The Supreme Philosophy Of Man The Laws Of Life Pdf Files

• Philosophy Of Man The Thinker
• The Supreme Philosophy Of Man The Laws Of Life

Perhaps the largest point of contention involving terminology is the label applied to what or who is being aborted. Those who think abortion should be generally illegal often use the terms “unborn child” and “unborn baby.” According to Webster’s College Dictionary and Black’s Medical Dictionary, the word “child” can apply prior to birth, but both of these sources employ the word “baby” only from the point of birth onwards. In contrast, those who think abortion should be generally legal often use the word “fetus,” a clinical term derived from a Latin word meaning “offspring” or “newly delivered.” As explained by Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, a fetus is. Hence, when referring to humans, the words “fetus” and “fetal” are applicable from nine weeks after fertilization until birth. Yet, numerous major news organizations have misapplied these terms to both before and after this period. Although journalism guidelines disparage the use of medical jargon, journalists selectively employ it in their coverage of this issue. For instance, despite their widespread usage of “fetus,” journalists commonly employ the term “mother” to refer to a pregnant woman, and rarely, if ever, the more specific and clinical term “gravida.” Conversely, when the topic is not abortion, reporters sometimes shun “fetus” and use “baby” or “child” in its place.

Wade verdict provides several examples of what may constitute a risk the health of the mother. These include the “stigma of unwed motherhood” and the “distress” “associated with the unwanted child.” Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which were issued by the Supreme Court on the same day with the order that they “are to be read together,” mandate that abortion be legal up until the point of birth if any one physician willing to perform an abortion says it is necessary to preserve a mother’s health. (More details in the section on.). The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate in April 2007 by 13 Democrats including Barbara Boxer (California), Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey) and Max Baucus (Montana).

One month later, Barack Obama signed on as a cosponsor. Its stated objective is to “protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy.” It would invalidate “every Federal, State, and local statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice” that interferes with the termination of any “pregnancy prior to viability” and any pregnancy “after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.”. Codes placed by individual doctors on death certificates are the “ core source” of identifying pregnancy-related deaths. No “single source of information captures all pregnancy-related deaths” because of inadequate physician training and knowledge in filling out death certificates, medical records that “fail to indicate that the events leading to death began with pregnancy,” and “medical and autopsy records that cannot be located or are not available for review.”. “Death certificates alone may not provide adequate information on the sequence of events that led to death.

Ultimately a single code is assigned to classify the underlying cause of death. Often, however, several factors may contribute to a death; therefore, the death cannot be adequately described with a unidimensional code.”. The second most common method of identifying pregnancy-associated deaths is “computerized linking of deaths among women of reproductive age with birth certificates and fetal death certificates.” In four cases in which this has been done, the number of pregnancy-related fatalities identified increased by 30%, 68%, 129% and 153%.

One state out of 50 provides information that can be used to link abortion data to computerized death records. The “coding system used by national vital statistics and states to describe maternal deaths precludes a determination of the real causes of maternal death.”. “In most cases, the state is the level at which pregnancy-related deaths are reviewed.”. States are not required to report their abortion data to the CDC, and privacy agreements with certain states require confidentiality on abortion-related fatality data.

Erica Kae Richardson (16 years-old) was admitted to an emergency room on March 1 st with a punctured uterus from an abortion carried out earlier that day at a clinic in Laurel, Maryland. She died shortly after midnight on March 2 nd. Paramedics arrived at an abortion clinic in Suitland, Maryland on July 12 th to find Debra M.

Gray (34 years-old) in cardiac arrest after being administered anesthesia without the presence of an anesthesiologist. She was taken to a hospital and died three days later. Paramedics arrived at an abortion clinic in Suitland, Maryland on September 10 th to find Susanne Renee Logan (32 years-old) in cardiac arrest with an oxygen mask placed upside down on her face. It was found that she had been given anesthesia without the presence of an anesthesiologist, and when she reacted to it, was given another drug not indicated to mitigate the effects of the anesthesia.

The paramedics resuscitated Ms. Logan, she stayed in a coma for four months, and was generally paralyzed until her death in 1992. Gladys Estanislao, a 28-year-old college student, was found lifeless on a bathroom floor 17 days after undergoing an abortion procedure at a clinic in Bethesda, Maryland. Her autopsy revealed that the pregnancy was not in her womb but in her fallopian tube, which caused it to rupture and resulted in her death. This condition, called an ectopic pregnancy, is screened by a blood test or ultrasound, has a mortality rate of 1 in 2,000, and is typically diagnosed on the first visit to a gynecologist.

A 2007 paper in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine cites 59 studies that exhibit a statistically significant association between abortion and the risk of premature births in subsequent pregnancies. In five of the largest and more recent of these studies, all found increases in premature births before 32 weeks gestation in women who had an abortion. All of these studies also found that this risk escalated when more than one abortion was performed. Children born before 32 weeks gestation are at increased risks for early death, cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness and other health complications. induced abortion versus childbirth:.

13 “showed a clear risk for at least one of the reported mental problems in the abortion group versus childbirth.”. five showed “no difference” in mental disorders. one “reported a worse mental outcome for childbearing.”. induced abortion versus unplanned pregnancies leading to childbirth:. four “found a higher risk in the abortion groups.”. three found “no difference.”.

Philosophy Of Man The Thinker

induced abortion versus miscarriage:. three “showed a greater risk of mental disorders due to abortion.”. four “found no difference.”.

two “found that short-term anxiety and depression were higher in the miscarriage group, while long-term anxiety and depression were present only in the abortion group.”. As of 2008, all of the 35 states with a parental consent or notification law in effect had a bypass provision that permits exceptions in various circumstances such as when notifying a parent not be in a “minor’s best interests.” This is also the case with a Congressional bill that Obama filibustered. Six of the seven states with a parental consent or notification law blocked by a court order or ruling have similar bypass provisions. The one exception was New Mexico, which has a 1969 law on its books that the state attorney general ruled unenforceable in 1990. On September 16, 1988, 17-year-old Rebecca Suzanne Bell of Indianapolis, Indiana was admitted to a hospital with pneumonia and suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest that night. During her autopsy, “evidence of recent pregnancy with recent partial abortion” was discovered.

The “cause of death” listed on the autopsy report is “Septic Abortion with Pneumonia” and the “manner of death” as “Undetermined.” According to Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary, a “septic abortion” is a “spontaneous or induced abortion associated with bacterial infection ” and pneumonia is “a disease of the lungs that is caused especially by infection.”. Since this time, Becky Bell’s case has been cited as an argument against parental consent laws on 60 Minutes, ABC News, CNN’s Larry King Live, in the magazines Seventeen, Rolling Stone, Newsweek, an American Civil Liberties Union pamphlet, and an original HBO movie named “Public Law 106: The Becky Bell Story.” From 2005 through 2008, this argument was repeated in at least 13 different publications including a legal journal. When a parental notification law was put on the ballot in Oregon in 1990, polls found opposition to it at 22%. After Becky’s parents toured the state appearing at rallies and on television and talk shows, the measure was defeated with 52% voting against it. When contacted by Just Facts, Pless confirmed his view as quoted above and stated that the “same micro-organism” that caused the pneumonia “was cultured in the uterus and the lung.” When Just Facts pointed out the autopsy report contains a list of “Specimens for Culture” that does not include the uterus, Pless said his memory may be faulty, but “the only possible source of the infection was the uterus” because there “was no upper airway disease—so the only possibility was spread from the uterus.”. The HBO movie cited above shows Becky going with a friend to obtain an illegal abortion.

All primary sources researched for this case contain no testimony or documentation of such an event. This includes the coroner’s report, autopsy report, Becky’s mother’s written account, and an article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer in which the reporter quotes Becky’s father and her “closest friend” Heather Clark. Clark, who accompanied Becky to Planned Parenthood, told the reporter that Becky did not have an induced abortion. She also said that when she visited Becky (four days after she had gotten sick and the night before she passed on), Becky asked her to schedule an abortion in Louisville, Kentucky for two days later.

Events in the Week Prior to Becky’s Death (as reported in the coroner’s report, autopsy report, Becky’s mother’s written account, and Cleveland Plain Dealer ) Sunday 12:45 AM Becky comes home from a party and says she thinks someone put cocaine or speed in her drink and that she feels like she’s “got the flu like Dad.” Tuesday Becky faints. Wednesday Becky stays home from school and develops a 104 fever. Her parents try to take her to the doctor, but Becky resists and they relent. Thursday PM Heather Clark visits Becky, and Becky asks her to schedule an abortion in Kentucky on Saturday. Friday Becky starts bleeding and tells her Mom. Becky agrees to go a doctor, who diagnoses her with pneumonia and sends her to the hospital, arriving at 4 PM.

Friday PM The doctor says to Becky’s family: “We don’t know if we can save the baby.” 11:29 PM: Becky passes on. In March 1989, six months after Becky Bell’s death, 16-year-old Erica Kae Richardson of Cheltenham, Maryland was assisted by her aunt in obtaining an abortion without her mother’s consent or knowledge. Erica’s aunt, a registered nurse, first took her to Washington Hospital Center, which would not perform the abortion because the pregnancy was 19 weeks along. She then took her to the Metropolitan Women’s Center in Laurel, where Dr. Gene Crawford carried out the abortion, puncturing her uterus in the process. Erica died several hours later from “rupture of her lower uterus and cervix with complications, including hemorrhage into the pelvic cavity surrounding the uterus and air embolism.”.

In 2006, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would have made it illegal to take a minor across state lines to circumvent state laws that require parental involvement in a minor’s abortion. It required that abortion providers in states without parental involvement laws give at least 24 hours’ notice to a parent before performing an abortion on a minor who resides in another state. This provision included exceptions for parental abuse, neglect, and if the physical health of the minor is endangered.

93% of Republicans voted for it and 71% of Democrats voted against it. In June 1995, Republican Congressman Charles Canady of Florida sponsored a bill to ban the use of the partial-birth abortion procedure on live preborn humans except if “necessary to save the life of a mother.” It was cosponsored by 19 Democrats and 96 Republicans. This bill passed Congress with 90% of Republicans voting for it and 62% of Democrats voting against it. It was vetoed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. A vote to override the veto passed in the House and failed in the Senate by 8 votes. Afterwards, the President of the American Academy of Anesthesiologists, the President-Elect of the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, the Chair of the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Alabama Birmingham Hospital, and an Associate Professor at the Department of Pediatrics and Anesthesiology at Emory University testified before Congress regarding the effects of anesthesia given during partial-birth abortions. A monthly newsletter of the American Academy of Anesthesiologists summarized the hearing as follows.

The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word “person” was to go to “the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.” He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster’s New Millennium Encyclopedia as a “British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S.” In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a “right” that. Third trimester: States can prohibit abortions after “viability” (meaning the point where a preborn human is capable of living outside their mother’s womb), but they cannot prohibit abortions “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” The ruling cites examples of what may be considered harmful to a woman’s health.

These include the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” the work of caring for a child, and the “distress” “associated with the unwanted child.”. The Georgia law also required that the doctor who would perform the abortion, two other doctors, and a committee of the medical staff at the hospital where the abortion was to be done needed to agree that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother.

The lower court upheld this law and the Supreme Court struck it down. The majority ruled that only the doctor who would perform the abortion needs to determine that the abortion was necessary to preserve the health of the mother. Any abortion provider could make this decision based solely on their “best clinical judgment.”. In 2007, twin brothers Ieuan and Gabriel Jones were born at 31 weeks gestation. Eleven weeks before this, it was found that Gabriel was underweight and his heart three times normal size.

Doctors thought he would die and suggested an abortion to protect the life of his twin. An attempt was made to sever his umbilical cord, but doctors were unable to cut through it. Subsequently, the mother’s placenta was cut in half to isolate the twins from one another. The boys were delivered via caesarian section, and as of November 2007, were seven months old and both healthy. In 2007, Finely Crampton was born three weeks premature after an attempted abortion at 8 weeks. His mother previously gave birth to two boys with kidney disorders, one of whom died after 20 minutes, and another who has one kidney. She was on the birth control pill when she became pregnant and decided to abort because she “couldn’t cope with the anguish of losing another baby.” At 19 weeks, she discovered the abortion was not successful and decided to carry to term.

As of June 2008, Finley is 6 months old, “has minor kidney damage,” and is “expected to lead a normal life.”. In July 2000, two registered nurses who worked in the labor and delivery unit of Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois testified before a U.S. Congressional subcommittee. Both described instances at the hospital in which they had personally seen babies who were born alive after an abortion and left to die without any care or comfort provided. A spokesman for the hospital’s parent corporation estimated that 10-20% of the abortions it performs on preborn humans with genetic defects result in live births for short periods of time. 9 For example, in April of 2001, the U.S.

House of Representatives passed the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” This bill would make it a crime for someone to harm a “child in utero.” (It does not apply to any situation relating to an abortion with the consent of the mother.) The bill defines a child in utero as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.” In their coverage of this vote, CNN, Reuters, the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, USA Today, MSNBC, and CBS all used the word “fetus” or “fetal” as a blanket phrase for humans at any stage prior to birth. As shown by and, their application of this term is inaccurate. NOTE: As the quote above explains, the regulation is applicable from the point of conception onwards, yet the following three articles use the word “fetus” to describe the beneficiaries:.

Article: “HHS Proposes Insurance for Fetuses; Opponents Call It a Ploy to Pave Way for Ban on Abortion.” By Alan Cooperman & Amy Goldstein. Washington Post, February 1, 2002. Article: “ ‘Unborn child’ coverage moves ahead: Abortion rights advocates oppose the new regulation.” By Catherine Berger. CNN, September 27, 2002. “The regulation allows states to expand eligibility to cover a fetus under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) without having to receive a waiver from HHS.”. Article: “Government Gives Fetuses ‘Unborn Child’ Status.” Fox News (with contribution from the Associated Press), February 1, 2002.

A) Book: The Developing Human: Clinically Orientated Embryology (7th edition). Saunders, 2003. Page 16: “ Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoa) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell – a zygote.” Page 33: “ The zygote is genetically unique because half of its chromosomes come from the mother and half from the father. The zygote contains a new combination of chromosomes that is different from that in the cells of either of the parents. This mechanism forms the basis of biparental inheritance and variation of the human species.”. B) Book: Population and Evolutionary Genetics: A Primer.

By Francisco J. Benjamin Cummings Publishing Company, 1982. Page 53: “Considerable genetic variation exists in most natural populations. Consider humans with a 6.7% heterozygosity detectable by electrophoresis.

If we assume there are 30,000 structural gene loci in a human being, which may be an underestimate, a person will be heterozygous at 30,000 X 0.067 = 2010 loci. Such an individual can theoretically produce 2 2010 ≈ 10 605 different kinds of gametes reproductive cells.”. NOTE: Figure 3 is a bar graph of “Mortality before discharge by gestational age as estimated by best obstetrical estimate.” The term “obstetrical estimate” implies that the weeks are counted from LMP. To confirm, I wrote Dr. Fanaroff, and he replied: “We do not try to get to the issue of day of conception hence when we refer to gestational age we are always going back to the Last Menstrual Period.” The graph indicates that the mortality rate at a gestational age (LMP) of 26 weeks is less than 20%. Hence, the survival rate at 24 weeks after fertilization is more than 80%.

Most recently the motor responses of 124 healthy full-term neonates to a pinprick in the leg were reported to be flexion and adduction of the upper and lower limbs associated with grimacing, crying, or both, and these responses were subsequently quantified. Similar responses have also been documented in very premature neonates, and in a recent study, Fitzgerald et al. Found that premature neonates (. NOTE: Figure 3 is a bar graph of “Mortality before discharge by gestational age as estimated by best obstetrical estimate.” The term “obstetrical estimate” implies that the weeks are counted from LMP. To confirm, I wrote Dr.

Fanaroff, and he replied: “We do not try to get to the issue of day of conception hence when we refer to gestational age we are always going back to the Last Menstrual Period.” The graph indicates that the mortality rate at a gestational age (LMP) of 30 weeks is a little less than 5%. Hence, the survival rate at 28 weeks after fertilization is more than 95%. Democrats are committed to protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion—regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing. We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

We condemn and will combat any acts of violence, harassment, and intimidation of reproductive health providers, patients, and staff. We will defend the ACA, which extends affordable preventive health care to women, including no-cost contraception, and prohibits discrimination in health care based on gender. And we strongly and unequivocally support a woman’s decision to have a child, including by ensuring a safe and healthy pregnancy and childbirth, and by providing services during pregnancy and after the birth of a child, including adoption and social support services, as well as protections for women against pregnancy discrimination. We are committed to creating a society where children are safe and can thrive physically, emotionally, educationally, and spiritually. We recognize and support the importance of civil structures that are essential to creating this for every child. The Constitution’s guarantee that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty or property” deliberately echoes the Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all” are “endowed by their Creator” with the inalienable right to life.

Accordingly, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth. We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from individuals with disabilities, newborns, the elderly, or the infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide. We affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women who face an unplanned pregnancy. In order to encourage women who face an unplanned pregnancy to choose life, we support legislation that requires financial responsibility for the child be equally borne by both the mother and father upon conception until the child reaches adulthood. Failure to require a father to be equally responsible for a child places an inequitable burden on the mother, creating a financial and social hardship on both mother and child. We celebrate the millions of Americans who open their hearts, homes, and churches to mothers in need and women fleeing abuse. We thank and encourage providers of counseling, medical services, and adoption assistance for empowering women experiencing an unintended pregnancy to choose life.

We support funding for ultrasounds and adoption assistance. We salute the many states that now protect women and girls through laws requiring informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, and clinic regulation. We condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision in Whole Woman’s Health v.

Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics. We applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for leading the effort to add enforcement to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act by passing the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which imposes appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery whether the death of the infant is intended. We strongly oppose infanticide. Over a dozen states have passed Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks, the point at which current medical research shows that unborn babies can feel excruciating pain during abortions, and we call on Congress to enact the federal version. Not only is it good legislation, but it enjoys the support of a majority of the American people.

We support state and federal efforts against the cruelest forms of abortion, especially dismemberment abortion procedures, in which unborn babies are literally torn apart limb from limb. We call on Congress to ban sex-selection abortions and abortions based on disabilities—discrimination in its most lethal form. We oppose embryonic stem cell research. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

We support adult stem cell research and urge the restoration of the national placental stem cell bank created by President George H.W. Bush but abolished by his Democrat successor, President Bill Clinton.

We oppose federal funding for harvesting embryos and call for a ban on human cloning. The Democratic Party is extreme on abortion. Democrats’ almost limitless support for abortion, and their strident opposition to even the most basic restrictions on abortion, put them dramatically out of step with the American people. Because of their opposition to simple abortion clinic safety procedures, support for taxpayer-funded abortion, and rejection of pregnancy resource centers that provide abortion alternatives, the old Clinton mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” has been reduced to just “legal.” We are proud to be the party that protects human life and offers real solutions for women. Decisions made in the next several years will determine how women and families fare in the United States for decades to come. We need not just a worthy ally, but a champion with a demonstrated record of fighting for reproductive freedom and economic justice.

Hillary Clinton is that champion. She has spent her entire life leading on equal opportunity for women and families—as a private citizen, First Lady, United States Senator, and Secretary of State. Together with our members in all fifty states, we stand committed and eager to work hard and elect Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States. Hillary will be a champion for us all. Donald Trump effectively becoming the GOP nominee tonight is a disaster for civility in America, especially for women and for the future of abortion access in this country.

Despite back-pedaling, The Donald spoke the truth about what would happen if he institutes the policies he’s promised—women will be punished, just as they are already being punished every day in states where reproductive rights are under relentless attacks. From his comments about Megyn Kelly to his defense of Corey Lewandowski’s assault of a female journalist, Donald Trump has a perfect track record of misogyny and has proven time and again he’s no friend to women. Donald Trump: Well, look, I’m very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject.

But you still I just believe in choice. And, again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there is some different attitude in different parts of the country. And, you know, I was raised in New York, and grew up and work and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice and, yet, I hate the concept of abortion. Obama: “You know, I, I, um – this is something that I have not, ah, I think come to a firm resolution on.

Ah, I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates?

Is it when, ah, the soul stirs? Ah, so I don’t presume to, to know the answer to that question. Ah, what I know, ah, as I’ve said before, is, is that, ah, there is something extraordinarily powerful about potential life and that, ah, that has a moral weight to it that, ah, we take into consideration when we’re having these debates. Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women’s health.

With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved.

Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent.

Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. The statute’s emphasis, as has been repetitively noted, is on the attending physician’s “best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary.” That should be sufficient. The reasons for the presence of the confirmation step in the statute are perhaps apparent, but they are insufficient to withstand constitutional challenge.

If a physician is licensed by the State, he is recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment. If a physician is licensed by the State, he is recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment. Dessa Cosma: Um, as you were talking about earlier, the recent Bush Supreme Court’s decision really took away critically important decisions from women and put them in the hands of politicians.

And as a result of this, we’re expecting, and have already seen, so much anti-choice legislation at the state level. Um, what would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED. (b) Prohibition of Interference- A government may not- (1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose— (A) to bear a child; (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or (2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. A 1994-1995 AGI Alan Guttmacher Institute survey of abortion patients found that in states where Medicaid pays for abortions, women covered by Medicaid have an abortion rate 3.9 times that of women who are not covered, while in states that do not permit Medicaid funding for abortions, Medicaid recipients are only 1.6 times as likely as nonrecipients to have abortions. In explaining this finding, the researchers state that while other factors also may be at play, “the magnitude of the difference indicates that Medicaid coverage of abortion has an important effect on the ability of poor women to end unwanted pregnancies.” Meanwhile, a study published by the Journal of Health Economics in 1999 considered the effects of interruptions in abortion funding in North Carolina (which paid for abortion until 1995).

In five instances between 1978 and 1993, the state’s abortion fund was depleted before the end of the fiscal year. During those times when funding was not available, the researchers found, more than one in three women (37%) who would have obtained an abortion if the state had paid for it instead carried the pregnancy to term. What about those who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion? Our tax dollars fund many programs that individual people oppose.

For example, those who oppose war on moral or religious grounds pay taxes that are applied to military programs. The congressional bans on abortion funding impose a particular religious or moral viewpoint on those women who rely on government-funded health care. Providing funding for abortion does not encourage or compel women to have abortions, but denying funding compels many women to carry their pregnancies to term. Nondiscriminatory funding would simply place the profoundly personal decision about how to treat a pregnancy back where it belongs—in the hands of the woman who must live with the consequences of that decision.

The way to prevent abortion is not to make it illegal. That won’t work.

It never has. Whenever governments have made abortions illegal, they have not stopped them. Throughout the centuries, when women have felt abortion to be their only option, they have had them. Whether they were legal or not. In the two decades before abortion was legal in the United States, nearly one million women went “underground” each year for illegal operations.

Thousands died for lack of medical care. Tens of thousands were maimed. All were forced to behave as if they were criminals in order to do what they felt was right for themselves. We hope those days are gone forever, even though anti-choice extremists are determined to turn back the clock. Finally, the coding system used by national vital statistics and states to describe maternal deaths includes a combination of outcomes of pregnancy (e.g. Ectopic pregnancy, abortion), immediate causes of death (e.g., hemorrhage), and underlying obstetrical conditions that contribute to death (e.g., obstructed labor).

This system of classification precludes a determination of the real causes of maternal death. To develop strategies to prevent maternal deaths, public health personnel need to know the immediate cause of death as well as the underlying conditions that led to death. Death certificates for reproductive-aged women who die can be linked with certificates of reportable pregnancy outcomes (live births and fetal deaths) that occurred during the preceding year. Although many states require that induced abortions be reported, only one includes on its records identifying data that could be used to link those records with other computerized records. Linking data sets is being done in an increasing number of states, and published reports indicate that such links can increase case ascertainment by 36%† to 153% (Table 3, Box 3). However, linking vital records cannot ensure that all pregnancy-related deaths will be identified, since only about two-thirds to three-quarters of pregnancy-related deaths are associated with either a live birth or a fetal death.

Excluded from linkages would be deaths associated with ectopic pregnancies, induced and some spontaneous abortions, gestational trophoblastic disease, and undelivered pregnancies. Finally, the coding system used by national vital statistics and states to describe maternal deaths includes a combination of outcomes of pregnancy (e.g. Ectopic pregnancy, abortion), immediate causes of death (e.g., hemorrhage), and underlying obstetrical conditions that contribute to death (e.g., obstructed labor). This system of classification precludes a determination of the real causes of maternal death.

To develop strategies to prevent maternal deaths, public health personnel need to know the immediate cause of death as well as the underlying conditions that led to death. NOTE: Abortion-related mortality data provided by the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics is at variance with that provided by CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health due to methodological dissimilarities.

The National Center for Health Statistics is only cited here because the Division of Reproductive Health does not break down their national data on a state-by states basis. In July 2008, Just Facts filed a Freedom of Information Act Request with the CDC for this data and is awaiting a response. Pneumonia is often the final complication of some other debilitating disorder, and this is why many people who get pneumonia die.

The Supreme Philosophy Of Man The Laws Of Life

Any one whose resistance is already low is very susceptible to pneumonia, so for people who are dying of heart failure, cancer, stroke or chronic bronchitis, the actual cause of death is often pneumonia. In anyone who is semi-conscious or paralyzed, infection of the lungs is extremely likely. This is because under such conditions the normal coughing reflex that keeps the lungs clear of mucus and stagnant fluid is reduced, or even absent. One of the explicit advantages of the modern pregnancy tests is that they can be employed in the emergency room or in the office of the gynecologist. This definitely presents an advantage since, in applying this pregnancy test followed by an office ultrasound examination of the pelvis, a fast and almost always reliable diagnosis of the presence or absence of an abnormal or normal intrauterine pregnancy can be made.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the chances of making the diagnosis during the first visit to the gynecologist’s office or the emergency room are high. Five large, recent, international studies have shown an association of prior abortions to preterm delivery 3,6-9 (Table IV), and 50 studies over the last 50 years have shown a statistically significant association (Appendix B). All of the studies found a statistically significant increase in preterm births before 32 weeks for women undergoing at least 1 first-trimester abortion, with the ORs odds ratios ranging from 1.3 to 2.5. 3,6-9 Women undergoing two or more abortions had an even larger risk of preterm birth, with ORs ranging from 1.8 to 5.2.

Information on suicides in women of reproductive age was linked with the Finnish birth, abortion, and hospital discharge registers to find out how many women who committed suicide had had a completed pregnancy during her last year of life. There were 73 suicides associated with pregnancy, representing 5.4% of all suicides in women in this age group. The mean annual suicide rate was 11.3 per 100 000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9) and the rates associated with miscarriage (18.1) and induced abortion (34.7) were significantly higher than in the population. The risk that abortion may be correlated with subsequent mental disorders needs a careful assessment, in order to offer women full information when facing a difficult pregnancy. All research papers published between 1995 and 2011, were examined, to retrieve those assessing any correlation between abortion and subsequent mental problems.

A total of 36 studies were retrieved, and six of them were excluded for methodological bias. Abortion versus childbirth: 13 studies showed a clear risk for at least one of the reported mental problems in the abortion group versus childbirth, five papers showed no difference, in particular if women do not consider their experience of fetal loss to be difficult, or if after a fetal reduction the desired fetus survives. Only one paper reported a worse mental outcome for childbearing. Abortion versus unplanned pregnancies ending with childbirth: four studies found a higher risk in the abortion groups and three, no difference. Abortion versus miscarriage: three studies showed a greater risk of mental disorders due to abortion, four found no difference and two found that short-term anxiety and depression were higher in the miscarriage group, while long-term anxiety and depression were present only in the abortion group. We retrieved 36 papers.

7–42 We excluded seven studies: two for absence of a control group, 26, 40 one because the control group was composed of women's partners, 25 one because it did not use a validated questionnaire, 22 one because it compared the consequences of medical and surgical abortion, 42 one because it was a re-elaboration of a previous paper to investigate the causes of the increase of depression in the abortion group, 19 and one because there was no statistical comparison between abortion and childbirth groups. America stands for an ideal that all people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I know what it’s like to live without those rights and I have an obligation to advocate them where ever they are denied. In Bosnia or in Burma in Cuba or in the Middle East and in our own country when we fail to respect the inherent dignity of all human life, born or unborn, and that’s why for 24 years, without changing, without wavering, I have a steadfast and strong advocacy and voting record in support of the rights of the unborn. 194 Note that most all of the people described by the media as “opponents of abortion rights” are not unilaterally opposed to abortion.

Nearly all think that abortion should be legal when there is a threat to the life of the mother, and some think there should be exceptions for rape and incest.† This also true of the examples that follow. The people cited are not unilaterally opposed to the “rights” in question, but think that other “rights” should take precedence.

The same applies to people who think that a preborn human’s “right to life” should take precedence over other “rights.”. NOTE: † Since 1989, various Republicans have sponsored at least 23 resolutions proposing a Constitutional Amendment that would guarantee preborn humans the right to life, all of them containing an exception to protect the life of the mother. Six of these resolutions also include exceptions for cases of rape or incest. Search performed on February 19, 2017. Bill texts from the 101 st to 115 th Congresses searched for: ‘amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life’. It is said that we are dealing here with the case of imprisonment of a citizen in a concentration camp solely because of his ancestry, without evidence or inquiry concerning his loyalty and good disposition towards the United States.

Our task would be simple, our duty clear, were this a case involving the imprisonment of a loyal citizen in a concentration camp because of racial prejudice. Regardless of the true nature of the assembly and relocation centers-and we deem it unjustifiable to call them concentration camps with all the ugly connotations that term implies-we are dealing specifically with nothing but an exclusion order. To cast this case into outlines of racial prejudice, without reference to the real military dangers which were presented, merely confuses the issue. Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race. He was excluded because we are at war with the Japanese Empire, because the properly constituted military authorities feared an invasion of our West Coast and felt constrained to take proper security measures, because they decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast temporarily, and finally, because Congress, reposing its confidence in this time of war in our military leaders-as inevitably it must-determined that they should have the power to do just this. There was evidence of disloyalty on the part of some, the military authorities considered that the need for action was great, and time was short. We cannot-by availing ourselves of the calm perspective of hindsight-now say that at that time these actions were unjustified.

Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care.

There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. The statute’s emphasis, as has been repetitively noted, is on the attending physician’s “best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary.” That should be sufficient. The reasons for the presence of the confirmation step in the statute are perhaps apparent, but they are insufficient to withstand constitutional challenge. If a physician is licensed by the State, he is recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment. If a physician is licensed by the State, he is recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment.

Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care.

There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation. The statute’s emphasis, as has been repetitively noted, is on the attending physician’s “best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary.” That should be sufficient. The reasons for the presence of the confirmation step in the statute are perhaps apparent, but they are insufficient to withstand constitutional challenge. If a physician is licensed by the State, he is recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment.

If a physician is licensed by the State, he is recognized by the State as capable of exercising acceptable clinical judgment. Every person who applies a tattoo to any minor under the age of eighteen is guilty of a misdemeanor. It is not a defense to a violation of this section that the person applying the tattoo did not know the minor’s age unless the person applying the tattoo establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she made a reasonable, bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of the minor by requiring production of a driver’s license or other picture identification card or paper and did not rely solely on the oral allegations or apparent age of the minor.