1013 - National Right to Life Act

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Due to the fact that abortions typically occur much earlier than 20 weeks, and because I assume most members here are firm in their convictions either way on this very sensitive issue, I will leave my personal objections aside with one exception.  I urge this body to strike section 5 of this bill.  Women are very aware of the alternatives that exist in making important decisions like whether to end a pregnancy, and a waiting period is unnecessary.

I would also strongly advise an amendment guaranteeing continued funding for women's health organizations, including Planned Parenthood.  Current law already prohibits the federal funding of abortions, which patients and private organizations (including some insurance policies) pay for in full.  Current language of this bill is also vague on whether regions may opt to fund women's health organizations if they so desire.

I make no secret that I'm personally against this bill.  But seeing as I'm not a member, I can only hope that my advice leads some in this chamber to reconsider their objectives and keep the law on the side of women's health.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

The difference is a doctor is better able to care for and inform their patients than the government is.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

My primary objections aside, section five is not only unnecessary but also extremely condescending toward women who would almost certainly already know the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.

All the cosponsors of this bill are male, so I can't say I'm surprised that few here understand how real women think.  But, I would insist there are better ways to encourage adoption than to impose a hardly enforceable, arbitrary waiting period.  No one's going to sit and read a bunch of literature about abortion (which may or may not factual, considering this bill doesn't even identify the source of these "materials" or what's included in them).

So really the only reason it's in the bill is to further inconvenience women.  Which I understand is keeping with the spirit of the bill.

What is it that you know about how real women think that the rest of us supposedly don't?  That they are pure rational actors with perfect knowledge of all possibilities?  Women, like men, can get overwhelmed by their situation and may not recognize everything open to them or how to go about it.  They have surely thought about what their their options are, but that doesn't mean they have the knowledge available to them that would help them to make a truly informed decision. It doesn't hurt to give them the information on how to go about it, because maybe they did not know how, or didn't think they had the resources necessary for it, or were under the false impression that for whatever reason no one would want to adopt their baby.

A hell of a lot, obviously, because the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply serious one.  They don't need the state to lecture them about adoption when that choice is already ingrained in our culture, and they certainly shouldn't need a prescribed waiting period to be trusted with their own healthcare decisions and can find information from their own doctors.  At this point, it's not even about protecting life - it's declaring that a woman is incapable of making her own decisions unless the government tells her to "sit and ponder it for a while."  If passed, this bill would make abortion the only medical procedure where government issues the second opinion - even though it is clinics which are best equipped to inform women and provide them assurance, and other social services that give information and resources.

Why should these clinics provide information or resources at all, since apparently the women who show up there already know everything they need to know?  Isn't that patronizing to them to give them information? 

Or do you just have something against information on adoption specifically? 

The difference is a doctor is better able to care for and inform their patients than the government is.

Ok then, lets close down all government social services, since the government is so awful at this that even them merely requiring that information about the adoption process or anything else be available at abortion clinics leads to unspecified awful thing.

First of all, this bill doesn't even specify where the information comes from or what kind of information is contained in the materials.  There is no criteria or rule that would otherwise ensure women are not being misled about the health and safety risks of abortion aside from adoption processes.  All it does, effectively, is impose an arbitrary waiting period with no real enforcement mechanism.  If you guys just want to add more barriers for women seeking an abortion, just be honest and say so rather than hide behind this bizarre, supercilious notion that women or doctors don't know what they're doing.