[GSlob]

Pro-life groups have at times identified doctors who commit abortions so as to allow pro-life women the option of avoiding them as ob-gyn’s.
Have there been cases of abortions forcibly or fraudulently performed on "pro-life women"? If not, then the rationale behind the bill passes the smell test.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's not just a matter of pro-life women not wanting abortions committed upon them by force or fraud. I, for one, don't want an abortionist to TOUCH me. Ever. I would not want ONE CENT my money to go to an abortionist, or to a hospital, clinic or group practice which had abortions on site.

[Talking_Mouse]

I, as a pro-life woman, don't want to fiscally support in any way, be it by my pap smear or mammogram or other procedure, a doctor, or a practice, who preforms abortions. I do not see how my wish to avoid medical practices that commit inficide, even if I have never been an unwitting partner in committing inficide, supports the rational behind the bill. Can you, please, explain your reasoning to me?

[RobbyS]

It goes, does it not to the nature of the advise one can expect from the physicians? An abortionist will have fewer qualms about recommanding an abortion in certain cases, such as after a test reveals a possible abnormality in the developing child. Sorry, but a trained killer always has fewer qualms about such matters.

[freedomfiter2]

Have there been cases of abortions forcibly or fraudulently performed on "pro-life women"? If not, then the rationale behind the bill passes the smell test.

There are two issues here. First, some people simply don't want their money going to a baby killer. Second, in the whole birth business, there are often times when important decisions need to be made and patients don't want advice coming from someone who kills for money. (doctors should be biased in favor of life and procreation)