California to Challenge Federal Anti-Abortion Provision
KTVU reports:
Attorney General Bill Lockyer said California could be among the most affected because it has some of the most sweeping laws protecting women's right to an abortion, along with a privacy guarantee written into the state Constitution. One state law, for instance, bars hospitals from refusing to perform abortions for women in emergency or life-threatening situations. Lockyer called the provision "an unacceptable attack on women's rights and state sovereignty, and a backdoor attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade."
Lockyer acknowledged the courts have generally upheld Congress' right to restrict how states use federal money. But he plans to argue the Weldon amendment is more sweeping and coercive than restrictions previously allowed by the courts: it would block all the money to the entire state or local government that violates the provision, and the abortion rights question has nothing to do with education, labor and other funds that would be blocked.
If a woman needs an abortion to save her life, should a hospital not only be able to refuse to perform the abortion, but also refuse to help her get someplace where she can obtain an abortion? This is the exception that the provision mandates — if accepted, the state wouldn't be able to protect the lives and rights of women. It's not about forcing hospitals to provide abortions, but about women's access to abortions. Hosptials can comply with the law by simply referring women someplace else, but they don't even want to have to do that.
YubaNet reports:
"This is an unacceptable attack on women's rights and state sovereignty, and a back-door attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade," said Lockyer. "With this provision, what the federal government says to California is this: If you want back your own taxpayer dollars for important programs that serve all the people of your state, you first have to refuse to protect the constitutional rights of the women who live in your state. That is wrong, it is unlawful, and I will fight to make sure it doesn't happen."
"This lawsuit confirms what many of us have said about the Weldon amendment that was attached to a massive spending bill," said [Barbara] Boxer. "The amendment overrides the ability of states to protect the lives and the privacy of women. I am very pleased that my state is taking the lead with me in a major effort to reverse the Weldon amendment."
[Dianne] Feinstein said, "This is a back-door attempt to chip away at our Constitutional right to privacy. It has a disproportionate impact on low-income women and women in rural areas. And it should be stricken from law. I hope that the Senate will invalidate this provision when it votes on it early next year. If the Senate does not overturn this provision, I believe that all legal remedies should be explored to ensure that the provision does not harm the state's ability to provide women with adequate care."
Said [Nancy Pelosi: "The Weldon amendment is an unconscionable display of ideology over health care. Holding federal funds for health care and other critical services hostage because reproductive health services are offered is an extraordinary and unacceptable attack on women's rights. Democrats fought hard against the Weldon amendment in Congress, and Attorney General Lockyer will continue the fight in court. Women in California and across the country deserve nothing less."
Health care providers shouldn’t be able to pick and choose which standard, accepted procedures they will perform or at least send patients elsewhere for. If you don't want to do it, fine — but if you also refuse to send people elsewhere, then you are violating the oath you took to serve the health of patients.
Patient autonomy is not unlimited. There are a number of ways in which it is and should be restricted, all without giving in to the specter of paternalistic physicians. For one thing, patients cannot demand to be treated by non-medical means. They cannot ask doctors to prescribe and insurance companies reimburse a series of visits to a massage parlor, for example, no matter how soothing it might be. Abortion, however, is not a non-medical proceedure.
Second, patients cannot demand treatment that is scientifically valueless. Prescribing Viagra may fall within the realm of medical treatment for certain conditions, but patients cannot demand a prescription for Viagra to treat tennis elbow because there is simply no scientific evidence that Viagra has any effect on that condition. Abortion is not typically a scientifically valueless procedure for the purposes it is performed.
Finally, patients cannot demand treatment that is inconsistent with the purpose of medicine and the medical profession - that is to say, treatments that are outside the boundaries of accepted medical practice. Once again, abortion doesn't qualify here because it is consistent with the purpose of medicine and the medical profession — it's not like someone who wants a leg amputated for aesthetic reasons.
Read More:
Comments
everyone is always talking about women’s rights but what about the father’s rights and the child’s right i mean if a father wants the child why is it ok for the mother to kill it and when does the child get to chose what happens it’s their life that’s being ended after all how is that right
There’s no “child” to have rights. No man has a “right” over the use of a woman’s body.
Because no one can be forced to donate their body for the use of another.
There is no “child” to even have preferences, much less base choices on them.
The fetus doesn’t have a right to use a woman’s body.