Oklahoma lawmakers have passed a bill that makes performing an abortion a felony.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Afraid to stick around I see.

How did I know you'd Bitch out so quickly?? I must be some kind of psychic or something.

So it came as something of a surprise when Fallin announced Friday that she had decided to veto a bill to make it a felony for doctors to perform abortions and to revoke their licenses if they carry out the procedure when it is not absolutely necessary to save the life of the woman. She described the bill as “unconstitutional” — a view shared by legal experts.

But rather than reject the legislation on the grounds that doctors should be free to do their jobs or that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1991 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling explicitly rejects state abortion laws that impose an “undue burden” or “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability,” Fallin made clear that her issue with the measure, Senate Bill 1552, was entirely with its less-than-specific phrasing.

“Although Senate Bill 1552 excludes a mother’s threat of self-harm from the exception preserving the life of the mother, Senate Bill 1552 does not define ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother,'” she wrote in her veto message. “The absence of any definition, analysis or medical standard renders this exception vague, indefinite and vulnerable to subjective interpretation and application.” Fallin added that state court precedent requires that laws be clear enough “that all persons of ordinary intelligence” can understand them.

In other words, Fallin objected only to the fact that there might be cases where it was not clear that the procedure was necessary to save a life.

thinkprogress.org...

badly written law in other words... but what do you expect when they put the safety of the women second to the sacred rights of the fetus.

a reply to: dawnstar

Early labor isn't the same as a miscarriage, and that's what the first case looks like. Those are not the same thing. Both can result in a lost child, but they happen for different reasons.

The first case was dismissed. The woman didn't even attempt to file a lawsuit against the hospital; she filed against the Catholic ministries. he lawsuit was an attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, and it was tossed out for that reason. It's also not clear whether the infection she had was a result of the early labor, or the cause of it.

The second case is far from clear, either, with conflicting reports.

None of that gives anyone the right to demand abortions from doctors and facilities that are oppossed to them.

a reply to: dawnstar

The law was based on the premise of regulating doctor professional standards, which is a state responsibility. While it most likely is unconstitutional that argument has never been used before and would result in a court challenge.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The women were all experiencing a rare pregnancy complication in which the membranes surrounding the fetus rupture too early. When that happens before the fetus is viable, the rupture leads to a miscarriage.

For the mother, these circumstances are not necessarily dangerous. According to the guidelines of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), it is safe for many women experiencing membrane rupture to go home and monitor their condition until they go into labor.

The danger arises when there are signs of an infection. In that case, said an OB-GYN who reviewed the report on behalf of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, most doctors would “absolutely urge” the woman to allow doctors to induce delivery. The goal is to minimize the risk of the woman developing a severe infection by removing the source. (The OB-GYN spoke on condition of anonymity because she did not personally examine the patients.)

None of the women in the report were more than 20 weeks pregnant – which is several weeks before the fetus can survive outside the womb. And all five women showed signs of infection, the report says, such as an elevated temperature or heart rate.

Yet staff never informed any of the women that there was an alternative to natural miscarriage – immediate delivery – or that immediate delivery is a safer option for women showing signs of infection, the report says. One woman told Groesbeck that even when she asked medical staff to deliver her infant, they refused.

“In each incident, [Mercy Health Partners] withheld medically indicated treatment and information from pregnant women experiencing emergency situations,” the report reads. “These practices not only risk life-threatening infection, infertility, and health problems, they subject women to unnecessary physical and psychological suffering.”

One woman arrived at the hospital after seeing a fetal limb in her toilet. Staff dilated her, causing “a bulging bag of waters”, but refused her request to break her water and begin delivery, the report says.

“The patient was forced to wait over eighteen hours, while dilated, to complete the miscarriage naturally, resulting in retention of the placenta (a leading cause of maternal hemorrhaging and death) and additional, and potentially unnecessary, surgical intervention to remove it,” the report says. Later, a test of the placenta was positive for infection.

www.theguardian.com...

no hospital, or doctor for that matter should be in the maternity business if they aren't willing to use the full arsenal of medicine to protect the life and well being of the mother, and that includes abortion. But as far as the Catholic Hospitals goes, it seems that the courts deems that their religious liberty is more deserving than women's health and possibly life is. the only option women have when they run into these complications and feel that this policy has caused them undue harm is to sue the individual hospitals and care providers for malpractice I guess. since they failed to adequately diagnosed the problem and ascertain the danger to the health and life of the mother... of which, in neither the catholic hosptials or this law in oklahoma, or the hospital systems in Ireland (unless they've managed to get them changed) really give a darn if there's any risk of permanant damage to a women's body, as long as she doesn't die..

the catholic hospitals in america even admitted that when the risks are questionable, they will err on the side of life (the fetus' life)..

a reply to: dawnstar

If a woman wants an abortion, she can go someplace else. There is no reason to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

I doubt anyone who believes in abortion would go to a Catholic hospital in the first place, unless they are doing so only to cause trouble for them and to try and force them into doing something against their religion.

Catholic women I know would rather die than kill their unborn child. Even women I know who are not Catholic feel the same.

From the moment of conception, the miracle inside of you is depending upon you for their survival. To end that is the most selfish, evil thing that a woman can do.

a reply to: Xcathdra

the law's purpose was to ban all abortions, as was expressed by some lawmakers, and I went through the development of this bill and it appears to me that the first draft didn't even consider the health or life of the mother.
they disguised it as them regulating doctor professional standards, but the lawmakers statements give away the true motive.
and well, they put so little concern on the life or health of the mother they neglected to give any guidance (just like the policies of the catholic hospitals in the country neglect to do, just like the Irish laws banning abortion neglect to do) as to when it's justifiable to intervene on behalf of the mother.
that makes it very, very, unconstitutional... not to mention just how irrational it is to place the life of a fetus that has no chance of survival of greater importance that the life of the mother who the pregnancy is endangering. by doing this, you are denying the one clear undeniable medical purpose for abortion existing.. the one reason that I believe everybody can agree upon!
personally, I don't think that it's just an oversight of the lawmakers, that they just forgot to consider the health and well being of the female who is the other patient in every pregnancy. I think many of them don't want to do a danged thing about abortions in this country, they like them, heck a few of them have probably paid a few women off to go to those abortion clinics and kill off the evidence of the own sexual weaknesses. They just want the christian right to think they are trying to do something but the evil courts are refusing to allow them to.

a reply to: BlueAjah

one in six hospital beds in america are catholic. in some areas there isn't a non-catholic hospital for over a hundred miles. and it's not like they have any signs on their doors outlining what services their beliefs will prevent them from doing and under what circumstances they will make exceptions to their policies. I do believe that there's been a few women who didn't even know that the hospital was catholic until it was too late.

From the moment of conception, the miracle inside of you is depending upon you for their survival. To end that is the most selfish, evil thing that a woman can do.

unless of course, you have a doctor telling your that there is a greater chance of dying trying to bring it into the world than delivering a healthy baby and you happen to be the sole caretaker of a few living breathing kids and doubt anyone else would be available to give them decent care outside of the foster care system ... and in all these cases that I am pointing to, there was no way that fetus would have survived!

and, we new have a whole state discussing weather or not they will override the gov's veto on this law, so I guess if the women in this state don't want that kind of care if their pregnancy become complicated, well they can just abandon their homes for the banks to foreclose on, leave their jobs, and move to another state!

originally posted by: dawnstar
no hospital, or doctor for that matter should be in the maternity business if they aren't willing to use the full arsenal of medicine to protect the life and well being of the mother, and that includes abortion.

The "maternity business" is about more than the life of the mother; TWO lives, at minimum, are involved in a pregnancy. The mothers I know, myself included, would gladly die for their children. Given a choice of me or a child? No contest. Ever.

originally posted by: dawnstar
But as far as the Catholic Hospitals goes, it seems that the courts deems that their religious liberty is more deserving than women's health and possibly life is.

Of course the liberty of the medical people is important!! If we compromise in matters of liberty, then we forfeit liberty altogether. The health of the baby is as important as that of the mother. You seem to forget this.

originally posted by: dawnstar
the only option women have when they run into these complications and feel that this policy has caused them undue harm is to sue the individual hospitals and care providers for malpractice I guess. since they failed to adequately diagnosed the problem and ascertain the danger to the health and life of the mother... of which, in neither the catholic hosptials or this law in oklahoma, or the hospital systems in Ireland (unless they've managed to get them changed) really give a darn if there's any risk of permanant damage to a women's body, as long as she doesn't die..[/quote]

The cases you mentioned were more about attacking religious freedom than about the health of a mother. In the one case, where the woman died, you presented one side of the story, and even that article admits that there are conflicting reports as to what actually occurred. Overall, it appears that the case was picked up to attack the religious freedom of the people in the hospitals. In the other case, the woman isn't dead, and no mention of any long-term ill effects are mentioned, either. Nor did she even file a lawsuit against the hospital.

No, the political motivations in these cases are crystal clear. The health of the women isn't the concern, either. Religious freedom is the concern.

originally posted by: dawnstar
the catholic hospitals in america even admitted that when the risks are questionable, they will err on the side of life (the fetus' life)..

They see two patients, and they choose to save the most vulnerable. I see no problem with that.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The "maternity business" is about more than the life of the mother; TWO lives, at minimum, are involved in a pregnancy. The mothers I know, myself included, would gladly die for their children.

Would you chose to live for your living children rather than die for your unborn one?

Given a choice of me or a child? No contest. Ever.

But, in a Catholic hospital, who is given the choice, the mother or the doctors? Whose right is it to decide whether the mother's or the unborn child's is worth more?

The mothers I know, myself included, would gladly die for their children. Given a choice of me or a child? No contest. Ever.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

and, just because you would gladly die for your unborn child, even if it's obvious that your body is trying to expell said child 17 weeks in gestation so it wouldn't survive anyways.....
you believe that no one else should have the freedom to decide to make that sacrifice themselves. and by, taking that choice away from them you take away any honor rightfully due them. exchanging a sacrifice for a possible death sentence.

there's many more cases I could bring up but I wont bother with it for various reasons not the least of which is that the op isn't really about catholic hospitals but rather about a law that basically is the same as that religious doctrine that the catholic hospitals are operating under.
and states aren't given the right to enforce it's chosen religious beliefs.. matter of fact that constitutional protection was put there to protect the citizens from it doing so, so your cries of freedom is irrelevant.

yes, there are two patients, amazingly, the gynecologist is the one delivering the baby, and the mother is his primary patient! there's probably a pediatrician relatively close by in the event that the baby may need emergency care after it's born... that baby is their primary patient!

a reply to: windword

But, in a Catholic hospital, who is given the choice, the mother or the doctors?

actually, neither are given the choice... the choice was made by a group of catholic bishops... can't help but wonder just what kind of medical training they have??

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
a reply to: mOjOm

Lets see...what new laws has the House put through. The big ones have included Obamacare, gay marriage, overtime pay, etc. As far as I know, those all came from the left. What has the House shoved up the American people recently? I'm listening.

Sure all those came from the left and all those provide more freedoms. My points was that the Republicans usually push for bans or laws the result in less freedoms. Like gay marriage bans, abortion bans, long sentences for drug offenders, keeping the drug war going, laws that try to protect bigots under the disguise of religious freedoms and most recently the whole trans bathroom thing.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: dawnstar

If a woman wants an abortion, she can go someplace else. There is no reason to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.

I doubt anyone who believes in abortion would go to a Catholic hospital in the first place, unless they are doing so only to cause trouble for them and to try and force them into doing something against their religion.

Catholic women I know would rather die than kill their unborn child. Even women I know who are not Catholic feel the same.

From the moment of conception, the miracle inside of you is depending upon you for their survival. To end that is the most selfish, evil thing that a woman can do.

Maybe religions have no place running hospitals in the first place.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
Would you chose to live for your living children rather than die for your unborn one?

I would not value one child over another.

originally posted by: windword
But, in a Catholic hospital, who is given the choice, the mother or the doctors? Whose right is it to decide whether the mother's or the unborn child's is worth more?

A doctor has a right to decide if he wants to end the life of a baby. Serving in such a role doesn't mean the doctor loses his rights.

originally posted by: dawnstar

The mothers I know, myself included, would gladly die for their children. Given a choice of me or a child? No contest. Ever.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

and, just because you would gladly die for your unborn child, even if it's obvious that your body is trying to expell said child 17 weeks in gestation so it wouldn't survive anyways.....
you believe that no one else should have the freedom to decide to make that sacrifice themselves. and by, taking that choice away from them you take away any honor rightfully due them. exchanging a sacrifice for a possible death sentence.

Again, you are attempting to confuse miscarriage and/or early labor, and equate these with abortion. Since we both know you support elective abortion, perhaps we can dispense with these diversions?

originally posted by: dawnstar
there's many more cases I could bring up but I wont bother with it for various reasons not the least of which is that the op isn't really about catholic hospitals but rather about a law that basically is the same as that religious doctrine that the catholic hospitals are operating under.
and states aren't given the right to enforce it's chosen religious beliefs.. matter of fact that constitutional protection was put there to protect the citizens from it doing so, so your cries of freedom is irrelevant.

yes, there are two patients, amazingly, the gynecologist is the one delivering the baby, and the mother is his primary patient! there's probably a pediatrician relatively close by in the event that the baby may need emergency care after it's born... that baby is their primary patient!

The law states that people have freedom. One does not forfeit their freedom because they choose to serve others in some capacity. Nor can service be demanded, because that is slavery, not freedom. Pointing this out is quite relevant. Inconvenient to your argument, perhaps, but relevant nonetheless.

The OB (and how interesting that you dropped that from your description of said doctor...) is there for TWO patients; mother and child. Every OB I have ever seen knew this. During pregnancy, much of the care and testing is to ensure the health of the baby, as well as the mother.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I would not value one child over another.

You value one life over another though.
Talk is cheap! I doubt you would chose to die in childbirth.

A doctor has a right to decide if he wants to end the life of a baby.

What a degrading outlook you have for the value of a woman's life, a woman seeking life saving medical aid because her unborn (potential) child is killing her.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

first it's not the doctor's that are refusing to do abortions, it's a council of bishops, removing the freedom to act according to their conscious!!

McBride was an administrator and member of the ethics committee at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, which is owned by Catholic Healthcare West(Dignity Health).[1] On 27 November 2009, the committee was consulted on the case of a 27-year-old woman who was eleven weeks pregnant with her fifth child and suffering from pulmonary hypertension.[1][3] Her doctors stated that the woman's chance of dying if the pregnancy was allowed to continue was "close to 100 percent".[5]

McBride joined the ethics committee in approving the decision to terminate the pregnancy through an induced abortion.[1] The abortion took place and the mother survived.[5]

Afterwards, the abortion came to the attention of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix. Olmsted spoke to McBride privately and she confirmed her participation in the procurement of the abortion.[7] Olmsted informed her that in allowing the abortion, she had incurred a latae sententiae, or automatic, excommunication. McBride was subsequently reassigned from her post as vice president of mission integration at the hospital.[1]

In May 2010, the incident came to the attention of the Arizona Republic newspaper, which asked the hospital and the bishop for comments. Both the bishop and the hospital provided answers to the newspaper's request, and on 15 May 2010 the two statements were published online.[8]

In December 2010, Olmsted announced that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix was severing its affiliation with the hospital, after months of discussion had failed to obtain from the hospital management a promise not to perform abortions in the future. "If we are presented with a situation in which a pregnancy threatens a woman's life, our first priority is to save both patients. If that is not possible, we will always save the life we can save, and that is what we did in this case," said hospital president Linda Hunt. "Morally, ethically, and legally, we simply cannot stand by and let someone die whose life we might be able to save."[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

the wikipedia article continues.

The hospital's spokesperson explained that while the hospital follows the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, these directives do not answer all questions.[1][3] McBride's supporters have argued that the abortion was licit under the terms of Directive 47 of the "Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services", issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.[12] Those who reject this argument note that Directive 47 (which refers to "operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman") applies only in the case of the death of the unborn child as an unintended consequence, according to the "principle of double effect", while the preceding Directive 45 in the same document explicitly states "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services, even based upon the principle of material cooperation."[12]

In explanation of how McBride excommunicated herself through her actions, Father John Ehrich, medical ethics director for the diocese, issued a statement that stated "The unborn child can never be thought of as a pathology or an illness. That is, the child is not that which threatens the life of the mother, rather it is the pathology or illness (cancer, premature rupture of membranes, hypertension, preeclampsia, etc.) which threatens the mother's life." Since "no physician can predict what will happen with 100 percent accuracy", Ehrich wrote, "What we should not do ... is lower risks associated with pregnancy by aborting children."[13]

However, critics condemned the decision and suggested that it reflected larger trends. Jacob M. Appel, a leading American bioethicist, questioned "if women are safe in Catholic hospitals" following Olmsted's announcement. Appel wrote that, "Like many Catholic hospitals, St. Joseph's has long had two conflicting policies regarding maternal-fetal conflict on its books. One directive states that abortion is never permitted, even to save the life of the mother, while the other notes that 'operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted...even if they will result in the death of the unborn child....Until this recent incident, pregnant women could safely assume that Catholic hospitals would follow both the law and widespread standards of medical ethics in allowing the second directive to trump the first. Suddenly, that time-honored understanding appears to be in jeopardy."[14] Appel warned patients against obtaining obstetrics care at Catholic institutions.[14]

Catholics for Choice, an independent pro-choice organization,[15][16] also expressed concerns regarding the decision. Its president, Jon O'Brien, said, "While not all the facts are available, it is clear that the Vatican's hard line on abortion led to this terrible situation. Sadly, we see situations like this time after time, both here in the US and abroad. The Vatican's outright ban on all abortions is insensitive and reflects an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of women's lives, including the difficult decisions that often have to be made during a pregnancy."[17]

The Reverend Thomas Doyle, a well-known canon lawyer, noted that the bishop "clearly had other alternatives than to declare her excommunicated." Doyle argued that this case highlights a "gross inequity" in how the church chooses to handle scandal. He noted that no priests have been excommunicated for sexual abuse, suggesting a double standard within the church,[18] (although this is now no longer the case, since pedophile priest Jose Mercau was excommunicated by Pope Francis[

en.wikipedia.org...

it seems that some find their Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services as contradicting itself.

continued from above..

and then the crux of the matter comes out...

A number of Bishop Olmsted’s supporters have suggested that his refusal to rubber-stamp a decision he deemed immoral underscores a deeper reality: Catholic moral teaching affirms God as the author of all life, and when no morally licit treatment is available, trust in his providence remains the only choice.

“We cannot stop all naturally induced tragedies from happening,” agreed Brehany. “But the most important thing we shouldn’t do is choose a substantial moral evil that good may come of it. That’s precisely where the Church would be out of sync with contemporary popular culture.”

www.abovetopsecret.com...

when one finds themselves in such a position, one should pray to god and trust that whatever happens is his will!!

which would be all find and dandy, except that if the only hospital in a hundred miles radius is running on these directives, you seem to be demanding that all the doctors in the area who need hospital privileges as well as all the potential patients to also trust you god, even it they don't believe he exists.

Since we both know you support elective abortion

I will refuse to accept that the rights of those few cells within the mother should be held of higher esteem than the mother that is carrying them!! show me a law that protects the mother, her family, as well as they do the potential life growing inside of them, and then come back and we'll discuss it. the oklahoma law does not! and demanding women to sacrifice thier lives, to accept permanent disability, foster care for their children, loss of income that places them below the standard of living that the gov't uses their tax money to provide to the poor that they find "worthy"....
well then it's no longer a sacrifice, and in at least some cases, would come danged close to murder!

In the United States today, about 15 women die in pregnancy or childbirth per 100,000 live births. That’s way too many, but a century ago it was more than 600 women per 100,000 births. In the 1600s and 1700s, the death rate was twice that: By some estimates, between 1 and 1.5 percent of women giving birth died. Note that the rate is per birth, so the lifetime risk of dying in childbirth was much higher, perhaps 4 percent.

www.slate.com... tury.html

safe abortions have only been legal for a short time, and yes, there's been alot of them but we've had centuries upon centuries of not only a higher percentage of women pregnant due to the lack of effective birth control, but a much higher percentage of them dying in childbirth. add to that the number of children who dies from abuse and neglect in the workhouses or other barbaric solutions for poverty of the past...
I am sorry, but I really don't think that we are less civilized or more barbaric now than we have been in the past.

abcnews.go.com...

care to explain to me just how a baby can feel pain during abortion, but well, it's perfectly okay to refuse to end that suffering while it's being crushed to death in the womb...

I ain't actually proabortion, as much as I am aware that we just can't seem to make sane legislation that is designed to reduce the overall suffering and pain as well as deaths if our only goal in those regulation is to ban all abortions. I did a search on all of those bishops who are part of the committee that came up with those Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, one had some experience in as a mediator in a hospital setting, and one had a degree in bioethics, but that is about the extend of their medical training, and, since none of them would have any knowledge of the individuals that their directives would affect, they had no idea just what chaos the loss of any one life, or their extended stay in the hospital, or any permanent injury a pregnancy might cause them would cause them or their families. neither do those who came up with that oklahoma law.
somehow, they see it as perfectly reasonably to risk the life and health of the mother, to cause them to be in the icu for a week or two when they need to be home with their living breathing children, to risk life long damage to their bodies, even if there is less than a .00000000000000001% chance that the fetus will survive.

and that is just pure insanity!