At Long Last, Informed Consent for Abortion in North Carolina

I was extremely gratified yesterday to learn that the North Carolina state legislature overrode Governor Perdue's veto of Woman's Right to Know legislation that addresses elective abortion on demand.  The bill incorporates informed consent; a waiting period; and an opportunity for the pregnant mother to see an ultrasound.

Recall that Governor Perdue had traveled to Greensboro to stage her veto "ceremony" at Melderec Headquarters, with various pro-abortion state legislators from our area in attendance.

There have been statements made in various places about the cataclysmic effects this legislation would have.  In fact, sweet Alma Adams recently was quoted in our local paper calling the bill "an outrageous insult on women's reproductive rights".  By all appearances, it seems that she is not opposed to the black genocide that is taking place.

But approximately half the states already have laws requiring a waiting period; and half also have informed consent laws.  This has been tested in many other states, and has been allowed by the courts.

In addition, a recent Gallup poll indicates 87% of the public supports informed consent legislation; and 69% favor a waiting period.

I am very glad the Republican legislative leadership made this bill a priority item.  This is a great victory for the pro-life movement in North Carolina, and of course, for unborn children.

I will now resume my break from blogging for another 11-12 days.  See you soon. 

Comments

[Reggie Greene / The Logistician]

I love it when anyone uses the phrase "Right to Know..." in conjunction with any sponsored legislation. There is a concept in life called "due diligence." People who really want to know anything will take the effort and initiative to pursue information, upon which they can make a reasoned, informed decision. The reality is that many people in our society are not interested in making that effort, no matter what the subject matter. (This is not about people incapable of engaging in such a thought process, due to mental or age, or some other legal incapacity.)

Should we as a society through legislation hold the hands of citizens and walk them through the thought process? If so, then arguably the concept applies to all issues; if not, then arguably the concept applies to none.

If one side of any philosophical approach to life finds it convenient to support holding hands sometimes, but not all, then it perverts and impugns the integrity of the whole process. Philosophy, in theory, ought to be consistent, or it self-destructs.

That's why virtually all politicians have little respect from the citizenry. Being political has very little to do with being honest and straightforward, which has its own internal consistency.

[bubba]

"There is a concept in life called 'due diligence.'"

Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood do not provide "due diligence" to women who come to them for "reproductive health" reasons. In fact, they purposely do not provide the entire scope of available information needed for pregnant women to make the right "choice" for themselves.

A women's "right" includes being able to access ALL information, including that which would NEVER be provided her by PP, from ALL sources before making a decision. This new NC law allows her the time and effort to do so without some of the pressure put upon her by "women's health care providers" like PP. There is nothing "straightforward and honest" about the way outfits like PP conducts business, as well we know from investigated fact.

The law a good idea for women, but more importantly it's a good moral and ethical idea. It was a desperately needed change, and we are much better off as a society by having practices like that helps stop the abuse practiced by Big Business Abortion.

[Reggie Greene / The Logistician]

It's not Planned Parenthood's responsibility to provide or conduct "due diligence;" it is the responsibility of the individual whose personal interests are at stake. Why should any individual have any outside force, entity, authority, or agency, press its concerns and agenda on any individual? It doesn't which side of the aisle one is on.

A responsible individual, who has the capacity to think can accept or reject the suggestion of either side of the aisle. Why not have the government stay out of our personal choices, no matter what the position?

[bubba]

"....it is the responsibility of the individual whose personal interests are at stake. "

Many of PP's clientele for "women's health care" are incapable of doing so; indeed, it's doubtful many even understand the concept. It's morally and ethically unconscionable that PP does not give them the whole story, the complete information.

Actions like the NCGA have just made law will give those women a better basis to make sure they're exercising the right "choice". Organizations like PP current did not give them that choice.

"...Why not have the government stay out of our personal choices, no matter what the position?"

Why don't "progressives" stay out of the business of demanding regulation on virtually every issue of personal choices but this one?

[Harold]

"....incapable of doing so....doubtful many even understand the concept..." by Bubba.

Exactly. Individuals who are unprepared educationally and lacking a maturity level of raising and teaching responsible values to children.

[Panacea]

Interesting.

First of all, informed consent has ALWAYS been a part of therapeutic abortion.

Secondly, I find it amusing that the same people who decry the "nanny state" are perfectly happy to insert their own beliefs into the decision making of others.

So, bubba, just what is Planned Parenthood "failing to provide" other than right to life propaganda?

PP has an obligation to discuss the medical risks of the procedure. Other options such as adoption are available. But I do not see that they have an obligation to present information that is erroneous, or to promote the beliefs of those who want to restrict the right to safe abortion.

[Reggie Greene / The Logistician]

This conversation has turned absolutely fascinating to me. While I would expect folks on both sides of the aisle and from both philosophical positions on the continuum to engage in the purported "provision of information aka right to know" activity, I did not expect anyone to shift or remove the responsibility burden from ANY individual who is not suffering from some sort of legal or mental incapacity (as recognized by the law, of course.)

Are you saying that a certain segment of the population is "incapable" of forming certain thoughts, engaging in certain conduct, entertaining certain beliefs, or do not have control over their physical beings, or all of the preceding?

How does society define or otherwise quantify those individuals? Those with an IQ less than X? And should those individuals receive continuing "assistance" and for how long because of their "incapacities?" And if they are incapable of appreciating certain concepts in this particular instance, that would suggest that they are incapable of appreciating concepts in others.

Now, an argument could theoretically be made that in this instance, they are "incapable" of, or should not be making a decision as to the status of another, namely the fetus, even if they might be capable of making decisions regarding themselves. If that it the case, then they should not be allowed to make any decisions regarding issues which might affect any other human.

[Ken Hill]

Interesting comments that try to divert attention away from the issue of the life of the unborn. Would you advocate that those still in the womb have no rights at all? Every evidence I have seen convinces me that life begins at conception. There is more at stake here than just the owner of the womb or those who financially profit from performing abortions.

[bubba]

"So, bubba, just what is Planned Parenthood 'failing to provide' other than right to life propaganda?"

Ah, Panacea speaks her usual insipid defense of the indefensible! Is it even worth answering her nonsense anymore?

Yes, I think it's important to counter the lies and misinformation that she presents as support for the unsupportable:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/09/planned-parenthood-thats-not-a-baby-growing-inside-of-you/

Excerpt:

"The investigation is organized by Live Action, a nonprofit student group. Lila Rose, the 21-year-old UCLA student and Live Action president, says medical lies and manipulative counseling are routine at Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain.

'They will do or say anything in order to sell more abortions to more women, whether it is covering up sexual abuse or lying to women about medical facts,' says Rose. 'Our team has visited dozens of Planned Parenthood clinics undercover. Planned Parenthood, while claiming to support patient self-determination, operates with an ‘abortion-first mentality.’"

http://thepathlesstaken7.blogspot.com/2011/02/former-planned-parenthood-director.html

Excerpt:

"The body of visual evidence shows several alarming patterns of illegal Planned Parenthood activities including the willingness to aid and abet the sex trafficking of young girls, the cover-up of sexual abuse of minors, the skirting of parental consent laws, citing unscientific and fabricated medical information to manipulate women to have abortions, and Planned Parenthood’s willingness to accept donations earmarked to abort African-American babies."

http://youtu.be/8wdDQzOt94M

"Right to life propaganda", indeed! That's almost as hilarious as your disproved "ACA reduces the deficit" prevarication that you keep touting at the N&R LTTE comments.

[Reggie Greene / The Logistician]

I am watching Bernie Goldberg on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News. In listening to discussion, I am reminded that there is a difference between (1) analysis in its purest form; (2) what we believe; and (3) what we prefer or advocate from a policy perspective for society. They are distinctly different concepts, and rarely do they merge.

Goal determinant analysis has always been, and will always be, problematic. The application of a principle should be consistent, and the underlying construct should be able to withstand strict scrutiny, no matter what the subject, if it is truly supportable.

[Harold]

RG.

What the _______ did you just say?

[Spag]

Requiring a doctor to inform patients about the full nature of a procedure as opposed to relying on a political argument or conventional wisdom makes sense considering the gravity of the situation.

Doctors are required to inform patients of a number of things, including prescription drugs. In my profession, I frequently advise clients to take some time to consider a decision before making it due to the potential consequences of a course of action. In fact, it would probably be legal malpractice not to do so. This isn't the government telling anyone anything- it is a mandate that doctors do so.

I find it interesting that liberals are raising hell about this when they so often invoke the "difficult choice" that women make when confronted with the decision and there are a number of statistics on women who suffer depression and even later agonize over the choice they made. Liberals often cite such things when combating claims that they don't value life or when conservatives ask them to explain why abortion is so often seen as a "difficult choice" if there is not life involved.

It is also highly noteworthy that this same crowd so strongly favors government run health care, but seems to oppose this particular government law related to health care. Why these people are comfortable with government making decisions about their health care in general, yet complain about something as simple as informed consent - which still leaves the choice to the patient - would be confusing if it weren't so obvious that this crowd is largely hedonistic with values that are relative and shifting as a result.

Liberals seem to want warning labels on everything and so frequently support litigation based on the failure of others to properly warn Plaintiff's of potential dangers whether it be a landfill, toxic waste dump, cigarettes, hot coffee, etc. Yet on this issue, suddenly requiring more information is a bad thing.

Typical.

[john hayes]

Beautifully stated, Sam.

[bubba]

"Yet on this issue, suddenly requiring more information is a bad thing."

Anything that proves detrimental to a "progressive" political, social, or economic agenda item is ALWAYS a bad thing in their eyes. We see this virtually EVERY time there's a policy decision to be made.

Witness the absurd nonsense they produced over the recently completed (for now) debt ceiling increase/spending cuts/"revenue" enhancement battle.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I've been following this one with interest. Sam's comment was nicely stated.

This statement particularly caught my eye:

" . . . it ("due diligence") is the responsibility of the individual whose personal interests are at stake".

First, that argument would not hold ANY water in Court - particularly if a Mother was suing an abortion provider. These days, medical providers are required to spoon-feed every morsel of even the most common sense anticipatory advice - as if the patient has no ability to think or reason on their own.

Second, I cannot think of anyone whose personal interests are MORE at stake in this procedure than the unborn child . . . who cannot speak or communicate . . .

. . . except perhaps through the heartbeat on the ultrasound that will now be required before that heartbeat is extinquished.

[HJ]

Dr. Mary - And you're a physician? My father would've been ashamed of you. Maybe it's time for you to relinquish that license.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

So, "HJ", the "Dr." didn't give it away?

I don't know who your Father is because you don't have the guts to sign your name - as I do - and have done on these boards for years.

And, if it was your Father's position that it's every doctor's "duty" to support the indiscriminate, unregulated killing of unborn infants (at any gestational age) . . . for any reason . . . to suit the convenience/desires (not just the health) of the Mother (or rare circumstances pertaining to the viability of the baby), I really DO NOT CARE if he would be ashamed.

I'm ashamed of my profession and this country/state for making the taking of an unborn child's life so easy and acceptable to the mainstream. I'm ashamed of myself that I once bought into the arguments that have allowed abortion mills to pith and/or scrape unborn babies out of their Mother's wombs like they are frogs in one of the biology labs I used to troll at UNC-Greensboro.

While I hate to fall in to the same, tired, "liberal vs. conservative" arguments that dominate this blogosphere, yours demonstrates the typical liberal response. A Pediatrician, a Christian, opposed to abortion on moral grounds (despite the the pounding her convictions took during her liberal arts education), should relinquish her license.

Get progressive. March in step. Yeah baby.

Sam's absolutely right on this one. Liberals don't want abortion "safe and rare". That's just a lie. If they did, they'd have ZERO problem with stronger regulations about what goes on at these clinics . . . with SETTING LIMITS about what can be done and when . . . with a brief waiting period for the Mother to consider her actions and her options . . . and with documentation of truly informed consent.

Nope. Liberals just want abortion-on-demand . . . whenever/wherever. It's a woman's God-given "right".

Just doing my job (at all times laboring under the threat of a malpractice suit), I've resuscitated premature babies that, with a different set of parents, and in a Planned Parenthood clinic, could just as easily be aborted without a second thought and with no consequences to the physician. IT MAKES NO SENSE!!!

It seems to me that you cannot handle the truth. Abortion stops a beating heart.

[cheripickr]

don't waste your time on pussies Mary...

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

It is NEVER a waste of time to defend one's free speech, Cheri - ESPECIALLY when someone advocates threatening your livelihood because you're exercising it.

I daresay if every doctor who opposed abortion-on-demand on moral grounds had to give up their license, there wouldn't be very many doctors around.

Of course, since I entered the blogosphere, six years ago, BEGGING for help from our brain-dead/morally-bankrupt local press-set after getting professionally raped by a pair of local hospitals for doing my job (which, as it happens, involved SAVING a baby's life as opposed to taking it), I've had a very good dosing of what the more progressive mindset is capable of when its agenda is threatened, HAVEN'T I?

Clearly, if I had been a "good" doctor, hung up on the nurse, and just rolled over, gone back to sleep and let that baby die, that would have been JUST FINE with this enlightened crowd.