Republican politicians seem to be focusing too much time on how to end abortion instead of trying to find ways to create jobs and boosting the economy. We have a Senator from SC piggy-backing an abortion related amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation and housing that would ban any discussion of abortion over the internet or videoconferencing between a woman and her doctor. This amendment doesn't take into consideration a woman's life being at risk. We probably will not be able to discuss it in forums such as this, either. Talk about taking the country back - er, I mean backward! Anti-choice Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) just filed an anti-choice amendment to a bill related to agriculture, transportation, housing, and other programs. The DeMint amendment could bar discussion of abortion over the Internet and through videoconferencing, even if a womans health is at risk and if this kind of communication with her doctor is her best option to receive care. Under this amendment, women would need a separate, segregated Internet just for talking about abortion care with their doctors. http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/152712/jim-demint-wants-to-limit-internet-discussion-of-abortion/
Aren't there privacy issues otherwise? The internet is not secure, you understand that, don't you? Medical discussions should be private and that information secure.
Privacy is irrelevant if the parties whose privacy is in question consent to or acknowledge the lack of it.
Because abortion is not a national security issue and the odds of someone "hacking" the conversation and use the data for anything are about the same as monitoring a phone call. besides it is up to the woman who is the patient to decide not the doctor.
We should be able to discuss whatever we wish. Yet, looking at the discussions on certain subjects, esp those as emotionally charged as abortion, I doubt very much that the debates lead to anything. You are either for or against it, for whatever reason, and I doubt very much that even the most heated of discussions ever changed anyone's mind.
Look up HIPPA and come back when you know at least something at all about the subject. http://www.hippa.com/
There are security issues with communication over the internet but they're not insurmountable - all sorts of private and critical data is transferred all the time. If it perfectly possible to have communication between a patient and their doctor using various internet-related technology with a perfectly reasonable level of security. Anyway, if this were really about security, shouldn't it refer to all confidential communications with your doctor rather than focused on abortion? That said, none of the chain of links repeating exactly the same information actually tell us what the proposed law is. I trust the people automatically opposing it no more than the person proposing it.
That is BS. There are secure communications over the internet. Wiki: Security and privacy Main article: Skype security Skype is claimed to be a secure communication; encryption cannot be disabled, and is invisible to the user. Skype reportedly uses publicly-documented, widely trusted encryption techniques:
That is an excellent point. If it has to do with security you would think they would want to ban all medical videoconferencing between patients and doctors, not just those dealing with abortion. I have not been able to find the exact wording of the amendment, but from all accounts the bill is to ban any internet or videoconferencing between a woman and her doctor if it pertains to "abortion". It's not hard to believe that it is a ridiculous bill, because Mississippi is putting a bill on their ballot that declares a fertilized egg a "person" - which by the way it reads could very well ban birth control pills that do more than stop a woman from ovulating. Here's another attempt at destroying women's rights - another bill from Republicans that literally allows for doctors to let a woman needing an emergency abortion to die on the table. Washington, DC) The United States House of Representatives approved a bill on October 13, 2011, that would put womens lives at risk, Human Rights Watch said today. The bill, if it becomes law, would reverse longstanding federal policy requiring hospitals to provide life-saving care regardless of expense, Human Rights Watch said. The Protect Life Act, HR 358, would amend the healthcare reform law to grant hospitals far-reaching powers to deny patients abortion care, without any exception for emergency situations. US law currently requires hospitals receiving federal funds to provide emergency care to anyone in need up to the point at which they can be stabilized or transferred, if the original hospital is incapable of providing the care they need. http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/16/the-gop-continues-to-wage-war-on-women-with-h-r-358/ What really frosts my liver is that they (Republicans) pass themselves as freedom loving and Constitutional purists, yet they don't mind shredding it to bits when it comes to meeting their agendas.
At most, this makes the Repbulicans CINOS (Constitutionalists in name only) but the Democrats are also CLINOS (civil libertarians in name only). The entire welfare state apparatus is a statist institution enlarging power at the expense of individual rights. We have too many 'revenge seeking/power mongers' and 'mystics of spirit' in Washington when what is needed are real representatives to maintain this 'republic if you can keep it'.
We are supposed to have a Democracy, unfortunately, people's views have become so diverse it no longer operates as such. We are much closer to a Republic, but unfortunately the specific group of people trying to take control do not have the interests of the entire country in mind.
That is applicable to i.e. CA's Prop 8. The people voted, specific interest groups and runaway judges negated the will of the people.
I generally agree that this is true for most people and most political issues. But I am fairly neutral about the subject of abortion. After learning the facts, I feel abortion should be allowed within the first 30 days, but certainly not allowed after the baby has been developing for 90 days.
I generally agree that this is true for most people and most political issues. But I am fairly neutral about the subject of abortion. After learning the facts, I feel abortion should be allowed within the first 30 days, but not certainly not allowed after the baby has been developing for 90 days. And I am much more open to the idea of abortion when it is done on illegal immigrants (hispanic)...
Actually the group that HAS takin control doesn't have our country's well being in mind. That is why Congress has the lowest approval rate EVER! And Obama, their messiah, has pathetic approval ratings as well.
So your position is no abortions for white women after 90 days, but if you happen to be black, or hispanic, an abortion later than 90 days is acceptable?
You must mean the group that has taken control of the Republican party (Tea Party) doesn't have our country's well being in mind. We've already seen the proof - they didn't give a crap that our country's rating was dropped, hurting individuals, not just the government. And it is since the Tea Party elected Congressmen took over the House that Congress' ratings have dropped even further. And, the poor slate of candidates that the Republicans are parading around as viable candidates for the WH are pathetically ill equipped to lead the nation. Hopefully all the measures the Republican party has come up to try and disenfranchise voters will backfire on them, and they'll not be given a chance to keep hurting the country like they have been.
It is always so refreshing to hear the hate-filled comments from the right, the group that is supposed to be Christian, and in favor of "family values" - keep showing your true colors, and then deny them as usual.
