It’s called a “wrongful birth” bill and it’s all about preventing women from having an abortion, even if it kills them. The Arizona Senate passed a bill this week that gives doctors a free pass to not inform pregnant women of prenatal problems because such information could lead to an abortion.

In other words, doctors can intentionally keep critical health information from pregnant women and can’t be sued for it. According to the Arizona Capitol Times, “the bill’s sponsor is Republican Nancy Barto of Phoenix. She says allowing the medical malpractice lawsuits endorses the idea that if a child is born with a disability, someone is to blame.” So Republicans are banning lawsuits against doctors who keep information from pregnant women so as to prevent them from choosing to have an abortion.

Altra_Shadowstalker posted:

---

That's outrageous.
Got a link?

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Fisted Puma, you think doctors should be allowed to hide birth defects from people?

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Unbelievable. How can anyone support this? How can anyone justify this? Please post if you do and explain yourself. Or will you just hide and are embarrassed by supporting it?

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Unbelievable. How can anyone support this? How can anyone justify this? Please post if you do and explain yourself. Or will you just hide and are embarrassed by supporting it?

---

Of course not. As this was just a made up slant I'm shocked you fell for it.

---

Yossarian_42 posted:

---

So, the legislation is actually designed to stop people from suing over birth defects but the liberals have decided to make it about something else so they can complain?

---

Tych2 posted:

---

What is the penalty to the doctor that doesn't tell you?

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Groucho are you playing fast and loose with what the bill actually says?

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

Same old liberal tripe. They don't understand something so they make things up. They seem to love "restrictions" unless it is for something they love, like killing black babies.

---

Groucho48 posted:

---

Tych2 posted:

---

Groucho are you playing fast and loose with what the bill actually says?

---

The bill says, from what I understand, that a woman can't sue a doctor who doesn't tell her the fetus is defective.


So, on the one hand, the right is saying that forcing women to undergo medically unnecessary ultrasounds is vital because women need information, while, on the other hand, they are saying doctors don't have to tell women important information.

And, of course, the right says Obamacare is bad because it puts the government between a patient and his/her doctor, but, when the WE put government between a patient and doctor, that's just dandy.

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

Threats of violence and slander for informing you of your misunderstanding of the law. So liberal of you.

---

Lyken-P posted:

---

I thought you were pro universal healthcare... what changed your mind?

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

Threats of violence and slander for informing you of your misunderstanding of the law. So liberal of you.

---

Sezyrrith posted:

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

Threats of violence and slander for informing you of your misunderstanding of the law. So liberal of you.

---

OK, let's use logic here.

"Senate approves bill on 'wrongful births'" is the original article's headline. Google up "wrongful birth lawsuit" for yourself - it means a child was born with a serious disability that either was known, or should have been known (had the doctor/specialist involved read sonograms correctly etc.). Keep in mind these are civil suits, not criminal, so the award is monetary and usually goes to help pay for lifelong disability costs and so on. For example, being born without functioning legs requires things such as wheelchairs, special lifts attached to vehicles such as vans, and these all cost quite a lot of money that the family possibly cannot afford. Being told about these things is your right as a parent; you are a patient, your baby is a patient and as the parent of the baby you deserve to be told all of the information that has been gathered. As a doctor, he/she has an ethical responsibility to attempt to gather as much of this information as is humanly possible and deliver it to you.

Somewhere along that line, the doctor is failing. This costs the parents tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. That's what these lawsuits are about. Those lawsuits are what this bill is about; the senator sponsoring it is quoted directly as saying so.

In summary; 'wrongful birth' is defined as the doctor failing to provide required medical information. This law prevents the doctor from having to reveal this information to prevent a lawsuit, which is seemingly the only recourse in such a situation. So, as a result, the doctor no longer has to provide medical information about an unborn baby and cannot be sued for doing so.
It's not about suing over birth defects, it's about not being told about them before the child is born. Think about it - you couldn't really sue a doctor for a child being born with birth defects if he already TOLD you it was going to happen. His or her responsibility ended when he or she told you.

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

Sezyrrith posted:

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

Threats of violence and slander for informing you of your misunderstanding of the law. So liberal of you.

---

OK, let's use logic here.

"Senate approves bill on 'wrongful births'" is the original article's headline. Google up "wrongful birth lawsuit" for yourself - it means a child was born with a serious disability that either was known, or should have been known (had the doctor/specialist involved read sonograms correctly etc.). Keep in mind these are civil suits, not criminal, so the award is monetary and usually goes to help pay for lifelong disability costs and so on. For example, being born without functioning legs requires things such as wheelchairs, special lifts attached to vehicles such as vans, and these all cost quite a lot of money that the family possibly cannot afford. Being told about these things is your right as a parent; you are a patient, your baby is a patient and as the parent of the baby you deserve to be told all of the information that has been gathered. As a doctor, he/she has an ethical responsibility to attempt to gather as much of this information as is humanly possible and deliver it to you.

Somewhere along that line, the doctor is failing. This costs the parents tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dollars. That's what these lawsuits are about. Those lawsuits are what this bill is about; the senator sponsoring it is quoted directly as saying so.

In summary; 'wrongful birth' is defined as the doctor failing to provide required medical information. This law prevents the doctor from having to reveal this information to prevent a lawsuit, which is seemingly the only recourse in such a situation. So, as a result, the doctor no longer has to provide medical information about an unborn baby and cannot be sued for doing so.
It's not about suing over birth defects, it's about not being told about them before the child is born. Think about it - you couldn't really sue a doctor for a child being born with birth defects if he already TOLD you it was going to happen. His or her responsibility ended when he or she told you.

---

you just contradicted yourself
or you jsut really dont understand what is goin on around you

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

yeah, read harder.
im sure i just bolded the wrong phrases.
i get sloppy as i drink more so keep reading to find your fukk up.

---

Sezyrrith posted:

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

yeah, read harder.
im sure i just bolded the wrong phrases.
i get sloppy as i drink more so keep reading to find your fukk up.

---

Anyone who likes can feel free to point out my contradiction. I'm not seeing it - then again, I see more of what I intended to write than a third party reader will.

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

Sezyrrith posted:

---

Anyone who likes can feel free to point out my contradiction. I'm not seeing it - then again, I see more of what I intended to write than a third party reader will.

---

thats because youre retarded

go read it again.
this time read it backwards and im sure youll find your mistake

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Dude you got embarrassed by Swirly. Swirly. Crawl back home and finish growing your brain before you come back to try again. Swirly 1, Sleazy 0

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

its always your fault.

swirly > you




wtf is swirly?

---

Sezyrrith posted:

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

its always your fault.

swirly > you




wtf is swirly?

---

You, I believe.

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

Sezyrrith posted:

---

sweeny_comodore posted:

---

wtf is swirly?

---

You, I believe.

---

so you cant read
no wonder you cant find your contradiction.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Dude you got embarrassed by Swirly. Swirly. Crawl back home and finish growing your brain before you come back to try again. Swirly 1, Sleazy 0

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

People in favor of government mandatory healthcare coverage for all people, and then whining when the government enacts a benign mandatory examination, are loltarded.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

So is abortion.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Fisted Puma, you think doctors should be allowed to hide birth defects from people?

---

Scarne posted:

---

The government hasn't made abortion required as a prerequisite to another medical procedure.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Scarne posted:

---

The government hasn't made abortion required as a prerequisite to another medical procedure.

---

Many countries that allow euthanasia require a medical evaluation of the patient's mental and physical condition before allowing the procedure to go forward.
Why is asking for a similar equivalent to take place before abortion, found to be outrageous by posers pretending to be championing women's rights?

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

It doesn't have to be. Suppose the people that oppose this specific method just suck and proposing a compromise.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

It doesn't have to be. Suppose the people that oppose this specific method just suck and proposing a compromise.

---

Fist_de_Yuma posted:

---

Same old conservative tripe. They don't understand something so they make things up. They seem to hate "restrictions" and big gov't "interference" unless it is for something they love, like saving future welfare children that they'll later bitch about.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

There needs to be a middle ground movement that is anti abortion that is made up of both Pro Choice people and people that are traditionally pro life. The movement should have at its center the desire to reduce the number of abortions in this nation through the empowerment of women.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

The movement should have at its center the desire to reduce the number of abortions in this nation through the empowerment of women.

---

Yukishiro1 posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

The movement should have at its center the desire to reduce the number of abortions in this nation through the empowerment of women.

---

That's going to be a non-starter for a lot of the pro life movement. Empowerment of women is what they fear, not what they want.

---

Moe_Nox posted:

---

Or perhaps you hate women and will not afford them the benefit of an ultrasound so they can make a more informed choice. Grats on your misogyny.

---

Yossarian_42 posted:

---

The reasoning behind the bill, which nobody is even acknowledging, is that doctors can't possibly catch every single possible birth defect and it is unfair to sue them for obscene amounts of money for something they could not control.

---