Washington Post: Kamala Harris wants to force doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they object.

[tarheelbybirth]

Getting back to the topic, if an Obgyn doesn't want to perform an abortion where the life of the Mother isn't at risk, do you think they should be forced to by a Harris administration?

lol…they wouldn’t be. That’s just f’n stupid. Elective abortions are performed at clinics where doctors and staff are trained to provide that care - as long as religious nuts haven’t forced them to close.

I’ll ask again…based solely on religious beliefs, can a doctor in an emergency room be allowed to refuse to perform a NECESSARY procedure…ANY necessary procedure…if a woman’s health or life is threatened? This is a simple question that - as far as I can tell - you have yet to answer.

 

[Finance85]

Since when is healthcare a Free Speech right?

I think he's referring to religion.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So no, you don't have any links that actually quote her. Got it.

Brian has gone full 🥔.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Since when is healthcare a Free Speech right?

Catholic hospitals. The whole free exercise of religion thing, dimwit.

 

[Joes Place]

Catholic hospitals.

Catholic hospitals can not deny care on the basis of patients who hold different beliefs than they do.

Do they get to turn away "gay" patients?

 

[BrianNole777]

Catholic hospitals. The whole free exercise of religion thing, dimwit.

It's spiritual warfare, my friend.

Abortion is diabolical.

 

[BrianNole777]

Catholic hospitals can not deny care on the basis of patients who hold different beliefs than they do.

Do they get to turn away "gay" patients?

They can't be forced to perform abortions for any reason, including convenience.

That may change if you get your way.

 

[Finance85]

They can't be forced to perform abortions for any reason, including convenience.

That may change if you get your way.

Actually, that's also if you get your way. You said you voted Harris.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Catholic hospitals can not deny care on the basis of patients who hold different beliefs than they do.

Do they get to turn away "gay" patients?

It’s not the patient, it’s the procedure, that matters, dimwit. They would not perform addadictomy surgery on a woman who wrongly believes she is a man, but they would remove her appendix if necessary.

 

[BrianNole777]

Actually, that's also if you get your way. You said you voted Harris.

Your vote for Trump canceled mine out.

I'll vote against her if she tries but I live in a Democratic state so it makes no difference.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I don't know.

What do you think about the possibility of a Harris administration forcing doctors to perform every type of abortion against their conscience?

There is zero chance that will happen. Absolutely zero. It can’t happen. Under any circumstances. No shit. There’s a better chance I’m elected president a week from tomorrow, and I have more skeletons in my closet than a cheap Halloween store.

 

[BrianNole777]

There is zero chance that will happen. Absolutely zero. It can’t happen. Under any circumstances. No shit. There’s a better chance I’m elected president a week from tomorrow, and I have more skeletons in my closet than a cheap Halloween store.

I hope you're right. Never say never, though.

 

[Joes Place]

It's spiritual warfare, my friend.

Abortion is diabolical.

Abortions are necessary medical procedures.

Unless you want to return to the maternal mortality rates of the early 1900s.

Fully elective abortions, w/o any pregnancy anomalies, are what can be remanded to clinics that decide to handle those.
But any medical anomaly - including placental insufficiencies and placental anomalies - are medically documented problems which in many cases are corrected/fixed by allowing a termination of a pregnancy BEFORE major complications arise. It is up to the patient to decide if she wants to risk those complications, or not.

 

[BrianNole777]

Abortions are necessary medical procedures.

Not in 96% of cases. They're done for convenience.

 

[Joes Place]

It’s not the patient, it’s the procedure, that matters, dimwit.

The "procedure" is as medically necessary as an appendix.

We do not allow doctors to "wait" until someone's appendix has burst to provide emergency surgeries.
Abortions - particularly in the case of pregnancy complications (e.g. placental anomalies/insufficiencies) are EXACTLY the same.

 

[Joes Place]

Not in 96% of cases. They're done for convenience.

As I'd noted: let the "convenience" ones go to Planned Parenthood.
You have no clue what their issues/reasons are. If you do not like abortions, do not have one.

 

[BrianNole777]

As I'd noted: let the "convenience" ones go to Planned Parenthood.
You have no clue what their issues/reasons are. If you do not like abortions, do not have one.

We know what the reasons for abortions are. Planned Parenthood reports them.

And your logic is deeply flawed. I could claim if you don't like rape, don't have one.

Try again, brah.

Loading…

www.plannedparenthood.org

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

The "procedure" is as medically necessary as an appendix.

We do not allow doctors to "wait" until someone's appendix has burst to provide emergency surgeries.
Abortions - particularly in the case of pregnancy complications (e.g. placental anomalies/insufficiencies) are EXACTLY the same.

RCC has it covered:

“The classical example of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress.”

Even still, mandating a physician to learn and become proficient in such a procedure is anti-freedom.

Exception: To Save the Life of the Mother | EWTN

EWTN is a global, Catholic Television, Catholic Radio, and Catholic News Network that provides catholic programming and news coverage from around the world.

www.ewtn.com

 

[Section25]

Once again the argument and the nut jobs arguing are just using wiki and google to act as though they understand ethics.

While legal protection exists for conscience objections in healthcare, no HOSPITAL provides the protections for a doctor to refuse to perform life saving procedures including abortions where the mothers life is at risk. NONE. The doctor would be allowed to be sued, would not be allowed to practice, and their license would be revoked as it is considered unethical in the medical community. Doctors are NOT allowed in emergency medicine to put personal beliefs over a patients life. Hospitals do not take those risks and doctors know it is their career.

Most hospitals Legal/Risk Management Teams have established protocols with OB/GYN teams in the emergency department to perform manual uterine aspiration. MUA's are 97% effective at uterine evacuation in one procedure. I have heard arguments claiming certain hospitals do not perform abortions under any circumstances and that is just not true. Insurance just does not allow that egregiousness.

 

[Joes Place]

Even still, mandating a physician to learn and become proficient in such a procedure is anti-freedom.

No

It is medical/surgical competence.
They can always get a derm residency.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

No

It is medical/surgical competence.
They can always get a derm residency.

Or they can choose to stick to delivering babies, and treating pregnant women, like the overwhelming majority do. No need to force doctors into involuntary servitude.

 

[Joes Place]

Or they can choose to stick to delivering babies

Dealing with pregnancy complications is part of being an ObGyn. Which also means terminating a pregnancy when there are risks to the patient which are greater than the patient wants to deal with.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Dealing with pregnancy complications is part of being an ObGyn. Which also means terminating a pregnancy when there are risks to the patient which are greater than the patient wants to deal with.

Yes. That’s why physicians do “referrals”.

 

[ft254]

Abortion is always killing an unborn life.

Right to choose, personal freedom is a social issue beyond religious or strictly moral implications.

The Right has used it as a bullet point within an ultra-right movement that has backfired to the detriment of your "cause".

Defining unborn as human life is one of the problems your side has created for itself. Characterizing an undeveloped embryo as a child has taken the argument the argument outside the boundaries of acceptable discourse in universes other than yours. I'm not presenting this to argue with you personally. I respect your passion and understand your religious feelings.

Since Roe vs. Wade 10 states have passed state constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights. 3 have rejected same. 15 states, plus the Virgin Isles and Washington DC have law protecting the right.

 

[Joes Place]

Since Roe vs. Wade 10 states have passed state constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights. 3 have rejected same. 15 states, plus the Virgin Isles and Washington DC have law protecting the right.

None of those will matter once a federal policy is put in place. They will all be superseded.

GOP is already using the overturned "Chevron doctrine" to declare "abortion drugs" (which are used for much more than inducing an abortion) as "dangerous" - despite those drugs having a safer patient profile than Viagra.

That will get "upheld" by courts, along with other decisions and it simply won't matter what state you live in. People will be remanded to taking cruises into international waters to get their healthcare, fly overseas or travel to Canada or Mexico. That will include women who are having a pregnancy complication that has not yet become "critical", who do not want to end up like the 18 yr old who was denied care at 2 or more ERs, before her health declined rapidly and she went septic and died.