Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
C&P from PCE re: abortion
I try not to be too political, and my intention isn't to be anti-GOP here even though it is GOP legislation. I'm just disgusted by it, regardless of politics.
CN: A bill is being proposed that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform abortions when the mother's life is at risk, and let her die rather than transfer her to a hospital that is willing to perform the procedure to save her life. Ironically, it's called the 'Protect Life Act.'
How do people feel about this? I get that some religions are anti-abortion, and that performing one may be against a doctor's religion/morals, but I don't think that there is any excuse not to refer a woman to another doctor or transfer her to a different hospital if her life is at risk. A doctor takes an oath to do no harm, and if his/her religious beliefs preclude that, then he/she should find a different profession.
It's also upsetting to me that you may not know, as a pregnant patient, that you are under the care of someone who will let you die if this situation arises, and that in some areas you have no choice which hospital you go to.
Re: C&P from PCE re: abortion
I hate that I'm having such a hard time finding the actual text of this act.
Stuff like this annoys me because 95% of the time, a phrase gets latched onto and things get taken entirely out of context. The "forcible rape" thing really got me because by definition rape is forced and therefore the term "forcible rape" is merely a redundancy. The modifier is not changing the meaning of the word.But as it IS redundant, they should have just removed the term "forcible" and that would be that (which it was).
(Oh, just found it http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-358)
I don't believe that a doctor should be forced to perform an abortion. I also don't believe that if a woman gets pregnant she should be forced to keep her child. I don't think these are decisions that the government should make for individuals. Personally, if I were a doctor, I would perform an abortion for a woman whose pregnancy threatened her life. If I accidentally got pregnant, I would never choose to abort. I don't think the government gets to stick their nose in individual's choices.
To me, the text in the bill that is being referred to is protecting the rights of the doctors that do not want to perform abortions. They are not refusing to provide money for abortions, but allowing doctors who do not want to perform abortions to have funding as well.
If a pregnant woman is worried about whether or not her doctor would perform an abortion to save her life, she should ask. If the doctor won't, the woman should find another doctor.
Doctors are allowed to have religious beliefs. Some may see abortion as murder. So, yes, they have sworn to "do no harm", but in their eyes, an abortion IS harm.
I think this whole health care thing is ridiculous. I think it is unconstitutional to force people to purchase something, no matter what it is. Power over health care is also not enumerated as one one of the powers of the federal government.
Just for some background, I am Libertarian in my views. I believe that for the most part, the government should leave us alone and allow us to live our lives. Generally, I lean conservative (especially fiscally!) but for social issues, I'm very liberal.
The Princess of Anything is Coming!
Had a dream I was queen.
Woke up. Still queen.
The Princess of Anything is Coming!
Had a dream I was queen.
Woke up. Still queen.
Personally, I wouldn't get an abortion, but I don't think it's right to deny others that right - that's a separate issue, though. I agree that doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions, but this bill gives doctors/hospitals the right to refuse to transfer a patient to someone who WILL. That's what I think is wrong.
As I said before, you don't always have a choice. It's all fine and good to ask your doctor, but in the ER you might have a different doctor, and generally a life-threatening situation is likely to come up in the ER. Additionally, in some rural areas, you may not have a choice at all, even if it's not an emergency situation.
Le sigh--- I feel like I will loose a LOT of friends with this one but I'm gonna weigh in. For me this isn't a political issue but more a religious one. It took me a while- but I am completely anti-abortion.
When you are pregnant- no matter how that happened....(yes rape is a horrible thing!!) that baby is a gift from God. And as the vessel for which you carry that baby- you have the understanding- even IF it's a totally healthy pregnancy- that you MAY lose your life. It's part of the sacrifice you make as being a mother. What government says about health care and what will or won't happen to me-- totally fine with me. I'm pretty stable in my faith and know that God has the power to make any situation better. Yes we have free will and I understand that. But God can make any bad situation and turn it good.....it may take years for that to happen (things happen in God's time, not our own).
Government bills and such can't scare you if you believe there is something bigger at work here.
Datsyuks & Ferdy- We Go Together Like...
It says here that health care entities (defined at the bottom) cannot be denied funding for various reasons, including providing referrals for abortion. Currently, hospitals are required to perform a life-saving abortion or transfer a patient to a hospital that will under the EMTALA (http://www.cms.gov/EMTALA/), so it's not just a matter of funding, it's changing the law.
Here is the text from the Protect Life Act:
?(g) Nondiscrimination on Abortion-
?(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to--
?(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;
?(B) require or provide such training;
?(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or
?(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions.
?(2) DEFINITION- In this subsection, the term ?health care entity? includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
I agree with most of this. I don't think doctors should be forced to give you treatment that opposes their moral beliefs. But they should respect a patient's right to choose treatment in return (by tranferring them to doctor who will perform said treatment/operation).
The problem I have with this is in cases of emergencies. It seems like that's where this bill is really aimed (and I've only read the article she linked). If you're having a medical emergency, you don't necessarily get to choose your hospital/doctor. And if the doctor can't/won't perform an abortion to save your life AND they don't any obligation to transfer you to someone who will - that's scary.
I'm not feeling well and reading/responding in a rush, so I may have interpreted things wrong. Either way, we can discuss more when you return.
I don't see thing holding up at all - it has too many complicated legal ramifications for the healthcare industry. Since I work in a hospital, it also doesn't make much sense to me. I have never heard that it's up to the HOSPITAL to decide "yes, we perform abortions here" or "no, we don't allow abortions to be performed." All OB/GYN physicians on staff at my hospital individually decide if they will become properly credentialed to perform the procedure or not. It's not a requirement that they do or do not, and it's not goverened by the hospital as an organization, or even the OB/GYN department. Most likely, if one OB/GYN doctor on call in an emergency situation does not feel comfortable performing that procedure, there would be another doctor on call that would do it and the patient would not need to be transferred to another hospital to get the medical care she has requested. If not, though, the patient absolutely has a right to request a transfer to another facility that will accomodate her wishes and the hospital must help facilitate that.
I'm on my hospital's Ethics Committee, which discusses health care ethics in different patient care situations. It would not be as simple as transferring the patient to a different hospital. Courts would need to be involved, etc, if it is a serious, life-threatening situation. If the mother's life is at risk, and it comes down to it, she is the only one to decide whether to save herself or her unborn child and if a doctor feels morally opposed to performing an abortion, they are not required to do so but also cannot impede the patient's right to seek alternative care.
Ferdy, your beliefs are fine for you. If you get a doctor that is willing to perform the procedure, you can still opt not to have it if it's against your beliefs, and if not it's still what you want, so it's a win-win for you. My problem is that not everyone feels the way you do, so if someone would prefer to live, they may not be given that choice. Forcing the choice on a woman is not okay in my book.
I also think that it's fine and good to say that this is what you believe, but many women, if actually faced with the choice of life or death, would likely choose life regardless of their religious beliefs. I'm not saying that you personally would change your mind, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of Catholic women would, and they should be able to make that choice.
just a question for you to think about....who's life is more important here? The mom who has already lived years or the baby who doesn't even get a chance????
You carry this baby inside of you for x amount of time and then if it gets in the way of you living then you just oust it???
Just things to think about.
Datsyuks & Ferdy- We Go Together Like...
Ferdy, I respect your opinion and politely disagree FOR ME, but I certainly do not want to tell you, or anyone else what they should do with their bodies.
For me, I do not believe in god and therefore, I would not consider getting pregnant from a rape a gift from god. therefore, to me--and only to me, since i am the one who does not believe in god--your argument is a moot point. i appreciate what you are saying, i really do, and i am happy that you feel that god is looking out for you (us) and everything will work out, etc (i really do love that people have faith in a higher being/god/etc. i think that is very important for a lot of people), but to be honest, i have a big problem with the whole "god will work things out over time, this is the way he wants it, and he wants it this way for a reason" kind of statement.
also, i take slight offense to your statement (although i am sure you meant no offense at all!) that if you are pregnant, regardless of the situation, that you need to sacrifice for your unborn child. in this instance, it sounds like you are saying you need to be willing to sacrifice your life for your unborn child, even if you were raped. i could be misunderstanding you, but to me this is wrong. in my personal opinion, a fetus is not a living person. and you certainly did not ask for it to be in you if you were raped. therefore, why should you sacrifice your own life because you were raped for a fetus (which again, i should state, to me is not living)?
moral of the story is: i politely disagree with you, and i think government should NOT have a say in what i do with my body, nor do i think anybody else should either. if a doc does not want to perform an abortion for whatever reason even though it could save the individuals life, then that doc needs to immediately find another doctor that will so the woman can live.
**i hope you did not offend you ferdy, if i did, i had no intention to do so**
Blog
City - something like 15% of hospital beds are in Catholic hospitals. Some of them actually will transfer a patient to another facility, but some won't. In the case of a Catholic hospital, there is a hospital-wide stance on abortion.
The bill doesn't address how it really goes down in a hospital. I would imagine that if the doctor on-call refuses to perform an emergency abortion, he/she would usually call a different doctor in and there would be no need for a transfer. However, I read a thread on TK a while back where a Catholic doctor was the OP and she was reluctant to even refer a patient because the blood would be on her hands. It was on the Catholic board and many of the responders agreed that she shouldn't even refer a woman who needed an abortion for medical reasons.
In a lot of these emergency situations, the baby will die either way.
Edit: and this is the situation I had in mind when I said that a lot of Catholic women would choose to have the procedure. Though honestly, there are also some who WOULD choose their life over their unborn child's. Your choice is fine for you, but not everyone would make that choice, so I think that women should HAVE a choice.
i think that this really depends. if the unborn baby that you are talking about is still considered a fetus, i think most women, or at least myself, would say that their own lives are more important that a fetus at this point. if the fetus has grown, and say, it is near term, then i think this becomes a lot harder and until i am faced with that situation, i probably could not answer your question.
also, in terms of rape again, i think i would answer that my life was more important that my rapists baby (which again, i do not see as a gift from god).
**again, REALLY not trying to offend you, just argue my opinions**
Blog
I agree, especially with your point re: find a new profession. When I was interviewing for summer positions during law school, my friends and I talked a lot about defense (public defender) work. It's really the same thing - you have to be committed to the fact that everybody deserves a defense, even Scott Peterson, or molesters, etc. I didn't go into that work because I knew I'd find it hard to fight in those situations.
Just to be clear, I don't mean 'a defense' like the slimy BS you see on TV/movies, but a true preservation of your rights, due process, etc.
ETA: I answered and then read the responses, and we've gone down a whole other road. I have a huge problem with the attempt to restrict a woman's right to choose, and I think this bill is nothing more than that, cloaked in freedom to exercise religious beliefs.
Even Catholic hospitals are required to transfer patients out who request it. They may have a "hospital-wide stance" about abortion, but a Catholic hospital wouldn't attract a doctor who wants to perform abortions anyway. So the decision still really is up to the doctor. In an emergency situation, a patient has the right to be taken ANYWHERE by ambulance, not just the closest hospital or to the doctor they primarily are being followed by. True believers in abortion should not be getting their pregnancy care at a Catholic hospital. Sure, some women may not think they believe in abortion - until they have a medical emergency that forces them to make the choice quickly. If my only option was a Catholic hospital or if it was the closest place and I needed care immediately, I would go, let them stabilize me, then immediately request a transfer somewhere else if I knew an abortion was what I wanted. Despite the laws, all patients need to take charge over their own medical care and not just let it be dictated to them.
Gotcha. I think it takes a certain person to be able to do it, while still keeping their ethics in line (as in, not just in it for the money and willing to defend someone for the $$ and not because they have a Constitutional right).
I think there are plenty of specialties that a doctor can go into and never have to make this decision, so it's not like someone who is opposed to abortion can't be a doctor - just don't be an OB/GYN (or make it clear that this is your belief) or an ER doctor.
This!
I'm unclear about how this would work, though. Does a woman necessarily know that they can request a transfer? In the stress of the situation, maybe it wouldn't occur to her. And depending on the nature of the emergency she may not have much time to think or maybe she's been given some kind of drug...I just think it shouldn't be placed solely on the patient to have to request the transfer.
I'm assuming that even if this legislation passed, they would still have to honor the request of a patient for a transfer. I don't think they can change that.
Religious convictions aside, the thing is, it's not just your personal opinion - the LAW (not this law, but generally speaking) does not recognize a fetus as a living being with rights separate from the mother. Until the law recognizes the fetus as a living being with its own unalienable rights, it seems to me like this law is basically violating the Hipocratic Oath that all doctors take, and putting the rights of a non-person above the rights of the actual person. (All moral opinions aside - just trying to look at this from an objective point of view).
On a religious and moral platform, I see where you're coming from Ferds. But what bothers me about this legislation is that it is sponsored by people who will fight tooth and nail saying that society has an obligation to protect the theoretical rights of a fetus (which legally has no rights) but who then don't care to ensure that society fulfills its continuing obligation to that the fetus, once it becomes a person with legal rights, to clothe/feed/shelter that person. Feels very hypocritical (the politicians, not you). When I see this sort of legislation, what I hear from the sponsors is "If you are pregnant, we want to control you and your body, for the sake of your unborn child. However, once that kid is out, you're on your own." ::steps down off soapbox::
All of that aside, all it will take is one mother dying because a doctor stood by and did nothing because of his/her moral objections, one good lawyer, and hospitals will have policies to ensure that if a doctor on call isn't transferring that patient out, someone else is. Hospitals hate the smell of lawsuits in the morning.
shauni- totally respect you and your PoV....obviously we disagree (and we've talked about how we feel in our differing opinions in the past) but a little salt (me) and pepper (you) makes the food a better dish!
no offense taken. not everyone can agree all the time. I understand that my personal opinion can't be shared by everyone--- I pass no judgment here.
Datsyuks & Ferdy- We Go Together Like...
A thousand times this. Women should educate themselves to know enough that if they are refused an abortion, they can get it elsewhere. This is something they should know BEFORE the emergency comes up. If I were pregnant, the pregnancy was killing me and I was refused an abortion, you bet I'd be demanding to see another doctor and/or get transferred to another hospital.
The Princess of Anything is Coming!
Had a dream I was queen.
Woke up. Still queen.
Now, i have a questions for you, and anyone is who pro life and does not believe in abortion: do you feel that the death penalty is ok?
i tend to see a strong correlation between people who are pro life but then also support the death penalty. it makes no sense to me. life is life. if you believe a fetus is a life and deserves to live bc (in Ferdy's case) it is a living thing and it is a gift from god should never be aborted, yet a criminal, who is also a gift from god by being born, is ok to put to death? not being a jerk, just trying to see different answers to this questions
Blog
ugh...I confess I skimmed a lot of this and didn't read everything everyone wrote. I don't have a lot of time. I'm sneeking a peek at the boards in between tasks at work.
I'm pro-choice. I believe that individuals (most times) know what is best for them. If they don't, then Darwin will take care of them anyway. Let *** run it's course without interference from Big Brother.
But Ferdy....I wanted to ask, should all "gifts" from god just be accepted? I mean, if I get a big fatty stomach tumor, should I just keep my gift? And I know to you a baby isn't exactly a big fatty tumor, but to some people it's just as disastrous to their lives.
And don't even get me started on the crime of unfit parents who abuse their kids, and over population, and breeding more morons etc etc. Did I mention I'm SO pro-choice?
TTC since 2010
Me: 36, slightly elevated FSH. Everything else (hysterescopy, HSG, b/w) normal.
DH:30, with super sperm? >200mil post wash
BFP #1 - May 2011 - m/c @ 8weeks
IUI #1 - July 26 2012 - Femara = BFN
Suprise BFP Jan 15 2013. Hope this one sticks!
THiS
Blog
Honestly, the idea of a baby resulting from rape being a ''gift from God" makes me sick to my stomach. I'm not trying to bash Ferdy's opinion, but it's hard for me to wrap my head around.
It's a bit off-topic since the original post was about abortions to save a mother's life, but I'm not surprised it got a little more general since it's a pretty controversial topic.
Not Ferdy, but based on experiences with the church, I think most Catholics would see a tumor as a test of faith. I've heard a lot of "God will never give you more than you can handle" type stuff. I do and don't agree with the sentiment. I will say, sometimes I envy people who have strong religious convictions because I know they receive comfort from it. But I don't think it's quite for me.