Legislation Would Require Clinics to Screen Women Wanting Abortions

[LiberalHeart]

LANSING, MICHIGAN (AP) -- A state Senate panel this week is expected to consider legislation that would require abortion clinics to screen women to determine if they have been coerced or intimidated into ending their pregnancies. The Senate Health Policy Committee scheduled a Wednesday meeting on the legislation.

(the screening would have to take place 24 hours prior to a woman receiving an abortion if this law goes through)

http://wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=5388854

[Monkeyman]

1. The right at work wedge issues

[Triana]

2. One word:

OBSTACLE. I think women face enough of them. Why are mysogenist governments ever trying to toss more in front of them?

Those mysogenist governments are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They need to just get the f*ck out of the way and STOP trying to CONTROL women. :mad:

[Omaha Steve]

3. Mommie Dearest

No more wire hangers! I'm a voice for choice.

[w4rma]

4. More bureaucracy. (nt)

[KittyWampus]

5. We should also screen women having babies & make sure THEY aren't coerced

[Scout]

10. best post in this thread!

[Warpy]

6. Most clinics use pre op counselors who already address this

The only thing different is the time element. Women who have to travel a long distance often can't afford an overnight stay in a big city plus the surgery itself.

I'd be for this if men who have serious heart emergencies have to wait 24 hours to make sure nobody has coerced them into their angioplasties or bypass operations.

This is a medical decision, folks. Those of us who were adults prior to 1974 know it can be a lifesaving one. Politicians and preachers have NO PLACE interfering in it.

[LiberalHeart]

14. About the time element...

I have a vague memory nagging at me -- didn't some other state try to institute a 24-hour waiting period only to get it knocked down? I can't remember how or why; perhaps in court???

I wonder if the content of the screening questions/conversation will be dictated by law.

[rodeodance]

7. the only coersion is being asked these questions for this screening.

[Erika]

8. Agreed

I've been amazed that the right wing fascists think American women are innocent children who must be guided by the right wing male theocrats.

[Scout]

9. good clinic counselors already do this....

my sister was a counselor, and if she was convinced, after meeting with the woman and talking with her, that the woman did not really want the abortion herself, then she would not get one at that clinic. Some women would actually say "well, my boyfriend says abortion is against his religion." My sister would say, "Oh. What does his religion say about sex outside of marriage?" she was honest with the women, and would lay out all her choices, and get her to talk about how she envisioned her life working out, whatever she chose.

Most women were smart and level-headed, and perfectly capable of making a responsible decision for their life circumstances.

this proposed law is stupid, they don't need a law for it as the clinics already screen. it's just another attempted roadblock for women.

women who in the past were coerced into abortion are generally the ones that "become" pro-life later, and think that because they were coerced into doing something they now regret, that no woman should ever have an abortion.

[kskiska]

11. I remember when people wanting nose jobs had to be screened

by a shrink. Like there was something psychologically wrong with someone wanting plastic surgery.

[WindRavenX]

12. fucking horseshit

NT

[daleo]

13. They should screen the anti-abortion lunatics

To see if:
- they are being coerced into demonstrating around clinics.
- they are crazy.

[krispos42]

15. Now you know why the gun nuts don't want waiting periods

It's an obstacle to keep people from doing what they want.

Democrats want gun waiting periods because they dislike guns and want fewer of them sold, with the eventual outcome being a near-total ban.

Republicans want abortion waiting periods because they dislike abortions and want fewer of them performed, with the eventual outcome being a near-total ban.

Here's an idea... let us let consenting, capable adults do what they wish without stupid, political, partisan roadblocks in the way. I think maybe the Founding Fathers would appreciate that.

[sandnsea]

16. One is a medical condition

The other is an inanimate choice. Having control over ones medical decisions is not remotely the same as waiting to buy a gun so as to prevent murders. Interestingly, the waiting period is mostly necessary to prevent abusive men from killing women. Why are women always having to fight men just to stay alive?

[krispos42]

17. Abusive men have no problem killing, with or without guns

Abusive men are overall stronger, more ruthless, more vicious, more aggressive, and more violent than their abused spouses. They will shoot, stab, drown, strangle, bludgon, or slice their victims to death. I do wonder if the waiting periods aid any one gender in particular. I would think that a woman on the run would have a more urgent need than the aforementioned abusive asshole husband. But that is something that needs research.

And if the GOP viewed it as merely a medical decision, I think the country would be better off. Like that stupid debate over the cervical-cancer vaccine.

Regardless, I believe my summary is as accurate as a summary can be, both to the motives of the banners and the feelings of those that would be banned. If you don't think that gun owners are not as worried about their rights as pregnant women are about theirs, you are mistaken. I am trying to make both sides understand how the other feels, as well as show the similarity in tacticts, strategies, and goals.

At the risk of getting the thread moved, I would also note that the people who desire to impose restrictions on firearms, such as the 1993 assault-weapons ban, proposed and advocated for legislation that they privately knew would have virtually no effect on crime, but it was part of the broader campaign to discourage gun ownership and to inure the public to the idea of new firearm restrictions. It becomes a given that there will be stringent gun restrictions; the question is how stringent. Likewise, the people to desire to impose restrictions on abortions know that many of the ideas are part of the broader campaign to discourage people from seeking abortions and to inure the public to the idea of government control of your womb. The question is no longer whether there are restrictions on what you can do with your womb; it is a question of how restrictive they will be.

Motto for pro-choice Democrats: "Government stops at the skin". I think it would look damn cool on a bumper sticker.

[bleedingheart]

19. Men have more rights to own an inanimate object (gun) than women have

to control their own bodies....and that is what is the glaring hypocrisy of these issues

[krispos42]

20. Well, both genders have the right to own

The real disparity is that in many states a woman can purchase a gun faster than she can have an abortion. Or have an abortion faster than she can buy a gun. I think only Vermont is liberal enoough to have the same waiting times for both abortion and guns: zero.

Another reason to vote for Dean, I guess.

[noonwitch]

18. And any bill presented to the current governor like this will be vetoed

I think the MI house repubs are counting their chickens before they've hatched. They must be counting on Amway man to win in November.