Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Nebraska Abortion Bill
5 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 2:55PM #1
Cesmom
Posts: 4,742

The bill, introduced by Speaker Mike Flood, would prohibit abortions of fetuses except in cases of medical emergencies.


The bill would also penalize physicians for not adhering to reporting requirements included in the bill. No penalty would be given to the woman if an abortion was performed in violation of the bill's guidelines.


An obstetrician backing the bill said the measure wouldn't violate a woman's right to choose, but it would make her choose sooner.


www.ketv.com/health/22671107/detail.html...


Thoughts?


 

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 4:16PM #2
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

I always like the way the proponents of these bills cover themselves against being called heartless by not acting against the woman who seeks the abortion, only the person who performs it.  It is like saying we won't prosecute the person who hires the hitman, only the hitman.  If no one sought abortion after 20 weeks except in emergency then there would be none.  I am also curious as to how the bill defines "medical emergency" as opposed to other possibly not currently emergent threats to the mother's life.  What about a newly diagnosed condition such as cardiomyopathy or fatal congenital defect. 


I am not totally opposed to limits on later abortions but the devil is in the details as always.  This one as I understamnd might fall because of the failure to adequately allow for threats to life and health of the mother; it all depends on the precise wording.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 6:34PM #3
Tolerant Sis
Posts: 4,201

Uncomstitutional.  That's all that needs to be said about it.

First amendment fan since 1793.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 25, 2010 - 11:58PM #4
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550


Mental Health reasons would not qualify under the "Woman's Overall Health" portion of the bill.


Which means women who suffer from Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia won't have "their" own choice as to whether or not "they" wish to continue on with "their own" pregnancies that will affect the rest of "their lives" and not some ass-sin-9 carpet salesman from the middle of Nebraska. 

And that's just only two examples cited involving "Mental Health" issues.

 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2010 - 8:42PM #5
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,164

I think it's a strategic move to challenge the idea of viability. We now know that the youngest living fetus was 21.5 weeks. If viability is now earlier than it was then it makes sense to question viability and the very fact that this bill challenges the Supreme Court definition of viability implies that there is a bigger motive behind the bill.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 27, 2010 - 8:43PM #6
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,164

Feb 25, 2010 -- 11:58PM, Marysara722 wrote:



Mental Health reasons would not qualify under the "Woman's Overall Health" portion of the bill.


Which means women who suffer from Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia won't have "their" own choice as to whether or not "they" wish to continue on with "their own" pregnancies that will affect the rest of "their lives" and not some ass-sin-9 carpet salesman from the middle of Nebraska. 

And that's just only two examples cited involving "Mental Health" issues.

 




Why couldn't they have "their" own choice within the 20 weeks? (Just curious)

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Feb 28, 2010 - 9:47AM #7
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,744

Feb 27, 2010 -- 8:43PM, Girlchristian wrote:


Feb 25, 2010 -- 11:58PM, Marysara722 wrote:



Mental Health reasons would not qualify under the "Woman's Overall Health" portion of the bill.


Which means women who suffer from Bi-Polar, Schizophrenia won't have "their" own choice as to whether or not "they" wish to continue on with "their own" pregnancies that will affect the rest of "their lives" and not some ass-sin-9 carpet salesman from the middle of Nebraska. 

And that's just only two examples cited involving "Mental Health" issues.

 




Why couldn't they have "their" own choice within the 20 weeks? (Just curious)





I'm kinda surprised you have to ask, but I will offer an explanation.


Most mentally ill people can manage their illness with medications. Chances are they would recognize the signs and symptoms of pregnancy early on and exercise their choice at that time. However, there are some people with severe mental illness that is not responsive to medications. Also, some mentally ill people think they are getting better and so stop their medications, which could lead to more severe illness. In cases of severe mental illness, a woman may miss the signs and symptoms of pregnancy until the pregnancy is farther along. There were people in my family who were severely mentally ill, and it was sometimes very difficult for them to make a decision.


Severe mental illness that is not treated by meds is an extremely difficult situation, with much suffering for the person with the disease and their families. Those advocating prohibition of abortion ought to be prepared with plans for how to assist pregnant women and a realistic estimate of how much the taxpayer will be asked to pay to provide for these women and their children. In many states mentally ill people are treated very poorly, and very little is available in terms of assistance to help them live with dignity. I would think that PLers who claim to be standing up for the dignity of life would want to address the effects of denying abortion to the mentally ill and others on our social welfare system. But of course most "PL" politicians fall silent when it comes to discussing how to care for those in need, or actively advocate AGAINST strengthening our social safety net.


So what has Speaker Flood done to address the needs of children born to parents who feel they can't cope or provide for?  I've tried to find something on the web. Here is an excerpt from this article:



Boes [president of BoysTown] says one root of the abandonment problem is that there is simply not enough help for parents in crisis. In Nebraska, for instance, there are only six child psychiatrists in the entire state, he says. "It's a national problem ... insurance often won't pay after six visits — so if the kid's not 'fixed,' you're out of luck. States have a jumble of services. It's a puzzle with missing pieces."


State senator Mike Flood, speaker of Nebraska's unicameral legislature, introduced a bill on Friday to change the law to cover newborns up to three days old only. He expects a debate on whether to expand coverage for the first year of a child's life, which some states do. "We'll be looking at the bigger issues next year," he promised. "Mental illness, the behavioral-health workforce, caseworker loads."




He made those statements after introducing legislation that would renege on Nebraska's pledge that the state would care for any abandoned children; Flood's bill sought to limit Nebraska's Safe Haven provision to infants abandoned within 3 days of birth. Has he kept his promise?

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2010 - 9:33AM #8
Cesmom
Posts: 4,742

Feb 28, 2010 -- 9:47AM, newsjunkie wrote:


Boes [president of BoysTown] says one root of the abandonment problem is that there is simply not enough help for parents in crisis. In Nebraska, for instance, there are only six child psychiatrists in the entire state, he says. "It's a national problem ... insurance often won't pay after six visits — so if the kid's not 'fixed,' you're out of luck. States have a jumble of services. It's a puzzle with missing pieces."


State senator Mike Flood, speaker of Nebraska's unicameral legislature, introduced a bill on Friday to change the law to cover newborns up to three days old only. He expects a debate on whether to expand coverage for the first year of a child's life, which some states do. "We'll be looking at the bigger issues next year," he promised. "Mental illness, the behavioral-health workforce, caseworker loads."


He made those statements after introducing legislation that would renege on Nebraska's pledge that the state would care for any abandoned children; Flood's bill sought to limit Nebraska's Safe Haven provision to infants abandoned within 3 days of birth. Has he kept his promise?




Nebraska's safe haven law became a national joke.  We had people driving form all around the country to drop their kids (teenage kids) off at hospitals & the like.  It did bring to light the problem of parents in crisis and how they need to better address mental health & behavioral health-care needs.  To my knowledge, nothing has been done on this.

Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2010 - 4:51PM #9
MysticWanderer
Posts: 1,328

Mar 1, 2010 -- 9:33AM, Cesmom wrote:


Feb 28, 2010 -- 9:47AM, newsjunkie wrote:


Boes [president of BoysTown] says one root of the abandonment problem is that there is simply not enough help for parents in crisis. In Nebraska, for instance, there are only six child psychiatrists in the entire state, he says. "It's a national problem ... insurance often won't pay after six visits — so if the kid's not 'fixed,' you're out of luck. States have a jumble of services. It's a puzzle with missing pieces."


State senator Mike Flood, speaker of Nebraska's unicameral legislature, introduced a bill on Friday to change the law to cover newborns up to three days old only. He expects a debate on whether to expand coverage for the first year of a child's life, which some states do. "We'll be looking at the bigger issues next year," he promised. "Mental illness, the behavioral-health workforce, caseworker loads."


He made those statements after introducing legislation that would renege on Nebraska's pledge that the state would care for any abandoned children; Flood's bill sought to limit Nebraska's Safe Haven provision to infants abandoned within 3 days of birth. Has he kept his promise?




Nebraska's safe haven law became a national joke.  We had people driving form all around the country to drop their kids (teenage kids) off at hospitals & the like.  It did bring to light the problem of parents in crisis and how they need to better address mental health & behavioral health-care needs.  To my knowledge, nothing has been done on this.




Cesmom, I agree with you that the original law was just a little over the top but three days from birth is a little under the bar.  How abou9t a realistic limit like 1 year of birth?   Hopefuly Nebraska and other states will get on the ball and provide family services to help FAMILY VALUES that the conservative like to tout.

"Not all who wander are lost" J.R.R.Tolkein
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. ~Anne Lamott
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain."
Friedrich von Schiller
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Jul 14, 2010 - 1:09PM #10
Cesmom
Posts: 4,742

www.1011now.com/home/headlines/98380169....



A judge has blocked a new Nebraska law requiring mental health screenings for women seeking abortions.


U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp on Wednesday granted Planned Parenthood of the Heartland's request for a preliminary injunction against the law, which was supposed to take effect Thursday. The injunction keeps the law from being enforced while the lawsuit is decided.



Planned Parenthood says the law could be difficult to comply with and require doctors to give information irrelevant to abortions.


State officials say it is designed to make sure women understand the risks and complications that may accompany an abortion.


Under the law, women would be screened for risk factors indicating potential mental or physical problems after an abortion.


Our need to learn should always outweigh our need to be right

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them.
Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook