SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
an Ohio bill [would] ban abortions in cases where a pregnant woman has had a positive test result or prenatal diagnosis indicating Down syndrome. Physicians convicted of performing an abortion under such circumstances could be charged with a fourth-degree felony, stripped of their medical license and held liable for legal damages. The pregnant woman would face no criminal liability.
Several other states have considered similar measures, triggering emotional debate over women's rights, parental love, and the trust between doctor and patient.
The Ohio bill's chief Senate sponsor, Republican Sen. Frank LaRose, said Republican lawmakers accelerated the measure after hearing a mid-August CBS News report on Iceland's high rate of abortions in cases involving Down syndrome. The report asserted Iceland had come close to "eradicating" such births.
[...] Doctors and medical students are fighting the measure.
Parvaneh Nouri, a third-year medical student at Wright State University, told lawmakers it would do little to stop abortions but could stop information-sharing between patients and their doctors.
“It destroys the trust of our patients, for which we have worked tirelessly over generations of physicians to cultivate,” she said.
Indiana's version of the law has been blocked by a federal judge while North Dakota's law has gone unchallenged due to the state's only abortion clinic not performing abortions after 16 weeks. An Oklahoma bill that would prohibit abortions based on any genetic abnormalities did not reach the state Senate.
Previously: Down Syndrome Births Nearly Eliminated in Iceland
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:57PM (3 children)
As a resident of the great state of Ohio, yes, banning abortion is exactly what this is about.
The state government and many of the constituents they represent would like to make abortion completely illegal. They can't, so they do everything they can to make it illegal that they think the court system will let them get away with. They also periodically do things that they know the court system won't let them get away with, so that they can go to their constituents and brag about passing the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, which will be struck down but by then they've won re-election. This situation is not atypical for areas of the US under the sway of right-wing religious nutjobs.
One other thing to know is that when you talk to these people, you figure out fairly quickly that this isn't really about abortion, or about controlling a woman's uterus. You can tell this because they are thoroughly opposed to many measures that would reduce the number of abortions: comprehensive sex education in schools, easy access to birth control, and rape prevention programs. What it actually is about is controlling women's vaginas, and making it so that for a woman to have sex with anybody other than her lawfully wedded husband, for any reason, is to make her a "fallen" woman and ruin her life. Forcing her to have a child that she doesn't want is very much part of the purpose of doing that. Oh, and don't think for a minute that cases of rape, no matter how forcible, will change their minds about that: In this moral framework, being killed is supposed to be preferable to being raped, so if somebody was raped and didn't get killed in the process she must not have really objected strenuously enough.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:29PM (2 children)
I hate to say this but my mom goes to abortion clinic protests. To them it's about not killing babies. Someone needs to protect them. At least she also supports adoption centers as well.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Wednesday September 27 2017, @08:36AM (1 child)
If your mom were to stop protesting and offer those women that go there to take care of their babies after birth, I could sympathise.
I've never heard of an abortion center protester that actually offered a viable solution. Where with viable I mean "right now you're choosing to not be involved in this life. How about you do exactly the same, but we pay for all medical expenses, you go through with birth, and then we'll take great care of the child, raise him/her in a loving, upper-class family, send him/her to the bestest schools, etc."
Otherwise, you're protesting people's life's decisions that you yourself aren't willing to carry the burden of. Why should you expect other people to carry those burdens if you wouldn't be willing to?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @06:01PM
This exactly. You want to protest about it. FINE, you take that burden then. Should almost just assign kids for adoption to the protesters and then charge them with child neglect if they don't take care of it properly.
These protesters just want the "feel goods" of judging someone elses actions and finding them lacking.
Remember Jesus will judge you on your actions, not your complaining about others actions. Put your money where your mouth is and take in a few more mouths to feed. Its what Jesus would do.