Tuesday, May 31, 2011

What Do You Think About This?

This is about Planned Parenthood's challenge to South Dakota's new abortion law.

"Under the pretext of ensuring the patient's decision to have an abortion is 'voluntary, uncoerced, and informed,' the law has both the purpose and the effect of severely restricting access to abortion services, and violates patients' and physicians' First Amendment rights against compelled speech and patients’ right to informational privacy,"

Read the article

First of all, do you like the quotation remarks around voluntary, uncoerced, and informed? You can just feel the disdain they have for the notion that a woman would be informed about an abortion so that she can do it voluntarily and without pressure from a "counselor" at a PP abortion mill women's resource center.

I digress though. This is what caught my eye.

violates patients' and physicians' First Amendment rights against compelled speech and patients’ right to informational privacy

Is this in your copy of the US Constitution? What the hell does it even mean?

Read the article, do you see anything that compels speech or violates their privacy?

The closest I see is making a case that physicians are being compelled to discuss what happens during an abortion. .

We restrict freedom of speech all of the time in health care though.

I am very limited on what I can discuss about a person's records or even what I can view if I do not have a need to.

We have limits on what we can say in the ER without running afoul of federal equal access laws.

We cannot use English, the national language of the US and my native tongue, with a patient if they do not understand it, we have to get an interpreter.

I am limited on what I can talk to vendors about because of Medicare/Medicaid anti-kickback statutes.

I am limited on what kind of language I use and jokes I tell because of sexual and racial harassment laws.

Will we repeal all of these with a court ruling against the SD law? These are all examples of "coerced speech".

I give you Amendment I, The United States Constitution

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What are your thoughts? Do they have a case? Will they find a judge liberal enough to insert it in there? Keep in mind, the courts took the above sentence and found separation of church and state.


The Born Again American said...

What about the child's 1st amendment right? This should be addressed first and foremost...

Please stop by TBAA today and help with this worthy cause...

Brooke said...

When do we determine the fetus' right to life? To protection?

When I worked OB and a crackhead would come in they would remove the baby and prosecute her for abuse.

So when is the fetus to be safe from murder? At the age of viability? We push that back further and further with improved technology.

As far as I'm concerned, PP should be making birth control widely available. If you're too lazy to avail yourself of it and willingly enter into an act which you know will create a child and you do not want it, then adoption is the answer.

I don't see how PP can challenge this law with their track record, but they of course will. We shall have to wait and see how it turns out.

Mustang said...

Examples of compelled speech might include a law requiring children to cross their hearts during the morning pledge of allegiance, or perhaps one forcing them to repeat the pledge. One case involved someone in New Hampshire who objected to the state vehicle license plate display of the state motto, “Live Free or Die,” the argument being that the state forced New Hampshire citizens to become couriers for ideological messages.

I’m not sure how Planned Parenthood (et ├íl.) intends to make a cogent argument that the S. Dakota law violates the First Amendment. According to the news article, Planned Parenthood argues, “…HB 1217 aims to misinform pregnant women with the intent of dissuading them from getting an abortion.” I haven’t read HB 1217, but on its face, this claim would appear to be a major leap in logic from “…consults a crisis pregnancy center advisor before getting an abortion.” Requiring someone to consult with an advisor does not prohibit abortion; it only delays an abortion until the woman is able to make an informed decision.

We can say that the state’s concern that women are not getting complete information from Planned Parenthood is valid.

Chuck said...

Born Again, they always forget the child

Brooke, they are an abortion provider, not much else

Mustang, the last thing they want is for the women to get info

Alligator said...

Planned Parenthood is an evil organization. I think it is time to just take a stand and call evil, evil.