"Rare" would indeed be in the eye of the beholder

.

Some 20 years ago, President Bill Clinton assured us that he wanted to keep abortion safe, legal and rare. Safe and legal may be easier to quantify than rare but apparently Governor Cuomo of New York didn’t get Clinton’s memo because we’re betting that his idea of rare with respect to abortion doesn’t matchup that well with the vast majority of Americans.

This past week, Cuomo introduced legislation that would radically expand access to abortion services.

From Life Site News:

Cuomo is pushing for a massive expansion of access to abortion in the state, including lifting restrictions on third-trimester abortions, allowing non-doctors to perform the procedure, and enshrining a fundamental right to “terminate a pregnancy” in New York state law.

Democrats for Life of America deemed the proposed bill “the most sweeping abortion legislation in the nation.”

The Democratic governor introduced the bill to cheers during his January 9 State of the State address, shrouding it in the name of “women’s equality.”

“The abortion language would allow late-term abortions, allow non-doctors to perform abortions, and supersede any reasonable restrictions such as parental notification,” the group stated.

“It is out of touch with the views of most Americans, out of touch with the views of most Democrats, and could hamper real reform for women's rights,” the Democratic group concluded.

Particularly “in a state that already has one of the highest abortion rates,” double the national average.

One-third of all pregnancies in the state end in abortion, and in some parts of New York City the abortion rate is more than 60 percent.

One would think that whether you are pro-life or pro-abortion, that decision to abort one’s unborn should be a weighty one and access to have that abortion not on equal footing as walking down the hallway and depositing a dollar bill into the vending machine for a soda.

Is it anti-choice or anti-reproductive rights to say that getting an abortion ought to take a little more effort than popping a bag of popcorn? Shouldn’t it actually be more difficult to get an abortion than to renew your driver’s license at the DMV?

At what point did this stop being about reproductive rights and start being about a culture of death when expediency to terminate a pregnancy becomes of paramount and fanatical importance?

Probably about the same time when instead of celebrating the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, you want to make love to it instead.

Standby for the creepiest, most vile and disgusting Youtube videos we may have ever seen courtesy The Center for Reproductive Rights:







The mentality that is expressed here is one void of any compassion and empathy whatsoever. In fact it is soulless. Despite what the ad purports, there is no love expressed here only a selfishness that can't/won't recognize the gift of life seeing it merely as an inconvenience that should give way instead to inward directed gratification.

Our country is not better off because of this.

.

Saving the boobies...? Whats the rush? (UPDATED)

Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.
- Ian Fleming


That annual mammogram? Yeah, maybe you don’t need it. So says the U.S. Preventative Service Task Force, an independent panel of experts appointed by the Dept. of Health and Human Services who up until recently were urging women to get ‘grams every one or two years starting at age 40. Now they are singing a different tune saying screening isn’t recommended until 50 and only at a bi-annual rate.

You’ll have to forgive our cynicism - healthcare rationing under government-managed healthcare is as inevitable as the sun rising in the East – and applying Occam’s razor to this recent development, this would appear to be the first big move in that direction.

However, slaves to moderation and sober assessments that we are, we’ll put this one in our back pocket and wait to see what, if any, dominoes fall next?

If weeks or months from now, this U.S.P.S.T.F. comes out and says the benefits of Dr. Jelly Finger just isn’t what it used to be, then we will revisit the issue.

(UPDATE #1):

LaMesa physician Reza Shirazi said it’s the most effective for patients and primary-care physicians to create a screening plan that’s comfortable for both parties.

“I think it’s best to have that decision at the discretion of the doctor and the patient,” said Shirazi, a radiation oncologist with the Alvarado Hospital Radiation Medical Group.

There it is again. The patient-doctor privacy issue. The privacy issue that was at one time considered so sacrosanct especially with respect to defending Roe v. Wade is now cast aside in the name of the statists’ new BFF, “controlling costs”.

The entire concept of government-managed healthcare flies in the face of patient-doctor privacy.

Again, we welcome anyone who has happened to stumble across this site to please square this inconsistency.

P.S. The quote above will not be found in the linked article authored by Gina Kolata of the New York Times News Service that appeared in modified form in the print version of today’s San Diego Union-Tribune. We copied it verbatim out of the paper because… we cannot find the electronic version of the story as it appeared in today’s paper. And this is because the U-T’s own online search engine has got to be the most worthless piece of crap in the entirety of print media. Even typing in the title of the article with the sub-title netted a “No results found”. Unbelievable. They scratch their heads wondering why no one reads the hard copy anymore and they can’t even get the simplest of features right on their online site.


(UPDATE #2): We kind of feel like we’re sniping from the sidelines since we don’t have a horse in the race, though the potential ramifications towards our own healthcare is enormous – so we would love to hear what the fairer sex thinks of the matter. And since hearing from the people who will be effected the most by this, we have decided to liberate to the front page the following comments:

SarahB says:

This has been a reoccurring concept all year...the screening for cancer is bad idea...you might have a false positive, so better to wait until you have full blown cancer so you know for sure. Right up there with not seeing a pregnant woman until she's 10 weeks along, or skipping the whole ultrasound thing till pregnancy is half over. Why catch a problem early? Not that mammograms aren't an arcane form of torture and degradation, but most preventative care seems to involve some form of ironic humiliation. Maybe the benevolent government is really out to give us back our dignity.

(emphasis, ours)
Pretty much the comment of the year at BwD.


And this from Foxfier:

Well, my mom would probably be dead under this.

Her screening came back positive Christmas of '02. She was 47.

She's making our job way too easy.

Thanks to Arianna Huffington and NARAL, we're closer and closer to gettin' this thing done. But first, we’re beginning to wonder if she can make it through an entire article without dropping a pop culture reference. She’s treading into that uncomfortable area where older people in an attempt to appear relevant start quoting Cartman and hip-hop lyrics. Don’t let this happen to you. Its embarrassing and everyone can see through the shameless pandering to youth.

Anyway, Ari’s bent because McCain received a “0” score from NARAL while Obama maxed out at 100… for the 3rd straight year. Yaaaaaayyyy……

Obama on limited government and potential voters:

"A woman's ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women." Well, not all women, eh Barack?

And with respect to his two daughters: if they were ever to “make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” Can’t say we’ve heard that particular verb tossed around when talking about a pregnancy. Note to self: Call Mom just to make sure.

We’ll keep saying this for as long as we have to but reasonable people can disagree over Roe v. Wade or abortion in general but to chalk up 3 straight perfect seasons in the eyes of a group that is wholey unwilling to accept in any small degree and will fight savagely any sensible restrictions on abortion, such as, late-term abortions or parental notification, leaves us cold. Sorry. Can’t say we’d be real stoked to have that person representing this country in the Oval Office