I Agree With President Bush
Despite all the fuss that I’ve made out of Bush’s GOP Convention speech, it did contain one really great line :
And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.
I coulnd’t agree more. In the interests of illustrating the President’s point, here’s what he, a bureaucrat in Washington, DC, has to say about “partial-birth abortion” :
Partial birth abortion is an abhorrent procedure that must be ended once and for all…The President is committed to building a culture of life in America and the Administration will take every necessary step to defend this law in the courts.
By contrast, here’s the opinion of the American Medical Association, which represents the doctors who, according to the President, should be making the “health decisions” (emphasis added for those to lazy to read the whole thing) :
H-5.982 Late-Term Pregnancy Termination Techniques.(1) The term ‘partial birth abortion’ is not a medical term. The AMA will use the term “intact dilatation and extraction”(or intact D&X) to refer to a specific procedure comprised of the following elements: deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus. This procedure is distinct from dilatation and evacuation (D&E) procedures more commonly used to induce abortion after the first trimester. Because ‘partial birth abortion’ is not a medical term it will not be used by the AMA.
(2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion, and ethical concerns have been raised about intact D&X. The AMA recommends that the procedure not be used unless alternative procedures pose materially greater risk to the woman. The physician must, however, retain the discretion to make that judgment, acting within standards of good medical practice and in the best interest of the patient.
(3) The viability of the fetus and the time when viability is achieved may vary with each pregnancy. In the second-trimester when viability may be in question, it is the physician who should determine the viability of a specific fetus, using the latest available diagnostic technology.
(4) In recognition of the constitutional principles regarding the right to an abortion articulated by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, and in keeping with the science and values of medicine, the AMA recommends that abortions not be performed in the third trimester except in cases of serious fetal anomalies incompatible with life. Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are, in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery.
(5) The AMA urges the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as state health department officials to develop expanded, ongoing data surveillance systems of induced abortion. This would include but not be limited to: a more detailed breakdown of the prevalence of abortion by gestational age as well as the type of procedure used to induce abortion at each gestational age, and maternal and fetal indications for the procedure. Abortion-related maternal morbidity and mortality statistics should include reports on the type and severity of both short- and long-term complications, type of procedure, gestational age, maternal age, and type of facility. Data collection procedures should ensure the anonymity of the physician, the facility, and the patient.
(6) The AMA will work with appropriate medical specialty societies, government agencies, private foundations, and other interested groups to educate the public regarding pregnancy prevention strategies, with special attention to at-risk populations, which would minimize or preclude the need for abortions. The demand for abortions, with the exception of those indicated by serious fetal anomalies or conditions which threaten the life or health of the pregnant woman, represent failures in the social environment, education, and contraceptive methods.
Pay special attention to sections (5) and (6), since those are the ones that could actually help reduce the number of abortions performed. Unfortunately, the only doctors Bush listens to are named Koop, Frist, and Feelgood.
6 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Great Post!
Comment by Joe — September 15, 2004 @ 2:48 pm
Briliant!
Comment by eRobin — September 16, 2004 @ 5:56 am
http://casadelogo.typepad.com/factesque/2004/09/greg_at_the_tal.html
Greg at the Talent Show, explains why, when it comes to women’s health, we should all agree with what BushCo said at the convention: And in all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that
Trackback by Fact-esque — September 16, 2004 @ 10:19 am
Whether the term partial birth abortion is a term espoused by the AMA is basically irrelevant. The AMA is a bureaucracy unto itself, that has to maintain a neutral position on topics of an inflammatory nature.
Partial birth abortion is a term Pro-Life people have invented to accurately and vididly portray a brutal procedure that is administered at the request of a woman that does not want to be burdened with caring for a child. That is just as accurate as calling it “partial evacuation of the intracranial contents“; which makes it sound more scientific or “professional”. But, using more technical terminology does not make it more right or less wrong. It does not make the procedure any less brutal.
The majority of those opposing abortion do not oppose abortion when there is a medical reason or necessity for the abortion. There are very few cases when the abortion is medically necessary. Doctors should be the ones making decision on medical necessity and the appropriate administration of medicine. And, a pregnant mother should be the one deciding whether she is willing to die and take her child to the grave with her.
What Bush and mainstream Americans are against, is the murder of helpless babies for the sake of convenience, as a matter of a woman’s preference to terminate a person’s life. In this case, the procedure is not the practice of medicine, but the use of medical technology as a modern convenience. This goes right along with cosmetic surgery, tattoos and body piercings as elective procedures to produce a desired end result, but we don’t call those things “medical practice”, because they are not. We don’t call it medical care when people take prescription narcotics as a form of recreation.
Doctors and women should not have a right to choose to murder another human being when the reason is because life would be more difficult, more burdensome, or because the conception was a faux pas resulting from lack of discretion.
If we are going to categorize the needless (not medically necessary) murder of a child that has not drawn its first breath as a medical procedure, then we may as well let Homer take Grandpa out to the shed and put a bullet in his head, for no reason more than Grandpa is a financial burden, or taking care of Grandpa cramps Homer’s lifestyle. Hell, if Homer uses a large enough caliber weapon, to blow Grandpa’s brains out, we could even call it “partial evacuation of the intracranial contents”… After all, Grandpa has to have a pace-maker keep his ticker ticking, so he is not a viable human life, is he. Yeah, that’s the ticket! That would make it okay! NOT!!
Certainly, no sane person would propose to do that to Gramps, but the ridiculous example illustrates our generally ridiculous justification and rationale on this subject. We are in a state of moral crisis in this nation because we have confused the practice of medicine with the administration of modern convenience, labeling it as “woman’s right to choose”.
We should not be categorizing our wrongful and violent acts based upon our wishes and intents, making it socially acceptable to do unacceptable things when it suits our fancy. Why is it wrong for one man, dressed in blood-stained jeans, to kill an unborn child when the mother wants the child to be born; but, not wrong to let that same mother decide to have another man, dressed in a white coat, kill her child because she does not want the child? Why is it acceptable to have a doctor terminate the unwanted life, but wrong, even criminal, for a scared and confused teenager to suffocate her baby in the basement of her parents house and throw the baby in the dumpster behind 7-11? Why is that scared teenager considered any more sick than an adult woman, supposedly in her right mind, walking into a clinic to have her child’s life snuffed out for the sake of her career, or lifestyle, or her perceived lack of financial support? Is it the act of popping out of a vagina, head-first, and gasping the first breath of life really what defines who of us is human, and who is just a glob of cells?
John Kerry says that he is opposed to abortion, but supports a woman’s right to choose. That’s just another way of saying, “I don’t like the notion of a mother killing her child, but it’s none of my business.” Sounds remarkably similar to “I voted for ‘it’ before I voted against ‘it’.”
We can protect the whales, saves the seals, put numerous animals, insects, plants and birds on endangered species lists, all in the name of being “humane stewards of the earth”, or keeping the ecosystem in balance. Some can ponder the notion of blowing up our wonderful hydro-electric dams to save a fish worshipped by my fellow Native Americans (salmon), which might become extinct not matter what we do. But, many of those same misguided, pseudo-do-gooders, feel it’s okay to slaughter our own flesh and blood. That way of thinking makes no sense and it speaks volumes about the depraved state of the human conscience.
Comment by Brenner — September 22, 2004 @ 9:43 pm
Wow. I don’t know what to add to Brenner’s comments, except for my agreement. He has pretty much said it all.
Comment by Republicans Rock — October 31, 2004 @ 2:19 am
Brenner
“We should not be categorizing our wrongful and violent acts based upon our wishes and intents, making it socially acceptable to do unacceptable things when it suits our fancy.”
This would have been a great arguement against invading Iraq, to bad you made it so late in the game.
You also might want to post it in some anti death penalty forums.
Comment by kamachanda — October 31, 2004 @ 6:34 am