT?)

Posted by: rowens1 | February 7, 2011 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: King3 | February 8, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

what does this have to do with jobs?

Republicans.....you got what you voted for...nothing.

Posted by: King3 | February 8, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Why must everyone insist on national abortion laws? This is a subject of questionable morals and not everyone thinks like you, so you shouldn't force their hand to do so.

Leave it up to the state, that's what it's for.

Posted by: Asakari | February 8, 2011 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Invite the government into your bedroom, have them manage your choice to have sex or not. Have them monitor your behavior to make sure that you are a suitable vessel for fertilization and pregnancy, require your doctor to register your pregnancy in case anything goes wrong so that murder charges can be considered.

Never mind about birth defects, miscarriages, or your health. A woman's primary value to society is as a vessel for potential life.

You can get heart cells to beat on a tissue culture plate, so?

Beware ladies, their bizarre and extreme religious fantasies will NOT set you free.

Posted by: thebobbob | February 8, 2011 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company