Our City Online

Messageboard - Politics

Obamacare / Healthcare Reform - News & Discussion

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Politics Obamacare / Healthcare Reform – News & Discussion

This topic contains 1419 replies, has 90 voices, and was last updated by rus rus 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 406 through 420 (of 1,420 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #379572

    myliftkk
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    And in the next episode of the GOPs War on Women’s Health:

    The Virginia House is due to vote Wednesday on a bill which would require women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound. This is the final step before the bill arrives on the governor’s desk.

    The bill requires that the ultrasound operation helps show the physical aspects of the fetus and also detects a heartbeat. Since most abortions are sought during the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy, when the fetus is little larger than a grain of rice, this means many women would not undergo a procedure like the one depicted in the picture above. Instead, they would be obliged to endure an invasive “transvaginal” procedure.

    [url=http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/virginias_ultrasound_bill_makes_no_exceptions_for_rape_or_incest.php?ref=fpnewsfeed]http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/virginias_ultrasound_bill_makes_no_exceptions_for_rape_or_incest.php?ref=fpnewsfeed[/url]

    I particularly love quotes like these:

    CNN contributor and conservative blogger Dana Loesch objected to the idea that the bill is tantamount to state-sponsored rape, saying, “Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.” One GOP lawmaker in Virginia made the same argument, that the woman already decided to be “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.”

    I’m not sure what the success rate is, but I’m guessing leading a pickup attempt with, “Hey baby, I’m sure you’ve been trans-vaginally penetrated in the past, so hows about me trans-vaginally penerating you tonight?” isn’t going to elict a very positive response…

    #379573

    kit444
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    myliftkk said:
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/virginias_ultrasound_bill_makes_no_exceptions_for_rape_or_incest.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

    CNN contributor and conservative blogger Dana Loesch objected to the idea that the bill is tantamount to state-sponsored rape, saying, “Wait a minute, they had no problem having similar to a trans-vaginal procedure when they engaged in the act that resulted in their pregnancy.”

    They might have if the pregnancy resulted from rape.

    #379574
    SusanB
    SusanB
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    And in the next episode of the GOPs War on Women[s]‘s Health[/s]:

    FTFY

    #379575

    Twixlen
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    The governor is already reconsidering his position – the internets are powerful.

    McDonnell’s administration began walking back support of the bill as early as last week, when Alternet’s Andy Kopsa spoke to press secretary Jeff Caldwell, who said “the governor will review it if it passes and will see what the final language of the bill is,” noting that McDonnell is “generally a pro-life candidate.” Previously, the governor’s aides said that he’d sign the bill if it made it to his desk.

    The Washington Post reports that the governor’s team met with delegates Tuesday night to work on finding a way to appease McDonnell’s concerns with the bill’s current language. As Kopsa and the Post noted, the change of heart has to do with the specific ultrasound procedure required, which the governor’s administration claims is more invasive than they originally believed.

    That these idiots are passing bills involving medical care that they have absolutely no idea about is astounding. “Oh, we didn’t realize that women didn’t necessarily like having things stuffed in their vaginas!”

    And Dana Loesch – what is there to say? Her contempt for women is palpable.

    #379576
    SusanB
    SusanB
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    “Oh, we didn’t realize that women didn’t necessarily like having things stuffed in their vaginas!”

    Too good, Twixlen. I’d be laughing if the whole thing wasn’t so f’ing disgusting and vile.

    I’ve had the procedure in question btw (it was medically needed, unlike this stupid bill) and it is not fun.

    #379577

    myliftkk
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Twixlen said:
    The governor is already reconsidering his position – the internets are powerful.

    McDonnell’s administration began walking back support of the bill as early as last week, when Alternet’s Andy Kopsa spoke to press secretary Jeff Caldwell, who said “the governor will review it if it passes and will see what the final language of the bill is,” noting that McDonnell is “generally a pro-life candidate.” Previously, the governor’s aides said that he’d sign the bill if it made it to his desk.

    The Washington Post reports that the governor’s team met with delegates Tuesday night to work on finding a way to appease McDonnell’s concerns with the bill’s current language. As Kopsa and the Post noted, the change of heart has to do with the specific ultrasound procedure required, which the governor’s administration claims is more invasive than they originally believed.

    That these idiots are passing bills involving medical care that they have absolutely no idea about is astounding. “Oh, we didn’t realize that women didn’t necessarily like having things stuffed in their vaginas!”

    And Dana Loesch – what is there to say? Her contempt for women is palpable.

    It’s called the long walk-back…

    Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

    For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age. Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision.

    [url=http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/mcdonnell-no-woman-in-virginia-will-have-to]http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/mcdonnell-no-woman-in-virginia-will-have-to[/url]

    #379578

    Twixlen
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    I’ve been reading Dana Loesch’s twitter feed… she’s all enraged at the governor for backing down & pointing out that VA’s Planned Parenthood is already required to perform an ultrasound. I like how she equalizes something rubbed on one’s stomach to something inserted into one’s vagina. It seems like EXACTLY the same thing.

    #379579

    mdkruse2
    Member
    Login to Send PM

    Twixlen said:
    I’ve been reading Dana Loesch’s twitter feed… she’s all enraged at the governor for backing down & pointing out that VA’s Planned Parenthood is already required to perform an ultrasound. I like how she equalizes something rubbed on one’s stomach to something inserted into one’s vagina. It seems like EXACTLY the same thing.

    you mean it’s not? i’ve been doing it wrong for all these years…

    #379580
    tourist19
    tourist19
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    This is a (NSFW) link that includes pictures of the trans-vaginal ultrasound device. They are shown in use on a mannequin, not a person, but still graphic enough that it made me cringe. I can only imagine how traumatic that would be to go through in ANY circumstance, let alone the circumstance of trying to procure an abortion. I can not imagine how anyone would look at that and equate it to a normal day-to day medical procedure.

    #379581

    Twixlen
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Ohio is among the states suing the Federal government over the birth control mandate. DeWine is the header, but there’s no mistaking Boehner’s hand in the matter. I wonder how much money this sort of thing costs the state taxpayers?

    Dispatch article

    TPM has a good article on the subject – How Scalia Helped Obama Defend the Birth Control Rule.

    The Reagan-appointed conservative justice authored the majority opinion in the 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith, a critical precedent to the birth control case, decreeing that religious liberty is insufficient grounds for being exempt from laws. The Supreme Court said Oregon may deny unemployment benefits to people who were fired for consuming peyote as part of a religious tradition, seeing as the drug was illegal in the state.

    “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself,” wrote Scalia, an avowed Catholic and social conservative, quoting from a century-old Supreme Court decision and giving it new life. His opinion was cosigned by four other justices.

    and…

    Sadly for liberals, though, the legal basis for a challenge doesn’t end there. Apart from the First Amendment option, there’s another, more substantial judicial route that opponents of the birth control rule can take. After Smith was handed down, Congress passed a law to push back on the ruling, which Winkler said “attempts to provide more protection for religion than the Supreme Court was willing to give.”

    The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act said any law that burdens religious freedom must satisfy strict scrutiny. The Supreme Court later said it cannot apply to states (which is why the 28 states that already have the birth control rule the White House wants to take nationwide are in the clear), but held that those requirements shall apply to federal laws. First, the law may not be a “substantial burden” and can only be an “incidental burden” on religious practices; second, it must be justified by “compelling government interest”; third, it must be narrowly tailored to pursue that interest.

    Although it was an open question whether the original birth control requirement would pass this level of scrutiny, the White House’s announcement Friday allowing religious nonprofits to opt out (in which case the insurer would be forced to pay for birth control without a copay) appears to restrict the RFRA argument to overturn it.

    #379582

    myliftkk
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Just for the libertines in the crowd, I assume we all saw at the debate how Ron Paul claimed that immorality causes the need for birth control…

    No immorality, no birth control needed. See, easy as pie.

    #379583

    kit444
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    myliftkk said:
    Just for the libertines in the crowd, I assume we all saw at the debate how Ron Paul claimed that immorality causes the need for birth control…

    No immorality, no birth control needed. See, easy as pie.

    I missed that. So marital sex is immoral as well? I thought Libertarians weren’t judgmental.

    #379584

    Twixlen
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    The Blunt Amendment was voted down 51/48 in the Senate.

    That’s a little grossly close for my well-being.

    #379585

    ehill27
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    Health-law plaintiff filed for bankruptcy
    By David G. Savage – Los Angeles Times
    Saturday, March 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM

    Court records reveal that Mary Brown, lead plaintiff in a court challenge to the new health-care law, and her husband filed for bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills… Those bills could change Brown from a symbol of proud independence into an example of the problem the health-care law was intended to address.

    READ MORE: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2017719854_healthmandate11.html

    #379586
    rus
    rus
    Participant
    Login to Send PM

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/why-obamacares-medicaid-expansion-will-reduce-health-care-access/254275/

    Chapin White of the Center for Studying Health System Change has published an important new paper in Health Services Research, a journal of health economics, which suggests that a critical part of the Affordable Care Act–its expansion of Medicaid coverage to 16 million more Americans–may actually reduce those individuals’ access to health care.

    White’s report comes on the heels of numerous studies that show that patients on Medicaid, our national government-run health-care program for the poor, do far worse on health outcomes than do those on private insurance, and in some cases, worse than those with no insurance at all. (For an extremely deep dive into these studies, see my three-part series on the topic.)

Viewing 15 posts - 406 through 420 (of 1,420 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Lost your password?