Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Legislature / Politics / Woods Culture Warriors Storming the Capitol
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
But literally within eight days, I think you can notice the heartbeat on the sonogram...
That would be today's "right wingers making shit up" winner. Perhaps he meant eight weeks.
(http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5287,00.html)
like
dislike
Because women don't notice when someone has stuck a wand in their vagina and painfully wiggled it around?!
Jesus Christ. This is exactly why having men decide about abortion is so stupid it hurts my heart. Fowler doesn't even know how an ultrasound is done, but by god, he wants to require doctors to tell women when they're doing them.
I can't decide if Fowler's the idiot or if he thinks women are, but believe me, when you've had an ultrasound, you know it.
Woods, you had a moral obligation to laugh at that fucker so long and hard that he turned red. And I'm disappointed in you that you didn't.
I know, Auntie. I've been co-opted. We sat on a little couch in the hallway and actually had a normal kind of conversation. I feel terrible.
A normal conversation in which you failed to point out to him that he's got no idea what he's talking about?
Seriously, Jeff. It is laughable on its face that he's advocating that doctors tell women they're performing ultrasounds, as if a.) doctors don't tell you before they jam a wand up your cooter and b.) you're not going to notice.
How can a guy who doesn't even know what goes on between a woman and her doctor attempt to regulate it? Someone needs to ask him that, and you're the dude with the access.
How can a guy who doesn't know what goes on between a woman and her doctor attempt to ask a religious nutcase good questions about it?
Well, that's a good, but troubling question. I honestly don't know the answer. How can you?
It might be time for a field trip to Planned Parenthood.
Maybe it's time for the mighty Aunt B herself to go to the legislature looking for some damn answers.
That's a cop-out and you know it. If anyone else were to suggest that bloggers can just do the job of real journalists, you folks at the Scene would be having a stroke. But here you go trotting it out now because it suits you.
I don't have your job. No one is going to pay me to sit around at the capitol and asshats like Fowler aren't going to sit down and talk to me as candidly as they are you.
I'll be ready next time, B! He won't snooker me again!
(Seriously, you make good points.)
Literally, within eight minutes, I think you can notice the heartbeat on a Woods/Aunt-B thread...
I had a bigger problem with the Informed Consent questions and answers. For starters, Fowler's not a (total) idiot; He says, "We would go back and reenact the informed consent law we had, which made sure that women not only knew about the procedure but about the other life involved in that procedure."
It's the bit after the "but" that's the kicker here. Fowler tips his hand when he says, "The informed consent that's in place now is a generic informed consent that would apply to any kind of generic procedure." That should have been the big flashing sign to an interviewer that somehow when it's an abortion, we're no longer talking about Informed Consent, whereby the patient is informed about the risks and possible outcomes of the procedure she's undergoing and consents to that procedure.
No, when we're talking about abortion, Informed Consent becomes "generic" informed consent, whereby that basic medical information isn't enough. It needs some extra-special sauce. Fowler again: "An informed consent that ensures that information relative to this procedure is communicated to the woman involved."
AHA, we have a winner! Woods, ALL informed consent is relative to the procedure and the patient involved. You missed a pretty big opening to press Fowler to be more specific: he wants informed-consent-for-women-having-abortions to be Informed Consent PLUS the "information" (helpfully provided by those who share Fowler's views) that she's killing a person. And as that's a very subjective view, it has no place in a medical evaluation between a doctor and a patient. If Fowler believes that doctors should be forced to tell women what Fowler's personal beliefs are about abortion before women have them, that's fine for him to pursue. But it's not "informed consent," not by a long shot. It's preaching.
Even if Fowler's personal views did have a (legally mandated) place in that conversation between woman and doctor, I promise you that any woman considering an abortion, indeed any pregnant woman at all, is most intimately and keenly aware of "the other life involved." That's why it's so critical to respect her decisions, because only she (and her family, and her doctor, etc.) truly knows what's going on in her life. Fowler would very much like to be an additional party to that decision, which is exactly why laws like this are a cheap way to legislate morality.
