Court gives legal victory to abortion foes

[Alonzo]

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court handed a legal victory on Friday to medical groups working on behalf of health-care providers who refuse to offer abortion services.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allows private groups of health care providers to partner with the U.S. federal government to defend the federal Weldon Amendment from a lawsuit brought against it by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

The Weldon Amendment, which Lockyer says is unconstitutional, prevents federal, state and local governments from receiving federal funds if they discriminate against health-care providers that refuse to offer abortion services.

The court's decision allows the Alliance for Catholic Health Care and the Medical Groups, which represents health organizations opposed to abortion under nearly all circumstances, to work with the Bush administration to defend the rights of health-care providers opposed to abortion.

California's health code may be construed to require abortions in emergencies to preserve the life or health of a patient, so the state is challenging the Weldon Amendment to prevent the loss of federal funds in those cases.

The panel ruled the two health-care groups should be allowed to intervene in the lawsuit because, if the Weldon Amendment is declared unconstitutional, they may be forced to choose between their beliefs and losing medical licenses.

"Congress passed the Weldon Amendment precisely to keep doctors who have moral qualms about performing abortions from being put to the hard choice of acting in conformity with their beliefs, or risking imprisonment or loss of professional livelihood," Judge Alex Kozinski wrote for the panel.

He noted the panel believed California was moving toward such sanctions because state employees were probing complaints about a hospital that will not provide emergency abortions.

"Should California prevail in this lawsuit, it will be free to prosecute health care providers for failure to provide emergency abortion services, however it defines that phrase," Kozinski wrote.

Lawyers for the health-care groups were not available for comment.

"Regardless of who is to intervene in this case, the Weldon Amendment remains an unconstitutional infringement of California's sovereignty as well as a threat to the reproductive health care rights of the state's women," said Lockyer spokesman Tom Dresslar.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060609/us_nm/court_abortion_dc;_ylt=ArekwmMXzPgyQIgWjwYR_6Gs0NU E;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

Doctors who were hired under the condition that they not perform abortions should not be forced to. But, under no circumstances, should an entire hospital refuse to perform even emergency abortions. That is a danger to the mother and, in emergency situations, there likely is not time to rectify the situation by sending the mother to another hospital to get the needed procedure. It's a danger to patients. A willing doctor should always be available in case such a situation arises.

[Nathan Brazil]

What's an "emergency" abortion?

Whole hospitals are businesses, just like whole grocery stores.Â*Â*If the hospital doesn't want to engage in unethical practices, why should the government have to force them to?

BTW: the article states:
which represents health organizations opposed to abortion under nearly all circumstances,

That would seem to indicate that real emergencies, like a life threatening car accident or fire in which a REAL choice must be made between the life of the mother and the unborn child.

Too bad the "life of the mother" argument has been prostituted to mean "quality of life of the mother".

[Alonzo]

What's an "emergency" abortion?

Whole hospitals are businesses, just like whole grocery stores.Â*Â*If the hospital doesn't want to engage in unethical practices, why should the government have to force them to?

Grocery stores are not essential in the same way. No one is rushed to the nearest grocery store needing an immediate injection of milk.

And it's a matter of personal opinion of whether it's unethical, and that hinges largely on what you consider essential about human life and how you view an embryo or foetus vs. an adult woman.

That would seem to indicate that real emergencies, like a life threatening car accident or fire in which a REAL choice must be made between the life of the mother and the unborn child.

Too bad the "life of the mother" argument has been prostituted to mean "quality of life of the mother".


That's the organization, a particular hospital was accused of simply not providing emergency abortions.

And, considering it takes about 2 months for even rudimentary brain waves to appear in a foetus, and hearteat at a month/ month and a half, it's highly debatable whether it's worth causing damage to the mothers health to protect it, especially when the mother would not choose to do so. Even when brain waves are detected, that's still a far cry from producing consciousness in the fetus.

If someone is rushed to a hospital and they are refused treatment that the hospital is capable of providing, and they suffer health consequences due to it, then the hospital should be sued.

[bobbylien]

Yay. :D

[Nathan Brazil]

What's an "emergency" abortion?

Whole hospitals are businesses, just like whole grocery stores.Â*Â*If the hospital doesn't want to engage in unethical practices, why should the government have to force them to?

Grocery stores are not essential in the same way. No one is rushed to the nearest grocery store needing an immediate injection of milk.

And it's a matter of personal opinion of whether it's unethical, and that hinges largely on what you consider essential about human life and how you view an embryo or foetus vs. an adult woman.

You're absolutely right. It's a personal opinion that abortions are unethical, and clearly at least one hospital has expressed the opinion that not only are they unethical, but that they won't be doing them.

'sfine with me. Certainly there's enough other charlatans out there killing babies for money that real hospitals dedicated to the preservation of life can be allowed to operate without interference, right?

Too bad the "life of the mother" argument has been prostituted to mean "quality of life of the mother".


That's the organization, a particular hospital was accused of simply not providing emergency abortions.

It merely says "under nearly all circumstances". It doesn't say it refused to permit all.

And, considering it takes about 2 months for even rudimentary brain waves to appear in a foetus, and hearteat at a month/ month and a half, it's highly debatable whether it's worth causing damage to the mothers health to protect it, especially when the mother would not choose to do so. Even when brain waves are detected, that's still a far cry from producing consciousness in the fetus.

So now you're going to quibble on the concept of life? That's hardly necessary for this thread. After all, the only logical statement is that life begins at conception. The subsequent turning points are naturally nothing more than developmental stages seized upon by individuals eager to define a living thing as a dead thing so they can make a couple thousand bucks to suck it out and flush it away.

If someone is rushed to a hospital and they are refused treatment that the hospital is capable of providing, and they suffer health consequences due to it, then the hospital should be sued.


Got any specific examples, or is this all hypothetical? And if you do have a specific example, please explain how your medical training justifies Monday Morning quarterbacking when you didn't even see the game?

[Alonzo]

You're absolutely right.Â*Â*It's a personal opinion that abortions are unethical, and clearly at least one hospital has expressed the opinion that not only are they unethical, but that they won't be doing them.

'sfine with me.Â*Â*Certainly there's enough other charlatans out there killing babies for money that real hospitals dedicated to the preservation of life can be allowed to operate without interference, right?

If you take in emergency cases then you need to be prepared to do whatever is best for the person in front of you. And killing babies is a far cry from killing a foetus that can't think or feel pain.


It merely says "under nearly all circumstances".Â*Â*It doesn't say it refused to permit all.

Again, that's the organization representing them. It does not say "nearly all" for the particular hospital.



So now you're going to quibble on the concept of life?Â*Â*That's hardly necessary for this thread.Â*Â*After all, the only logical statement is that life begins at conception.Â*

Only in the biological sense. There's no clear cut answer for when life in the moral sense begins. You don't show concern when you kill a fly, yet a fly is more aware than in certain stages.

The subsequent turning points are naturally nothing more than developmental stages seized upon by individuals eager to define a living thing as a dead thing so they can make a couple thousand bucks to suck it out and flush it away.

Ya sure, it's about women being able to choose how to live their own lives. Abortions have been around for thousands of years, but only recently have they become safe.


Got any specific examples, or is this all hypothetical?Â*Â*And if you do have a specific example, please explain how your medical training justifies Monday Morning quarterbacking when you didn't even see the game?


If you could read you'd see that the point was hypothetical, but if a hospital is refusing emergency abortions then someone coming in who needs an abortion or they will suffer long term health issues then that's an emergency abortion.

It's funny, you don't think you need to be a doctor to oppose abortion, but you need to be one to support choice.

[Nathan Brazil]

Only in the biological sense. There's no clear cut answer for when life in the moral sense begins. You don't show concern when you kill a fly, yet a fly is more aware than in certain stages.

Yeah, only in the biological sense. That's the one that matters in the real world. Metaphysics isn't all that interesting when you're just an embryo.

Ya sure, it's about women being able to choose how to live their own lives. Abortions have been around for thousands of years, but only recently have they become safe.

Oh, if it's about CHOICE, the woman can choose to say "no". If she gets knocked up when she chose to say "yes", there's a baby and a life that she's given tacit acceptance to create.

Dem's her "choices". Murder isn't one of them.

f you could read you'd see that the point was hypothetical, but if a hospital is refusing emergency abortions then someone coming in who needs an abortion or they will suffer long term health issues then that's an emergency abortion.

Well, you see, out here in the real world, lawsuits are based on actual damage done, not some lawyers hyperactive dollar driven imagination.

Not even judges have any respect for lawyers.

It's funny, you don't think you need to be a doctor to oppose abortion, but you need to be one to support choice.


That's because morality isn't something you need an MD to figure out, but having a realy nearly dead body in handed to you and you're asked what to do with the thing? Then the piece of paper helps.

Want to discuss the morality of nuclear power, or go into exciting details about control rod withdrawal accidents?

[Alonzo]

Yeah, only in the biological sense.Â*Â*That's the one that matters in the real world.Â*Â*Metaphysics isn't all that interesting when you're just an embryo.

I'm sorry, I thought intelligence, ability to ponder, question etc. is what made humans special.

A worm is closer to intelligence than a 2 week old embryo.


Oh, if it's about CHOICE, the woman can choose to say "no".Â*Â*If she gets knocked up when she chose to say "yes", there's a baby and a life that she's given tacit acceptance to create.

Dem's her "choices".Â*Â*Murder isn't one of them.

Because women never get pregnant accidentally (improper use of condom, forgot to take birth control pill etc) or by rape. Rape alone results in over 30 thousand pregnancies a year.

Then saddling younger, underage, or unprepared women with children can destroy their education, career and future. A women who had a child 5 years later may have a college education and a quality job to support the child, but a women who is forced to keep the baby may end up essentially becoming a welfare mom, leading to a much high risk of potential behavioural problems in the child and in the mother.

Well, you see, out here in the real world, lawsuits are based on actual damage done, not some lawyers hyperactive dollar driven imagination.

Not even judges have any respect for lawyers.

Well then, you can't complain about gun regulation then, since no one has been arrested for possessing a registered hand gun, and any law introduced that would ban such things is purely hypothetical at this point.

Seriously, get a clue.

That's because morality isn't something you need an MD to figure out, but having a realy nearly dead body in handed to you and you're asked what to do with the thing?Â*Â*Then the piece of paper helps.

Want to discuss the morality of nuclear power, or go into exciting details about control rod withdrawal accidents?


Your argument is mind numbing. "You don't need an MD to agree with me but you have no right to disagree with me unless your an MD". Your line of logic is absurd.