Posted on 01/07/2006 10:40:29 AM PST by Diana in Wisconsin
Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed a Republican-authored bill Friday that would have forced doctors to tell women seeking an abortion after their fifth month of pregnancy the fetus could suffer pain.
When a fetus can feel pain is a matter of debate in the medical community. The bill's supporters say some research supports the theory that a fetus can feel pain at the 20th week of pregnancy. Opponents say none of those claims have been proved.
Doyle, a Democrat, said no evidence conclusively proves when a fetus can feel pain. The Republican-controlled Legislature shouldn't be allowed to decide what is scientific fact, he said.
"It would be reckless to inject a requirement that doctors communicate unproven science to their patients during an already difficult and sometimes traumatic time," Doyle wrote in his veto message. "This bill intrudes on the doctor-patient relationship ... and contravenes the requirement that doctors provide objective and accurate information to their patients."
State Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, the bill's main author in that body, accused Doyle of doing the bidding of pro-choice groups.
Bob Delaporte, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo, accused Doyle of "ignoring the science on this one."
Women seeking abortions in Wisconsin already must be given information on alternatives to ending their pregnancies. They must wait 24 hours after a counseling session to have the procedure performed.
The bill would have required doctors tell women in their 20th week or beyond that:
• Their fetuses have the physical structures to feel pain.
• Some evidence shows 20-week-old fetuses try to evade stimuli in a way that could be interpreted as a response to pain in an infant or adult.
• Some evidence shows abortion methods used starting in the 20th week can cause a fetus substantial pain.
Three other states - Arkansas, Georgia and Minnesota - have similar notification requirements, and federal legislation is pending.
Kathy Markeland is an associate director in the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, which lobbied for the bill. She said the governor's veto was disappointing.
"We viewed this really as a bill that provided additional information to women about a procedure they would be undergoing," Markeland said. "People have the right to know and have adequate information even about the potential there might be pain experienced."
But Chris Taylor, political director for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, which lobbied against the measure, said the bill was based on "junk science."
"It's another attempt ... for the majority party to act like they're physicians," she said.
Maybe down South a Dem can get away with being pro-life. But up north like here in Wisconsin, all Dem pols must kowtow to the Rad-Feminists for whom abortion is practically the one and only issue.
I would bet that most women who vote for Dems do so on the basis of the candidate's stand on abortion. A pro-life Dem has no chance of even being nominated for any political spot. Doyle is a scum-sucking lib like all the others in the state and across the country. He will do what his feminist masters tell him to do.
Well, I've got to tell ya that you're the first pro-choice person I've ever read that actually sounds level-headed and makes logical points.
I disagree with you, however, but I just wanted you to know that I appreciate your point of view.
You are spot-on with both of your points 1 & 2. I would add a third point...it's all about the money. Abortion is big business, and unfortunately, blocking abortion has become just as big a business in the opposite direction.
That said, I wish it weren't necessary in the first place, but the horse is already so far out of the barn on this issue (which is a shame, because not enough people stood up to fight Roe V. Wade when it was being "sold" as a "privacy issue") and even if it's overturned and goes back to a States Rights issue (where it totally belongs, IMHO), we're always going to have abortions from here on out.
But we're seriously paying the price for it as a society that doesn't value their children; born and unborn. I read a study last week that women who've had abortions have a higher rate of mental illness, depression and addicition problems later in life. I'm certain Mother Nature knows that killing our children goes against every human animal instinct that we females possess.
Didn't mean to get all wordy, but I wanted you to know that I appreciated your point of view. :)
"Doyle is a scum-sucking lib like all the others in the state and across the country. He will do what his feminist masters tell him to do."
Don't forget that he's a lawyer, too! ;)
doyle is despicable. That is all I can utter at this moment. I will never understand such a mindset as his and his advisors and the bill's detractors. They are alien to me.
No need to apologize for being "wordy" with ME! I'm not exactly one of the more concise posters on FR :-)
Re the money issue, it's a popular misconception within the anit-abortion movement that abortion providers are making gobs of money from providing abortions. Absolutely no one who works for a legal abortion clinic in any capacity is making as much money as they could make working somewhere else. Doctors are often volunteering, and those who are getting paid are earning a fraction of what they could earn practicing some other kind of medicine. Most of the other workers -- administrative, counseling, nurses, etc. are choosing to work there for ideological reasons, not for money.
A former boarder of mine worked for an independent (non-PP) abortion clinic for a year after graduating from college. She was on her way to medical school, a route she'd chosen solely because she wanted to help keep safe abortions readily available. She could have made more money working at McDonald's or babysitting, than she was getting paid at that clinic, and with her strong academic credentials, she certainly could have pursued much a more lucrative type of medical career. In fact last I heard, she was working in a university women's health clinic, which did not provide abortions (just referrals), as she'd discovered it would be impossible to support herself and pay off her medical school debt working at an abortion clinic. Maybe she'll do it after her school debt is all paid.
The financial statements of Planned Parenthood show large REVENUES, but almost no PROFIT, a distinction which seems to be lost on many anti-abortion activists who go around claiming that PP "made X million dollars on abortions last year". You can take in a billion dollars in abortion fees, but if it costs you a billion to provide those abortions, you are not "making money". Their executives' salaries sound high to working and middle class Americans in the Bible Belt, but are actually very skimpy by the standards of comparably educated professionals in Manhattan, where PP's national offices are located. As a mid-level banker in Manhattan, with a very low-stress job, I'd have to take a sizeable pay cut to become CEO of PP.
BUT, in the political arena, and where the anti-abortion camp is concerned, the religious arena as well, the abortion issue is a colossal money-maker for both sides. Many political candidates, parties, special interest groups, and certain churches rake in many many millions via donations from people who they motivate with sensationalist pitches related to abortion. It has become a favorite fundraising tool for both sides, and in most cases abortion is actually low or nowhere on the real agendas of those receiving the cash. The political activities of most staunchly pro-choice candidates, for example, have precious little to do with access to abortion and a whole lot to do with garden variety socialism. They scare a lot of young college students, and hence future financially comfortable professionals, with wild scenarios of the imminent outlawing of abortion and how they and their friends will end up dying in back alley abortion clinics or having babies they don't want, use the resulting campaign donations to get elected, and then turn around and devote their time in office to shoring up and expanding all the socialist entitlement schemes that will eat up these hard-working young people's paychecks.
Unfortunately, I think this money factor (and the willingness of the average American voter to be sucked into the game) will ensure that the abortion issue remains a loud and divisive factor in American politics for a long time to come, interfering with important debate on other issues. If the American electorate had been paying half as much attention to the developing terrorist threat, as it was paying to abortion, the 9/11 attacks wouldn't have happened, and the scale of the Islamoterrorist threat in the world today would be a small fraction of what it is. Most damaging is the fact that a solid majority of college-educated Americans have been lulled into an unquestioning acceptance of the benefits of socialism, through the artificial coupling of the hot button pro-choice position (and related sexual freedom issues) with pro-socialist positions. Conservatives have unwittingly participated in the promotion of socialism by making those who disagree with them on abortion/sexual issues feel utterly unwelcome in conservative circles, leaving them nowhere to go but to the socialist camp, which is more than happy to give them a big welcoming hug while grabbing their votes and money.
Was I too wordy? :-)
As far as I'm concerned, it's fine to be wordy in posts that make as much sound, good sense as yours. I agree with your observations.
To me it seems obvious that if the info in your post #3 is accurate...the baby's got leg movement, hand and mouth movement, oil gland secretion...these are all indications that parts of the central nervous system have developed, therefore, THE BABY PROBABLY FEELS PAIN!
I really think the only thing left open for debate is the extent to which the baby feels pain. Maybe not, at five months, to the extent of a nine month fetus, but that doesn't give Scumbag Doyle sufficient cover to veto this, IMHO. GO GREEN...GO WALKER...TIME FOR SOMEONE WITH SOME ETHICS TO LEAD THIS STATE!
"Conservatives have unwittingly participated in the promotion of socialism by making those who disagree with them on abortion/sexual issues feel utterly unwelcome in conservative circles, leaving them nowhere to go but to the socialist camp, which is more than happy to give them a big welcoming hug while grabbing their votes and money."
I gotta think that one over because my first reaction is,
"Fine! Take 'em! I don't want those people in my party, anyway. If I did, wouldn't I be with them in the first place? Why should I have to compromise MY morals to make someone I disagree with on the murder of innocents feel welcome?"
Let's just reverse that, and see how it plays:
"Socialists have unwittingly participated in the promotion of Conservativism by making those who disagree with them on abortion/sexual issues feel utterly unwelcome in Socialist circles, leaving them nowhere to go but to the Conservative camp, which is more than happy to give them a big welcoming hug while grabbing their votes and money."
Now really. Do you ever see that happening on this issue? In my experience, people who don't agree with abortion never go toward something they find distainful. But there have been plenty of women who wre pro-choice (even the two puppets that were used in Roe V. Wade who both ended up having their children!) and are now staunchly against abortion.
I've yet to meet anyone that's a Conservative that supports abortion. Conservative values are just 180 degrees away from that.
This is one issue that I do vote on and won't change my mind on. Abortion and Taxes (especially funding abortion with my tax dollars) and Border Control since it's so glaringly obvious we needed it, like yesterday.
I HATE the Mushy Middle.
(And I have more to say, but I gotta go to bed. I was up at 3am today to take my Dad to the airport so he could run off to Florida and get married at age 69. Yes. Really. And no, she's not pregnant, LOL!)
Anti-abortion is pro-higher taxes, no getting around that. When we can't tell a woman who's pregnant with a baby that she and the father don't want and/or have no financial ability to support, that she needs to have an abortion forthwith, we are volunteering to support all these babies, and from a practical standpoint, to support their mothers too. And telling every pro-choice voter in the country to go devote their time and energy and money to the pro-welfare state party, 'cause they're not welcome in the anti-welfare state party, is also a very pro-higher taxes position.
How about we try something like:
Mandatory sterilization if you're already getting government money to live on, so you can't bring any more kids into this world that you can't support? (Males and females.)
Why not remove welfare completely, and let social programs, such as churches and other civic organizations pick up the slack? Welfare has morphed from a hand-up to a hand-out.
Why do I have to choose between killing the unborn with my tax dollars and supporting kids I'm not responsible for in the first place with my tax dollars, should they be allowed to live?
We can agree to disagree, because you're not gonna sway me on this one. I do see your points, though. They just don't work for me and my morals and belief system. ;)
later horrible pingout.
Another question - do politicians feel pain when torn asunder with surgical instruments?
Believe me, I'm all in favor of mandatory sterilization. In addition to the established welfare mothers, there are plenty of other cases where it's warranted, for people convicted of severe abuse or neglect of a child, and anybody convicted of murder, or any really violent assault or rape. Sterilize all the gangbangers as they do their first prison stint, and we'll cut down on the population of lowlifes in a big way, and that alone would bring a huge reduction in demand for abortion. I also think that a passive contraceptive -- i.e. IUD or Norplant -- should be mandatory for any reproductive age girl in a public school. Public schools are an abomination, and should exist only for the children of parents who aren't supporting them. If you're not paying your child's own tab for schooling, you have no business complaining when the school requires your daughter be physically prevented from reproducing while she's in school and still a minor.
And I'm not really interested in changing anyone's personal beliefs on religious or moral matters. But in a free country, where the state isn't supposed to be establishing any particular religion, I don't think religious/moral beliefs should be the basis for our laws. The government should be limited to maintaining general law and order, thus enabling people to live according to their own beliefs. While in principle I agree that taxpayers shouldn't get socked with the tab for abortions, the horse is out of the barn in more ways than one. Right now we 1) don't have the political will to let babies starve or confiscate them from their mothers against the mother's will, and 2) the sheer number of welfare dependent women and children (with most of the mothers utterly uneducated and really unable to earn enough money to support themselves and their children) is so huge that the private sector really can't handle it. Hopefully, we can find a way to get those numbers down to where they can be handled by the private sector, as they should be, but we just aren't there now.
As for who pays the tab for what, I feel that the government needs to be neutral on the matter of beliefs and just deal with the bottom line. It's a heck of lot less financial imposition on anti-abortion taxpayers to be forced to foot their share of the $2-300 bill for an abortion, than for pro-abortion taxpayers to be forced to foot their share of the $2-300,000 bill for raising a child. Think that figure is exaggerated? The cost of public schooling, when frequently concealed costs like buildings and maintenance are included, is around $20,000 per year, per child. K-12 that adds up to $260,000 per child. And that's BEFORE we pay out any welfare checks, food stamps, housing subsidies, free medical care, and court and prison and rehab for the child after it grows up and joins a gang and starts doing drugs and mugging people.
The claim that, if not aborted, these children will grow up to make a big contribution to the economy, strengthen the social security system, etc., is just a lot of bunk. That's not what really happens with the unwanted children of young, single, uneducated mothers, or even of poor married working class mothers who already have more children than they can handle. You can always point to an anecdotal success story here and there, but those are the exceptions and don't make a dent in the economic calculations.
And then there's the matter of the gene pool. The harsh fact is that competent people on average have better genes, and better epigenetic programming, and FAR healthier in utero conditions, than incompetent people. But the situation now, where incompetent women who are pregnant by incompetent men, are encouraged to go ahead and have the baby and send the bill to the taxpayer, has resulted in a drastic curtailing of reproduction by competent people. The tax bite is so big, that competent people, who actually worry about stuff like how they're going to support their children, delay childbearing, and then limit it. According to the anti-abortion lobby, adoption is the answer. Well the effect of that is to have competent people -- many of whom have put off their childbearing long enough to run into fertility problems -- expend their energy raising the biological offspring of incompetent people, INSTEAD of producing their own biological offspring. If you don't believe in genetics, you don't see a problem with this. But if you read up and face the facts on genetics, this is a very dangerous road to head down. Things will NOT be better a generation from now, if all the impulsive irresponsible people are passing on their genes at twice the rate of competent people, no matter who actually raises the children.
Well, that's enough food for thought. You're supposed to be in bed by now anyway :-)
Gov. Jim Doyle, like all abortion defending democraps, knows the victims of the slaughter can't vote so they are nothing to him or his democrap butties. He and his party don't give a damn whether the children being slaughtered on the demoncrat altar of choice can feel pain or not ... their slaughter is a means to democrap empowerment so the bloody rites must not be impeded.
"Diana, didn't this combining of two very different behaviors catch your notice..."
Yes. It did. It wasn't worth arguing about because I know where GS is coming from. The argument on the pro-choice side is always full of switchbacks, slight of hand and smoke screens. ;)
Abortion is a cash business. It is also surprisingly without regulation--dentists have to fill out more paperwork. There are few other cash businesses (with paying clientele!) in medicine.
Whatever you want to say about abortion, it pays big--and they can afford to buy a lot of politicians.
I get it. Let's kill unwanted babies. It's cheaper!
Things will NOT be better a generation from now, if all the impulsive irresponsible people are passing on their genes at twice the rate of competent people.
__________________________________________________________
So if my parents are crap, in your words, I don't have the right to live????? I don't even get a chance because my mother or father was deemed 'incompentent' by some 'compentent' person as you? Interesting.
Care to provide any evidence for that wild claim?
How about an Official Democrat Seal that says:
Pro-Abortion
Anti-Torture
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.