Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So ... by first hand testimony here from resident right-wingers ... authoritarian invasions of privacy are fine ... as long as someone else's morals don't match your own.

This is really too easy ... LOL.

Sure is easy to point out how ridiculous LEFT WINGERS are.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA" Pub.L. 95–511, 92 Stat. 1783, 50 U.S.C. ch. 36) is a United States federal law which prescribes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents suspected of espionage or terrorism).[1] It has been repeatedly amended since the September 11 attacks.

Carters FISA Act

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, US Senate bills S.390 and S.761.[1] Senator Joe Biden introduced the bill on behalf of the Clinton Administration on Feb. 10, 1995.[2][3] The bill was co sponsored by Senators Alfonse D'Amato, Dianne Feinstein, Robert J. Kerrey, Herb Kohl, Jon Kyl, Barbara A. Mikulski and Arlen Specter.[4] Representative Chuck Schumer sponsored the bill (H.R. 896) in the US House of Representatives.[3] Following closely on the heels of Executive Order 12947, prohibiting transactions with terrorists, President Clinton described the bill as a "comprehensive effort to strengthen the ability of the United States to deter terrorist acts and punish those who aid or abet any international terrorist activity in the United States" and requested "the prompt and favorable consideration of this legislative proposal by the Congress".[5]

en.wikipedia.org...

Biden himself draws parallels between his 1995 bill and its 2001 cousin. “I drafted a terrorism bill after the Oklahoma City bombing. And the bill John Ashcroft sent up was my bill,” he said when the Patriot Act was being debated, according to the New Republic, which described him as “the Democratic Party’s de facto spokesman on the war against terrorism.”

Biden wrote the Patriot Act

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), often referred to as the Brady Act and commonly called the Brady Bill,[1][2] is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases, until the NICS system was implemented in 1998.

Brady Hand Gun Violence Prevention Act

And we certainly can't forget THIS one:

The Federal Data Services Hub (Hub), a component of the health insurance exchanges created by Obamacare, connects seven different government agencies and establish new access points to the sensitive personal information of the American public.

ACA datahub

It boggles the mind how left wingers really honestly 'think' their own snip doesn't stink.

a reply to: neo96

Neo, the air is so thick with stink it really is impossible to tell which end it is stinking. Politics: its like a baby with bad breath and a dirty diaper.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Next thing you know, they'll be asking people to submit to drug screens pre employment!

I've been pretty vocal on these forums about those being invasions of privacy as well. An employer has no business knowing if I do drugs in my offtime.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why stop there?

As much as I hate intervention and dictatorial state interference, insurance paid or state subsidized, the cost of all healthcare procedures and prescriptions have been concealed from patients across the board.

Let's see what everything costs and who is paid what.

Obviously, I think it should all be completely private and competitive but, until then, maximum transparency is indicated.

I think it's a bit of a red herring but, you sound legitimately upset as if disclosing this information would discourage someone who wants to have an abortion. Why would it?

Unless there is the possibility of a conflict of interest being exposed, I don't see how this is anything but an annoying procedural mandate.

Oh I see. So since our current health care system is allegedly a socialist construct (it isn't, in almost any way), it's fine for it to be in a shambles as long as it A. "proves" your version of health care should be the correct one, and B. hinders women from getting abortions, which are legal but bother you ideologically. Check.

Huh? Our healthcare system is an interventionist's wet dream.

How does disclosing financial information discourage someone who is seeking an abortion. This is nothing like the ultrasound mandate.

Probably a bad example but, if you went in to the doctor and they told you how much your insurance was paying for an ingrown toenail procedure, would you get up and walk out?

I don't know if I have misunderstood somehow but, some folks have incorrectly gleaned that this is a requirement of the patient's financial disclosure which it is not.

a reply to: greencmp

I am under no misconceptions about this bill. This bill is purposely designed to discourage doctors from performing abortions in the state by putting their privacy at stake because they do them.

originally posted by: greencmp
Probably a bad example but, if you went in to the doctor and they told you how much your insurance was paying for an ingrown toenail procedure, would you get up and walk out?

I'd be annoyed and confused why they were telling me. Now imagine that, on top of the other flaming hoops, for someone in the emotional state an abortion-seeking woman may be in.

a reply to: greencmp

They are mad because they don't want people to know that abortion might end being a substantial portion of a provider's income which would mean the provider could have a reason to council them toward aborting over other options.

However, I am guessing most of these same people would be all for this if their doctors were forced to disclose how much they got in concessions from pharmaceutical reps to sell or promote medications for certain conditions, whether or not they do. That would also fall under the same kind of "conflict of interest" this bill describes.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ketsuko

You do realize that general practitioners don't perform abortions correct?

Yes. They don't do tonsillectomies, either.

What does that have to do with anything? Abortion providers are the ones being forced to give out their income, not general practitioners who may be recommending abortion providers for a profit. Your analogy is rather flimsy.

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

originally posted by: greencmp
Probably a bad example but, if you went in to the doctor and they told you how much your insurance was paying for an ingrown toenail procedure, would you get up and walk out?

I'd be annoyed and confused why they were telling me. Now imagine that, on top of the other flaming hoops, for someone in the emotional state an abortion-seeking woman may be in.

So, if all healthcare were private, you would walk out if they told you how much the procedure costs?

I honestly don't understand your position on this.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: greencmp

They are mad because they don't want people to know that abortion might end being a substantial portion of a provider's income which would mean the provider could have a reason to council them toward aborting over other options.

Abortion providers make the majority of their income from abortions? You don't say... I'm pretty sure we AREN'T worried about that at all.

However, I am guessing most of these same people would be all for this if their doctors were forced to disclose how much they got in concessions from pharmaceutical reps to sell or promote medications for certain conditions, whether or not they do. That would also fall under the same kind of "conflict of interest" this bill describes.

Uh no... I wouldn't be for that either.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: greencmp

They are mad because they don't want people to know that abortion might end being a substantial portion of a provider's income which would mean the provider could have a reason to council them toward aborting over other options.

However, I am guessing most of these same people would be all for this if their doctors were forced to disclose how much they got in concessions from pharmaceutical reps to sell or promote medications for certain conditions, whether or not they do. That would also fall under the same kind of "conflict of interest" this bill describes.

Bingo, that's what I want. Full disclosure across the board.

a reply to: neo96

You're a riot Neo, a literal riot.

So ... if I can borrow your erstwhile metaphoric argument here ... "All poop stinks."

All you've done is prove that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarians, particularly in the US Congress.

Imagine that. Who would have thought that career politicians were authoritarians.

What you have not done, besides using the kindergarten polemic of "I know you are but what am I?" is demonstrate that right-wingers, like the legislators in AL, have any more regard for personal privacy, liberty, or lack of governmental overreach than the average Democrat? Congratulations.

Do you realize that all Democrats are not leftists? I know you usually co-mingle them ... but a leftist is opposed to authoritarian governments ... so, as usual, you're not saying much of anything at all.

I watched John Oliver's thing about abortion on his new show last night. It's insane how far these states are going to prevent legal abortions.

Some state is even having doctors tell women that an abortion can increase their risk of breast cancer. The doctor in the segment said, "That's a lie and not true, but by law I have to tell you that it can increase you risk of breast cancer. But as a doctor and medical professional, I can absolutely say that there has been no link or evidence to support that. But as I said, I am legally obligated by law to tell you that."

WTF...

a reply to: greencmp

So you're in favor of a private individual being forced by the government to disclose their personal financial information to customers in order to do business?

Let's call this what it is without all the hokum and trappings ... providing healthcare is a trade.

So now, suddenly, the free market should bend to someone's idle curiosity?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: greencmp

They are mad because they don't want people to know that abortion might end being a substantial portion of a provider's income which would mean the provider could have a reason to council them toward aborting over other options.

However, I am guessing most of these same people would be all for this if their doctors were forced to disclose how much they got in concessions from pharmaceutical reps to sell or promote medications for certain conditions, whether or not they do. That would also fall under the same kind of "conflict of interest" this bill describes.

Bingo, that's what I want. Full disclosure across the board.

You realize that you are asking for MASSIVE government intervention here right, Mr. Libertarian?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

So you're in favor of a private individual being forced by the government to disclose their personal financial information to customers in order to do business?

Let's call this what it is without all the hokum and trappings ... providing healthcare is a trade.

So now, suddenly, the free market should bend to someone's idle curiosity?

If they are publicly subsidized, yes. Healthcare is not a free market industry and hasn't been for decades.

Only private commerce can be private but, as a private consumer of services, I would also want to know. I would likely go to the doctor whose rate of success was the highest and then compare costs as a secondary factor.

No matter how you slice this up, I still don't get it.

a reply to: ketsuko

So ... free markets, smaller governments, and liberty ... until your personal sense of righteousness gets offended ... and then the State needs to force healthcare providers to reveal their incomes to their customers and if they will not then the State will inhibit them from plying their chosen trade?

Sounds kinda Communist to me Kets.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Abortion is the 'riot', and why it's even a political issue.

The mark of any true 'civilization' is how it treats those who can't defend themselves.

IMO abortion is a barbaric practice. That needs to end, but not by authoritarianism by the state, or authoritarianism by the soon to be mother.

We all come from the same place, and it is disheartening as to the millions of people that will never be born in to this world.

The world will never know what they could have offered.

You know if the GOP would just EMBRACE contraceptives and adequate sexual education they wouldn't have to worry about people getting pregnant and getting abortions.

Typical.

The ONLY person(s) at fault for getting themselves pregnant is the man and the woman involved. Now because they are such irresponsible mouth breathers they make a 'choice' to kill another human.

If you don't want the Repubs to be responsible for their choice AFTER getting pregnant why don't not make them responsible for the first part either.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

So you're in favor of a private individual being forced by the government to disclose their personal financial information to customers in order to do business?

Let's call this what it is without all the hokum and trappings ... providing healthcare is a trade.

So now, suddenly, the free market should bend to someone's idle curiosity?

If they are publicly subsidized, yes. Healthcare is not a free market industry and hasn't been for decades.

Only private commerce can be private but, as a private consumer of services, I would also want to know. I would likely go to the doctor whose rate of success was the highest and then compare costs as a secondary factor.

No matter how you slice this up, I still don't get it.

So ... again, you're for governmental non-interference until you're in favor of it?

Your mummery not withstanding ... you are in favor of the State mandating how individual business will be done.

I just want you to say that outright ... you are in favor of this AL legislation.