Home > Business Disputes > War on Women (WOW)

War on Women (WOW)

A war on women seems to be the preferred catch phrase for any limitations whatsoever on abortion. The cry of it’s a choice and the woman’s body so she should decide is compelling, but for the fact it leaves out the fact that her choice could take the life of a child who is not given a choice in the matter (what if the baby was a girl – is it then a war on future women?)

The latest great cry and outrage is over Texas HB2 which depending on your interpretation is a ban on abortion (it is not) or nothing more than lip service for those wanting a ban on abortion (it is not that either). What it is in my opinion is something which has been needed for some time, minimal regulation and implementation of safety requirements to protect women.

The argument is sure to be made that I am a man (true) and a catholic (also true) so I can’t possibly have any real input into the discussion. I guess that would be the same as only gun owners (yes to that as well) are able to discuss gun rights and regulations. It seems that there is a great uproar over things that need to be regulated (guns, sodas, smoking, light bulbs, religion, energy, etc., etc.) but the health and safety of not only a baby, but as importantly the health and safety of the mother is what creates an uproar. WOW!

So what does this draconian bill do? In essence two earth shattering regulations (tongue firmly in cheek):

1st: Restrict elective abortions at 20 weeks or later, but there are exceptions: The Act does not apply to abortions that are necessary to avert the death or substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman or abortions that are performed on unborn children with severe fetal abnormalities.

2nd: Requires that the physician performing or inducing an abortion:

a. must, on the date the abortion is performed or induced, have active admitting privileges at a hospital that:

1. is located not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced; and
2. provides obstetrical or gynecological health care services; and
b. shall provide the pregnant woman with:

1. a telephone number by which the pregnant woman may reach the physician, or other health care personnel employed by the physician or by the facility at which the abortion was performed or induced with access to the woman’s relevant medical records, 24 hours a day to request assistance for any complications that arise from the performance or induction of the abortion or ask health-related questions regarding the abortion; and

2. the name and telephone number of the nearest hospital to the home of the pregnant woman at which an emergency arising from the abortion would be treated.

BUT WAIT– there is a global get out of regulation free exception:
The prohibitions and requirements do not apply to an abortion performed if there exists a condition that, in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the woman that, to avert the woman’s death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition, it necessitates, as applicable:

(1) the immediate abortion of her pregnancy without the delay necessary to determine the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child;

(2) the abortion of her pregnancy even though the post-fertilization age of the unborn child is 20 or more weeks; or

(3) the use of a method of abortion other than a method described.
So the big uproar is over not allowing abortions after 20 weeks. Not being good with math, I got out my handy dandy calculator and determined that is five months. That seems like a long time to wait to have an abortion especially when that is on the brink (or over it in some instances) of viability of the baby if delivered.

The other big issue is the requirement that the doctor have hospital privileges at a hospital not further than 30 miles away that provides OBGYN services; provided a phone number for the woman to call if complications and the name and number of the nearest hospital to her home if an emergency arise.

I would think that would be something that everyone would support. The risk, no matter how small that something could go wrong and could endanger the life of the mother should be reduced as much as possible. Having these requirements seems like common sense and the fact that they didn’t exist before would seem to be something more in the lines of a war on women in that they aren’t protected in case something were to go wrong. Now that safeguards are in place there is uproar over the restrictions on the right to abortion. Without even getting into the “right” what about the right to have a safe procedure and the right to have a safety net is something goes wrong? In most things in life those fighting regulation and change are not the people we see on the news – gun owners, single mothers, etc., but the companies that stand to lose millions of dollars if regulations are passed. Follow the money and the war on women will really lead to a WOW moment.

  1. Mark
    August 13, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    Great job.


    Mark Hudec

    235 River Grove Road

    Sugar Land, TX 77478

    Make it a great day!

    Phone: 281.313.4015

    Fax: 206.338.3347



    Mark Hudec is a Registered Representative offering securities and Advisory Services through United Planners Financial Services, Member FINRA, SIPC.

    Confidential Information: This message and any attachments contain information from United Planners Financial Services, which may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended for the use only by the addressee(s) named on this transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, copying, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please (i) notify the sender by email or by telephone and (ii) destroy all copies of this message.


  2. August 13, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    Most high risk pregnancies, including women 35 and above are encouraged to get screened including a ultrasound at 16 weeks to test for genetic issues like downs. There are 2 genetic abnormalities that cause death in infants usually within a year. These diagnosis are then confirmed with other testing that can take some time. If you get a well you child may live but have severe downs some parents make that awful decision to abort, but it is still legal to do. Some debate has centered around whether there is pain or not and there seems not to be. For almost anyone abortion at any stage is awful. We can never know what these families and women go through with these types of decisions. The bill does a few more things you overlooked. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy they will be now required to go to an ambulatory surgical facility. This is not the norm now and will cost those women lots of unnecessary expense. Also, Planned Parenthood facilities have been taken down to only a few in large cities. Women in the Valley were you are from will have to go to San Antonio for the closest facility. Planned Parenthood has also provided mammograms and family planning and other medical services. Literally throwing the baby out with the bath water here is ridiculous. It was nothing more than a political move. Just like was done with Acorn a Voter Registration group that had some bad apples. It was pathetic how the rabid unfounded objections to Wendy Davis’ filibuster went only giving her far more attention than the Republicans wanted. She brought up all these points during her filibuster. She even said there is a Constitutional way of limiting abortions but HB 2 was not it. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has also hinted that she thinks Roe could be limited. So you missed the important back story in your analysis. Don’t worry Wendy Davis will clarify it when she decides to run for Governor, Lt. Governor or Attorney General. Stay tuned!

    • August 14, 2013 at 8:28 am

      Thanks Derick. The issue as I see it is safety. Every case I have handled there is always some reason why they didn’t have procedures in place for the safety of the person injured. The arguments cover all the usual defenses … it was a small risk, the cost was to great for the risk, we could have done it but it would have cost everyone more money. Generally these arguments are excuses which are designed for one thing – to protect and increase the profit margin. There is nothing preventing Planned Parenthood or any organization from continuing providing mammograms, family planning or other medical services as you state, but if they are going to provide a medical service which has the potential of killing or maiming a woman if something were to go wrong then why not have the necessary safeguards in place. I agree it has been made a political issue on both sides, but the regulations in this bill do not eliminate abortions. It makes them safer for those who choose to have one. If the true nature of Planned Parenthood is to provide the other services you described then why would this bill cause any of their locations to close, unless the other services are loss leaders for the abortion services which are their money makers. If that is the case then providing safer abortions would seem to be a reasonable step to insure the safety of their patients. The safety of a person should always be the first consideration, not profit, not politics. The bill allows the physician to perform an abortion after 20 weeks and in other circumstances if necessary. So is the closing of the facilities due to this bill (in which most of the medical requirements have not even started), or is it a way to close non-profitable locations and generate political and public reaction?

      • August 14, 2013 at 12:51 pm

        When Planned Parenthood was the only affordable option for folks and there is only 1/3 the number of those facilities than before, many people will not have access. As I said before, folks in the Valley need to go to San Antonio from the Valley to get treatment. Also the bill says an Ambulatory Surgical Facility. A hospital not an outpatient doctor facility. For treatment of ectopic pregnancy this is ridiculous. Instead of taking time to address this, they just rammed it through in another special session despite Wendy bringing it up in her Filibuster. The next special session only allowed on day of testimony on the bill. Intentionally ignoring these legitimate concerns just to get a bill that is draconian in many ways passed. For abortions maybe there have been problems in Non-Ambulatory Surgical Facilities. I think reports have said it was not a factor but I am not certain. Unfortunately, the bill will increase back alley abortions having an opposite unintended effect. That is another reason the opposition calls this a women’s health issue. I am opposed to any legislation that is not carefully thought out. When I started to read all the problems with this bill that’s when I felt compelled to watch the filibuster live. I knew I was going to see the Kangaroo Court approach to legislation I saw when there were so many frivolous attempts to shut Wendy Davis down. Safety should always be the number one concern. However, safety for those who are not going to be able to get the services of Planned Parenthood was blatantly ignored by those supporting this bill.

  3. August 14, 2013 at 3:56 pm

    How dare you …. make sense.

    PP doesn’t do mammograms! They sell abortions which kill the preborn and raise a woman’s risk of breast cancer 20 fold relative to a woman who takes advantage of know reproductive risk reducers (e.g. breast feeding) and raise the risk of preterm birth in subsequent pregnancies which have a high risk for infant mortality and morbidity, including cerebral palsy, mental retardation and epillepsy.

    PP also sells the pill to poor women. The pill was classified as a Category ! carcinogene by the World Health Organization 2005.


    • August 15, 2013 at 2:01 pm

      Planned Parenthood does give access to Mammograms often with Mobile Providers right on their site. What you are obviously rabid about this issue, recognize the science is not settled in the far reaching claims you make. See Below.

      Some studies have suggested an increased risk of pre-term birth after first-trimester vacuum aspiration, but other studies have found no connection. Studies of ectopic pregnancy risk following first-trimester suction abortion have shown varied results. Increased risks for miscarriage and preterm or low birthweight delivery have been reported for women obtaining second-trimester abortions.

      Numerous scientific studies spanning fifty years have documented a relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Several more recent studies have refuted this finding, but the matter is far from settled. Scientists have known for a long time that early childbearing protects against breast cancer, but there is no consensus on whether or not an abortion is an independent risk factor. Any woman with a family history of breast cancer or who is otherwise concerned is encouraged to do her own research into this important issue. However, accurate information about this issue may be difficult to find due to the sensitive and political nature of this issue, which affects even the scientific community.

      The problem with any study is that correlation does not always equal causation. With our State obstructing access to affordable health care by not cooperating with implementation of The Affordable Health Care Act and deny Medicaid Medicare expansion these women will have no where to turn. If the Affordable Health Care Act is implemented then insurance will cover these women. In the meantime, they are will be just another person left out of cancer prevention. When many of them self detect it will be too late. How dare I make sense!

      • August 16, 2013 at 5:02 pm

        Good to hear from you.

        Induced Abortion & Preterm Birth Risk

        You say: “Some studies have suggested an increased risk of pre-term birth after first-trimester vacuum aspiration”

        Facts: There are now 141 significant studies (those done properly and showing a high confidence (<95%) in the findings). The IA PTB risk is a universal finding as these studies were done in many different countries around the world. (See: http://justiceforkids.webs.com/ Chapter 4 for the studies and much more about this topic.

        There have been at least two systematic review studies showing that IA’s raise the risk of PTB and the risk is dose respondent — the more IA’s the higher the risk. Also, the risk increases the later the IA.

        There are at least three prestigious medical entities recognizing the IA PTB risk: Institute of Medicine, Mayo Clinic and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Medicine.
        The IA PTB risk is settled science.

        IA’s & Breast Cancer Risk.

        You say: "Scientists have known for a long time that early childbearing protects against breast cancer, but there is no consensus on whether or not an abortion is an independent risk factor."

        Fact: Yes, early full term births reduce a woman’s risk of breast cancer. Child bearing provides a protective effect against breast cancer. You need to review the physiology of why this is a fact which is explained at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute web site http://www.bcpinstitute.org/physiology.htm to see why IA’s are an independent risk for BC.

        Estrogen exposure and breast maturation are the primary considerations. Those factors make IA’s the single largest risk for breast cancer.

        You say: “Numerous scientific studies spanning fifty years have documented a relationship between abortion and breast cancer. Several more recent studies have refuted this finding, but the matter is far from settled.”

        Fact: There are 73 recognized studies dealing with the IA BC risk. See the list at: http://www.bcpinstitute.org/FactSheets/BCPI-FactSheet-Epidemiol-studies_8_8_2013.pdf

        Some 20% show a negative correlation, the other 80% show a positive correlation. Assuming you would agree studies in this century are “recent”, some 30% show negative correlation, the rest shows a positive correlation.

        You say: “However, accurate information about this issue may be difficult to find due to
        the sensitive and political nature of this issue, which affects even the scientific community.”

        Fact: The studies showing negative correlation are flawed by design and computation. For example, by counting women in a study at the time they have an abortion when it takes 8 – 10 years for the disease to show lowers the effect of the IA. Selective computations also distort the results.

        Dr. Joel Brind who reviews all the studies says unfortunately there is a whole pseudo-science activity — covering up the IA BC risk. See: http://blip.tv/life-matters-tv-program/the-abortion-breast-cancer-link-3070381 and http://blip.tv/life-matters-tv-program/coverup-link-between-breast-cancer-abortion-3070515

        You say: “The problem with any study is that correlation does not always equal causation.”

        Fact: That is what the tobacco industry said about smoking and lung cancer for decades, ignoring the statistical correlation to the detriment and death of many.


        You say: “Without the Obamacare disaster poor pregnant will have nowhere to turn.”

        Fact: Any of the many pregnancy centers will be delighted to help them – pre and post-natally.

        Suggest you visit and read the 13 issues of Abortuary Digest to see the physical harm – even death – women are subjected to in abortuaries.

        Best to you and your family.


  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: