Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
and then

Very limited support for Indiana Abortion Law

78 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

and then

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-indiana.html 

From the article:

"In an apparent compromise in a case from Indiana, the justices turned down an appeal that asked the court to reinstate a state law banning abortions sought solely because of the sex or disability of a fetus. But the court upheld part of the same law requiring abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal remains. "

 

This law was far less contentious than Alabama's and I have no wish to revisit that issue, it will just get the thread closed.  This is one that we should be able to discuss with a minimum of emotion, I hope.  If I read the article correctly, the legislature of Indiana were not asking for abolition at any level or period of gestation.  They simply wanted to remove the option of aborting children solely due to their sex or potential disability.  The court held that that portion would remain nullified,i.e. Indianans can still abort children for no other reason than unwanted sex of the child or, due to finding the child might be disabled and they could not care for it.  I can understand the second reason but not the first but my opinion doesn't matter.

What I'd like to understand is why Planned Parenthood and the Left, in general, are upset because the court upheld the demand that these fetuses be buried or cremated BY LAW.  

What do you all think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady
Posted (edited)

It places another undue financial burden on women seeking a legal and safe abortion. It also forces women to view a fetus as having personhood which it does not despite the anti choice side attempt to make that distinction. The issue is two fold, some women choose to donate fetal tissue for medical study and use which anti choice propaganda has been made to look unseemly when in fact it's a valid and useful research tool with many applications for possible cures via stem cell research etc. Secondly the attempt to force personhood as a means of a punishing women for seeking abortion is a tactic, making what is at best in most abortion cases a tiny not very developed fetus be treated as a full human being solely to attach shame and with it the added cost of burial or cremation. It's an artificial stance that a woman choosing to terminate is forced to do now by the state for no other reason that being punitive. There is no reason to give a fetus a funeral against a woman's wishes. 

Edited by darkmoonlady
  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
1 hour ago, darkmoonlady said:

It places another undue financial burden on women seeking a legal and safe abortion. It also forces women to view a fetus as having personhood which it does not despite the anti choice side attempt to make that distinction. The issue is two fold, some women choose to donate fetal tissue for medical study and use which anti choice propaganda has been made to look unseemly when in fact it's a valid and useful research tool with many applications for possible cures via stem cell research etc. Secondly the attempt to force personhood as a means of a punishing women for seeking abortion is a tactic, making what is at best in most abortion cases a tiny not very developed fetus be treated as a full human being solely to attach shame and with it the added cost of burial or cremation. It's an artificial stance that a woman choosing to terminate is forced to do now by the state for no other reason that being punitive. There is no reason to give a fetus a funeral against a woman's wishes. 

Where is it forcing the cost of burial or cremation onto parents?

Quote

If the parents decide not to take possession of the fetal remains, the health care facility would be required to provide for the final disposition of the miscarried or aborted fetus, which could then only be cremated or interred.

https://rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law/indiana-omnibus-abortion-bill-hb-1337/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady
2 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Where is it forcing the cost of burial or cremation onto parents?

https://rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law/indiana-omnibus-abortion-bill-hb-1337/

Currently, when a woman undergoes a surgical abortion in a clinic, the clinic disposes of the tissue in the same way that it does any other tissue, said Dr. Katherine McHugh, an obstetrician-gynecologist and abortion provider in Indianapolis who works with advocacy for the Indiana chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

This new law would create a new expense – and it’s not clear who would be financially responsible, the patient or the provider. Asking women to bear the expense could put abortion out of the financial reach of some women, McHugh said.

“This is an unusual request of any kind of medical procedure,” she said. “This is very specific and very targeted to patients who seek and have abortions. ... This is a punishment for them trying to seek this normal medical procedure.”

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/05/28/indiana-abortion-law-supreme-court-rules-fetal-remains-law/1256953001/

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
30 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

Currently, when a woman undergoes a surgical abortion in a clinic, the clinic disposes of the tissue in the same way that it does any other tissue, said Dr. Katherine McHugh, an obstetrician-gynecologist and abortion provider in Indianapolis who works with advocacy for the Indiana chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

This new law would create a new expense – and it’s not clear who would be financially responsible, the patient or the provider. Asking women to bear the expense could put abortion out of the financial reach of some women, McHugh said.

“This is an unusual request of any kind of medical procedure,” she said. “This is very specific and very targeted to patients who seek and have abortions. ... This is a punishment for them trying to seek this normal medical procedure.”

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2019/05/28/indiana-abortion-law-supreme-court-rules-fetal-remains-law/1256953001/

Rewire's interpretation of legislation is unambiguous on who bears the cost. The requisite disposition is also applied miscarriages.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady
4 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Rewire's interpretation of legislation is unambiguous on who bears the cost. The requisite disposition is also applied miscarriages.

 

It's not been tested, basically it hasn't happened yet because it went to the Supreme Court first. Given that the push off anti choice legislation beyond outright banning is present as many obstacles to attaining abortion as they can muster. Requiring surgical privileges, requiring fetal burial, requiring clinic standards, requiring invasive forced vaginal ultrasounds with scripts to follow, it's a pattern to make abortion so costly and so odious women are discouraged from attaining them. Believe me if the state is conservative they'll have no problem requiring the cost be put on the woman. The whole point is to discourage women. Which for a safe legal abortion is restricting access. Imagine if you went to the doctor for a vasectomy and were required to have a prostate ultrasound, to be told via script you were shirking your make fatherly duty by not producing more children and your insurance wouldn't cover it so all of the costs attached came out of pocket as to be so prohibitive you'd just give up. It's not a perfect analogy but men aren't forced to jump through hoops to gain control over their reproductive freedom in the same way women are. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
54 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

It's not been tested, basically it hasn't happened yet because it went to the Supreme Court first. Given that the push off anti choice legislation beyond outright banning is present as many obstacles to attaining abortion as they can muster. Requiring surgical privileges, requiring fetal burial, requiring clinic standards, requiring invasive forced vaginal ultrasounds with scripts to follow, it's a pattern to make abortion so costly and so odious women are discouraged from attaining them. Believe me if the state is conservative they'll have no problem requiring the cost be put on the woman. The whole point is to discourage women. Which for a safe legal abortion is restricting access. Imagine if you went to the doctor for a vasectomy and were required to have a prostate ultrasound, to be told via script you were shirking your make fatherly duty by not producing more children and your insurance wouldn't cover it so all of the costs attached came out of pocket as to be so prohibitive you'd just give up. It's not a perfect analogy but men aren't forced to jump through hoops to gain control over their reproductive freedom in the same way women are. 

OK, but how do you demonstrate that Rewire's interpretation of the actual bill is wrong?

Where is the ambiguity in the proposed legislation that Dr McHugh asserts?

This is the actual proposed wording of the health code, isn't it?

Quote

Sec. 6. (a) If the parent or parents choose a means oflocation of final disposition other than the means location of finaldisposition that is usual and customary for the health care facility, theparent or parents are responsible for the costs related to the finaldisposition of the fetus at the chosen location

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1337#document-51b52d50

So how does a conservative government impose the cost of burial or cremation when it's legislated as elective? 

Unsupported fears about financial burden to oppose Mike Pence law will generate what is now a common response.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

I'm wondering if this law also applies to miscarriages.  If not, how can you argue that it is genuine in nature, and not just a punishment to women?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
8 hours ago, and then said:

What I'd like to understand is why Planned Parenthood and the Left, in general, are upset because the court upheld the demand that these fetuses be buried or cremated BY LAW.  

What do you all think?

I havent dug too deep into the issue but off the top of my head the loss of a resource for scientific research would seem to be a pretty big issue. Not for an individual state to do so but slippery slope and all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim

Abortion aside, it seems to be consistent with other aspects of the law that treat an unborn child as a person.  Even though abortion is legal, in many states a person can be charged with manslaughter and even murder for causing harm to a fetus.  Even car accidents with a pregnant woman involved have resulted in charges of vehicular homicide if the mother survives but loses the baby.  So if the law treats a fetus as a person in every way except abortion then this just brings portions of the abortion process in line with those parts of the law while still allowing the procedure.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
1 hour ago, Agent0range said:

I'm wondering if this law also applies to miscarriages.  If not, how can you argue that it is genuine in nature, and not just a punishment to women?

why are you wondering when you can read and know for sure?   oh i get, it so you can argue none existent points,  typical lefty shill

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady
38 minutes ago, aztek said:

why are you wondering when you can read and know for sure?   oh i get, it so you can argue none existent points,  typical lefty shill

It has specific language regarding miscarriages but aside from that in other countries that outlaw abortions they prosecute women for miscarriages by calling them attempted abortion when there was no atrempt. Would you like links regarding women jailed in other countries? Happy to provide them. Nothing leftist about that just sad. Why are you so rude to people having a civil discussion? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

It has specific language regarding miscarriages but aside from that in other countries that outlaw abortions they prosecute women for miscarriages by calling them attempted abortion when there was no atrempt. Would you like links regarding women jailed in other countries? Happy to provide them. Nothing leftist about that just sad. Why are you so rude to people having a civil discussion? 

i could not care less what happens in other countries, we are talking about Indiana abortion laws.  

he is just like you crys about women being punished where there is nothing like that is actually happening. and he knows that,. and i very much dislike people like that

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Jim
3 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

the loss of a resource for scientific research would seem to be a pretty big issue. Not for an individual state to do so but slippery slope and all of that.

Indiana has never been known as much of a trend setter.  Are you just as concerned about the new abortion law in New York?  More things that sweep the nation seem to begin there and in California.  I seriously doubt that every scrap of usable fetal tissue is currently being used for research now, so the loss of Indiana's contribution shouldn't cause any impact at all.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

Indiana has never been known as much of a trend setter.  Are you just as concerned about the new abortion law in New York?  More things that sweep the nation seem to begin there and in California.  I seriously doubt that every scrap of usable fetal tissue is currently being used for research now, so the loss of Indiana's contribution shouldn't cause any impact at all.

Honestly I was just reaching for an answer as to why one would be opposed to the cremation / burial part ......and full confession the first time i read it I somehow missed burial and only read cremation.  I dont personally have a problem with it and its not something that I would have thought of if the question wasnt asked.

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
15 hours ago, and then said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/28/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-indiana.html 

From the article:

"In an apparent compromise in a case from Indiana, the justices turned down an appeal that asked the court to reinstate a state law banning abortions sought solely because of the sex or disability of a fetus. But the court upheld part of the same law requiring abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal remains. "

 

This law was far less contentious than Alabama's and I have no wish to revisit that issue, it will just get the thread closed.  This is one that we should be able to discuss with a minimum of emotion, I hope.  If I read the article correctly, the legislature of Indiana were not asking for abolition at any level or period of gestation.  They simply wanted to remove the option of aborting children solely due to their sex or potential disability.  The court held that that portion would remain nullified,i.e. Indianans can still abort children for no other reason than unwanted sex of the child or, due to finding the child might be disabled and they could not care for it.  I can understand the second reason but not the first but my opinion doesn't matter.

What I'd like to understand is why Planned Parenthood and the Left, in general, are upset because the court upheld the demand that these fetuses be buried or cremated BY LAW.  

What do you all think?

Without having read this thread yet, the left is upset because they are told to be. Cant step out of line on ANY opinion.

PP is mad cause they cant harvest organs for profit

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady
2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Without having read this thread yet, the left is upset because they are told to be. Cant step out of line on ANY opinion.

PP is mad cause they cant harvest organs for profit

That is patently false. You don't bother reading the thread and comment on it with no frame of reference. The law was a means test to see where it would go in the courts, it hasn't been implemented yet. Based on the actions of anti choice legislators the trend is to make abortion as difficult as possible. As for harvesting organs for what? Tiny transplants? What nefarious conspiracy theory is that? Fetal tissue research is real:

Life-saving advances, including the development of vaccines against rubella, rabies, and hepatitis A viruses, and antiviral drugs that prevent HIV/AIDS, required fetal tissue research. Today, fetal tissue is being used to develop new medicines including vaccines for HIV/AIDS, preventives for Zika virus, and immunotherapies to battle untreatable cancers.

Although research into alternatives is worthwhile, there are several aspects of fetal tissue research for which alternatives do not and will not exist. For example, to discover which fetal cells go awry and cause childhood cancers such as retinoblastoma, a cancer of the eye, or rhabdomyosarcoma, a muscle cancer, we must understand which cells are the culprits. For that, we need access to relevant fetal tissues. Zika virus can cross the placenta and attack specific fetal brain cells. To determine the mechanism of viral entry, which cell types are vulnerable, and how to prevent infection and damage, we need access to fetal brain tissue. Beyond diseases affecting children, some forms of hereditary Alzheimer's disease cause neural impairments in utero that persist over decades and manifest later in life. Without access to fetal cells, we cannot understand and effectively combat diseases that begin in utero.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6424/207

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
17 hours ago, darkmoonlady said:

It places another undue financial burden on women seeking a legal and safe abortion. It also forces women to view a fetus as having personhood which it does not despite the anti choice side attempt to make that distinction. The issue is two fold, some women choose to donate fetal tissue for medical study and use which anti choice propaganda has been made to look unseemly when in fact it's a valid and useful research tool with many applications for possible cures via stem cell research etc. Secondly the attempt to force personhood as a means of a punishing women for seeking abortion is a tactic, making what is at best in most abortion cases a tiny not very developed fetus be treated as a full human being solely to attach shame and with it the added cost of burial or cremation. It's an artificial stance that a woman choosing to terminate is forced to do now by the state for no other reason that being punitive. There is no reason to give a fetus a funeral against a woman's wishes. 

The law does not require that a "funeral" be paid for by anyone.  The remains are to be interred or cremated and cannot be medically donated.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
15 hours ago, Golden Duck said:

Where is it forcing the cost of burial or cremation onto parents?

https://rewire.news/legislative-tracker/law/indiana-omnibus-abortion-bill-hb-1337/

It only does IF they choose where the remains are to be interred.  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pence-law-forcing-fetus-funerals/ 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Golden Duck
10 hours ago, Agent0range said:

I'm wondering if this law also applies to miscarriages.  If not, how can you argue that it is genuine in nature, and not just a punishment to women?

The wording of HB 1337 says it does apply to miscarriages. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
53 minutes ago, darkmoonlady said:

Fetal tissue research is real:

And Planned Parenthood is making bank on it.  

https://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/20/new-documents-prove-planned-parenthood-illegally-profited-from-selling-aborted-baby-parts/  

From what I've gathered, the new law that was upheld harms no one except possibly the abortion provider by making them actually inter or cremate the aborted fetuses.  Oh, and it slams the door on PP using the fetuses for profit.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
48 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Didn't the guys that made these videos get charged with a crime because the videos were edited?

Not that I've heard.  He was charged because of privacy laws.  As you might imagine, they were a TAD upset that they were exposed in such an enterprise.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.