ADVERTISEMENT

If the fetal heartbeat bill passes, what happens to the University of Iowa OB-GYN residency?

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,386
58,801
113
They had just interviewed the next wave of promising new candidates when leadership at the University of Iowa obstetrics and gynecology residency program — the only of its kind in the state — learned that they may soon no longer have a program.

Specifically, the program learned about the proposed abortion ban that lawmakers have been debating since earlier this year. If made into law, abortions after the fetal heartbeat can be detected would be barred. According to the University of Iowa, the obstetrics and gynecology department within the Carver College of Medicine would not be able to provide the full scope of family-planning training required to be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

Dr. Marygrace Elson, director of the OB-GYN residency program, says she is concerned for the ripple effect the ban would have on recruiting for her program and other UI studies that require an accredited OB-GYN residency program, and more importantly, the ripple effect it would have on the health of Iowans for years to come.

'A fair amount of money'
At this stage, Dr. Elson said the program has not started putting together a game plan should the restrictions be made into law — even if the ban does pass, she still hopes that the courts will shoot down the legislation the same way a similar North Dakota ban was shot down in 2014.

More than likely though, Elson says the program would probably have to arrange some sort of regular out-of-state training for students if it can no longer provide training in Iowa. Elson said her program has not identified an place that might be willing to provide such training, or estimated the cost of doing so.

"There would have to be sort of a contractual arrangement between the university hospital and this other entity, wherever it is, which no doubt would involve things like malpractice coverage, housing and additional expense,” Elson said, adding that if there is such an arrangement to be made, it would cost "a fair amount of money."

The program wouldn't lose its accreditation overnight if an alternative option takes time to develop.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which reviews programs annually, gives those that do not meet accreditation standards some time to fix their noncompliance. After the first year without providing the training, the program would get a warning. Then it would be put on probation before losing its accreditation if arrangements cannot be made.

But the impact would still be felt immediately. There is still an obligation to provide the education to current students who opt into the optional training.

Elson says the loss of accreditation would also affect sub-specialties fellowships that require an accredited OB-GYN program. There are at least five of these programs, including maternal fetal medicine, gynecologic oncology, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and neonatology programs.

The program doesn’t have to lose accreditation immediately for there to be an effect on recruiting, Elson says. This past fall, more than 400 medical students applied for the five open resident positions, but this can change in the coming years, Elson said.

“Let’s say it doesn’t go all the way — even if you get a warning, everybody knows that,” she said. “Everybody knows that, and your quality of candidates coming in is going to drift down. And if your quality starts to drift down, you have trouble keeping and attracting faculty.”

'Hard to think about practicing here in the future'
The University of Iowa program has 20 residents, with around one third of residents staying in Iowa after the program is over.

Retaining a few of these residents each year is pivotal in a state that lags behind the number of national OB-GYNs, says Elson. There are only 1.91 OB-GYNs per 10,000 women in Iowa and 4.13 per 10,000 women between the ages of 15 and 45, according to a 2014 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists document. Nationally there are only 2.65 OB-GYNs per 10,000 women and 5.42 per 10,000 women between the ages of 15 and 45.


Up until this proposed measure, UI medical student Emily Boevers said she hadn’t thought of practicing anywhere but her home state. The longtime Iowan found out she was accepted into an OB-GYN residency program in Kansas last week.

“This legislation makes it really hard to think about practicing here in the future," she said. "Because even though nobody likes the idea of abortion — that’s never the thing that we hope for for our patients — it’s an important part of the spectrum of care for our patients that needs to be able to be offered.”

Boevers is among the dozens of medical students who signed a letter opposing the ban. They are joined in their opposition by the University of Iowa Board of Regents and the Iowa Medical Society.

“The medical society typically will defer and not weigh in on abortion procedures, recognizing that it’s an issue our membership is divided on,” said Dennis Tibben director of government affairs for the Iowa Medical Society. “But when we get to something to this degree where it is ultimately impacting the ability of medical schools to be able to train the next generation of physicians, we need to weigh in.”

'Logical beginning point for civil governance'
The ban was tacked on as an amendment to SB 359 a bill prohibiting the sale of fetal body parts, when the original bill detailing the ban was in jeopardy of not clearing the funnel deadline.

There were some changes; most notably the new version dropped the threat of criminal charges for physicians who perform abortions after a heartbeat can be detected.

Proponents of the ban say it’s a matter of protecting unborn children. Just before the former version of the bill passed out to the house, Sen. Amy Sinclair, R-Allerton, said protecting unborn children is part of the oath lawmakers took.

“This bill is the most logical beginning point for all of civil governance ... The logically understood right to life acts as a prerequisite to every other law we enact,” she said. “So, as legislators, our very first duty should be to protect each and every individual's basic right to life, frankly, above all else.”

Iowa already has one of the tightest restrictions on abortions in the nation. Current law bans most abortions after 20 weeks. If passed into law, the fetal heartbeat ban would reduce that time period to around six weeks — before many women know they are pregnant.

'Having well-trained OB-GYNs in the state of Iowa means...'
Corbin Weaver, a UI medical student who recently matched with an out-of-state OB-GYN residency program, said she’s acutely aware of how the idea of allowing abortion can be a nonstarter for Iowans.

She says it’s also difficult to get others to understand how something like an OB-GYN program can have an effect on the whole state, but it’s what makes her passionate about going into the field.

“I feel that when women’s health is taken care of, the health of the community goes up as well,” she said. "I think that by taking care of women, you make a big difference in not only the lives of individual women, but in the community as well.”

Beovers also says people may not understand that a program like the one at the University of Iowa can impact something like Iowa's tax base.

"Having well-trained OB-GYNs in the state of Iowa means that we can have healthy moms and healthy babies," she said. "It means that we will have healthy kids to go to our schools, and it means we will have healthy college students in our universities, a young healthy workforce to work in our jobs.”

Looking back on her own training, Elson says she would never fathomed a serious attempt to bring back an abortion ban.

Elson started off her medical career in the early 1980s, when the memory of hospitals prior to the Supreme Court striking down abortion restrictions was still fresh.

“Women died,” says the director. “I’m not that old that I actually took care of these women, but I learned under faculty members who were around before Roe. V. Wade, when there were wards full of women who had to have hysterectomies or died, because they got an abortion that wasn’t safe. It was bad in those days, and people just don’t remember it anymore.”

https://www.press-citizen.com/story...b-gyn-residency-abortion-bill-iowa/433746002/
 
They had just interviewed the next wave of promising new candidates when leadership at the University of Iowa obstetrics and gynecology residency program — the only of its kind in the state — learned that they may soon no longer have a program.

Specifically, the program learned about the proposed abortion ban that lawmakers have been debating since earlier this year. If made into law, abortions after the fetal heartbeat can be detected would be barred. According to the University of Iowa, the obstetrics and gynecology department within the Carver College of Medicine would not be able to provide the full scope of family-planning training required to be accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

Dr. Marygrace Elson, director of the OB-GYN residency program, says she is concerned for the ripple effect the ban would have on recruiting for her program and other UI studies that require an accredited OB-GYN residency program, and more importantly, the ripple effect it would have on the health of Iowans for years to come.

'A fair amount of money'
At this stage, Dr. Elson said the program has not started putting together a game plan should the restrictions be made into law — even if the ban does pass, she still hopes that the courts will shoot down the legislation the same way a similar North Dakota ban was shot down in 2014.

More than likely though, Elson says the program would probably have to arrange some sort of regular out-of-state training for students if it can no longer provide training in Iowa. Elson said her program has not identified an place that might be willing to provide such training, or estimated the cost of doing so.

"There would have to be sort of a contractual arrangement between the university hospital and this other entity, wherever it is, which no doubt would involve things like malpractice coverage, housing and additional expense,” Elson said, adding that if there is such an arrangement to be made, it would cost "a fair amount of money."

The program wouldn't lose its accreditation overnight if an alternative option takes time to develop.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, which reviews programs annually, gives those that do not meet accreditation standards some time to fix their noncompliance. After the first year without providing the training, the program would get a warning. Then it would be put on probation before losing its accreditation if arrangements cannot be made.

But the impact would still be felt immediately. There is still an obligation to provide the education to current students who opt into the optional training.

Elson says the loss of accreditation would also affect sub-specialties fellowships that require an accredited OB-GYN program. There are at least five of these programs, including maternal fetal medicine, gynecologic oncology, reproductive endocrinology and infertility, female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, and neonatology programs.

The program doesn’t have to lose accreditation immediately for there to be an effect on recruiting, Elson says. This past fall, more than 400 medical students applied for the five open resident positions, but this can change in the coming years, Elson said.

“Let’s say it doesn’t go all the way — even if you get a warning, everybody knows that,” she said. “Everybody knows that, and your quality of candidates coming in is going to drift down. And if your quality starts to drift down, you have trouble keeping and attracting faculty.”

'Hard to think about practicing here in the future'
The University of Iowa program has 20 residents, with around one third of residents staying in Iowa after the program is over.

Retaining a few of these residents each year is pivotal in a state that lags behind the number of national OB-GYNs, says Elson. There are only 1.91 OB-GYNs per 10,000 women in Iowa and 4.13 per 10,000 women between the ages of 15 and 45, according to a 2014 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists document. Nationally there are only 2.65 OB-GYNs per 10,000 women and 5.42 per 10,000 women between the ages of 15 and 45.


Up until this proposed measure, UI medical student Emily Boevers said she hadn’t thought of practicing anywhere but her home state. The longtime Iowan found out she was accepted into an OB-GYN residency program in Kansas last week.

“This legislation makes it really hard to think about practicing here in the future," she said. "Because even though nobody likes the idea of abortion — that’s never the thing that we hope for for our patients — it’s an important part of the spectrum of care for our patients that needs to be able to be offered.”

Boevers is among the dozens of medical students who signed a letter opposing the ban. They are joined in their opposition by the University of Iowa Board of Regents and the Iowa Medical Society.

“The medical society typically will defer and not weigh in on abortion procedures, recognizing that it’s an issue our membership is divided on,” said Dennis Tibben director of government affairs for the Iowa Medical Society. “But when we get to something to this degree where it is ultimately impacting the ability of medical schools to be able to train the next generation of physicians, we need to weigh in.”

'Logical beginning point for civil governance'
The ban was tacked on as an amendment to SB 359 a bill prohibiting the sale of fetal body parts, when the original bill detailing the ban was in jeopardy of not clearing the funnel deadline.

There were some changes; most notably the new version dropped the threat of criminal charges for physicians who perform abortions after a heartbeat can be detected.

Proponents of the ban say it’s a matter of protecting unborn children. Just before the former version of the bill passed out to the house, Sen. Amy Sinclair, R-Allerton, said protecting unborn children is part of the oath lawmakers took.

“This bill is the most logical beginning point for all of civil governance ... The logically understood right to life acts as a prerequisite to every other law we enact,” she said. “So, as legislators, our very first duty should be to protect each and every individual's basic right to life, frankly, above all else.”

Iowa already has one of the tightest restrictions on abortions in the nation. Current law bans most abortions after 20 weeks. If passed into law, the fetal heartbeat ban would reduce that time period to around six weeks — before many women know they are pregnant.

'Having well-trained OB-GYNs in the state of Iowa means...'
Corbin Weaver, a UI medical student who recently matched with an out-of-state OB-GYN residency program, said she’s acutely aware of how the idea of allowing abortion can be a nonstarter for Iowans.

She says it’s also difficult to get others to understand how something like an OB-GYN program can have an effect on the whole state, but it’s what makes her passionate about going into the field.

“I feel that when women’s health is taken care of, the health of the community goes up as well,” she said. "I think that by taking care of women, you make a big difference in not only the lives of individual women, but in the community as well.”

Beovers also says people may not understand that a program like the one at the University of Iowa can impact something like Iowa's tax base.

"Having well-trained OB-GYNs in the state of Iowa means that we can have healthy moms and healthy babies," she said. "It means that we will have healthy kids to go to our schools, and it means we will have healthy college students in our universities, a young healthy workforce to work in our jobs.”

Looking back on her own training, Elson says she would never fathomed a serious attempt to bring back an abortion ban.

Elson started off her medical career in the early 1980s, when the memory of hospitals prior to the Supreme Court striking down abortion restrictions was still fresh.

“Women died,” says the director. “I’m not that old that I actually took care of these women, but I learned under faculty members who were around before Roe. V. Wade, when there were wards full of women who had to have hysterectomies or died, because they got an abortion that wasn’t safe. It was bad in those days, and people just don’t remember it anymore.”

https://www.press-citizen.com/story...b-gyn-residency-abortion-bill-iowa/433746002/

I would bet that we see posters reply to this with a very narrow minded set of responses. Generally looking at the basic premise that there are throngs of women everywhere jumping for joy about running out and getting abortions. This article is worthwhile as it discusses all the issues surrounding women's reproductive health. The current administration is too concerned about limiting womens health. Particularly for poor women and those unable to get coverage.
 
First of all the law is going to get shot down by the courts pretty quickly so I don't even think it's worth worrying about for them.

And secondly why the heck do you need legalized abortion to be a good OB?

I would bet that we see posters reply to this with a very narrow minded set of responses. Generally looking at the basic premise that there are throngs of women everywhere jumping for joy about running out and getting abortions. This article is worthwhile as it discusses all the issues surrounding women's reproductive health. The current administration is too concerned about limiting womens health. Particularly for poor women and those unable to get coverage.

A million abortions on a down year says that's basically correct.

According to this link

http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=18

There are 74.7 million women in the US of reproductive age (15 to 49)

Presuming that only women who are of reproductive age are getting abortions then 1 in 74.7 women of reproductive age are getting an elective abortion in one year. . . ON a down year. That's not 1 in 74.7 women in their lifetime get an abortion. That's how many get one in one year.

The pro-abortion guttmacher institute estimates that about 1 in 4 women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

Abortion isn't rare, it's unfortunately too common. And the vast majority are being conducted for unbelievably selfish reasons. The idea that there are throngs of women getting abortions isn't far off. 1 in 4 isn't rare at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Black Lab Hawk
First of all the law is going to get shot down by the courts pretty quickly so I don't even think it's worth worrying about for them.

And secondly why the heck do you need legalized abortion to be a good OB?



A million abortions on a down year says that's basically correct.

According to this link

http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=18

There are 74.7 million women in the US of reproductive age (15 to 49)

Presuming that only women who are of reproductive age are getting abortions then 1 in 74.7 women of reproductive age are getting an elective abortion in one year. . . ON a down year. That's not 1 in 74.7 women in their lifetime get an abortion. That's how many get one in one year.

The pro-abortion guttmacher institute estimates that about 1 in 4 women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

Abortion isn't rare, it's unfortunately too common. And the vast majority are being conducted for unbelievably selfish reasons. The idea that there are throngs of women getting abortions isn't far off. 1 in 4 isn't rare at all.

I do know quite a few women that have had abortions. Not one of them feel good about it. Just about every one is somewhat haunted by it. I am surprised by these numbers and not to simply gloss over them, but my previous comment was not about the total numbers but the attitude towards it. Does that make it any better?

I think it is a practice/ procedure that should be regulated- but that is purely based on my understanding of when a fetus is alive and my own moral compass. Which isn't worth very much in this day and age. I wouldn't immediately counsel my own daughters (no pics) to have abortions, I simply am not moralistic and controlling enough to be able to determine what they are allowed to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I do know quite a few women that have had abortions. Not one of them feel good about it. Just about every one is somewhat haunted by it. I am surprised by these numbers and not to simply gloss over them, but my previous comment was not about the total numbers but the attitude towards it. Does that make it any better?

I think it is a practice/ procedure that should be regulated- but that is purely based on my understanding of when a fetus is alive and my own moral compass. Which isn't worth very much in this day and age. I wouldn't immediately counsel my own daughters (no pics) to have abortions, I simply am not moralistic and controlling enough to be able to determine what they are allowed to do.

See I think when you are talking about a human life and you don't know then you better be on the safe side and protect human life rather then simply allow it to be snuffed out because it is not convenient to other people who have more power. And you do that protecting with the law. Not telling people to make their own moral decisions about the life or the value of that life. Because I think history has shown us that human beings make a lot of crappy decisions about other people's lives.

And in what other area do we let one individual decide if another individual is a human being worthy of life or not? That is essentially what our law is right now. If the mother thinks the fetus an individual worthy of life and you sneak her an abortion pill you can go to prison for murder. But if she doesn't then she's allowed to go have the fetus killed by a "doctor".

I'm not comfortable with elected officials, juries or judges having that kind of authority over life and death. Much less some random person.

Avoiding moralism and controlling can be a positive thing in cases where something does not not and can not injure or harm anyone who isn't a willing participant in the act.

But saying you are pro-choice on abortion because you arn't moralistic and controlling enough to regulate it is similar to saying that you are pro-choice when it comes to slavery because you are not moralistic or controlling enough to regulate that.

Those morals that make you uncomfortable about abortion are telling you that it's wrong. But it is easier for you on several levels to ignore that, ignore the million abortions a year going on, confronting the potential genocide we are undertaking because it is simply more comfortable for you to do so.

It would be more comfortable for me too on multiple levels. I would be a lot more comfortable not thinking that my country isn't carrying out a mass genocide at unprecedented levels using surgical tools, pills, and bombs from drones. And I could vote for the democratic party a lot more willingly too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DrVenkman
First of all the law is going to get shot down by the courts pretty quickly so I don't even think it's worth worrying about for them.

And secondly why the heck do you need legalized abortion to be a good OB?



A million abortions on a down year says that's basically correct.

According to this link

http://www.prb.org/DataFinder/Topic/Rankings.aspx?ind=18

There are 74.7 million women in the US of reproductive age (15 to 49)

Presuming that only women who are of reproductive age are getting abortions then 1 in 74.7 women of reproductive age are getting an elective abortion in one year. . . ON a down year. That's not 1 in 74.7 women in their lifetime get an abortion. That's how many get one in one year.

The pro-abortion guttmacher institute estimates that about 1 in 4 women will have an abortion in their lifetime.

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

Abortion isn't rare, it's unfortunately too common. And the vast majority are being conducted for unbelievably selfish reasons. The idea that there are throngs of women getting abortions isn't far off. 1 in 4 isn't rare at all.
There are, you know, some reasons for abortion, besides not wanting to have a baby.
 
There are, you know, some reasons for abortion, besides not wanting to have a baby.

But those reasons are extremely rare.

Most of them are some version of "I don't want a baby at this time." Some cite money, some cite wanting to complete education. All selfishness when you are looking at ending another human being's life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pahawk1
See I think when you are talking about a human life and you don't know then you better be on the safe side and protect human life rather then simply allow it to be snuffed out because it is not convenient to other people who have more power. And you do that protecting with the law. Not telling people to make their own moral decisions about the life or the value of that life. Because I think history has shown us that human beings make a lot of crappy decisions about other people's lives.

And in what other area do we let one individual decide if another individual is a human being worthy of life or not? That is essentially what our law is right now. If the mother thinks the fetus an individual worthy of life and you sneak her an abortion pill you can go to prison for murder. But if she doesn't then she's allowed to go have the fetus killed by a "doctor".

I'm not comfortable with elected officials, juries or judges having that kind of authority over life and death. Much less some random person.

Avoiding moralism and controlling can be a positive thing in cases where something does not not and can not injure or harm anyone who isn't a willing participant in the act.

But saying you are pro-choice on abortion because you arn't moralistic and controlling enough to regulate it is similar to saying that you are pro-choice when it comes to slavery because you are not moralistic or controlling enough to regulate that.

Those morals that make you uncomfortable about abortion are telling you that it's wrong. But it is easier for you on several levels to ignore that, ignore the million abortions a year going on, confronting the potential genocide we are undertaking because it is simply more comfortable for you to do so.

It would be more comfortable for me too on multiple levels. I would be a lot more comfortable not thinking that my country isn't carrying out a mass genocide at unprecedented levels using surgical tools, pills, and bombs from drones. And I could vote for the democratic party a lot more willingly too.

I hear your points. Many make sense. When this discussion Is had with women they tend to be much more passionate about it and what the law stands for. Does that nullify the points you make? No. However it comes into play for me. The idea of law makers - particularly our current lawmakers- having sway over this makes me very worried. They could take the goalposts and move them to unheard of levels on some of these issues.
 
I hear your points. Many make sense. When this discussion Is had with women they tend to be much more passionate about it and what the law stands for. Does that nullify the points you make? No. However it comes into play for me. The idea of law makers - particularly our current lawmakers- having sway over this makes me very worried. They could take the goalposts and move them to unheard of levels on some of these issues.

The slippery slope isn't a good argument for the right or the left.

A lot of people have been passionate about their right to kill people. It never made it ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pahawk1
My point: the gyns do have to know how to do an abortion, no matter how rare.

Then teach them on tubular pregnancies that would end the life of both mother and child if not aborted. Killing a healthy fetuses is not the answer.

And not every OB performs abortions. My wife and I specifically saw OB's who did not do abortions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pahawk1
Then teach them on tubular pregnancies that would end the life of both mother and child if not aborted. Killing a healthy fetuses is not the answer.

And not every OB performs abortions. My wife and I specifically saw OB's who did not do abortions.
But I bet they know how.
 
Then teach them on tubular pregnancies that would end the life of both mother and child if not aborted. Killing a healthy fetuses is not the answer.

And not every OB performs abortions. My wife and I specifically saw OB's who did not do abortions.

I knew a big-time Obstetrician at a major D.C. hospital. He worked at the hospital for 30 years and trained many other Doctors. I pray he never did abortions because other than that, he was flaweless. I don't know if he did.
 
I knew a big-time Obstetrician at a major D.C. hospital. He worked at the hospital for 30 years and trained many other Doctors. I pray he never did abortions because other than that, he was flaweless. I don't know if he did.

I can't say for sure but I don't think hospitals usually do elective abortions.

They will do it for something like a Tubular pregnancy which is pretty much a death sentence for both mother and child. But you don't usually get your elective abortions done at a hospital.
 
I can't say for sure but I don't think hospitals usually do elective abortions.

They will do it for something like a Tubular pregnancy which is pretty much a death sentence for both mother and child. But you don't usually get your elective abortions done at a hospital.

This hospital does abortions at a building next door. I know that a couple Doctors from the hospital do them.
 
This hospital does abortions at a building next door. I know that a couple Doctors from the hospital do them.

Didn't know that.

Fortunately we're fairly safe, our children where born at a Catholic hospital. I mean I didn't ask for sure but I think it goes without saying that a Catholic hospital is probably not performing elective abortions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrianNole09
Ok here is the summary of how this works. My wife is an ob/gyn at a residency training program:

1. You are required to offer abortion education training for ob/gyn residencies.

2. Residents who don't want to participate for moral or religious reasons can opt out. The residency itself can NOT opt out.

3. Having no abortion training available will have your program shut down (no exceptions after probationary period).

4. A shut down program will decrease the pipeline of graduates who are likely to stay in the state and provide care to Iowa citizens.

Only a few outcomes are possible
1. Will increase costs to send residents out of state to train.
2. Will shut down the ob/gyn program at Iowa
 
Then teach them on tubular pregnancies that would end the life of both mother and child if not aborted. Killing a healthy fetuses is not the answer.

And not every OB performs abortions. My wife and I specifically saw OB's who did not do abortions.


Removing an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion. Those fetuses will die anyway (a rare one may somehow survive). They rupture the fallopian tube and the mother bleeds to death. In fact, one of my medical school classmates died of one a few years after graduation. They are nothing like doing an abortion procedure.
 
There are 74.7 million women in the US of reproductive age (15 to 49)

Presuming that only women who are of reproductive age are getting abortions then 1 in 74.7 women of reproductive age are getting an elective abortion in one year. . . ON a down year. That's not 1 in 74.7 women in their lifetime get an abortion. That's how many get one in one year.

Cuz not all of them are "elective", and passing legislation which requires some form of "risk" to the mother is very subjective, not objective, and thus exceedingly poor legal framework.

What "level of risk" do you want the government forcing upon YOU when your wife's health may be the consequence? Should the government require a "50/50" chance of major health/death risk for you? "90%"? "10%"?

Answers vary for people, and for a couple w/o the means of paying for the complications the risks bring, they may opt to not take that risk. What if a couple already has a Downs Syndrome child - and are financially strapped - and the second pregnancy develops complications that COULD put the mother at risk AND cost them money they don't have? Are you going to REQUIRE that they go "all in" with their full financial resources (and the dad might end up a single father with even FEWER resources for his one special needs child?)

These things HAPPEN in the real world.

Pass policies which provide education and birth control. Outside of that, it shouldn't be YOUR decision unless YOU want a significant fraction of your paycheck paying for the results.

Ante Up, or Butt Out.
 
Didn't know that.

Fortunately we're fairly safe, our children where born at a Catholic hospital. I mean I didn't ask for sure but I think it goes without saying that a Catholic hospital is probably not performing elective abortions.

Keep in mind, too, that some of the abortion techniques are also what OBs have to do after a miscarriage if the fetus has grown to a certain size. These techniques do need to be taught if these future OB/Gyns are going to give quality care.
 
Keep in mind, too, that some of the abortion techniques are also what OBs have to do after a miscarriage if the fetus has grown to a certain size. These techniques do need to be taught if these future OB/Gyns are going to give quality care.

Then teach them on miscarriages.
 
Cuz not all of them are "elective", and passing legislation which requires some form of "risk" to the mother is very subjective, not objective, and thus exceedingly poor legal framework.

What "level of risk" do you want the government forcing upon YOU when your wife's health may be the consequence? Should the government require a "50/50" chance of major health/death risk for you? "90%"? "10%"?

Answers vary for people, and for a couple w/o the means of paying for the complications the risks bring, they may opt to not take that risk. What if a couple already has a Downs Syndrome child - and are financially strapped - and the second pregnancy develops complications that COULD put the mother at risk AND cost them money they don't have? Are you going to REQUIRE that they go "all in" with their full financial resources (and the dad might end up a single father with even FEWER resources for his one special needs child?)

These things HAPPEN in the real world.

Pass policies which provide education and birth control. Outside of that, it shouldn't be YOUR decision unless YOU want a significant fraction of your paycheck paying for the results.

Ante Up, or Butt Out.
I have already said that I am ok with paying more in taxes to take care of everyone.

Adoption is also an option.

And most of the situations you describe are rare the vast majority of abortions are done for entirely selfish reasons.

We don't need abortions if not for selfishness that puts our wants ahead of our children's lives.
 
Then teach them on miscarriages.

Yeah...that's not how medicine (and teaching hospitals) work.

You don't throw the "intern/resident" in on the cases where there's high risk to the patient, which can be typical for miscarriages where intervention is required.

You get them to learn on the 'low risk' stuff.

If YOU are "ok" with a first-week resident performing a heart surgery or stent insertion on you, when you're in bad shape, go for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I have already said that I am ok with paying more in taxes to take care of everyone.

I don't think you are. I added up the billions in costs to raise kids to 18 yrs of age, and it's thousands per taxpayer per year. On top of your current tax bill. That's assuming NONE of them end up with medical problems or issues to tag on top of that (which could easily double or triple the numbers)

Remember, not all of these are pristine white babies. Many are minorities. Many have been exposed to drug use or alcohol. Some many have genetic abnormalities that the mother/parents don't want to deal with, or don't have the resources for.

That's what bothers me about the religious right in this country - IF you want to prevent them, then ADVERTISE that you'll "buy" the unwanted babies and pay to have mothers carry them to term and then find adoptions for them. I see virtually NO political movement on the right to do that. I DO see politicians who impregnate their mistresses who violate their own "beliefs" and push for abortions, though....
 
Wake me up when our sage legislators provide free birth control to all, and unwanted children are provided everything they need from cradle to grave. Until then, they aren’t to be taken seriously.


Hell....we can't even get the GOP to fund medical care/aid for poor/needy WANTED children.

"Baby Steps", bro.....;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
...and just for giggles.....the Bible, itself, CONDONES abortion (induced miscarriage) and has a 'formula' for it. So, let's not get too carried away on the whole "the Bible says it's evil".

The Jewish faith believes life begins 'at first breath', not fetal heartbeat or any brain activity.

The religious nuts have COMPLETELY convoluted this issue for their own political purposes, not based on any sense of "ethics" and "values".

Personally, I'm not a fan of elective abortions as "backup birth control", and I think contraceptives should be readily available and pushed to 'at risk' groups (teens, unmarried young adults). But there should not be laws restricting early term abortions. At all.
 
I don't think you are. I added up the billions in costs to raise kids to 18 yrs of age, and it's thousands per taxpayer per year. On top of your current tax bill. That's assuming NONE of them end up with medical problems or issues to tag on top of that (which could easily double or triple the numbers)

Remember, not all of these are pristine white babies. Many are minorities. Many have been exposed to drug use or alcohol. Some many have genetic abnormalities that the mother/parents don't want to deal with, or don't have the resources for.

That's what bothers me about the religious right in this country - IF you want to prevent them, then ADVERTISE that you'll "buy" the unwanted babies and pay to have mothers carry them to term and then find adoptions for them. I see virtually NO political movement on the right to do that. I DO see politicians who impregnate their mistresses who violate their own "beliefs" and push for abortions, though....

It's not nearly as expensive as you make it out to be to take care of a child. Trust me I know I have 3.

Homes could be found for many simply by making adoption cost free and easier.

I really don't care about the race or abnormalities of the child. You think I'm a Trump supporter? You think I don't care about the disabled? Dude my wife's entire job is working with the disabled. My eldest was diagnosed with ASD, my youngest may have it too.

I'm pretty sure buying human beings even for the purposes of saving their lives is illegal. You really think the law would allow an organization to offer up cash for someone's child like that?
 
It's not nearly as expensive as you make it out to be to take care of a child. Trust me I know I have 3.

Go fact-check how much we are paying per-detainee at privatized ICE detention centers; it's >$100 a day. For infants and children, you can probably multiply that by at least 2x.

When you can get the legislation passed to provide 100% of the support needed for EXISTING children, we can have the discussion about supporting UNWANTED children.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT