DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Scott Walker: Doctors Should Lie To Pregnant Women To Prevent Abortions

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2015/05/10/3640558/scott-walker-birth-defects-doctors/

Say an obstetrician in Milwaukee was performing a routine ultrasound on a pregnant woman and tragically discovered that the fetus had a serious developmental disability. In Wisconsin, that doctor is legally (not to mention ethically) required to inform the patient.
However, if then-Rep. Scott Walker (R) had gotten his way, Wisconsin doctors who opposed abortion would have been allowed to withhold that information from the woman if the doctor feared she might get an abortion.
Along with 34 other lawmakers, Walker introduced AB 538 in September 1997. At the time, if a health care provider withheld information about a fetal disability while abortion was still an available option, they could be liable for the child’s future medical expenses. But AB 538 would have changed that.
According to the bill’s text:
This bill creates an immunity from a wrongful birth or wrongful life action for a person who commits an act or fails to commit an act and that act or omission results in the birth of a child because a woman did not undergo an abortion that she would have undergone had the person not committed the act or not failed to commit the act.
In other words, the bill would make it legal for pro-life doctors to withhold information from patients.
AB 538 was not passed, ultimately dying in April 1998 without receiving a floor vote.
However, Walker and 28 colleagues tried again in 2001, re-introducing the same legislation with AB 360. It met the same demise as AB 538, though not before being approved by the Family Law Committee.
Bills allowing doctors to lie to patients in the name of opposing abortion aren’t the only pieces of pro-life legislation Walker sponsored during his nine years in the Wisconsin State Assembly. In 1997, he helped introduce a bill (which passed into law) to ban so-called partial birth abortions. The following year, Walker introduced “conscience clause” legislation that would have allowed medical professionals to deny patients medical services such as contraception if they objected on medical grounds. Though the bill failed, he introduced it again in 1999, and after that failed, once more in 2001, when it failed a third time.

_________

yep.

Wouldn't that be considered a sin?

Lying?

Yea. And according to YTown and razor, no one sin is greater than the other.

I want to know what time machine the GOP is using to get these backwards thinkers.

Well, considering the bill cited was introduced at the same time Clinton was playing "find the cigar" in the oval office....probably the same one the author of this article was using.

That's a shame. I kinda liked Walker but now find him to be another Dolt.

I hate abortion, but Doctors lying is nuts.

If you are going to discredit Walker based on this particular writer's claim, I suggest you read the two bills for yourself as those things regularly have "other" crap thrown in them that make the bill not-passable.

Who knows what the final bill would have looked like?

The writer lost me at the end with this little gem:

"In 1997, he helped introduce a bill (which passed into law) to ban so-called partial birth abortions. The following year, Walker introduced “conscience clause” legislation that would have allowed medical professionals to deny patients medical services such as contraception if they objected on medical grounds."

Somehow this paragraph doesn't fit with the "liar" accusation...but it does fit with the "I don't agree with him" agenda.

Partial birth abortion is an abomination and "oh the horror" of a medical professional having the legal authority to "deny patients medical services such as contraception if they objected on medical grounds." Make decisions on medical grounds...that's what doctors DO.

Not to mention the last time this legislation was "introduced" was 14 years ago.

If this is the only skeleton that the detractors can find in Walker's closet, then the rest of the media will have a regular 'hay-day' with Hillary...at least those media outlets who actually cover such things.

Thanks for that info, I will reconsider my opinion.
I forgot where I was when I read it, here in libby land. I will read up on it further.

i just posted what i saw on the news.

and only skeleton? have you look at how crappy his state that he was running is doing?

and you want this guy to run the entire country?

rather have Jeb.

You just have to compare his Republican led state to a similar Democratic state. If only there was a good comparison.

http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/01/minnesota-economy-beats-wisconsin-7-charts-1-table/

just read that article.

ugh......and republicans really want this guy running the country?

Scott Walker scares the hell out of me.

I haven't researched this so I don't know if this is totally accurate, so for the moment, I'll take it face value.

If Scott Walker really did this, he's an idiot.

That's just wrong. Allowing Doctors to lie to a patient? Really?

One of the problems I've had with Conservatives (and liberals for that matter) is their seeming inability to see things from various perspectives.

Both sides seem to want to only pander to their own base. Nobody wants to do what's right for the majority of America.

Liberals seem to want to give everything away and Conservatives seem to want only those that line their pockets to be the "haves".

Both sides are lined up against the middle class.. We're getting killed in this storm of words.

Playing Devils Advocate here, but that article is terrible. Wisconsin has struggled for over a decade to improve it's mostly agricultural economy, whereas Minnesota has transitioned fairly successfully into more educated fields. Heck these graphs show the trend as far back as 15 years ago. How does that affect a republican governor now?

And the rest of the graphs just get worse and worse. Unemployment rate is good for both states, and are below the national average. The worst offender I think is the employment breakdown. It only covers non-farm jobs. Minnesota has less than 1% non-farm jobs whereas Wisconsin is the bedrock of our nations dairy economy.

Discussions about Scott Walkers anti-abortion platforms or education stance is totally valid, but this Minnesota vs. Wisconsin debate is pure FUD.

JAWN - Just another Wing Nut. Move one...

The trouble with that is that there are plenty of people that think this guy should be our next president.

Am I the only one who thinks it is a good idea NOT to have an abortion? Whats wrong with trying to save a life? It's not up to Man to say who lives or dies. Thats up to the Creator.

actually it is up to man.

if that was the case, there would be no war, no executions after being found guilty for murder, etc.

i'm not gonna put words in your mouth as i don't know your stance, but i will say this:

in my experience, the people who are pro-life tend me be a bunch of war mongers(40, looking dead at you).

everybody's all like "what about the child?!!!" then the child is born, and its more or less "eh, whatever".

Whether you're for abortion or not, a doctor withholding information from a patient is wrong. I'm against abortion, but I would never support legislation that would permit deceiving patients.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong....But I take it as a way to preserve life. Not to deceive or anything of cruel intent. Just to let nature run it's course. With the way some are reading this as a nut job or whatever, I don't see it. I think some are making this out to be more than was intended. Thank You for the reply without all the snide remarks. I would like to think were all just "Dawgs" looking for a winner.

+1

this: to ban so-called partial birth abortions.

This law was passed. Which begs the question, Whats the difference in partial birth abortions and abortions? I mean I know what the difference is as far as one is after 6 months I think and the other under. But both do the same thing, kills the child. I wonder how many of you have seen a partial birth abortion? You do know that they take the babys head out of the womb and suck the brains out, whats the difference if I wanted to get rid of my child at say 2 or 3 years old? they are still human. I know I know got to get off the subject

I think the doctor should have the right to refuse to do it since IMHO performing an abortion violates the hippocratic oath unless its to save the mother's life.

I don't agree however with them lying at all. Doctor's should never be allowed to lie to their patients.

Nope, but we do seem to be a dying breed. The prevailing opinion n anymore is that people should be allowed to do darn near anything they want .... unless, of course, it is speaking about Christian ideals.

I disagree. More and more states are creating harsher laws against women making choices about their bodies.

Please elaborate...I see no such thing.

Never once did I say I wanted him to run the entire country. Did you even read what I posted? My suggestion to 40 was that he research the "claims" of the writer before concluding that Walker was not worthy.

barely.

i just know you get so angry and sensitive every time i post something.

you're a very easy target to troll. congrats.

I'll take that as a "no" answer to my question.

or you can take it is "barely", like i told you.

Ok...so "barely" is now a reasonable answer to a yes/no question. Got it...I'm so not-hip.

But "barely" implies that you DID read what I posted. If that's the case, then my initial suspicion is correct...that is that you completely missed the point of my response to 40.

I actually knew that from the start...just curious if you would confirm it.

it's so easy.

A Surge of State Abortion Restrictions Puts Providers—and the Women They Serve—in the Crosshairs

An unprecedented wave of state-level abortion restrictions swept the country over the past three years. In 2013 alone, 22 states enacted 70 antiabortion measures, including previability abortion bans, unwarranted doctor and clinic regulations, limits on the provision of medication abortion and bans on insurance coverage of abortion. However, 2013 was not even the year with the greatest number of new state-level abortion restrictions, as 2011 saw 92 enacted; 43 abortion restrictions were enacted by states in 2012.1

What accounts for the spike in abortion restrictions? A few reasons stand out. First, antiabortion forces took control of many state legislatures and governors’ mansions as a result of the 2010 elections, which allowed them to enact more restrictions than was politically feasible previously. Second, the politics surrounding the Affordable Care Act, enacted in March 2010, reignited a national debate over whether government funds may be used for abortion coverage and paved the way for broad attacks on insurance coverage at the state level. The relative lull in antiabortion legislative activity seen in 2012 is explained in part by the legislative calendar: North Dakota and Texas, for example, did not hold legislative sessions in 2012. They made up for it last year, though: Together, these two states enacted 13 restrictions in 2013.
The wave of state-level abortion restrictions has some parallels in Congress, where the House of Representatives has waged its own unceasing attack on abortion rights. Defending against the onslaught has been critical, but now prochoice activists are starting to go on the offense. A handful of states have moved to improve access to abortion, and proactive legislation has been introduced in Congress aimed at stemming the tide of restrictive laws designed to place roadblocks in the path of women seeking abortion care. Although this emerging campaign may be more successful and take hold faster in some places than others, it marks an important shift toward reshaping the national debate over what a real agenda to protect women’s reproductive health looks like.
A Landscape Transformed
Abortion restrictions at the state level are hardly new. States have long sought to discourage women from obtaining an abortion by, for example, mandating that women receive biased counseling or imposing parental involvement requirements for minors. Over the past three years, however, a startling number of states have passed harsh new restrictions. In 2011–2013, legislatures in 30 states enacted 205 abortion restrictions—more than the total number enacted in the entire previous decade (see chart).1 No year from 1985 through 2010 saw more than 40 new abortion restrictions; however, every year since 2011 has topped that number.

In terms of sheer numbers, this wave of new restrictions has dramatically shifted the abortion policy landscape. To assess how and where the volume of abortion restrictions changed over time, analysts at the Guttmacher Institute identified 10 categories of major abortion restrictions and considered whether—in 2000, 2010 and 2013—states had in place at least one provision in any of these categories.1,2 A state was considered “supportive” of abortion rights if it had enacted provisions in no more than one of the restriction categories, “middle ground” if it had enacted provisions in two or three, and “hostile” if it had enacted provisions in four or more.
According to the analysis, the overall number of states hostile to abortion rights has grown since 2000, while the number of supportive and middle-ground states has shrunk. In 2000, 13 states were hostile to abortion rights; by 2010, that number was 22, and by 2013, it was 27 (see map).1 Over the same period, the number of states supportive of abortion rights fell from 17 in 2000 to 13 in 2013, and the number of middle-ground states was cut in half, from 20 to 10.

Notably, the cohort of states already hostile to abortion rights was responsible for nearly all of the abortion restrictions enacted in 2013. And in many of these states, the number of abortion restrictions on the books has started to pile up. In 2000, only two states—Mississippi and Utah—had five of the 10 major types of restrictions in effect. By 2013, 18 states had six or more major restrictions, and seven states had eight or more. Louisiana, the most restrictive state in 2013, had 10.

Creating a Hostile Climate
Four categories of major abortion restrictions dominated the legislative scene in 2011–2013: targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP), limits on the provision of medication abortion, bans on private insurance coverage of abortion and bans on abortion at 20 weeks from fertilization (the equivalent of 22 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period).1 States enacted 93 measures in these four categories in 2011–2013, compared with 22 over the previous decade. These restrictions, especially their cumulative effects in a given state, may prove to accomplish more in terms of impeding access to care than the previous decades of restrictions, noisy clinic blockades and even outright violence ever have.
TRAP Provisions
To date, 26 states have laws or policies that regulate abortion providers and go beyond what is necessary to ensure patients’ safety.3 Most often, the restrictions dictate that abortions be performed at sites that are the functional equivalent of ambulatory surgical centers, or even hospitals, which makes the delivery of health care services prohibitively expensive. Other TRAP laws require clinicians at abortion facilities to have admitting privileges at a local hospital or mandate transfer agreements with hospitals—setting standards that are extremely difficult for providers to meet and effectively giving hospitals veto power over whether an abortion clinic can exist (see “TRAP Laws Gain Political Traction While Abortion Clinics—and the Women They Serve—Pay the Price,” Spring 2013).

These regulations are proving to be especially powerful. For example, because of new requirements in Virginia, all abortion clinics in the state must now comply with standards based on those for hospitals that mandate dimensions for procedure rooms and corridors, and include requirements for ventilation systems, parking lots and entrances. Already, one abortion clinic there has been forced to close as a result of the requirements, and the state department of health estimates that the cost of compliance at other clinics will approach $1 million per site.4
In Texas, at least a dozen of the state’s abortion clinics have been forced to close since a law took effect in late 2013 requiring that abortion facilities meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers and that their clinicians have hospital admitting privileges.5 Because the clinic regulations have not been fully implemented yet, the full impact of TRAP provisions in Texas remains to be seen. There is a growing concern, however, that only a handful of the existing abortion clinics there will meet the requirements for ambulatory surgical centers and have clinicians who can obtain the necessary admitting privileges to remain in practice.6
Limits on Medication Abortion
States have enacted several types of restrictions targeting medication abortion. As of April 2014, three states—Arizona, Ohio and Texas—require that medication abortion protocols hew closely to an outdated regimen specified by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) when medication abortion was first approved;7 those laws prohibit alternative, evidence-based protocols in wide use for at least the past decade. Fourteen states require that medication abortion be provided only by a physician who is in the same room as the patient.
Restrictions on medication abortion both burden women and block access to abortion in communities—particularly rural areas—where the lack of abortion providers serves as a barrier to care (see “Medication Abortion Restrictions Burden Women and Providers—and Threaten U.S. Trend Toward Very Early Abortion,” Winter 2013). When the FDA-approved regimen is required, it leads to a host of problems for women, including that women are subject to a higher dose of medication, must make multiple visits to the doctor and are prohibited from self-administering the drug in the privacy of their home. When physicians are the only health professionals permitted to provide medication abortion (rather than physician assistants and advanced practice nurses, as well), a woman may have to wait a long time for an appointment and travel long distances to visit a clinic attended by a physician. Laws requiring the physical presence of the physician essentially rule out provision by telemedicine. Blocking the use of telemedicine—i.e., virtual consultation with a physician by video—for medication abortion jeopardizes access to early abortion care. In addition, it is out of step with the trend toward expanding the use of telemedicine in other medical specialties.
Indeed, attacks on medication abortion threaten provision of abortion at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Most women obtaining an abortion want to have it as early as they can—and today, 33% of all abortions are performed in the first six weeks of pregnancy (calculated from the beginning of the last menstrual period).8 Importantly, it is the increased availability of medication abortion that appears to be helping women obtain very early abortions. An estimated 239,400 medication abortions were performed in 2011, which represents 23% of all nonhospital abortions, an increase from 17% in 2008.9 And contrary to the fears of antiabortion activists, access to medication abortion does not lead to more abortions; indeed, even as the use of medication abortion has become more common, the abortion rate has dropped to an historic low.
Private Insurance Coverage of Abortion
Twenty-four states have laws essentially banning abortion coverage in plans that are offered through the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance marketplaces, including nine states that ban insurance coverage of abortion more broadly in all private insurance plans regulated by the state.10 This tactic represents a new angle on an old theme. At the federal level, antiabortion politicians have long interfered in poor women’s health decisions by sharply limiting abortion coverage for women who rely on Medicaid.
The impact of these restrictions is significant. Unable to use their coverage, poor women often have to postpone their abortion because of the time it takes to scrape together the funds to pay for the procedure.11 Moreover, one in four women enrolled in Medicaid and subject to these restrictions who would have had an abortion if coverage were available are forced to carry their pregnancy to term.
Better-off women without insurance coverage of abortion may not have to make the same financial sacrifices as poor women, but having to pay out of pocket for any health care takes a toll, and abortion care is no different. The whole purpose of health insurance is to ensure that individuals can manage unexpected medical bills in the case of an unplanned event. An unintended pregnancy—or a much-wanted pregnancy that goes horribly wrong—is the very definition of an unplanned event. The campaign to end abortion coverage may not be succeeding in stopping abortion entirely, but it is punishing women who need and have abortions. Moreover, it aims to further stigmatize and delegitimize abortion by isolating it as something other than the basic health care for women that it is (see “Insurance Coverage of Abortion: Beyond the Exceptions for Life Endangerment, Rape and Incest,” Summer 2013).
Previability Bans on Abortion
Nine states ban abortion at 20 weeks from fertilization, based on the dubious assertion that a fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation; three other states have similar laws that are currently enjoined by the courts.12 In addition, two states enacted laws in 2013 banning abortion even earlier in pregnancy. In March 2013, the Arkansas legislature overrode a veto by Gov. Mike Beebe (D) to ban abortions occurring more than 12 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period. Later that month, North Dakota enacted a ban on abortions occurring after a fetal heartbeat is detected, something that generally occurs at about six weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period. Legal challenges were quickly filed to both measures and enforcement is blocked while litigation proceeds. Voters in North Dakota and Colorado will be asked on their November 2014 ballots to grant personhood rights to fetuses, an approach designed to ban abortion entirely. Currently, no state has a law in effect prohibiting abortions in the first trimester.
Previability abortion bans are especially perverse given the simultaneous campaign to enact laws and policies that impose waiting periods and other requirements with the express purpose of delaying women’s ability to access abortion care. According to a study by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, women obtaining abortion at or after 20 weeks’ gestation had experienced more logistical delays than women receiving a first-trimester abortion.13 Women in the later abortion group were much more likely than women in the first-trimester group to report delays because they had difficulty finding a provider, raising funds for the procedure and travel costs, and securing insurance coverage.
Women Pay the Price
Antiabortion leaders disingenuously insist that these restrictions are necessary to protect women’s health and safety. The safety of abortion, however, is well established, and long-standing patient protections exist in the rare case of an emergency.14 Nonetheless, even as proponents of these harsh and punitive laws revel in their political and public relations successes, women seeking abortion must live with the consequences.
The majority of women now live in states hostile to abortion rights: Between 2000 and 2013, the proportion of women living in restrictive states almost doubled from 31% to 56% (see chart).15 The proportion living in supportive states, by contrast, fell from 40% to 31% over the same period.
Women living in the middle of the country and in the South are particularly affected. Although states in the Northeast and on the West Coast remain consistently supportive of abortion rights, a cluster of states in the middle of the country have moved from being middle-ground states in 2000 to being hostile in 2013.1 All 13 states in the South had become hostile by 2013.
Women living in hostile states face many of the same indignities when obtaining an abortion. From bogus “informed consent” procedures and waiting periods to unnecessary and costly ultrasound mandates, women seeking an abortion are subjected to restrictions not imposed on any other legal medical procedure. Fifty-nine percent of women of reproductive age live in one of the 26 states with TRAP laws and 44% of women live in one of the 24 states with bans on private insurance coverage of abortion in the new marketplaces.15 Moreover, with clinics closing in many states, locating and getting to an abortion provider are becoming increasingly difficult. Raising money not only for the procedure but also for transportation, a hotel and child care (more than six in 10 women obtaining an abortion are already mothers16) are challenges that, although often surmountable, exact additional tolls and add to delays. Simply put, restrictions on abortion make the procedure more costly—financially and in terms of women’s health and safety.
Unquestionably, abortion restrictions fall hardest upon the poorest women, the very group bearing a disproportionate burden of unintended pregnancies. In 2008, the rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women was about five times that of women with an income of at least 200% of the federal poverty level (137 vs. 26 per 1,000 women aged 15–44).17 As a result, poor women are disproportionately likely to be faced with the decision about whether to seek an abortion.
Restrictions on abortion also have serious consequences for other groups of women. Too many young women, unmarried women, women of color, immigrant women and women living in rural areas face limited options and must travel long distances to obtain an abortion, often resulting in a delay and increasing the risk of complications. Although only about 10% of women who have abortions have them after the first trimester, certain groups of women are overrepresented among such abortion patients.18 These groups include women with lower educational levels, black women and women who have experienced multiple disruptive events in the last year, such as unemployment or separating from a partner.

Interesting...I asked you to elaborate on this quote "More and more states are creating harsher laws against women making choices about their bodies." You responded with...what...1,000 words that are all about abortion. Fair enough...you think women are being war-ed upon because of strict(er) abortion laws...got it.

Back to the point of "Women making choices about their bodies"...ok. Abortion - by some people - is considered murder. You believe that abortion is - for women - a choice about their bodies...agreed? So, it's a very sticky issue and has been for a long time.

Let's see if we can agree for a minute that the abortion issue is MORE about a women's choice for her own body than it is about protecting the life of an unborn body. Ok?

So...for the moment...abortion is off the table for further conversation. That said, I'll ask you this:

Outside of the abortion debate/issue, what laws are being created that "are creating harsher laws against women making choices (choices being plural and more than just abortion) about their bodies"?

That's alright.

I get it.

Thank you.

All the rhetoric about certain groups (religious or otherwise) wanting to restrict a woman's "choices about her body" is actually new words around a long-time issue.

It is simply about a woman's right to have an abortion couched in emotional phrases...marketing at its finest.

So...let me see if I understand you here. You believe the following:

The group of people trying to save the life of an unborn child lose total interest in that child once it passes through the birth canal...while at the same time believing...

The group of people willing to allow the terminating of the unborn child become concerned caretakers of that child once it passes the birth canal.

Interesting...I think one could present an argument to support the former paragraph that would make for interesting debate. I think it would be an incredible leap to present an argument to support the latter paragraph.

Actually, "murder" has been the new word. The vocabulary on abortion has been redefined since Roe v. Wade was decided by a conservative SCOTUS.

Every church I've been a part of as an adult has some combination of a food bank for the poor, collected items for donations to poor families with kids, counseling for single mothers, school supplies for kids, etc.... so this notion that pro-life people absolutely don't care after the baby is born is total crap.


Do they? Most of what I see them doing is lobbying for the government to provide care for the child. The government should provide the healthcare, the government should provide assistance, the government should mandate that the mom makes more money... I'm sure there are some fine non-faith based charities out there but to act like they are only ones that care is, again, crap.