Pregnant Women Lose Civil Rights

[Derideo_Te]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

 

[Derideo_Te]

This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.

This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.




WITH the success of Republicans in the midterm elections and the passage of Tennessee’s anti-abortion amendment, we can expect ongoing efforts to ban abortion and advance the “personhood” rights of fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses.

But it is not just those who support abortion rights who have reason to worry. Anti-abortion measures pose a risk to all pregnant women, including those who want to be pregnant.

Such laws are increasingly being used as the basis for arresting women who have no intention of ending a pregnancy and for preventing women from making their own decisions about how they will give birth.

How does this play out? Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.

In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for “attempted fetal homicide.”

In Utah, a woman gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. Health care providers believed that the stillbirth was the result of the woman’s decision to delay having a cesarean. She was arrested on charges of fetal homicide.

In Louisiana, a woman who went to the hospital for unexplained vaginal bleeding was locked up for over a year on charges of second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Florida has had a number of such cases. In one, a woman was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a cesarean. Neither the detention nor the surgery prevented the pregnancy loss, but they did keep this mother from caring for her two small children at home. While a state court later found the detention unlawful, the opinion suggested that if the hospital had taken her prisoner later in her pregnancy, its actions might have been permissible.

In another case, a woman who had been in labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, strapped down in the back of an ambulance, taken to a hospital, and forced to have a cesarean she did not want. When this mother later protested what had happened, a court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”

Anti-abortion reasoning has also provided the justification for arresting pregnant women who experience depression and have attempted suicide. A 22-year-old in South Carolina who was eight months pregnant attempted suicide by jumping out a window. She survived despite suffering severe injuries. Because she lost the pregnancy, she was arrested and jailed for the crime of homicide by child abuse.

These are not isolated or rare cases. Last year, we published a peer-reviewed study documenting 413 arrests or equivalent actions depriving pregnant women of their physical liberty during the 32 years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005. In a majority of these cases, women who had no intention of ending a pregnancy went to term and gave birth to a healthy baby. This includes the many cases where the pregnant woman was alleged to have used some amount of alcohol or a criminalized drug.

Since 2005, we have identified an additional 380 cases, with more arrests occurring every week. This significant increase coincides with what theGuttmacher Institute describes as a “seismic shift” in the number of states with laws hostile to abortion rights.

The principle at the heart of contemporary efforts to end legal abortion is that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses are persons or at least have separate rights that must be protected by the state. In each of the cases we identified, this same rationale provided the justification for the deprivation of pregnant women’s physical liberty, as well as of the right to medical decision making, medical privacy, bodily integrity and, in one case, the woman’s right to life.

Many of the pregnant women subjected to this mistreatment are themselves profoundly opposed to abortion. Yet it was precisely the legal arguments for recriminalizing abortion that were used to strip them of their rights to dignity and liberty in the context of labor and delivery. These cases, individually and collectively, highlight what is so often missed when the focus is on attacking or defending abortion, namely that all pregnant women are at risk of losing a wide range of fundamental rights that are at the core of constitutional personhood in the United States.

If we want to end these unjust and inhumane arrests and forced interventions on pregnant women, we need to stop focusing only on the abortion issue and start working to protect the personhood of pregnant women.

We should be able to work across the spectrum of opinion about abortion to unite in the defense of one basic principle: that at no point in her pregnancy should a woman lose her civil and human rights.

Lynn M. Paltrow is a lawyer and the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, where Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, is the president of the board of directors.

Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com

Dear Dana:
May I ask then why depend on Govt to regulate health care policies and choices for people,
and then turn around and oppose how laws are implemented?

It seems clear why we should keep govt out of health care decisions, not inject more govt regulations!

Emily,

The ACA providing contraception is reducing the incidence of abortions.

Hard to argue that isn't a good outcome.

DT

And this is where 'logic and reason' comes in and they steal money by means of force from hard working Americans to give to others for their birth control costs, among other things. Just give us your money and shut up!

However, when 'logic and reason' are used to advocate that people conduct themselves in a responsible manner with responsible behavior, i.e. go to school, study hard, get a good job, pay for one's own living expenses, have responsible sex, then we're all just crazy, we can't expect people to behave in such a manner!! We can't expect people to face the uncomfortable consequences of their very own behavior!! Ridiculous!

Amazing how their brand of 'logic and reason' are applied.

Read and learn!

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

 

[hadit]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Free vs cheap. Of course free gets used more. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying contraception was cheap and easy to get long before obamadon'tcare came along, no matter what Sandra Fluke tells you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Derideo-T

This is happening all over states that have imposed restrictions on abortion. One case that wasn't in the article that happened just a year or so ago. A pregnant woman in Texas was found on the floor of her home by her husband. She wasn't breathing and he called 9-11. She was resuscitated and taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed as brain dead. However because she was 14 weeks pregnant, the hospital ignored her written wishes of DNR and not hooking her up to machines to keep her alive, the hospital hooked her up to machines. The husband had to go to court to get her taken off the machines. The state of Texas tried to incubate a mostly dead fetus in a dead woman's body.

This is what happens to women when their rights are taken from them only because she's pregnant and the state gives the fetus more rights than the living woman.




WITH the success of Republicans in the midterm elections and the passage of Tennessee’s anti-abortion amendment, we can expect ongoing efforts to ban abortion and advance the “personhood” rights of fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses.

But it is not just those who support abortion rights who have reason to worry. Anti-abortion measures pose a risk to all pregnant women, including those who want to be pregnant.

Such laws are increasingly being used as the basis for arresting women who have no intention of ending a pregnancy and for preventing women from making their own decisions about how they will give birth.

How does this play out? Based on the belief that he had an obligation to give a fetus a chance for life, a judge in Washington, D.C., ordered a critically ill 27-year-old woman who was 26 weeks pregnant to undergo a cesarean section, which he understood might kill her. Neither the woman nor her baby survived.

In Iowa, a pregnant woman who fell down a flight of stairs was reported to the police after seeking help at a hospital. She was arrested for “attempted fetal homicide.”

In Utah, a woman gave birth to twins; one was stillborn. Health care providers believed that the stillbirth was the result of the woman’s decision to delay having a cesarean. She was arrested on charges of fetal homicide.

In Louisiana, a woman who went to the hospital for unexplained vaginal bleeding was locked up for over a year on charges of second-degree murder before medical records revealed she had suffered a miscarriage at 11 to 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Florida has had a number of such cases. In one, a woman was held prisoner at a hospital to prevent her from going home while she appeared to be experiencing a miscarriage. She was forced to undergo a cesarean. Neither the detention nor the surgery prevented the pregnancy loss, but they did keep this mother from caring for her two small children at home. While a state court later found the detention unlawful, the opinion suggested that if the hospital had taken her prisoner later in her pregnancy, its actions might have been permissible.

In another case, a woman who had been in labor at home was picked up by a sheriff, strapped down in the back of an ambulance, taken to a hospital, and forced to have a cesarean she did not want. When this mother later protested what had happened, a court concluded that the woman’s personal constitutional rights “clearly did not outweigh the interests of the State of Florida in preserving the life of the unborn child.”

Anti-abortion reasoning has also provided the justification for arresting pregnant women who experience depression and have attempted suicide. A 22-year-old in South Carolina who was eight months pregnant attempted suicide by jumping out a window. She survived despite suffering severe injuries. Because she lost the pregnancy, she was arrested and jailed for the crime of homicide by child abuse.

These are not isolated or rare cases. Last year, we published a peer-reviewed study documenting 413 arrests or equivalent actions depriving pregnant women of their physical liberty during the 32 years between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005. In a majority of these cases, women who had no intention of ending a pregnancy went to term and gave birth to a healthy baby. This includes the many cases where the pregnant woman was alleged to have used some amount of alcohol or a criminalized drug.

Since 2005, we have identified an additional 380 cases, with more arrests occurring every week. This significant increase coincides with what theGuttmacher Institute describes as a “seismic shift” in the number of states with laws hostile to abortion rights.

The principle at the heart of contemporary efforts to end legal abortion is that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses are persons or at least have separate rights that must be protected by the state. In each of the cases we identified, this same rationale provided the justification for the deprivation of pregnant women’s physical liberty, as well as of the right to medical decision making, medical privacy, bodily integrity and, in one case, the woman’s right to life.

Many of the pregnant women subjected to this mistreatment are themselves profoundly opposed to abortion. Yet it was precisely the legal arguments for recriminalizing abortion that were used to strip them of their rights to dignity and liberty in the context of labor and delivery. These cases, individually and collectively, highlight what is so often missed when the focus is on attacking or defending abortion, namely that all pregnant women are at risk of losing a wide range of fundamental rights that are at the core of constitutional personhood in the United States.

If we want to end these unjust and inhumane arrests and forced interventions on pregnant women, we need to stop focusing only on the abortion issue and start working to protect the personhood of pregnant women.

We should be able to work across the spectrum of opinion about abortion to unite in the defense of one basic principle: that at no point in her pregnancy should a woman lose her civil and human rights.

Lynn M. Paltrow is a lawyer and the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, where Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, is the president of the board of directors.

Pregnant, and No Civil Rights - NYTimes.com

Dear Dana:
May I ask then why depend on Govt to regulate health care policies and choices for people,
and then turn around and oppose how laws are implemented?

It seems clear why we should keep govt out of health care decisions, not inject more govt regulations!

Emily,

The ACA providing contraception is reducing the incidence of abortions.

Hard to argue that isn't a good outcome.

DT

And this is where 'logic and reason' comes in and they steal money by means of force from hard working Americans to give to others for their birth control costs, among other things. Just give us your money and shut up!

However, when 'logic and reason' are used to advocate that people conduct themselves in a responsible manner with responsible behavior, i.e. go to school, study hard, get a good job, pay for one's own living expenses, have responsible sex, then we're all just crazy, we can't expect people to behave in such a manner!! We can't expect people to face the uncomfortable consequences of their very own behavior!! Ridiculous!

Amazing how their brand of 'logic and reason' are applied.

Read and learn!

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Hi Derideo_Te:
Any studies on the effects of birth control
and rates of
* incest
* rape
* sexual abuse
* military rape
* prison rape
* trafficking and sex slavery

It turns out the methods of curing and healing people
of sick abusive behavior stops them from raping and abusing others.

So that would prevent not only pregnancy and abortion but rape itself.
Can birth control cure rape behavior

 

[Derideo_Te]

I hold that killing a baby is not a basic human right.

thank God, what men like you HOLD doesn't mean much, ernie...

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

So one identical twin can kill the other because they both have identical DNA according to your illogic?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Free vs cheap. Of course free gets used more. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying contraception was cheap and easy to get long before obamadon'tcare came along, no matter what Sandra Fluke tells you.

You didn't read the link, did you?

EFFECTIVE birth control reduces the incidence of abortions. Cheap isn't as effective.

 

[Uncensored2008]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

Many leftists weep at every live birth. Clearly Dana is one of those.

 

[emilynghiem]

thank God, what men like you HOLD doesn't mean much, ernie...

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

So one identical twin can kill the other because they both have identical DNA according to your illogic?

What about spiritually being unique beings?

 

[emilynghiem]

So one identical twin can kill the other because they both have identical DNA according to your illogic?

What about spiritually being unique beings?

 

[Valerie]

Newby, don't you find it at all morally objectionable to allow such State authority over private individuals?

The logical extension of having legal 'personhood' protections allows a dangerous oppressive State power over women.

as a conservative and as a Christian, i find that sort of State control over individuals as most objectionable...

SCOTUS rulings have repeatedly reinforced this unemotional objective protection of personal privacy in the 1st trimester...

IMO it is THE proper legal AND moral stance on this issue..

the only reason our society continues to have this 'argument' is because of self righteous do-gooders who can't seem to get past emotional appeals long enough to discern the legal nuance involved with the immense danger in protecting every conception as a constitutionally protected 'person'.

being politically 'pro-choice' does not mean someone has 'no empathy' for the the unborn, that is a typical dishonest appeal to emotion.

the pro-life movement towards 'personhood' legislation is not something the OP made up, it has very real and dangerous consequences for American citizens. naturally, most women are very concerned about this misguided political trend...


Troubling Trend: More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks
Troubling Trend More States Hostile to Abortion Rights as Middle Ground Shrinks

 

[hadit]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Free vs cheap. Of course free gets used more. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying contraception was cheap and easy to get long before obamadon'tcare came along, no matter what Sandra Fluke tells you.

You didn't read the link, did you?

EFFECTIVE birth control reduces the incidence of abortions. Cheap isn't as effective.

Actually, the MOST effective method is the cheapest. It's also the LAST one most pro-aborts would consider.

 

[emilynghiem]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Free vs cheap. Of course free gets used more. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying contraception was cheap and easy to get long before obamadon'tcare came along, no matter what Sandra Fluke tells you.

You didn't read the link, did you?

EFFECTIVE birth control reduces the incidence of abortions. Cheap isn't as effective.

OK and how does effective birth control
reduce the incidence of
* rape
* incest
* sexual and relationship abuse/fraud
* sex slavery and trafficking
* military and prison rape

If we address the root cause of all forms of sexual abuse,
this stops not only unwanted pregnancy and abortion
but all these other social ills from abusing women, children and sex.

So wouldn't focusing on the root cause of abuse in the first place
do more good by solving several problems on all levels?

 

[hadit]

thank God, what men like you HOLD doesn't mean much, ernie...

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

So one identical twin can kill the other because they both have identical DNA according to your illogic?

Now you're just making ridiculous arguments, because both are living humans, are they not? It is illegal for one to kill the other because they are separate beings. Likewise, a developing baby is a being separate from his/her mother.

 

[hadit]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Free vs cheap. Of course free gets used more. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying contraception was cheap and easy to get long before obamadon'tcare came along, no matter what Sandra Fluke tells you.

You didn't read the link, did you?

EFFECTIVE birth control reduces the incidence of abortions. Cheap isn't as effective.

OK and how does effective birth control
reduce the incidence of
* rape
* incest
* sexual and relationship abuse/fraud
* sex slavery and trafficking
* military and prison rape

If we address the root cause of all forms of sexual abuse,
this stops not only unwanted pregnancy and abortion
but all these other social ills from abusing women, children and sex.

So wouldn't focusing on the root cause of abuse in the first place
do more good by solving several problems on all levels?

I don't buy the argument that most abortions are caused by sexual abuse. While SOME undoubtedly are, and reducing such abuse would clearly reduce those, many are not, and would be untouched by that effort, laudable as it is.

 

[Mertex]

I hold that killing a baby is not a basic human right.

thank God, what men like you HOLD doesn't mean much, ernie...

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

Everyone has unique DNA, but if the baby's DNA wasn't somehow tied to the mother and father, there would be no need for paternity tests.....they wouldn't be able to tell who the father is. To claim that a fetus is not a part of the mother's body is rather immature. Please, you try again.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity Test

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not that it was difficult to get condoms before. Now don't go off on how "the pill" is great for medical reasons, because you specifically cited reducing abortion. That's done easily with better condom use, and you can get them almost everywhere.

Perhaps you should educate yourself first before going any further.

Study Free Birth Control Slashes Abortion Rates TIME.com

Free vs cheap. Of course free gets used more. I wasn't arguing that, I was saying contraception was cheap and easy to get long before obamadon'tcare came along, no matter what Sandra Fluke tells you.

You didn't read the link, did you?

EFFECTIVE birth control reduces the incidence of abortions. Cheap isn't as effective.

Actually, the MOST effective method is the cheapest. It's also the LAST one most pro-aborts would consider.

Thank you for admitting that you didn't read the link and have disqualified yourself from this topic. Have a nice day.

 

[Mertex]

How can you claim that a woman is brain dead and put on life support to save the life of the baby, THEN claim that the rights of a living woman were violated?

Many leftists weep at every live birth. Clearly Dana is one of those.

That's such bullshit. How do you come up with such dribble?

 

[bodecea]

Her husband just didn't want to be saddled with a baby which is no reason to murder the baby.

Oh, so now you can even interpret what people are thinking. Geez, I didn't realize conservatives had such powers, no wonder they want to make all these rules, they know exactly what others are thinking.....you all need to assist in crime solving with such powers.

Remember people doing the same thing with the Terri Schiavo case.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Especially since he, rmkbrown and other RW men don't even know the difference between a baby and a fetus!

Until they're the ones getting pregnant, they really don't count for much.

Neither is any more or less human than the other, so if you want to argue semantics, it seems to be a rather weak argument.

The weakness of your position is that you are arguing that your fingernail clippings are "human" and have a "right to life". No one is denying you your right to clip your fingernails even though they are made of the same DNA as you are and are therefore "just as human" as any other part of you.

Nope. A developing baby has unique human DNA that matches neither the father nor the mother. It is, therefore, not a part of the mother's body, and in fact, produces the placenta specifically to prevent mixing of things like blood. Please try again.

So one identical twin can kill the other because they both have identical DNA according to your illogic?

Now you're just making ridiculous arguments, because both are living humans, are they not? It is illegal for one to kill the other because they are separate beings. Likewise, a developing baby is a being separate from his/her mother.

You made the facile argument that a fetus is equally as human as a baby. If that holds true then so are your fingernail clippings. You then tried to differentiate on DNA but that is a red herring. Your fingernails contain human DNA and therefore should be just as sacred as another human being.

But you are now making the argument that the fetus is not part of the woman because it is "separated" by the placenta. In which case the woman has every right to terminate the fetus since it not a part of her by your own admission.

Either way you are arguing yourself into a corner here. The fetus is not a person as defined by law until after birth. Up until that time the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy in the 1st and 2nd trimesters and if her life is at stake in the 3rd trimester too.

The "humanity" of the fetus is not the issue. Her Constitutional rights under the law are what takes precedence.

 

[Valerie]

lol did you mean to say drivel..?

 

[Valerie]

lol did you mean to say drivel..?