Alabama GOP Proposes Frightening New Way To Intimidate Abortion Providers

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?

The intervention preexists and I don't like it at all as I said in my first post.

This is an attempt to impose a level of transparency that is uncomfortable, nothing more.

You want privacy, be private.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

Not in favor of it at all, I think it should all be private.

If anything, I think we are making progress to convince you guys that interventionism is an overall negative strategy.

You are apparently favoring crony capitalism and are now reconsidering the implications of it, that's progress in my book.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I actually agree with you--this is quite stupid. Especially considering (unless I'm wrong) that most abortion providers are companies that I think would have their annual (and maybe even quarterly) profits available to the public.

Maybe not, but honestly, I don't care.

As much as I am opposed to non-medically necessary, elective (not having to do with rape or incest) abortions, I do agree that the GOP has become a ridiculous caricature of a pro-life activist, throwing hissy fit after hissy fit trying to make it ridiculously hard on people to get abortions.

These types of legislative proposals are, IMO, a gross misuse of public office and the legislative process. Either try again later on to make abortion illegal, or just accept the fact that, right now, it's legal and won't change.

And these are the people who will be the first to scream about laws that make it hard to purchase/own firearms.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Some people will do everything in their power to stop abortion except for the things that would actually stop abortion (i.e. birth control, sex education, financial assistance to single mothers, overhauling the adoption process, etc).

a reply to: neo96

This is not yet another endless polemic on the act of abortion... although I'm not surprised you desperately want to try to send it that way.

This is a State government dictating to service providers that they in fact have no personal privacy and that they must reveal their individual financial information to prospective customers or else they cannot do business with them.

Within what Article or Amendment of any Constitution anywhere will we find the State's right to do that?

a reply to: Abysha

Or people could stop acting like dogs in heat and prove they are 'evolved' as they claim.

Simple fix.

a reply to: greencmp

Stop trying to sidestep the actual fact here: please state that you are in favor of this gross intervention on the part of the State of Alabama into commerce and the rights of individuals to practice their legal trade as they see fit.

Are you in fact in agreement with the AL legislation, or not? That should be a simple answer.

a reply to: Gryphon66

This is a State government dictating to service providers that they in fact have no personal privacy and that they must reveal their individual financial information to prospective customers or else they cannot do business with them.

And the issue is WHAT ?

Didn't have a problem with that under the 'Affordable Care Act' did ya ?

Which isn't a proposal. It's LAW.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Stop trying to sidestep the actual fact here: please state that you are in favor of this gross intervention on the part of the State of Alabama into commerce and the rights of individuals to practice their legal trade as they see fit.

Are you in fact in agreement with the AL legislation, or not? That should be a simple answer.

I already said no so, no.

What do you think interventionism is?

I consider it ironic that the use of legislation to complicate an interventionist policy is prompting the very same ire as would be expected from non-interventionists. It's not righteous but, it is in keeping with every other call for transparency in subsidy.

What do you say, are you with us now?

Doesn't interventionism suck?

a reply to: Metallicus

Abortion ... not the topic.

A State forcing healthcare providers to void their personal right to privacy in order to do business is the topic.

i think all Alabama state politicians should have to disclose all their private financial information every year. they work for the people after all, and the people should know where every buck came from and where it is going. if they don't like it, quit.

a reply to: greencmp

Actually it DOESN'T pre-exist. This isn't an actual bill yet. It's only a proposal.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Metallicus

Abortion ... not the topic.

A State forcing healthcare providers to void their personal right to privacy in order to do business is the topic.

Your still clearly IGNORING the Affordable Care Act. Although I don't know why.

Here it is AGAIN.

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.

Social Security numbers, employment information, birth dates, health records and tax returns are among the personal data that will be transmitted to this hub, consolidating an unprecedented amount of information. Every shred of data one would need to steal your identity or access your confidential credit information would be available at the fingertips of a skilled hacker, producing a staggering security threat.

ACA DATAHUB

Selective outrage about a PROPOSAL in a single state.

Whereas the ACA is LAW that effects every single American in this country in all '57' states.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Abysha

Or people could stop acting like dogs in heat and prove they are 'evolved' as they claim.

Simple fix.

Part of being evolved is to be educated on sex and use protection, things many anti-choice people are against.

To call pregnant women "dogs in heat" is just a gross.

a reply to: greencmp

Please stop trying to make this discussion about your misconceptions about me and my positions.

You have made statements here in support of this legislation, and I am simply asking for clarification:

Earlier, you said things like this:

originally posted by: greencmp

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

Now you say, when pressed, you are not in favor of this interventionist legislation in AL ... you know ... the topic of the thread.

SO you stand against this legislation? Good.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

A State forcing healthcare providers to void their personal right to privacy in order to do business is the topic.

How come you don't care when the state forces people to disregard their religious beliefs to do business? Are some rights more important than others? Who gets to judge?

This is too funny. The statists have all become libertarians and vice versa, and no one's ego, on either side, will allow themselves to admit their hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

Actually it DOESN'T pre-exist. This isn't an actual bill yet. It's only a proposal.

The government currently subsidizes them, that's interventionism.

a reply to: Abysha

People get a real sex education on the 'internets' for better or worse.

To call pregnant women "dogs in heat" is just a gross.

I clearly did not say that.

I said PEOPLE could stop acting like dogs in heat.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: Gryphon66

A State forcing healthcare providers to void their personal right to privacy in order to do business is the topic.

How come you don't care when the state forces people to disregard their religious beliefs to do business? Are some rights more important than others? Who gets to judge?

This is too funny. The statists have all become libertarians and vice versa, and no one's ego, on either side, will allow themselves to admit their hypocrisy.

I thought about it carefully before responding for exactly that reason.

I think this is a great example for all of us to contemplate.

a reply to: neo96

Toss those red herrings Neo! Talk about a bad smell!

This is not about the ACA.

This is not about your personal squeamishness about other's sexual behavior.

This is not about abortion.

This is about the right-winger legislation in Alabama to restrict free trade by requiring individuals to provide private information.

Do you stand in support of this legislation?