Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Charleston area
 [Register]
Charleston area Charleston - North Charleston - Mt. Pleasant - Summerville - Goose Creek
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2016, 04:53 AM
 
68 posts, read 348,125 times
Reputation: 72

Advertisements

Thus was originally posted on Reddit ..

I am so saddened and angry at the approach my state is taking. They've already limited abortions to 20 weeks in May. Now they are trying to make abortions even more difficult to obtain overall. We can't let this happen.
The revisions are to Regulation 61-12. While they are taking public comments, they have made it quite difficult to even find the proposed changes. I've contacted SCDHEC and obtained the appropriate documentation which I will provide.
SCDHEC has implied from this document that only minor revisions will be made. See page 20. This is in fact, not true. The language of the proposed changes is not available in any news article, it is not made public for people to see and yet they are requesting public comments. So I'm making it public. Here are the proposed changes:
The abortion clinic must provide a fact sheet for each patient. That fact sheet must now include:
b. If married and living with her husband, the consent of her husband. (page 37)
This has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v Danforth. Requiring consent of a spouse is not legal.
At least one (1) obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) board-certified physician on staff who has admitting privileges at one (1) or more local hospitals with OB/GYN services to ensure his or her availability to the staff and patients during all operating hours; or 2. A signed written agreement with at least one (1) OB/GYN board-certified physician with admitting privileges at one (1) or more local hospitals with OB/GYN services to ensure his or her availability to the staff and patients during all operating hours. (page 31)
Requiring an OB/GYN with admitting privileges puts an unnecessary burden on abortion providers and will reduce the number of physicians capable of providing these services.
Section 804.D (formerly 304.C) was amended to require that testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea, syphilis serology, and papanicolaou be administered. (page 6)
Requiring (instead of simply offering) STI testing is invasive, insulting and unnecessary. It implies that even monogamous individuals seeking abortion are at elevated risk for STI. There is no scientific evidence to support the inclusion of this mandate. Inclusion of a pap smear for those under 21 is not recommended by any medical organizations, so its inclusion here is again, excessive and intrusive with no evident benefits.
You can download the proposed changes to the regulations by going to: South Carolina Legislature Online - Search by Regulation Number. Once there, enter the number 4669 and press "retrieve document." A word file will download and you can read it all for yourself. The pages indicated above are from that document. Anything crossed out is language that will be removed. Anything underlined is new language. Anything without markup will remain the same.
If you live in South Carolina, SCDHEC is taking comments from the public at http://www.scdhec.gov/Apps/Health/HR...s/Default.aspx until October 24. The hearing will be December 8. Please, make your voices heard. We can only affect changes in our local government if we speak up!

 
Old 10-18-2016, 05:50 AM
 
3,593 posts, read 4,363,726 times
Reputation: 1802
I'm not sure it should be easy to legally take human life. We grant more rights to convicted murderers...
 
Old 10-18-2016, 08:01 AM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,965,813 times
Reputation: 6842
Probably better to post in the South Carolina Forum.
I doubt enough people are going to oppose this anyway. Killing babies is generally opposed around here.
 
Old 10-18-2016, 08:13 AM
 
Location: Philippines
1,215 posts, read 1,072,954 times
Reputation: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by IsNull View Post
I'm not sure it should be easy to legally take human life. We grant more rights to convicted murderers...
A chicken egg is no more a chicken than a freshly conceived fetus is a human life.

I find it very self serving when some say abortion is killing babies. They are not babies until they are born.

I have a "Christian" neighbor who is all about no abortion and says he would even adopt the baby but when I ask him why he doesn't adopt existing children he says "We don't know where they have been". It makes his argument so silly and ridiculous. The fact is the same people who will deny your rights to abort are unwilling to take on these orphan children after they exist in our real world because after a couple of years, they are "soiled". It makes their position impractical.

The question seems to be at what point is the fetus a baby/human. I wish I knew the answer.
 
Old 10-18-2016, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Philippines
1,215 posts, read 1,072,954 times
Reputation: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Probably better to post in the South Carolina Forum.
I doubt enough people are going to oppose this anyway. Killing babies is generally opposed around here.
They are not babies until they are born, but aborting fetuses doesn't have the same horrific sound as killing babies.

ba·by
ˈbābē/
noun
1.
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
 
Old 10-18-2016, 08:23 AM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,965,813 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaifood View Post
They are not babies until they are born, but aborting fetuses doesn't have the same horrific sound as killing babies.

ba·by
ˈbābē/
noun
1.
a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
Try killing a 8 month old fetus and see how your definition stands up. Funny how an arbitrary date on a calendar is the difference between being legally sanctioned and being convicted of murder.
 
Old 10-18-2016, 08:25 AM
 
Location: South of Cakalaki
5,726 posts, read 4,713,224 times
Reputation: 5178
I can see this ending well.
 
Old 10-18-2016, 08:28 AM
 
2,317 posts, read 2,967,416 times
Reputation: 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by thaifood View Post
A chicken egg is no more a chicken than a freshly conceived fetus is a human life.

I find it very self serving when some say abortion is killing babies. They are not babies until they are born.

I have a "Christian" neighbor who is all about no abortion and says he would even adopt the baby but when I ask him why he doesn't adopt existing children he says "We don't know where they have been". It makes his argument so silly and ridiculous. The fact is the same people who will deny your rights to abort are unwilling to take on these orphan children after they exist in our real world because after a couple of years, they are "soiled". It makes their position impractical.

The question seems to be at what point is the fetus a baby/human. I wish I knew the answer.
Ehh? I don't eat fertilized chicken eggs and i imagine most people here don't...... That being said I don't see any real problem with abortion, it's just that 4.5 months is plenty of time to make a damn decision, if there's health reason by all means but otherwise? Also doesn't this legislation just make it so that father has a choice in the matter, if the father doesn't get a choice then why do fathers that don't want a kid have to pay child support
 
Old 10-18-2016, 08:36 AM
 
3,593 posts, read 4,363,726 times
Reputation: 1802
I don't find it self serving at all. Maybe it serves the helpless life....

Funny how you can be charged for 2 counts of murder if you kill a pregnant woman...

Have you ever been through the adoption process? Do you know the pitfalls and hurdles placed in the way for adopting US children? Ever wonder why so many Americans adopt from over seas? Because your neighbor feels one way doesn't mean society as a whole does. You just want to make sweeping generalizations to try and prove a your world view. You want to increase adoption in the US... change the laws (which adoption groups have been trying to do for years).
 
Old 10-18-2016, 08:40 AM
 
68 posts, read 348,125 times
Reputation: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledmonkey View Post
Ehh? I don't eat fertilized chicken eggs and i imagine most people here don't...... That being said I don't see any real problem with abortion, it's just that 4.5 months is plenty of time to make a damn decision, if there's health reason by all means but otherwise? Also doesn't this legislation just make it so that father has a choice in the matter, if the father doesn't get a choice then why do fathers that don't want a kid have to pay child support
Having endured the sight of my wife going through 9 months of pregnancy and another six months of post-pregnancy hardships ... I would venture to guess that if men were the ones bearing children ... our species would have ended right in the garden of Eden. //
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > South Carolina > Charleston area

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top