![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apr. 27th, 2007
Doctors’ Reactions to the Federal Abortion Ban
By Paula Hillard on Thursday, April 26, 2007.
Published under: Access to Abortion | Judicial Activism | Maternal Health | Supreme Court | Women’s Rights
The Supreme Court dealt a stunning blow to doctors last Wednesday, when they upheld a federal law banning a particular abortion method. As a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH), I've spoken with many abortion providers in the days since the ruling. They are full of questions, concerned about their patients and confused about the language of the ruling. Most of all, the physicians I've spoken with are asking how this ruling affects the way they practice medicine and the safety of the treatments their patients receive.
As physicians, we have a responsibility to act in our patients' best interests—but the Supreme Court has just allowed Congress to override doctors' expert opinions and ban a specific abortion method. This decision endangers women's health and makes it harder for physicians to provide the best possible care to women. The doctors I've spoken to are angry and upset that they can no longer use a method they consider safest and best for many patients.
She goes on to talk about concerns about the language describing the procedure, and the legal dangers that poses to doctors who aren't sure where the line is being drawn regarding actual medical procedures (as opposed to political terms like "partial birth abortion"), as well as examples of cases where it was the safest possibility for the patient.
For doctors, new abortion risks -- a good run-down of how there can be so much confusion and legal risk regarding the definition of the procedures.
By Paula Hillard on Thursday, April 26, 2007.
Published under: Access to Abortion | Judicial Activism | Maternal Health | Supreme Court | Women’s Rights
The Supreme Court dealt a stunning blow to doctors last Wednesday, when they upheld a federal law banning a particular abortion method. As a board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (PRCH), I've spoken with many abortion providers in the days since the ruling. They are full of questions, concerned about their patients and confused about the language of the ruling. Most of all, the physicians I've spoken with are asking how this ruling affects the way they practice medicine and the safety of the treatments their patients receive.
As physicians, we have a responsibility to act in our patients' best interests—but the Supreme Court has just allowed Congress to override doctors' expert opinions and ban a specific abortion method. This decision endangers women's health and makes it harder for physicians to provide the best possible care to women. The doctors I've spoken to are angry and upset that they can no longer use a method they consider safest and best for many patients.
She goes on to talk about concerns about the language describing the procedure, and the legal dangers that poses to doctors who aren't sure where the line is being drawn regarding actual medical procedures (as opposed to political terms like "partial birth abortion"), as well as examples of cases where it was the safest possibility for the patient.
For doctors, new abortion risks -- a good run-down of how there can be so much confusion and legal risk regarding the definition of the procedures.
Out of curiosity...
Apr. 27th, 2007 02:16 pmI don't normally watch him, so I'm wondering if Chris Matthews always come off as a mildly inebriated putz, or whether it was just last night at the debate pre and post shows, for some reason.
I haven't come to a final conclusion about the debate itself yet. I thought Richardson had some good points to make at times, but the camera kept catching him with awkward faces and the like, and I think that'll hurt him. I didn't really feel like Obama said all that much. I alternately enjoyed and cringed at Gravel's presence -- he doesn't have the temperament for the presidency, to put it mildly, but he called bullshit several times when he was totally right, and he kept Kucinich from being as summarily dismissed as the outlier (by taking the position himself). I think Kucinich made a good showing for himself, and made several of the arguments that many progressives agree with, and aren't reflected in the other candidates (and the pocket constitution was nifty). I still don't think he has a chance, but I like having his voice in the debate, and maybe getting heard a bit more thanks to the contrast with Gravel. I think most of the rest did about how I expected of seasoned politicians. Frankly, I liked that there were so many voices, although I'd've preferred if the debate had been lengthened to accomodate that. Occasionally people actually started talking concretely about their ideas, and there was never time to explore those enough. That's where my interest really lies.
Incidentally, zowie! I knew Kucinich had married, but I had no idea she was a drop-dead gorgeous redhead!
Hmmm. Maybe I need another politics icon. This one's celebratory, and most of the rest of them are angry or topic-specific. I need one that's neutral on some levels.
I haven't come to a final conclusion about the debate itself yet. I thought Richardson had some good points to make at times, but the camera kept catching him with awkward faces and the like, and I think that'll hurt him. I didn't really feel like Obama said all that much. I alternately enjoyed and cringed at Gravel's presence -- he doesn't have the temperament for the presidency, to put it mildly, but he called bullshit several times when he was totally right, and he kept Kucinich from being as summarily dismissed as the outlier (by taking the position himself). I think Kucinich made a good showing for himself, and made several of the arguments that many progressives agree with, and aren't reflected in the other candidates (and the pocket constitution was nifty). I still don't think he has a chance, but I like having his voice in the debate, and maybe getting heard a bit more thanks to the contrast with Gravel. I think most of the rest did about how I expected of seasoned politicians. Frankly, I liked that there were so many voices, although I'd've preferred if the debate had been lengthened to accomodate that. Occasionally people actually started talking concretely about their ideas, and there was never time to explore those enough. That's where my interest really lies.
Incidentally, zowie! I knew Kucinich had married, but I had no idea she was a drop-dead gorgeous redhead!
Hmmm. Maybe I need another politics icon. This one's celebratory, and most of the rest of them are angry or topic-specific. I need one that's neutral on some levels.
The biggest things on my mind this past week or so have been my dog and our asinine Supreme Court. You've all heard about Harry. You've also all heard about my reaction to Gonzales v. Carhart, I know. However, thinking about that (and working out the escort schedule for May) has reminded me of various stuff (like the escorting post yesterday, for example). And I'm at work 'til 11pm tonight, so I've got time to ramble.
Following are a few links that I keep misplacing when I really want to be able to refer to them to refute various tactics:
Analysis of the various posters used by anti-abortion protesters -- if anyone knows of other similar sites, I'd be interested in links or search tips; this isn't a complete compilation of all the common images in use out there, and I'd like to find info about the rest.
When the Anti-Choice Choose -- an interesting assortment of stories from clinic staff about treating patients who are also protesters (all identification of patients is removed -- because clinic staff are a hell of a lot more ethical than the sorts of people who harass and threaten them).
And two sites that I just dig in general:
I'm Not Sorry -- a site for women who don't regret their abortions, to attempt to provide balance to the high-profile but non-representative cases where women do.
And finally, Exhale After-Abortion Counseling Line -- This is a brilliant and beautiful idea, and I just wish that more women knew about it. Abortion is a challenging and difficult decision for many women, and can cause sadness and grief. Life is complicated, and there's plenty to sort through, both good and bad, after almost any major life decision. No one tells a new mother who's struggling with the demands of parenthood, and grieving over the losses that can come with new responsibilities that it means she should never have had a child, and now she's ruined her life forever. But plenty of folks will tell a woman who's had an abortion that if she has any complicated feelings at all, any grief at all, that it's a message that she made the wrong decision, and that argument is often made in some particularly manipulative and abusive ways*. To see a counseling line come into existence that's not an anti-choice conversion attempt in disguise is a wondrous thing.
* I think it's worth noting here that I do believe it's possible for women to make a poor decision in either direction (our foster care system wouldn't be as overloaded as it is, if everyone made all the right decisions about whether and when to have children), and that's hard to struggle with, but I don't accept that as a justification for restrictions on reproductive freedom. Any freedom is inherently a freedom to make a bad decision. Or a good one. I happen to believe very firmly that there are many instances in which abortion is a good and wise decision. I also believe I'm not capable of making the decision about which times those are for anyone except myself. I just get heartily tired hearing idiotic arguments against abortion that we would never accept if they were transposed to any other life event.
"That root canal is going to HUUUUUUURT! You'll be in PAIIIIIIIN! Maybe they'll mess you up so badly you'll never be able to chew AGAIIIIIIIN!"
I think I've yet to encounter anyone who found getting an abortion "fun". Yes, abortion ranges from awkward to uncomfortable to painful. Even under the gentlest of circumstances, it's no fun to have most medical procedures. This is not generally accepted as logic supporting the argument that they're evil. I got a root canal on Tuesday. It's still a little achy and weird. I wish I didn't have to have it. I also had an incredibly gentle dentist, and I know the root canal was the best decision for my health, even if I shudder at the sound of a drill. (and it's worth noting that since pregnancy and childbirth are substantially higher risk and more painful than abortion, making the "pain=bad" equation really doesn't work to the advantage of the antis on any logical level)
Basically, I find both the "it'll hurt so it's evil" argument and the "You may have intense and conflicting feelings so it's evil" argument both to be so lacking as to be laughable. Or at least they would be laughable, if it weren't for the way they're targeted at the patients.
I don't find the fact that some people feel abortion is tragic to be laughable. I do generally disagree, but not because their logic is inherently faulty or manipulative -- it's basically an honest difference of perspective and belief. And I don't object to systemic examinations of our culture, exploring why our unintended pregnancy rates are so high, and how we can fix that, and how we can provide support for women so that we can eliminate abortions that occur for purely practical/financial reasons. I'm fine with making sure other options are available and accessible, but I will work to make sure women aren't pressured or guilted into those options, either. I will always, always fight to keep abortion legal and accessible, and to see that the amazing and compassionate people working in the clinics are valued and respected as they so richly deserve.
Following are a few links that I keep misplacing when I really want to be able to refer to them to refute various tactics:
Analysis of the various posters used by anti-abortion protesters -- if anyone knows of other similar sites, I'd be interested in links or search tips; this isn't a complete compilation of all the common images in use out there, and I'd like to find info about the rest.
When the Anti-Choice Choose -- an interesting assortment of stories from clinic staff about treating patients who are also protesters (all identification of patients is removed -- because clinic staff are a hell of a lot more ethical than the sorts of people who harass and threaten them).
And two sites that I just dig in general:
I'm Not Sorry -- a site for women who don't regret their abortions, to attempt to provide balance to the high-profile but non-representative cases where women do.
And finally, Exhale After-Abortion Counseling Line -- This is a brilliant and beautiful idea, and I just wish that more women knew about it. Abortion is a challenging and difficult decision for many women, and can cause sadness and grief. Life is complicated, and there's plenty to sort through, both good and bad, after almost any major life decision. No one tells a new mother who's struggling with the demands of parenthood, and grieving over the losses that can come with new responsibilities that it means she should never have had a child, and now she's ruined her life forever. But plenty of folks will tell a woman who's had an abortion that if she has any complicated feelings at all, any grief at all, that it's a message that she made the wrong decision, and that argument is often made in some particularly manipulative and abusive ways*. To see a counseling line come into existence that's not an anti-choice conversion attempt in disguise is a wondrous thing.
* I think it's worth noting here that I do believe it's possible for women to make a poor decision in either direction (our foster care system wouldn't be as overloaded as it is, if everyone made all the right decisions about whether and when to have children), and that's hard to struggle with, but I don't accept that as a justification for restrictions on reproductive freedom. Any freedom is inherently a freedom to make a bad decision. Or a good one. I happen to believe very firmly that there are many instances in which abortion is a good and wise decision. I also believe I'm not capable of making the decision about which times those are for anyone except myself. I just get heartily tired hearing idiotic arguments against abortion that we would never accept if they were transposed to any other life event.
"That root canal is going to HUUUUUUURT! You'll be in PAIIIIIIIN! Maybe they'll mess you up so badly you'll never be able to chew AGAIIIIIIIN!"
I think I've yet to encounter anyone who found getting an abortion "fun". Yes, abortion ranges from awkward to uncomfortable to painful. Even under the gentlest of circumstances, it's no fun to have most medical procedures. This is not generally accepted as logic supporting the argument that they're evil. I got a root canal on Tuesday. It's still a little achy and weird. I wish I didn't have to have it. I also had an incredibly gentle dentist, and I know the root canal was the best decision for my health, even if I shudder at the sound of a drill. (and it's worth noting that since pregnancy and childbirth are substantially higher risk and more painful than abortion, making the "pain=bad" equation really doesn't work to the advantage of the antis on any logical level)
Basically, I find both the "it'll hurt so it's evil" argument and the "You may have intense and conflicting feelings so it's evil" argument both to be so lacking as to be laughable. Or at least they would be laughable, if it weren't for the way they're targeted at the patients.
I don't find the fact that some people feel abortion is tragic to be laughable. I do generally disagree, but not because their logic is inherently faulty or manipulative -- it's basically an honest difference of perspective and belief. And I don't object to systemic examinations of our culture, exploring why our unintended pregnancy rates are so high, and how we can fix that, and how we can provide support for women so that we can eliminate abortions that occur for purely practical/financial reasons. I'm fine with making sure other options are available and accessible, but I will work to make sure women aren't pressured or guilted into those options, either. I will always, always fight to keep abortion legal and accessible, and to see that the amazing and compassionate people working in the clinics are valued and respected as they so richly deserve.
Thanks, Alternet!
Apr. 27th, 2007 09:19 pmAs long as I'm on a roll on the abortion topic...
Abortion Doesn't Boost Breast Cancer Risk, Large Study Finds
By Thomas H. Maugh II
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 24 April 2007
The research lasted a decade and involved more than 100,000 women.
An abortion or a miscarriage does not increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, according to results released Monday from a decade-long study of more than 100,000 women.
The findings are the latest, and perhaps most convincing, in a series of studies that have discredited a concern cited by antiabortion activists to dissuade women from having the procedure.
"It's important for women to have the facts," said Karin B. Michels of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Michels is lead author of the study.
She said her group's study was "very much in line" with a 2003 expert panel convened by the National Cancer Institute that concluded no evidence supported a link between abortion and breast cancer. The institute funded Michels' study as well.
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, took issue with the findings. Her group uses the purported link as an argument against abortion.
"Clearly [the cancer institute] must suspect a link, or else they know that a link really exists," Malec said. "Why else would they continue to pay for these studies?"
Texas, Minnesota and Mississippi require physicians to warn women seeking an abortion about the supposed cancer risk. Several other states considered similar laws but rejected them in light of the 2003 consensus report.
(more at the link)
I really hope this finally prompts an overall review of those offensively inaccurate "mandatory education sessions" in a lot of states. The purported breast cancer link isn't the only bullshit our governments require doctors to tell their patients.
Abortion Doesn't Boost Breast Cancer Risk, Large Study Finds
By Thomas H. Maugh II
The Los Angeles Times
Tuesday 24 April 2007
The research lasted a decade and involved more than 100,000 women.
An abortion or a miscarriage does not increase a woman's risk of breast cancer, according to results released Monday from a decade-long study of more than 100,000 women.
The findings are the latest, and perhaps most convincing, in a series of studies that have discredited a concern cited by antiabortion activists to dissuade women from having the procedure.
"It's important for women to have the facts," said Karin B. Michels of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. Michels is lead author of the study.
She said her group's study was "very much in line" with a 2003 expert panel convened by the National Cancer Institute that concluded no evidence supported a link between abortion and breast cancer. The institute funded Michels' study as well.
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, took issue with the findings. Her group uses the purported link as an argument against abortion.
"Clearly [the cancer institute] must suspect a link, or else they know that a link really exists," Malec said. "Why else would they continue to pay for these studies?"
Texas, Minnesota and Mississippi require physicians to warn women seeking an abortion about the supposed cancer risk. Several other states considered similar laws but rejected them in light of the 2003 consensus report.
(more at the link)
I really hope this finally prompts an overall review of those offensively inaccurate "mandatory education sessions" in a lot of states. The purported breast cancer link isn't the only bullshit our governments require doctors to tell their patients.