Abortion in ignorance: The 'pro-choice' agenda
You thought the "pro-choice" left was in favor of educating women and giving them choices. Sucker. Its real agenda regarding women was on vivid display in the New Hampshire House on Wednesday, when the House killed a bill to ensure that women who seek abortions would be fully informed about their options.
House Bill 483 was a reasonable, middle-of-the-road effort to ensure that no woman makes this unalterable decision without being fully educated about it. The "pro-choice" left rose up as one to crush it.
The bill would have required that 24 hours before any abortion, the doctor must provide the patient with "medically-accurate information that a reasonable patient would consider material to the decision of whether or not to undergo the abortion, including (1) a description of the proposed abortion method; (2) the immediate and long-term medical risks associated with the proposed abortion method including, but not limited to, the risks of infection, hemorrhage, cervical or uterine perforation, and danger to subsequent pregnancies; and (3) alternatives to the abortion;
"(c) The probable gestational age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed;
"(d) The probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed; and
"(e) The medical risks associated with carrying her child to term."
Opponents denounced the bill as "theological," a deliberate mischaracterization. They absurdly claimed that every woman seeking an abortion already knows everything she needs to know. Does that sound like the argument of people who have women's best interests at heart?
The "pro-choice" left cares nothing for choice. It cares only about the political power it accumulates by being perceived as pro-choice. Offer women options and information that might turn them ever so slightly from the pro-abortion political machine, and watch it tighten its grip.
To improve the chance of seeing your comment posted here or published in the New Hampshire Union Leader:
- Identify yourself. Accounts using fake or incomplete names are suspended regardless of the quality of posts.
- Say something new, stay on topic, keep it short.
- Links to outside URLs are discouraged, if used they should be on topic.
- Avoid comments in bad taste, write well, avoid using all capital letters
- Don't cite facts about individuals or businesses without providing a means to verify the claim
- If you see an objectionable comment please click the "Report Abuse" button and be sure to tell us why.
Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.
Bob Jean said:
This bill was "middle of the road"? Really? The government knows best right wing believes that women are too stupid to make an educated decision. They believe women need more and more and more government because government knows better than women. How could a woman possibly make an informed decision without government raping her with a trans-vaginal ultra sound probe? How did that Nanny State attitude work out for you in the last election?
March 15, 2013 3:29 am
PETER SORRENTINO said:
Had the bill not been so lopsided about the “information” and “education” it required women receive, it might have passed. Clearly, the “information” as presented in this editorial is designed to dissuade the woman from having the abortion. Why would that not be opposed by pro-choice people? Good editorials on abortion address the root cause of the difference of opinion, which is that some people think life start at conception, and others think at birth, third trimester or so. Until the two groups find the common ground with regard to when life starts, no persuasion will occur. Attempts such as this editorial are a waste of space and time.
March 15, 2013 7:16 am
The Editors are correct that it is not "pro-choice" to use the implied threat of armed force to take money from Catholics to pay for abortions for strangers. However, the bill that the House killed is the current version of an effort undertaken in each session to inhibit what the U.S. Supreme Court, rightly or wrongly, has told the states they cannot prohibit. The legislature would dictate specific information to physicians with which to indoctrinate patients. It is Rush Limbaugh lamenting the "low-information voter"--lamenting that our neighbors don't have the information to adopt our own exact policy positions, and that we will fix the problem by shoving the data into their brains ourselves.
March 15, 2013 7:44 am
PS to Peter Sorrentino--We agree on this issue (except that I don't agree that it is "a waste of space and time" to disagree with you). But your imprecise choice of words doesn't help. It is not a question of "when life starts" (better yet, "when human life starts"). Rather, it is a question of when legal personhood starts. There is utterly no consensus that a fetus inside a woman is a legal person justifying anything the government might do to locate and protect it. This consensus would have to precede any rightful state involvement in abortion; and at that point, a rape-and-incest exception is unthinkable, and candidate Szabo would be right: The deputy should draw his weapon against the surgeon. Bob Jean: No one is discussing trans-vaginal ultrasound probes. You are inserting a catchy slogan from a different year and a different state into this debate by way of smearing the entire "right wing."
March 15, 2013 7:54 am
Mae Anderson said:
Make your own lifestyle decisions if you must, but just because something passes as 'legal' don't expect others to pay for & cloak your sins. Put it on your own tab, your boyfriend's or pimps credit card.
March 15, 2013 7:55 am
Chris Kofer said:
"House Bill 483 was a reasonable, middle-of-the-road effort to ensure that no woman makes this unalterable decision without being fully educated about it. "
March 15, 2013 8:49 am
Chris Kofer said:
Does anybody really believe that they can be "fully educated" at any topic?
March 15, 2013 8:52 am
John Labonte said:
I can't go the the pharmacy for the simplest medicines without being handed 2 page description/warning about what I'm getting. Thank God the women going for abortions all have medical degree's and don't need any guidance or information on it... oh wait, they don't. The 800 lb gorilla here is that if this bill passed and they got the information, most would not do it, and abortion might actually disappear. Hence the panic from those who profit from it and those who might face paternity payments if the babies live.
March 15, 2013 9:27 am
Michael Raleigh said:
Talk about the height of hubris. To think women terminate a pregnancy without thought, without education. This is one in a long line of reasons why conservatives have consistently lost the women's vote. Apparently pregnant women are having abortions because they are just ill informed. What is really amazing is conservatives want the state to intrude into such a personal area, but if the left required all occupants of a car to wear a seat belt the right would become apoplectic.
March 15, 2013 9:30 am
Darlene Pawlik said:
Many women are in crisis situations when they arrive at the clinics. They may or may not have a clear head able to make sense of the few minutes of counseling they receive there. The abortion industry in NH is unaccountable. Very young women are frequently uneducated about fetal development or their own anatomy and physiology for that matter. First pregnancy abortions have been shown to predispose women to higher incidences of subsequent preterm birth, breast cancer and other complications. It's not that we think women don't think, but what are they thinking. After talking with many post abortive women, I have found that they think this will answer their problem, relieve the stress and conceal their behavior and open the dorr to their future. Making a permanent decision based on a temporary situation should involve as much information as possible. 24 hours to think and consider the implications and consequences is just reasonable. I am ashamed of NH legislators for bowing to the abortion industry.
March 15, 2013 10:22 am
Michael Layon said:
The bill as written mandated physicians go from informative to manipulative. However, informing patients of all the risks and benefits of a given medical procedure is a routine part of practice. The bill sponsor ignored current systems in place, which are routinely used at the national level by the FDA. Considering the love progressives have with the FDA, the bill sponsor would have been MUCH better off had the bill instead called on the state to follow the patient safety initiative set forth by the same powers which have fully shaped the intervention of government in healthcare. "Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy" (REMS) is a program created by the FDA after the FDAAA, which carol shea-porter and Jeanne shaken both voted for. The state of NH should put in place a REMS for each of the techniques usednronterminate a pregnancy, since abortion is a really a group of procedures using both devices and/or pharmaceuticals in order to terminate a pregnancy. This would Mke informing patients consistent and eliminate any bias from physician patient discussions. It would also allow such communication to be objective and entirely transparent as ALL REMS programs are fully public and freely available online. Then patients can make a fully fully informed decision about both the risks and benefits of an abortion. Use the tools put in place by the progressives, if they fight against them, the noose tightens on their necks, not those who believe in limited government.
March 15, 2013 1:08 pm
Richard House said:
If the left doesn't want to give a person 24 hours to mull over this choice with more information, please don't ask me to pass your background checks to own a gun. Both sides have an impassioned position of which there is no middle ground.
March 15, 2013 2:10 pm
Peter Gosselin said:
John Labonte, I agree with you 100%. The Michael Raleigh's of the world know if woman were educated on the "choice" part of "Pro Choice" they hold so dear, they know there would be less abortions. This is not what the left wants, otherwise they would support an eduction and cool off period for someone pregnant. Please don't lecture us Michael Raleigh about "Goverment Intrusion". Did you know that if a senior citizen want's to buy a Medicare Advantage policy, they have to sign numerous disclosure forms given to them by their agent, and the agent is prohibited from talking to them about Prescription Drug part D benefits unless the senior asks about it first? Your precious govertment mandates a "24 hour cool off period" before the agent is allowed to talk to the senior about Part D. But Michael Raleigh says seniors need time to to consider their drug benefits! But for a young woman who will make a decision which will impact her and an unborn child for the rest of their lives, don't think twice, we can flush your problems away. The left talks about Pro Choice, but don't be fooled, it has always been about Pro Abortion. And the Affordable Care Act? It was never about being affordable, and the left doesn't care...Pass it, then you'll find out what's in it! Suckers.
March 15, 2013 2:28 pm
John Mercier said:
Richard House... The background check isn't about making you wait so you can change your mind. Mae Anderson... You'd have to find an insurance policy that specifically doesn't cover abortion or artificial birth control; or go without insurance.
March 15, 2013 7:06 pm
Linda Harris said:
Honestly, you people. Women ARE counciled before having an abortion. Your precious tax dollars don't pay for an abortion. It is a legal medical procedure that is between the woman and her doctor. Women have been getting abortions since the dawn of time. The difference now is that poison, coathangers and back alleys aren't involved. **** out of our health decisions.
March 15, 2013 8:49 pm
RUDY CARTIER JR said:
Thank God someone (mostly males) can make sure this uneducated portion of society (women) are told what they need to know. After all, they need to be controlled and told how to function properly.... NOT! How about a law that requires a two week waiting period and an educational seminar before men can buy Viagra? (and not covered by Medicare). Personal choice is a right in this country. To our legislators: stop eroding our freedom.
March 15, 2013 9:32 pm
Peter Hudson said:
The new motto for the ultra Liberals, you know the Lake's, Redding's and the Barret's. Kill baby kill...
March 16, 2013 12:27 am
John Mercier said:
Peter Hudson... So why isn't the new motto of the ultra conservatives that 'we will pay any taxation necessary to support that fetus once born' instead of 'that kid is not mine and the parents should support it'?
March 16, 2013 7:59 am
Bob Lake said:
I have never met anybody who is for abortion. Everybody wants no abortions. That is the goal.
March 16, 2013 8:07 am
George LeMont said:
Why would anyone expect all important information from the democrat leadership on any issue, when today winning is everything and no lie is too great to justify the cause? Every year some women who go through the abortion process end up committing suicide after because only one side of this issue gets the bigger voice with the help of a media that's just as corrupt as the politicians themselves. The democrats won't even allow women to see a simple ultrasound of the baby they're about to kill, despite the fact once the abortion is performed it is permanent. Then one must live with it, with or without regrets. Remember though Republicans hate women and that's all you need to know.
March 16, 2013 10:21 am
George LeMont said:
John we are now a society where responsibility for ones actions is no longer the norm or expected. To claim people should beg for taxation to help the children with so much waste, fraud and corruption already being funded only works on the truly insane or those who depend on government for all their needs. And the Democrat Party is creating more and more government dependents every year for those left working and paying taxes to support.
March 16, 2013 10:32 am
David Shaughnessy said:
Right on Rudy Cartier!!! No matter what your views on abortion are it is not your body I say to the right and pro-life people. This is about freedom and ones right to choose. I don't like it when the government tells me what to do with my own body, why should I tell a woman? Using basic biology I personally believe life begins at conception, however I am pro choice because I don't want to pay for babies that are unwanted and I certainly do not believe in telling others how to live and decide what to do with their own body. To me its about freedom..and I also believe that if a man doesn't want to have a child he should get to opt out too..its only fair that he shouldn't be on the hook for 20 years for a kid he doesn't want. If she can just opt out without asking the father, he should get a grace period to do the same. See how many single mothers there are then, when the gravy train shuts down.
March 16, 2013 4:12 pm
Michael Layon said:
Ms Harris epitomizes the need to inform women of the facts surrounding the termination of a pregnancy. While she is correct that women are counciled prior to the abortion, it is the very content of that abortion and by whom it is given that is reason for concern. Those providing the abortion receive payment for their services and/or drugs. It is in the abortionist's financial interest to council patients in favor of abortions. Its quite comparable to the selling of drugs as a result of kickbacks which have resulted in numerous lawsuits over the last decade. Further, a family member of mine was counciled to the point of being coached by two abortionists to terminate a pregnancy. Suggesting that the information provided to women before an abortion be made consistent will allow them to make an informed decision about terminating a pregnancy. Ms Harris is absolutely incorrect that money confiscated through taxation is used to fund abortions. If a business cannot operate without federal and/or state funds it matters not if the subsidies are earmarked for other purposes. It is the fact that the subsidies enable the provision of abortions. Ms Harris naively suggests that poisons are not used to provide abortions. "Medical termination of Pregnancy" refers specifically and only to the use of drugs which serve as a fatal poison to the fetus. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10738054 Further, while coathangers are no longer used (nor should the be) medical instruments which have been sterilized serve the same purpose for "surgical termination of pregnancies" (DNC-no kidding and hilariously appropriate terminology) replaces coathangers with sharp instruments called curettes. There are also multiple other surgical interventions to terminate pregnancies. Later in pregnancy a poison is given to kill the fully formed fetus and cause the woman's uterus to contract and expel it, often requiring surgical support and/or intervention. In rare cases, the baby is born alive and a apir of scissors are then thrust through the soft skull and into the brain stem killing the live baby. The latter is something not only supported by sha-porter, shaheen and obama, obama instructed elena kagan to REWRITE the official position of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) which was that a partial birth abortion is NEVER medically necessary. KAgan was rewarded with a nomination to the SCOTUS. While I find abortions abhorent, I have nowhere argued they be made unlawful. I only ask that women receive a standardized medical information sheet as is done before patients can receive certain other drugs which are used to prolong life, but which come with substantial risks of harm. There are indeed times when terminating a pregnancy is life saving, such as with an ectopic pregnancy or a certain type of life threatening hypertension which occurs during pregnancy, etc. I am all for leaving that up to individuals. Suggesting that a fair and balanced risk/benefit discussion occurs before every pregnancy is comparable to suggesting a used car salesman is going to tell you about all of the known defects of a particular used car. As for suggesting that taxpayers be put on the hook for other people's choices to procreate, pound sand! If you can afford to breed them, you can afford to feed them. suggesting women make such an important choice without information suggests women are mentally inferior, which is repugnant. The pro-choicers are about as familiar with the location of a woman's brain as high school boys are with the location of their clitoris.
March 16, 2013 11:46 pm
Peter Gosselin said:
Bob Lake, I think you are very naive. Liberals want abortions, not "Choice". If they were more in favor of saving a fetuses life, they would encourage the 24 hour cool-off period like the Federal Government mandates when you buy a Part D prescription Drug plan! Talk about our moral values in our country being non-existent.
March 20, 2013 11:55 am
Post a comment
© Union Leader Corp.