A bill on abortion was implemented to be effective on next 1st of September in the state of Texas, The bill passed easily through the state House and Senate, due to the Republican control of both. A lot of controversy its been generated in Texas because of this; Women health, Professional, private business an other interest groups are still trying to find the way to stop the implementation of this law. "The sonogram lawsuit hearing" posted by Paul Burka, talks about the lately efforts of the New-York based Center for Reproductive rights, to obtain a temporary injunction against the implementation of the sonogram bill. They based their litigation on the violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution for the professional and the patient, and they also claim that patients have a right not to be forced to listen to information they do not want to hear. But they are not having any success so far in the case.
The author is a correspondent of the Texas Monthly and he have made out a good reputation about politic affairs. The intend of the Mr. Burka is to inform about the unconformity of the medical side in this new bill for the open assault against women and doctor's rights. As a Democratic oriented blog, the author wants to accentuate the problems Republicans are having to promote it as a paternalistic "protection" since the bill passed. Even that he seems to be impartial in the commentaries, the point he is trying to underline is the ineffective legislation Republicans are bringing to the state and how that can affect the rights of the citizens. At the end of the article, he state clearly his position about this matter, and he particularly questioned the requirement for doctors to describe images to a patient that does not wish to see them, as state in the new abortion bill.
I agree in the violation this bill is causing in the rights of Texans. I also agree in the position the interest groups involved are taking to defend their rights and the rights of women. The control of the Republican party is clear in the legislation policies, and not because this kind of bill embrace Republican ideologies mean that will be right or appropriated for the well-being of all sector of societies, in this case women and professionals in the medical field. The abortion should be a personal decision took by a the pregnant woman, and not by people in the capitol whom the majority known about pregnancy as much as Osama knew about tolerance.
Abortion has always been a very controversial topic. I have always believed that abortion is a bad practice. I see abortion similar to euthanasia, which is considered murder. Euthanasia is assisted suicide where a patient, usually terminal patients, will ask a doctor to assist them in suicide. Many doctors are opposed to this practice but Dr. Jack Kevorkian did not. Dr. Kevorkian invented his own overdose apparatus where patient wanting to be euthanized will be hooked up, the patient presses a button and dies of overdose. Dr. Kevorkian was sentenced to prison for second-degree murder.
ReplyDeleteI feel abortion is similar to euthanasia, where doctors assist mothers in killing the life that mother decided to create. Why are children in mother's womb treated differently than children out of the womb? Can a mother take their born child to the hospital and have then euthanized because the mother doesn't want it anymore? I don't think so. So why are children in mother's womb treated differently? I understand that there are unexpected pregnancies but pregnancy is a risk a woman and man are taking when they are having sexual activity with or without contraceptives. If they take the risk, they must take responsibility and face the consequences of their actions. That's life. I recognize that unwanted children is another issue for they end up with uninvolved parents or children end up in foster care. Now I ask, what has our society come to? Why are people making children they don't want? How messed up are our society's morals to allow people to make children and make it acceptable to be irresponsible?
I would disagree with Cristian Jaramillo's blog "Republican legislation = Odd". I feel Texas' sonogram law is necessary when it comes to abortion. The law requires doctors to do ultrasounds, make woman hear their baby’s heartbeats, and all the other required actions. Some say it violates doctors’ and women's 1st Amendment rights but these requirements are already required by hospitals. Whenever a doctor is about to do some kind of surgery or procedure, the doctor must educate the patient about the details and risks of the procedure. It doesn't matter if the patient wants to hear the risk of a procedure, the doctor tells patients the risks anyway and has them sign a waiver that they understand the risk for consent and legal reasons. The blog also links to an article that states the Texas sonogram law contradicts doctor's moral code. But from what I remember and learned, from being an EMT and being a pre-med student, doctors take a Hippocratic oath that includes a Latin statement meaning "DO NO HARM". I would think taking a life created by a human reproductive system is considering doing harm, a contradiction to the doctor's Hippocratic oath.
Gosh, abortion is such a heated topic for so many people! There are so many different view points but what it comes down to is I don't understand how this law can require the pregnant woman to see the sonogram and hear the baby's heart beat. It definitely violates the 1st Amendment rights, so I agree with what Christian is saying.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I do agree with the part of the bill that exempts a woman if she has been a victim of rape or incest, but seriously this bill doesn't need to exist! The state doesn't need to intrude on a woman's decision.
I'm not for abortions but I don't see how it is anyone's business but the woman who is pregnant. Whatever she decides to do is what she will have to live with, but I don't think that she needs to be told by the state what to do.
Another thing is where are all these people who fight to save lives of unborn babies when Texas puts someone to death?? If, according to them, every life is worth saving then shouldn't we save the lives on death row too? Anyways, that's another controversial topic we won't get into.