Also, whether or not a government enforces antiquated laws is clearly different from whether it enforces newly passed legislation.

Who said anything about antiquated laws? I’m talking about the 2005 amendment, discussed in Language Log and elsewhere. (By the way, you might be interested more generally in Language Log; they’ve discussed very thoroughly various myths about ways that men and women supposedly talk differently, such as the myth that women talk more than men do.) But of course, you’re right that any broad anti-abortion bill, even a poorly written one, could have dire consequences.

Certainly, despite its masquerade as defending women, the proposal is trying to be anti-abortion bullshit; but I’m not sure how well it succeeds. (Of course, that’s taking the text at face value, which is risky. The text of the Texas Constitution clearly forbids the State from recognizing marriage, except that people prefer to pretend it doesn’t, so for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t.)

that the physician has reasonably determined and documented…demonstrate that the continuance of the pregnancy…is likely to involve more risks to the health of the pregnant woman…that significantly exceed the combined physical, psychological, familial and behavioral risks associated with abortion.”

Despite the fact that you did the worst paste job in the entire universe, it is abundantly clear: That is an abortion ban. Go. Away.

For everyone else, we will resume your scheduled programming.

P

In any event, the wording of the initiative, as found on
http://www.stopforcedabortions.com/initiative.htm
is just that, the wording of the initiative. Referring to it as
“anti-choice” propaganda is not accurate, since the initiative must
stand or fall on its own merits. It can be read in its entirety at the
above site and the reader can judge its merits or demerits for him or
herself.

I note, however, that your characterization of the initiative is
inaccurate, in that NO abortion is banned by its wording. It simply
requires that the physician exercise prudence in his or her behavior,
as should be done by all physicians in every circumstance in their
practice. To include the relevant parts which illustrate this,
consider the following excerpted from the initiative:

“The physician recommending or performing the abortion has in good
faith formed a reasonable medical judgment that the abortion is
medically advisable to prevent:…
“…other health risks…that the physician has reasonably determined and
documented…demonstrate that the continuance of the pregnancy…is likely
to involve more risks to the health of the pregnant woman…that
significantly exceed the combined physical, psychological, familial and
behavioral risks associated with abortion.”

If, as you assure us, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers
are already providing quality screening and counseling, the initiative,
if it becomes law, will have no effect on abortion rates.

In your first response to me, you do in fact acknowledge the
requirement that physicians exercise prudence in their practice. You
wrote:
“… doctors are actually required by law to inform patients of real
risks of abortion just like they’re required by law to inform patients
of real risks of any other surgery.”

So in this, we apparently agree. We might disagree about what
constitutes real risks in the case of abortion, but I would again refer
to the initiative which attempts to define real risks by first defining
that a “(c)omplication associated with abortion” means any adverse
physical, emotional or psychological reaction that is statistically
associated with abortion as defined by P

The proposal, which is known as the “Prevention of Coerced and Unsafe Abortion Act,” would require the doctor to certify that an abortion was necessary to avert the woman’s imminent death or irreversible disability. Or the doctor would have to document that carrying the fetus to term would be more dangerous than the combination of nearly every conceivable risk associated with abortion.

By your logic, it is a doctor’s job to make medical decisions for a patient. Therefore, doctors should also be able to forcibly abort a pregnancy if he or she deems that the woman is better off without a baby. And in either case, women are too stupid to know what’s best for them. How the hell is it a doctor’s job to determine whether or not a woman is better off with or without a child? Even if it were someone else’s choice besides the woman’s (and it never should be), doctors aren’t social workers.

And for the record, if a woman only needed to have a tumor removed but requested a full mastectomy, the doctor would perform one. If a doctor thought that a woman needed a mastectomy but she refused for whatever reason, the doctor would not perform it. It’s called “autonomy” and the legal right to make our own medical decisions.

I read the proposal on
http://www.stopforcedabortions.com/initiative.htm

I don’t see why you write that it is about legally removing the right of women to choose abortion in all but an extremely small number of cases.

To my reading, as I said, it simply requires the physician to practice medicine – that is, to exercise his or her medical judgement and behave prudently in the patient’s interest. Again, I think that standard of care is required generally in the practice of medicine.

If the physician determines that the abortion is likely in the woman’s best interests, he/she is free to go ahead with it. The same standard of care would be applied to a mastectomy, for instance.

Interestingly enough, there is no law saying that doctors have to counsel women about every medical risk regarding continuing a pregnancy and giving birth. But that’s a whole other story.

The point here is that you either have no read the post to understand what the law is about, or simply don’t care what the law is about. The law is not about informing women of risks. The law is about legally removing the right of women to choose abortion in all but an extremely small number of cases.

Nice try, though.