Abortion and Informed Consent
North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue is a woman seemingly oblivious to what it takes to govern successfully in the South. At least that's how I read her latest use of the veto pen. From the Washington Post:
North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue on Monday vetoed a bill requiring women considering an abortion get an ultrasound and wait 24 hours after state-mandated counseling before they could undergo the procedure…
Perdue, an abortion-rights supporter, could have signed it into law or let it become law without her signature. However, Perdue agreed with Planned Parenthood and other opponents that it was a needless government intrusion into the professional relationship between a doctor and a woman already making an informed decision.
“The bill contains provisions that are the most extreme in the nation in terms of interfering with that relationship,” Perdue said in a prepared statement. “Physicians must be free to advise and treat their patients based on their medical knowledge and expertise and not have their advice overridden by elected officials seeking to impose their own ideological agenda on others.”
Come again? I thought liberals were the ones who were so distrustful of the doctor-patient relationship that they were dispatching government spies to waiting rooms across the nation.
Perdue’s entire argument is intellectually dishonest. The abortion provisions have nothing to do with the “medical knowledge and expertise” of the doctors, which we can assume would still be present were the women in question to have an ultrasound. Rather, they have to do with willfully obstructing fuller knowledge of the procedure – and thus the moral recognition that the woman in question is not simply having some tumor excised.
Perdue and her allies are now in the awkward and shameful position of arguing that this measure of ignorance is a vital part of informed consent. As George Will wrote in his profile of Texas Governor Rick Perry over the weekend, “He signed a law requiring women seeking abortions to be shown sonograms of their babies. Do people objecting to this mandatory provision of information object to the new graphic warnings on cigarette packs?”
For those who believe that abortion can at times be a positive good (and lest I be accused of hyperbole, they do exist) and the much broader swath of the public that believes it a necessary evil, courage out to compel them to at least deal honestly.
It generally does not, however. And thus we’re left with Perdue’s implicit contention: that shooting a man in the dark isn’t really shooting him at all.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
This issue and others have become a convenient tool to distract the public and redirect attention from the real duties of state.
Jan '11
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Exactly. Where does it say that the doctor is the only one who can advise the patient? If the woman asks her husband what he thinks, is that interfering with the doctor's relationship with the patient?
Where does it say that the doctor's medical advice is the only opinion allowed? Or do they argue that a doctor's moral advice is also expert and exclusive?
Dec '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
I disagree. I think even in a narrow view of "duties of the state" the state is tasked with protecting the lives of the public from known threats. I think that means wherever you happen to be, whether in a public place like the highway or airport, your private home (from burglars, an abusive spouse, etc.), and even inside your mother's womb.
On the lines of your argument, you could certainly complain about the state interfering with you choice about getting impregnated, but requesting that you take a single day to contemplate taking a life with FULL AWARENESS of the act you are about to commit seems like a very small request.
Edited on Jun 28, 2011 at 10:04pmDec '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
I think you're arguing around the issue. I see the law they attempted to pass like forcing every taxpayer to sign off on their share of the national debt before voting for a Democrat.
If they can make you wait 3 days to buy a handgun, they came make you take 24 hours to think about killing a child, that if you do not intervene, has a 99.22% chance of being born. Not only that, but born into a country were they are as likely as they would be anywhere on earth to find opportunity and even succeed despite any lack of responsibility or capacity to provide well for them on behalf of their parents.
Edited on Jun 28, 2011 at 10:15pmMay '11
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Two wrongs don't make a right. It's always wrong to kill infants, but it is legal at the moment and if it's legal then the government has no business intruding in the decision to kill infants.
Expanding the power of government over individuals and businessmen is not an acceptable way to fix the problem of infanticide. The proposed law is another camel nose under the tent and would only increase our problems with excessive government power.
Dec '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Up next, the nanny state will require you step on a scale, and that your order taker tell you your weight before you can order your hamburger and fries. Perhaps the order taker will have to dispense a bit of advice about your meal as well. Sorry ma'am, you tip the scale at 185 pounds. At your height, I cannot recommend the double meat burger. Why don't you try a salad instead? Then the order taker can flash an image of cellulite thighs on a screen as a final way to make the point.
The place to fight for the hearts and minds is not to ask the murderer to show a picture of the baby before taking its life.
Dec '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Skyler: Two wrongs don't make a right. It's always wrong to kill infants, but it is legal at the moment and if it's legal then the government has no business intruding in the decision to kill infants.
Expanding the power of government over individuals and businessmen is not an acceptable way to fix the problem of infanticide. The proposed law is another camel nose under the tent and would only increase our problems with excessive government power. · Jun 28 at 10:15pm
So government expanding it's power over the right of individuals to murder each other post-birth is OK, but if you're still in the womb it's and over-reach?
(We do still have laws against murder...don't we?)
Dec '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Really? Isn't this why the accusers have to FACE the accused in court? Why victims have the right to speak at a trial? If you are going to condemn one to death, should you not at least look upon them before pronouncing judgement?
I think your hamburger metaphor is particularly enlightnening since, it seems like most who claim the "my body, my choice" mantle seem to think the life growing inside them is equivalent to a little piece of meat. Simply another bad choice that they are going to pass from their bodies like some many Big Macs.
Apr '11
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Skyler: Two wrongs don't make a right. It's always wrong to kill infants, but it is legal at the moment and if it's legal then the government has no business intruding in the decision to kill infants.
Expanding the power of government over individuals and businessmen is not an acceptable way to fix the problem of infanticide. The proposed law is another camel nose under the tent and would only increase our problems with excessive government power. · Jun 28 at 10:15pm
Dear Skyler,
On one hand you say that baby killing, (let's call it what it is) is obviously a despicable, heinous and completely immoral act (my words) but then to say the government has no right to interfere further is absurd. Government's God given constitutional mandate is to provide all citizens the freedom to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Government's mistake was being godlike in legalizing murder and calling evil good and good evil.
Dec '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Stephen S.
Skyler: Two wrongs don't make a right. It's always wrong to kill infants, but it is legal at the moment and if it's legal then the government has no business intruding in the decision to kill infants.
Expanding the power of government over individuals and businessmen is not an acceptable way to fix the problem of infanticide. The proposed law is another camel nose under the tent and would only increase our problems with excessive government power. · Jun 28 at 10:15pm
On one hand you say that baby killing, (let's call it what it is) is obviously a despicable, heinous and completely immoral act (my words)... Jun 28 at 11:11pm
I agree that it's important to clear that point up, since it is technically illegal to kill an "infant." The government gives you 3 months to dispose of your offspring (in most places) and that's it!
Edited on Jun 28, 2011 at 11:37pmJun '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
“Physicians must be free to advise and treat their patients based on their medical knowledge and expertise and not have their advice overridden by elected officials seeking to impose their own ideological agenda on others.”
Nothing could be more ideological than a physician withholding an ultrasound. Anyone who has been to a doctor or hospital in the last few years knows that a huge part of the movement for a patient's bill of rights focuses on establishing that the patient has given informed consent for anything the doctors & medical staff will do as part of the patient's care. It's so inconvenient when those pesky untrasounds show that the womb holds much more than just a cluster of cells.
Edited on Jun 29, 2011 at 4:22amSep '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Exactly. Also, a person trying to buy a gun is not necessarily desperate. A young woman trying to buy an abortion necessarily is. I for one do not want my state government to be in the business of trying to make these women feel bad (it's not practical for me to judge what a woman or girl in this situation should or should not feel; it's not moral either, in my opinion, even though it feels good to sit in judgment). (I'm not talking about late-term abortions.)
Skyler: Two wrongs don't make a right. It's always wrong to kill infants, but it is legal at the moment and if it's legal then the government has no business intruding in the decision to kill infants.
Expanding the power of government over individuals and businessmen is not an acceptable way to fix the problem of infanticide. The proposed law is another camel nose under the tent and would only increase our problems with excessive government power. · Jun 28 at 10:15pm
Jun '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
I had a friend come home in tears one day because as part of her job as a social worker she had to counsel women getting abortions about birth control. Normally, she was happy with her job but she'd just had to counsel, by law, a 12 year old rape victim on her responsibilities and different aspects of birth control. I've never been able to reconcile the party of small government with the absolute need to interfere in a woman's life when it comes to her own body. Nor protesting the rights of the unborn while stepping over the bodies of the homeless and hungry. I also notice a lot of men are really quick to chastise women for getting pregnant, but I don't hear very much about the man's responsibility for getting them pregnant. I hear a lot about the cost to to the tax payer for taking care of these women and their children but almost nothing about chasing down the daddy and making him pay the cost, something imminently doable in these days of DNA testing. The morality of abortion is a separate discussion that gets lost in forcing others to do what you think is right.
Jun '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Informed consent is the first article of the Nuremberg Code. The Code came out of the Nuremberg war crimes trials in which the US took a major role, and executed people for crimes against humanity for performing medical experiments on people without their consent.
But the US has not officially endorsed the Code, and in fact, by executive order 13139 allows the testing of investigational new drugs on US soldiers without the knowledge or consent. Soldiers are people who are already here, yet no one seems to care for their rights.
Mar '11
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Skyler: Two wrongs don't make a right. It's always wrong to kill infants, but it is legal at the moment and if it's legal then the government has no business intruding in the decision to kill infants.
Expanding the power of government over individuals and businessmen is not an acceptable way to fix the problem of infanticide. The proposed law is another camel nose under the tent and would only increase our problems with excessive government power. · Jun 28 at 10:15pm
Assuming you're serious, should this same reasoning have applied to slavery?
Apr '11
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
As a physician involved with thousands of OB ultrasounds and an adoptive parent it's sad to see the destruction of life through abortion. The moms that see the first ultrasound with the movement and the exquisite detail are thrilled. Abortion is a broad cultural problem present world wide. We would all be shocked if the accurate statistics were known. The goal should be to continually lower these statistics and have available children for adoption.
Mar '11
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Leslie Watkins: Exactly. Also, a person trying to buy a gun is not necessarily desperate. A young woman trying to buy an abortion necessarily is. I for one do not want my state government to be in the business of trying to make these women feel bad (it's not practical for me to judge what a woman or girl in this situation should or should not feel; it's not moral either, in my opinion, even though it feels good to sit in judgment). (I'm not talking about late-term abortions.)
What makes you feel differently about late-term abortions?
Nov '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Hi, Prowler. I'm also both those things--or at least a physician involved with hundreds of OB ultrasounds. Welcome. I haven't seen you posting before.
Nov '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Leslie Watkins: Exactly. Also, a person trying to buy a gun is not necessarily desperate. A young woman trying to buy an abortion necessarily is.
Leslie, for once I am going to disagree with you--at least on this specific, small point. I think the idea that a young woman seeking an abortion is desperate is a carryover from our youth, when there was actually some, residual, faint stigma to unwed motherhood. That is no longer the case. I suspect that these days a young woman seeking an abortion probably thinks she is making a simple doctor's appointment, sort of like arranging a Pap smear. It's a different world.
Sep '10
Re: Abortion and Informed Consent
Really?!?! That's a very sad thing to hear, Lucy, and as a physician you are in a much better position to know that. My main problem, though, is I don't like laws that try to make people feel something they apparently do not feel about something that's legal. We don't show photos of women and children we're about to bomb, and that's equally depraved though sometimes necessary.
Lucy Pevensie
Leslie Watkins: Exactly. Also, a person trying to buy a gun is not necessarily desperate. A young woman trying to buy an abortion necessarily is.
Leslie, for once I am going to disagree with you--at least on this specific, small point. I think the idea that a young woman seeking an abortion is desperate is a carryover from our youth, when there was actually some, residual, faint stigma to unwed motherhood. That is no longer the case. I suspect that these days a young woman seeking an abortion probably thinks she is making a simple doctor's appointment, sort of like arranging a Pap smear. It's a different world. · Jun 29 at 7:08am