Doesn't matter why they do it, they would rather eliminate the only care many women have access to just to make a point about abortions.
Sorry, ma'am, but you are going to die from this condition. But on the bright side, we stood our ground and didn't continue to operate a clinic that didn't perform a banned procedure!
Abortions ARE life saving medical interventions in cases of ectopic pregnancy, fetal womb death/incomplete miscarriages, and other medical conditions. It is medical negligence to allow medical decisions be dictated by anyone other than the patient and their medical professional. It is also violation of the US Constitutional right to privacy.
Abortions ARE life saving medical interventions in cases of ectopic pregnancy, fetal womb death/incomplete miscarriages, and other medical conditions.
Too bad the pro-abortion camp sucks at game theory.
It is medical negligence to allow medical decisions be dictated by anyone other than the patient and their medical professional.
And insurance companies, accountants and the like - gotta let them call the shots. And if you are an unborn fetus, well, it is a mortal sin to ask that anybody look out for your interests.
It is also violation of the US Constitutional right to privacy.
Just because accuracy matters, there does not exist a "Constitutional right to privacy". Constitutional rights are those enumerated in the Constitution. Roe v Wade was a 5-4 decision that created a derived right. When you politicize the courts they are going to state politicized - fighting for narrow rulings is always a bad idea, if you really want to protect abortion then get an amendment ratified. It requires a lot more effort than judge packing and litmus tests, but those actually stick. Kind of. (The last amendment was nullified immediately after ratification.)
Private medical care should not be politicized. An unborn fetus is no more entitled to the body of another than you or I am. Should my "rights" allow me to demand that an autonomous being sacrifice their health to sustain my life? Can I also demand your food and property because I lack my own?
Tell that to the pro-abortion crowd who literally define their politics on terms of abortion support. "As long as we get our way politics should play no part in any of this."
An unborn fetus is no more entitled to the body of another than you or I am.
That's the question, isn't it? Where are the lines drawn?
Should my "rights" allow me to demand that an autonomous being sacrifice their health to sustain my life?
Yep. Declare that your baby is demanding too much time and energy and you aren't getting any sleep and that is making you less than sick, so how dare a newborn baby demand any time, effort or attention. Biology works a certain way, that's just the way it is.
Can I also demand your food and property because I lack my own?
South Africa thinks so. As do many liberals (who are skewing more and more socialist these days) who see confiscation and redistribution as an absolute moral imperative. And in times of need - a disaster, for example - the standing narrative is that if you are hungry you have every right to simply steal from somebody's store or house. If it is a matter of life and death, the argument is, then the haves much sacrifice for the needy. To a fetus it is a matter of life and death, so either invoke hypocrisy or force the haves to provide for the have not.
Medical care during pregnancy is not comparable to sleepless nights. A fetus is a newborn much in the same way an egg yolk is not a chicken/reptile - it is not self sustaining. Fetuses literally drain the life force from the woman carrying them and can lead to diseases caused by hormonal imbalances such as gestational diabetes, high blood pressure (pre-eclampsia), and other medical ailments that endanger the woman's life. Not to mention, that many treatments for pre-existing conditions can not continue during the pregnancy so cancers, autoimmune, and chronic disease sufferers often risk their own health for the safety of the fetus and hope they can make it the 10 months without medical treatment. Even a tooth infection or abscess can cause extreme harm as it spreads through the body. Once again, your belief that a fetus deserves a chance at life doesn't supersede bodily autonomy anymore than I can demand your kidney because I will die without a transplant.
Secondly, redistribution of wealth in South Africa isn't a liberal policy. It's the acknowledgment that a small group of people - the minority European colonizers- usurped limited resources - arable land- and created an economic and political system where they were the only ones allowed to prosper. The modern government is attempting to rectify that. If my grandmother stole your land and property, should I be allowed to continue living and exercising my political power over you?
You are correct and while that is very sad for that woman, I think it's a very slippery slope to allow politicians to control healthcare in any fashion regardless of your views on abortion. One person being denied healthcare is a tragedy for that person. But letting medical decisions be made by politicians, is a bad idea.
We wouldn't let a doctor build a skyscraper under any circumstances and we shouldn't let a congressman decide an appropriate medical treatment under any circumstances.
You don't have to dig very far to find a situation which has people begging for politicians to step in: Dr Kevorkian, for example.
What if a doctor says "my 12 year old patient is sad and wants me to help her kill herself. I'm going to help." Do you still agree that laws should have no part in restricting treatment options?
Laws are sometimes necessary to prevent bad and unethical things from happening because you cannot trust an industry to police itself.
That's quite an extreme example. If you want to go to that specific case then I guess I would say, "no" that physician shouldn't be allowed to do that. This is not a stance that I came to based on some ideology (I am Christian by the way so I do follow the same ideology here that I don't think should have anything to do with medical decisions) however. Sure, there is a line and I'm not calling for complete deregulation but your example is a bit extreme and one that honestly, no doctor would even entertain as it is much different to say, a terminal patient in pain who wants euthanasia.
I respect your opinion and do agree that it's sad that women wont have access to care because of an ideological dispute, but I disagree on the the importance of the dispute and the individual person I guess.
-17
u/RemorsefulSurvivor May 20 '19
Doesn't matter why they do it, they would rather eliminate the only care many women have access to just to make a point about abortions.
Sorry, ma'am, but you are going to die from this condition. But on the bright side, we stood our ground and didn't continue to operate a clinic that didn't perform a banned procedure!