How can it be legal to force docs to give misleading or harmful info to patients?

[cali]

I find this so frustrating. It's dangerous and it's misogynistic bigotry. Sure doesn't happen to MEN does it?


If the bill sitting on Republican Governor Doug Ducey desk is signed today, doctors in Arizona will be required to tell a patient receiving a medical abortion that she can change her mind, even after the abortion is underway.

It’s the first reversal language of its kind to make it through a state legislature, and should it become law, will join a long list of information that doctors in The Grand Canyon State are forced to relay to patients seeking an abortion—much of which providers know to be misleading and aimed less at informed consent and more at dissuading women from choosing the procedure.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, women in 17 states must be counseled on points that are wholly unsupported by the medical and scientific community at large, like the link between abortion and breast cancer (five states), fetal pain (12 states), or long-term mental health risks from abortion like depression and suicide for women (eight states).

The provision in Arizona’s SB 1318 states that at least 24 hours before a woman takes Mifepristone—the first of two medications taken to complete a medical abortion—a doctor must inform a patient “orally and in person” that “it may be possible to reverse the effects of a medication abortion if the woman changes her mind but that time is of the essence.”

<Snip>

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/27/abortion-lies-doctors-are-forced-to-tell.html

And who is largely responsible for this shit? Men. If only men were as active on the pro-choice side as they are on the anti-choice side.

[avebury]

1. They need to be prosecuting these idiots

for practicing medicine without a license. I wonder what would happen if people starting filing complaints with the Arizona medical licensind board.

[cali]

3. They aren't practicing medicine without a license

but how is forced speech constitutional?

[avebury]

17. You have elected officials dictating to

licensed medical professionals what to say to their patients. I would imagine that most, if not all, do not have medical degrees. There is a difference between free speech and fraud. It is absurd beyond belief that that they would legislate that doctors have to tell women that abortions are reversible. Actions should have consequences and legislators should be held accountable for passing statutes that have not bearing on reality. To me, when they pass laws pertaining to the practice of medicine that are unfeasible and irresponsible, then they are practicing medicine without a license.

A doctor or medical practice needs to file a court case to get this ridiculous statute overturned. I would love to see the State AG try to prove in a court of law that abortions are reversible. This is the exact type of law that I would expect Oklahoma to pass and you for sure that the AG would fight for it in court.

[father founding]

24. Death panels next

This is what is known as Government Healthcare.

[Arkansas Granny]

2. I can't think of any other medical procedure that requires, by law, that a physician provide

the patient with false information. This borders on the insane.

[cali]

4. First do no harm. Yeah, right.

[Jeff Murdoch]

14. Forced malpractice

[smirkymonkey]

58. It IS insane!

WTF? I can't believe what is happening in this country. I don't think we are that far away from living in a de facto Theocracy.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. "Government over-reach" by the loons who rail against such.

[cali]

6. kick. yeah, I know much of DU doesn't give a flying fuck about abortion.

what does that say about DU and women's rights?

Exactly.

[smirkymonkey]

59. Unfortunately, we seem to have a sizable MRA contingent here.

[cali]

65. it pains me to agree with you on that n/t

[cali]

7. So why doesn't this type of discriminatory garbage spark the outrage

that Indiana's "religious freedom" legislation does- and by extension any issue of bias against women?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

11. this is what I keep asking, all over the place.

I'm outraged out. Maybe I'm not the only one?

Every thread I see, whether it's here or on FB, my other political ranting spot, if it's a WOMEN'S issue, the replies are sparse, compared to other human rights issues, and they're 90% women. Very few men at all, and always some misogynist trolls. This pattern is consistent everywhere I've looked, and seems to hold true now and in past history too.

Women come charging in to support every issue, along with men, but when we are the threatened group.......YOYO, sisters.

[laundry_queen]

19. +1

noticed that here too.

[smirkymonkey]

60. I've noticed that too.

Except for the threads where the majority of posters are MRAs or women haters who are just out to troll the post and abuse female or supportive male posters.

It really makes me sick.

[sendero]

8. Women are greater than..

....50% of the voting population. If they don't care enough to vote these assholes out, I don't know what to tell you.

[cali]

9. Really? Are you male?

And do you really think that because women are fractionally more of the voting public, they can vote these assholes out.

yeah, thanks for the solidarity, bud.

[sendero]

10. There is a message in there..

.... if women cannot even convince other women to vote against these people, how can they expect men to care? I am totally against these laws but all it would take to put and end to this bullshit once and for all is for 90% of women to vote them out and maybe 30% of men. But here we are.

[cali]

12. as it's men who are responsible for most of this shit and for

thousands of years of oppressing women, MEN should be stepping up as well.


Your posts are so revealing. Ugh.

[seaglass]

20. Do all men agree with you and vote the same as you do? Why not? Fucking dumb shit post. n/t

[ananda]

13. OK, so where is the celeb circuit, twitter universe, and boycotts now?

Why don't women get the same respect as gays do now?

[alphafemale]

15. wait...wut?

Seriously.

Did you really just say that?

That turd really just fell out of your head?

[cali]

27. because it's true. Every day, new restrictive, discriminatory laws are passed

re a woman's right to choice.

[smirkymonkey]

61. It is true, sadly.

Sometimes I really despise humanity.

It should be more of an issue every liberal progressive person regardless of sex because what drives many of these anti-women measures is really the religious rights stranglehold on US politics, particularly in Southern and Mid-western states.

[cali]

21. and that is the question. And a fucking sad one it is.

[dsc]

16. I don't know if this issue has been litigated yet

This issue is quite new as these laws are quite new. I actually think the SCOTUS might well through this law out as it has been very strong on free speech (sometime for good and other times for bad (think Citizens United)). I would think the fairly recent case where Vermont wasn't allowed to prohibit the sale of pharmacy data on grounds of the speech of the companies involved would be directly on point.

Your point about women vs men is on some level fair but on another level not so much. Poll after poll shows that women and men hold pro choice views in roughly the same numbers (men are actually slightly more pro choice). To take one example. If only white women in VA had voted in 2013 Cuccinelli would be governor today instead of McCaulliff. Men are far from blameless here, especially when it comes to actually enacting the laws, but when it comes to the voters who install those men there is plenty of blame to go around.

[cali]

23. no, the issue is not quite new. Some of these laws have been on the books for years.

[dsc]

25. I don't think any of the compelled speech laws have been litigated yet

I might be wrong on that, but I don't think either the ones compelling a script about the supposed effects of abortions upon women or this case have been to SCOTUS yet. I actually do think that both of those laws have a low likelihood of being upheld due to both Scalia and Thomas being free speech absolutists or nearly so.

[cali]

26. that's a good question. But if not, why not?

[dsc]

50. I am no expert

my best guess is that it is a combination of time, Supreme Court cases take time. The Windsor case and the prop 8 case dated from 2008. Second, I would imagine there is some strategy involved here. Most of these laws are part of a law with many other restrictions that many fear would be upheld if they were to be litigated. I think there is a feeling that it is better to wait for a Supreme court that is less likely to be hostile to abortion rights. I am not sure that is such a bad legal strategy. I felt that in regard to the marriage equality cases but was wrong.

[jeff47]

57. Because the Doctor can tell the patient

"The law requires that I tell you ______. It is a lie politicians forced me to tell you. The truth is ______."

Doctors are required to say it, the law doesn't say Doctors can't call it out as bullshit. So I suspect it has had a minimal real-world impact, and that's why there has been no lawsuit.

[cali]

66. I suspect you are wrong. But regardless, these laws are atrocious and infringe

on the doctor/patient relationship and the rights of women.

[Doctor_J]

18. you're blaming this on the entire male gender?

The responsibility for this lies with conservative republicans, not "men"

Jesus h Christ. I honestly cannot believe some of the stuff I read here.

[cali]

22. No. I am not blaming all men. Way to misinterpret, dear.

[Doctor_J]

55. This excerpt from your OP must have me confused

And who is largely responsible for this shit? Men.

If you don't want to be "misinterpreted", then don't post stupid stuff like this.

[smirkymonkey]

62. I think the point is that it's usually male politicians, with no medical

training or knowledge, who are usually behind these laws restricting the rights of women.

[Doctor_J]

63. But has been pointed out, a woman sponsored this bill, many women politicians voted for it,

and many women voters put them in office. So there is no reason to turn this particular vote/bill into a male-bashing thread.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Ever wonder why straight white males lean Republican?

Is every straight white male a Republican?

No, but the majority are.

Why? Because they want control over women and minorities like they used to have in the past.

They need to understand that times have changed and they can no longer control other human beings.

[LittleGirl]

28. Stupid but as a thyroid patient

who didn't get diagnosed until I was 50, I was sick for years. This bill is b.s.

OT but we get lied to all of the time about Synthroid being the only medicine fit to heal us. That drug sent me to the hospital with chest pains after four doses so it didn't work for me. Sorry, doctors lie to patients all of the time and I finally quit going to in-network doctors and found a Naturopathic MD that healed me with the right meds, diet suggestions and anything else I needed like supplements for my vitamin deficiencies. Some doctors suck.

[cali]

29. uh. different as can be. Are doctors FORCED by law to lie about Synthroid? NO.

And I have a similar story.

My doctor who I love, put me on Synthroid. I did some research, devised my own regimen. Went back to the dr. some months later and my thyroid was fine. Did I think my doctor way lying to me? Uh, not a fucking chance.

[LittleGirl]

31. I don't think your doctor was lying to you...but

there are doctors out there that will ONLY prescribe Synthroid and that's what I'm talking about. Sorry you missed it.

Pharma pays them big to only push that drug.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

33. A misdiagnosis is not the same as a deliberate lie

[LittleGirl]

34. what?

I wasn't misdiagnosed, I was untreated for my thyroid condition for 50 yrs and some doctors only prescribe Synthroid which is what I was saying, nevermind.

[cali]

35. You were claiming it's a lie and the same thing as in the OP. IT DAMN WELL IS NOT.

[LittleGirl]

36. calm down

I'm on your side. fuck it.

[cali]

39. I'll react as I wish.

and conflating your experience with what's in the OP, is just nonsense.

[LittleGirl]

40. did you not see the OT portion of the comment?

OT - off topic. good bye

[La Lioness Priyanka]

67. it's still not a lie though. they prescribed what the protocol says to prescribe, it didn't work

but does not make it a lie

[Dont call me Shirley]

30. What is the intention/purpose of this move?

Is it to create a lie about abortion? Is a new reversal drug around the corner? What? What is their twisted purpose?

[cali]

32. to try and dissuade a woman from abortion- as are all the TRAP laws

[Dont call me Shirley]

43. I suspect there is more to it than that. This bill is an absolute lie. There is no pharmaceutical

available which can reverse a medically induced abortion. There's an ulterior motive to this we are not aware of because this is just too bizarre of a bill. To legally force docs to lie about pharmaceuticals, maybe this bill will provide legal cover for pharmaceutical companies regarding drug injury lawsuits. Or force docs to lie to their patients about any pharmaceutical, a big boon to the drug companies.

[riderinthestorm]

41. It's going to take the medical community to step in and fight this

I wish women had the passion for this fight but sadly it seems not.

Women were at least half the population who elected these scumbags.

[historylovr]

51. I think, after decades of fighting, that a lot of us are tired.

And too many are complacent. And, as you say, too many support their own oppression.

[Stonepounder]

42. I've said it before and I will say it again.

ALL of this crap is just SSDD.

If a man sleeps with many partners he's a 'stud', 'Romeo', a Cassanova. If a woman sleeps with anyone outside of marriage, she's a 'slut'.

Look at all the hoops a woman has to jump through to get birth control (and look at the attempts to shut down Planned Parenthood), where any male old enough to push his money across the counter can walk into just about any drug store in America and buy condoms.

Women are still paid significantly less than men for doing the exact same job.

And while we're at it, I get so damn pissed at these 'Choose Life' bumper stickers. They are total and complete BS, since the folks who put that kind of sticker on their cars (or T-shirts) don't want you to have ANY choice in the matter. If a woman has sex (whether consensual or not) and gets pregnant, then she damn well better carry it to term and deliver. If she miscarries, there is a strong presupposition that somehow it was her fault and in some states she can be investigated for 'murder'.

What a load of crap!

[DirkGently]

44. Except of course, a woman actually sponsored the bill.

With bill sponsor Senator Nancy Barto, Phoenix Republican, smiling in agreement behind him, Sawyer told a House panel this month, “abortion is not health care.”

And she's lying about her rationale for it, of course. Because that's what anti-abortion PEOPLE do.

"It's all about whether or not taxpayers are funding other people's abortions," Barto said. SB 1318 "does nothing to restrict access to abortion. It's all about who's paying for it, and in this case taxpayers are on the hook." Barto cites as evidence a congressional report from last year, among other things.

BOTTOM LINE: The federal government prohibits insurance companies from using public funding to cover elective abortions. The segregation of funds is intended to guarantee that funds for abortion coverage are sourced from premiums, separate from federal funds. There is no evidence that taxpayer funds have been illegally used to cover abortion in Arizona.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/fact-check/2015/03/16/sen-nancy-barto-taxpayer-abortion-funding-unsupported/24823293/

[cali]

47. Sorry, that still doesn't alter the fact that men have been in the forefront of

the anti-choice movement for decades. Yes, women do it too, but the anti-abortion movement has been dominated by men for most of its history.

[DirkGently]

49. So this woman's anti-abortion bill proves "MEN" are the problem?

Don't you think you should have at least chosen an example of a man pushing an anti-abortion agenda to prove that "MEN" are the problem?

You don't have to be male to have a misogynist perspective. Our entire culture discounts women, their biology, and their sexuality. You could silence all the "MEN" in the world, and you'd still have people like Nancy Barto to contend with.

[cali]

53. No, and I didn't say that. I said that for decades men have been in the forefront of the

anti-choice movement.

Do you actually disagree with that????

[DirkGently]

54. Well a woman is in the "forefront" of this AZ bill you posted.

I'd say that alone suggests you're willfully misdiagnosing the problem here.

Before he was murdered by Scott Roeder, Dr. George Tiller was shot in both arms by Shelley Shannon, a violent anti-abortion extremist, whose daughter is likewise a violent anti-abortion extremist.

At her trial in state court, Shannon testified that there was nothing immoral about trying to kill Tiller.[7] The jurors deliberated for an hour.[8] They convicted her of attempted murder.[8] She was sentenced to 11 years in prison.[7]

While incarcerated in Lansing, Kansas, Shannon signed the Army of God's statement in support of the actions of Paul Jennings Hill.[9]

On June 4, 1995, she pleaded guilty to setting fires at several abortion clinics in Oregon, California and Nevada. She had been indicted by federal grand juries on 30 counts in connection with fires and butyric acid attacks at nine clinics. Charges included arson, interference with commerce by force and interstate travel in aid of racketeering.[10][11] On September 9, 1995, U.S. Federal District Court Judge James A. Redden sentenced Shannon to 20 years in prison—a substantial upward departure from sentencing guidelines. In sentencing her, Redden called her a terrorist. The sentence was set to begin only after Shannon's 11-year incarceration for shooting Tiller is completed.[12]

Her daughter, Angela Shannon (born ca. 1974),[13] was prosecuted for sending a death threat in 1993 to George Woodward, a Milwaukee doctor who performed abortions. (The letter arrived on March 3, 1993 — a week before the murder of David Gunn.) The elder Shannon attempted to take the blame for the death threat, but in view of Angela's fingerprints having been found on the letter, Angela was convicted and sentenced to 46 months' incarceration in 1997.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_Shannon

Attacks on women's reproductive rights are due to a bad idea, not a bad gender.

[Doctor_J]

56. Yeah, that seems to have escaped the OP.

Easier to blame this on "men" than right-wing republicans, I guess.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. one woman does not negate systematic misogyny. just like clarence thomas does not negate systemic

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

racism.

[NYC Liberal]

45. If I were a doctor, what I’d be saying (if I were forced to say this crap) is:

“What I’m about to tell you is in no way medically accurate and in fact is flat-out wrong, but I’m required by law to recite the following..."

[geek tragedy]

46. Almost certainly a violation of the first amendment

not to mention Roe v Wade.

[imthevicar]

48. But it was Voted on and passed

a legislature, and signed By a executive! That makes it legal.
I've seen arguments this stupid on these boards.

[historylovr]

52. K & R

Thank you, Cali.

[cali]

64. Let me put it this way, gentlemen: I'd like to see men as active in the pro-choice movement

as they are in the anti-choice movement- from top to bottom.