Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday September 26 2017, @10:54AM   Printer-friendly

http://www.pressherald.com/2017/09/24/ohio-bill-would-bar-abortion-when-prenatal-test-is-positive-for-down-syndrome/

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:58PM (3 children)

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:58PM (#573251) Journal

    Definitely including the Libertarian party, but yeah, also all the other official parties. And even most non-official parties.

    OTOH, while I support a form of libertarianism, it definitely has some authoritarian aspects. E.g., it would be against murder. (And a few other things, but I'm trying to make a point about extremes.)

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:52PM (2 children)

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday September 26 2017, @05:52PM (#573302)

    Everyone wants the world to work a certain way. Political parties are formed of those people who want to use political power to make that happen. By that logic, a true Libertarian party would be truly different than other political movements, because it would intend to do away with political power completely.

    I'm not sure that's actually possible, though. If you get rid of the government, then who has the power to prevent another government from forming? It's like they say: there are two certainties in life: death and taxes.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:32PM (1 child)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:32PM (#573566) Journal

      No, that's anarchist. Libertarians aren't supposed to be even miniarchists, just to want human interactions to be unconstrained by government. But there are always implicit "except when"s in the definition, and because they are implicit there isn't agreement on them even when there appears to be agreement and everyone's being honest. (You can't tell what the other guy is really asserting.)

      As you say, this may really be impossible, but for a slightly different reason. Your reason is the one that applies to anarchists.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @04:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @04:01AM (#573657)

        An-archy: Greek for "Without rulers".
        Both terms are at the lower edge of the political palate. [politicalcompass.org]
        (I don't understand why Mike Gravel's dot isn't lavender.)

        Anarchists tend to support a classless society (worker-owned cooperatives; no separate ownership class; Leftists).
        Libertarians tend to support top-down Capitalism (favorable to an employer-employee structure; Right-wingers).

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]