Quote:
Originally Posted by phma
CNN is fake news. Is there another source ? Something more factual and unbiased.
|
Yeah, yeah. EVERYTHING is fake news to Cult 45. If you'd bothered to read the OP's post, she included the link and an excerpt from the original bill. What? Are congressional bills now "fake news" as well? Here's a handy tip: Don't like a story because it's not on Info Wars or Breitbart? Check it out for yourself.
OP gave us the title of the bill -
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Take your mouse or your sweaty little fingers and highlight the term in question. Right click on your mouse to search Google for any reference to the word or phrase in question. Tah Dah! You get a list of articles about the subject (and where they are linked from), and you can pick the most non fake source that comes to your tiny brain. I believe you people enjoy supermarket tabloids and other forms of yellow journalism if you can't find something written by Steve Bannon or ranted about by Limbaugh.
I performed the search I described above and the first hit I got was from the fake news site called The United States Code - "a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States." It is prepared by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the United States House of Representatives. Here's the fake link:
[USC07] 18 USC Ch. 74: PARTIAL-BIRTH ABORTIONS
~fake snip~
Quote:
"(B) There is no credible medical evidence that partial-birth abortions are safe or are safer than other abortion procedures. No controlled studies of partial-birth abortions have been conducted nor have any comparative studies been conducted to demonstrate its safety and efficacy compared to other abortion methods. Furthermore, there have been no articles published in peer-reviewed journals that establish that partial-birth abortions are superior in any way to established abortion procedures. Indeed, unlike other more commonly used abortion procedures, there are currently no medical schools that provide instruction on abortions that include the instruction in partial-birth abortions in their curriculum.
"(C) A prominent medical association has concluded that partial-birth abortion is 'not an accepted practice', that it has 'never been subject to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development,' that 'the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure in specific circumstances medical remain unknown,' and that 'there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use'. The association has further noted that partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is 'ethically wrong,' and 'is never the only appropriate procedure'.
|
~fake snip~
(fake bolding my own)
So, if this procedure is not even taught in med school and "partial-birth abortion is 'not an accepted practice,' why are they trying to make a law preventing something that the text of the bill states that doctors are not even taught, anyway? I smell a rat, and it's a real one.
If you want to read something less opaque than the
United States Code of Law, here's a link for the fake National Public Radio report on this topic:
https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/51681...fact-from-spin
Quote:
How does all this relate to the larger abortion debate?
Activists on both sides of the issues see the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act as pivotal to the larger debate. Abortion-rights backers say the ban is a first step toward trying to outlaw all abortions. Even some supporters of the ban say that if it is upheld, they could then move on to try to outlaw the far more common D&E procedure, whose description is nearly as unpleasant as that of the D&X.
The court could also use the law to address the "health" exception currently required for all abortion restrictions. Abortion foes say the current health exception upheld by the court is so broad — encompassing mental health problems as well as physical ones — that just about any abortion-procedure ban would have to be invalidated. But abortion-rights supporters say that without a health exception, women could be forced to carry to term fetuses with no chance at life, but whose birth could leave the pregnant women unable to carry a later pregnancy, or could exacerbate serious ailments such as diabetes.
|
I agree with OP. This bill is BS even if it weren't already "fake". It's just one more way that the so-called pro-life crowd can chip away at laws designed to give a woman self determination over her own body. These people are tireless and they can't wait until every last woman in the country is kept barefoot, pregnant and tied to the kitchen stove.
MAGA (Making America Gag Again)