[Avatar]

Conservative Florida lawmakers consider abortion waiting period, other restrictions By Katie Sanders, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau TALLAHASSEE — Conservative Florida lawmakers who last year passed a landmark bill that requires women seeking an abortion to first have an ultrasound performed are pushing to go further in 2012. Among the ideas advancing: an outright ban on some second-trimester abortions in the state, a 24-hour waiting period for abortions and a measure that forces doctors to sign affidavits saying an abortion is not being sought because of the race or the gender of the fetus. "I don't think that killing these children should be convenient," Rep. Mike Horner, R-Kissimmee, said flatly. Source: Conservative Florida lawmakers consider abortion waiting period, other restrictions - Tampa Bay Times

Some of the ideas I can support on their own - a 24-hour waiting period, for instance, may not be a bad thing so that a woman doesn't make that choice because she has a row with her boyfriend. And I can understand limiting it to the first trimester also. But the more hoops you have to jump through the more difficult it becomes to obtain. And then the choice is no longer a choice.

Let me just also say something else - it seems like we've veered a bit off the topic of abortion. We can either discuss this article, the health care system as related to abortion, or something completely different. But let's try to stay on the topic of reproductive rights.

[Cristofle]

I can't get past the stupid ultrasound requirement. It's so pointless, and it's so condescending.

I can't agree with the first trimester requirement- it's often not enough time, especially with the hoops so many states make a woman jump through, and it seems kind of arbitrary because it's not like past the first 12 weeks the fetus is suddenly viable.

[TheAngel]

I assume that all those lawmakers have adopted at least one crack addicted child from their counties, correct? And that they're pushing for more funding for the foster care and adoption services and other services such as education. They also must have no problems with welfare, since they're cutting rights for poor women for the most part and therefore, more than likely, the children will end up with some type of state-sponsored funding. After all, we've pointed out multiple times that these restrictions do not hurt wealthy women. They'll get abortions without any problems no matter what the laws are.

[ceilirose]

Condsending and manipulative. Women don't make this choice lightly for the most part. Yes I know that there are anecdotal examples - " yeah well I know someone who uses abortion as birth control etc. etc." The women I know who have had abortions call it one of the hardest decsions in their lives.

Manipulative? Do these lawmakers think that once a woman sees a picture of the ultra sound that "they will come to their senses?" See my first paragraph.

Sometimes in life you have to make decisions that you don't really want to make if given a perfect set of conditions. The problem is that life isn't perfect or how we want it to be all the time. Gross generalization but true.

I can't see abortion being banned after the first trimester being realistic. A 13 week fetus can't typically survive outside the womb.

[Barstool Prophet]

Any restriction bothers me. The 24 hour wait period isn't logical to me just because by the time a woman makes that decision, she has thought about it for more than 24 hours anyways. It is assuming women don't think things through.

[Gray Ghost]

Explain to me in this reality that we live in how free health care could happen?
Who's gonna pay for it? How would it be handled?
I think abortion is murder so I feel I shouldn't have to pay taxes for murder. Sorry but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Why should a person be forced to have health insurance or pay a tax or fine so others can have health insurance? How is that legal and fair? How is that constitutional? The founding fathers didn't believe in handouts and a welfare state.
I dare you to answer those questions.

[Cristofle]

Most of the restrictions involve traditional stereotypes about women- we're overly emotional, we don't know our own minds. We need to wait 24 hours, we'll change our minds after we've had an ultrasound. Of the women I know who have had abortions? An ultrasound wouldn't have changed a damn thing.

And all I know is that ultrasound better be complimentary- these women should NOT be forced to pay for a medical procedure they did not ask for and is not necessary for the procedure, since they're already paying for the procedure itself.

[Gray Ghost]

If women get free abortions, then I want to not pay one penny to have my bottom wisdom teeth removed. I need them removed and it's gonna cost roughly 500 dollars. If health care should be free, then I shouldn't have to pay a penny for it right?

How far are you willing go on free health care? Health care probably should be free or at least cheap but it's unrealistic because of the cost and people's own personal greed and power.

[Cristofle]

I'd love to have free dental care, lol. Hell, I'd love for more insurance companies to even cover most dental surgery. The prices are astronomical- it cost a ridiculous amount for me to even be examined to get a root canal and get some antibiotics fairly recently, and that was without the root canal. Health care should not be a privilege, it should be a right- we literally cannot survive without decent health services. An infected root in your tooth can kill you, and yet if you don't have dental insurance or a couple thousand dollars to spare, you're SOL.

But once again, in terms of this thread, the US health care system as is freely discriminates against reproductive rights, which includes birth control as well as abortion. It is easier for a man to get Viagra than it is for me to get birth control pills, even though I'm on them because of a medical issue. I want that to change, and "free market" isn't going to change it.

[Avatar]

You can't decide what you want your taxes to go to - Lord knows mine go for a lot of things I don't agree with. The problem is, as Cristofle said, that the health care system now is biased against reproductive rights.

Also, if you wanna discuss the health care system more generally, you should do so on this thread.

[sunnykerr]

^ Indeed. There's a whole thread devoted to the topic of health. Any generalized discussion of health policy should go there.

This thread is about reproductive health and beyond observing the bias against that particular branch of the whole health umbrella, there isn't much to be said that about health policy that will be on-topic.

Let's stick to abortion. To that end:

Unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions A recent study published in the Lancet by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organisation shows that reductions in overall abortion rates have stalled. Simultaneously unsafe abortion rates are increasing while contraceptive uptake is plateauing. These findings have prompted some of the most critical debates in recent times, at the centre of which is ensuring that there is adequate investment in reproductive health services that have been proven to save women's lives. Such investments are in line with Australia's commitment to the UN Millennium Development Goal to improve maternal health. However, a more troubling narrative emerging concerns the level of predictability in the research findings. The stalling contraceptive prevalence rate and rising unsafe abortion rate are, according to many, unsurprising. Despite real progress in scaling up access to contraception, 215 million women still want access to family planning, but cannot access it. An unprecedented increase in both young women of reproductive age wanting to avoid pregnancy and women in their late 30s and beyond (with already large family sizes) wanting no more children represent the face of many in this group. An inability to meet this demand for services has been a key reason why reducing maternal mortality remains the most off track of all the Millennium Development Goals. To meet the needs of these most vulnerable women we need to reposition health services within a human rights focus, to ensure every single woman is able to manage her own reproductive life. Ultimately, it is about greater attention to 'what works'. Targeted investment in the prevention of unintended and unwanted pregnancies and scaling up the number of reproductive health services will reduce up to 70 per cent of all maternal deaths. Whilst preventing unnecessary death and disability of women must remain a primary motivator, we also know that access to voluntary contraceptive options and safe reproductive health services for women not only represents the best value for money in terms of aid spend, but also helps the poorest families better mitigate the dehumanising effects of systemic poverty and natural and manmade disasters, including war and famine. For these reasons, increased investment in sexual and reproductive health services is increasingly at the heart of global development efforts, and has also been highlighted as a priority budget recommendation for the Australian Government by the Australian Council for International Development. This increasing support from major donor governments is very good news for women. Despite this, most discussions on investing in reproductive health care as a strategy to reduce maternal deaths are invariably reduced to a moral panic about abortion by a small, but vocal minority. Such debates can stall progress and because of this, women continue to die unnecessarily. Australia's commitment to improving maternal health outcomes will likely increase this year, as part of a much larger social movement beginning to gain momentum across the globe. Donor governments are now increasingly unapologetic about evidence-based interventions, and we know that as long as investment is focused on responding to service needs, we will continue to yield the results women deserve. Without this focus, we will struggle to contribute our fair share to the UN sanctioned maternal health goal. The Australian public also has a role to play and must show support for investment in health services that save women's lives and prevent the 220,000 children who are orphaned every year because their mother's only choice was an unsafe abortion. This global commitment to reducing maternal death will ultimately see big gains in women's health if we can meet the expected levels of demand in the coming years. Evidence for successful interventions continues to be amassed and advances in public health modelling mean that measuring the impact of our services, such as maternal deaths averted, by simply tracking routine service delivery data is possible. Promoting innovation and harnessing new ways of working will ensure we can demonstrate the quality of results we expect from Australia's growing aid program. We must also get better at doing more for less, and be open to pioneering different delivery models, including advancing good social business practices so that we can weather inevitable economic downturns and fluctuations in aid priorities. To do this we will need to move beyond an outdated and narrow vision of what global health really looks like. Global health systems in the 21st century include partnerships across and between the public and private health sectors and coordination amongst donors and civil society organisations. Engendering a commitment to increased service delivery as the ultimate goal for women across the complex and multi-layered global health infrastructure is as much of a challenge as it is an imperative. This is particularly important in countries where women's human rights are seriously threatened by restrictive government policies, ultimately resulting in the high rates of unsafe abortion we are now seeing. If we truly want to see better outcomes for women, we need to go back to the evidence. What saves lives is sufficient access to safe, legal and non judgemental sexual and reproductive services to meet the needs of the poorest women and men. Donor and national governments – as well as aid and development agencies - must continue to be held accountable and evidence-based programs must be underpinned by a commitment to gender justice. Until these elements converge we will not see the changes that women deserve.

Source

Now, this is obviously an opinion piece. The point of posting it isn't that people take it as fact. It's not. This is one person's opinion.

But I thought it could help us direct conversation in a more-appropriate direction.

Also, I agree with the parts I bolded. Emphatically.

[Cristofle]

215 million women still want access to family planning, but cannot access it.

This breaks my heart, and frustrates me so much- a lot of these women don't want to be pregnant (and depending on where they are world-wide, may well not even want to be sexually active but that's not so much an option in some other countries- "no" isn't a choice woman are often afforded in some countries), but they have no access to birth control, and then they're vilified for desperately deciding to end their pregnancies. The only consistently successful way to lower abortion rates is through sexual education (VALID sexual education) and easy access to birth control. If these women have neither, can the "if they didn't want to get pregnant, why didn't they just take steps to stop it?" argument really apply?

[Gray Ghost]

What do you have against competition and a free market?

[Avatar]

How can there be competition and a free market in relation to abortion?

And I was stunned at that 215 million figure as well - really shows how abortion and sexual education goes hand in hand.

[Gray Ghost]

The tone in this thread makes it sound like all of the funding and costs should be the government's responsibility. If you have that mentality, then America might as well have state tv and only certain people can have access to computers and the internet. You don't have a choice of what kind of car you have either since you will be given a car issued by the government. Is that what you want?

Why does the government have to foot 100 percent of the bill on abortions?
Are donations not allowed anymore? If people are so supportive of a woman's vagina and what she can do with it, then they should put their money with their mouth is and step up the to plate and give their fair share for this cause.

If you say health care is a right, does that mean people should get free plastic surgery? Should people be allowed to have their bodies enhanced for free?
According to Cage the Elephant

"Oh, there ain't no rest for the wicked,
Money don't grow on trees.
I got bills to pay,
I got mouths to feed,
There ain't nothing in this world for free."