If You Live In Arizona...

it looks like it might be safer to give birth to your baby elsewhere
doctors may be able to choose if they want to tell you about birth defects or not with no backlash, thoughts?

I think our Government needs to stay the *** out.

They get younger and younger every year...I tell you what.

i worded it wrong?

Yes. It'd be more appropriately:

It looks like it might be safer to give birth to your baby elsewhere.

I think republicans need to get the *** out

Either i read this wrong or im being to literal but Giving birth in arizona seems fine... But you might want to go somewhere else, or find a doctor that people say gives you the truth about the Fetus.

On topic, I'm not really sure what to make of it.. I can see both sides of the argument.. I mean at least the way it's worded it seems like they're trying to protect doctors from stuff they didn't manage to catch.. Even if they are in no way negligent, they're still going to miss some stuff some of the time.. I'm also really sick of the go to response for everything in this country being 'SUE THEM!', but at the same time it would enable doctors to simply not tell would be/soon to be parents stuff they have confirmed, and I think parents have a right to know everything that the doctor knows.

It's worded that way for a reason. Given the current outpouring of intrusive attempts to stall abortion, I think its safe to see a pattern. Doctors have malpractice insurance for a reason. If they do make a mistake, they are covered on the occasion they make a mistake (which shouldn't be often). This seems more to me a thinly veiled attempt at protecting pro-life doctors.

Believe it or not, politicians represent people's views.

You blame the republicans, but if there weren't TONS of religious nut jobs out there, they wouldn't be able to be against abortion and come up with crazy laws like this because no one would vote for them.

In 2011 49% of Americans are pro life. http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/americans-split-along-pro-choice-pro-life-lines.aspx

The whole pro life and anti birth control movements from religious organizations is a GREAT idea.

My grandma had 13 kids and my aunt had 6 kids and both did that because they were catholic and didn't believe in birth control. More Catholics for the world baby.

So you can get mad at the party representing these people all you want. But the real problem is the people adamant against abortion who encourage these types of bills.

And with 49% of people having the pro-life stance, you can expect this to not go away any time soon.

Doctors get sued of stuff that they shouldn't just because people want to exploit easy money. also they have to pay for their malpractice insurance and it raises each time they get sued.

So... with how much it costs people to give birth, people might as well go to a doctor out of state so they can tell you if there may be a problem that's birth related... like... the death of a mother during birth, right?

Ok I'm thoroughly confused on this one. The way I RTFA, it seems like this bill is meant to shield the doctors, so they can't be (easily) sued if you give birth to a deformed child.

I would have thought this would encourage doctors to tell you anything and everything they know, because now they have less fear that they'd be in trouble. Without the law, you potentially hold the doctor responsible for the defect, even though they didn't cause it.

Even IF a kid is born that you would have would have aborted had you known more, that's still not the doc's fault, I don't think, so long as they acted to the best of their ability.

Text of the actual law is below. What am I missing??

Here is the most important piece in that whole segment:

Those are lawsuits that can arise if physicians don’t inform pregnant women of prenatal problems that could lead to the decision to have an abortion.

I would think not warning someone they could die is covered as the above is a big blanket statement from what i'm reading.

If there was a possibility that the mother would die the doctor would tell her. you can only have an abortion within a certain period of time. after that the doctor can tell you all sorts of ***that would make you want to abort but legally you wouldnt be able to.

end result. doctors will tell the mother if there is a chance she can die during birth.

A doctor can tell but there's still the issue of during what stage a doctor can tell if they would at all. If the doctor sees a problem at month 2~7, and assuming you can't abort at this stage, then you are at the mercy of the doctor's discernment or possibly his political views.

I used to work with a guy who told me about his daughter's intestines being almost perforated or something due to her baby since her body wasn't in the best shape to have a kid. She refused to abort and they both ended up dead.

Although this was in NY and not AZ the fact that there's a time limit also binds the doctor's judgement due to such laws and similar laws are putting the government in places where it shouldn't be.

This really disgusts me. This is basically a Christian/Republic sugar-coated bill so that doctors can freely practice religious-medicine.

Your job as a doctor is to inform the patient of any symptoms, illness, conditions. Not to hide it because your afraid the mother might get an abortion. I cited this on that women thread. ill cite the Hippocratic/Physician's Oath again.
funny thing is religious medical schools have modified the oath, so not to compromise their faith. IMO if you go into medicine, religion should never be a factor when treating a patient, ever.Loma Linda Weakening Hipp Oath

I live in AZ. I can't wait to graduate so I can gtfo. I don't even have to read that stuff. Arizona + Government = Bad news.

Represent ALL views, not just Christianity. I guess the pols missed the memo on that?


And the reason we elect politicians is to sort out the *** and fairly rule the people of this land.

You're free to have your political slants but right now as it stands if you aren't a Christian then the Republican party sees you as less than dirt. Gay? Muslim? Hindu? Atheist? Woman? Black? Ha, you can kindly get out.


And? The solution is to allow people to allow people to make their own choices then. If you're pro-life, cool - why does that have to trample on my right to abort if I feel I'm not ready to have children with a woman?

I thought the Republican party was all about curbing big brother style government?


Again, what does this have to do with unilaterally trying to apply your beliefs across everyone? Why must your religious faith shove itself upon a country built on freedom of religion - including those who reject the entire practice entirely?

These are the questions I want answered.


Of course it won't because the radicals have the wheel of the Republican party and they won't stop until the bizarre religious agenda they have for the US is instituted. There are many Ron Paul style Republicans who balk at this ideal but when those in power are fueling the radicals rational thought is discarded for the demands of the mob mentality.

First it'll be getting rid of that pesky birth control, ending abortions, removing those filthy immigrants and then.. the world!

I don't want to live on this planet anymore(or country)
I'm moving to mars!

Ok ok ok ok... how about this:

Woman: Hi, I am looking at various OBGYNs. One thing that concerns me is I would like for you to be able to tell me if my baby had birth defects.

Dr 1: I'm sorry, but in some cases I do feel that is best not to.

Woman: Thank you, have a nice day.

Woman: Hi, I am looking at various OBGYNs. One thing that concerns me is I would like for you to be able to tell me if my baby had birth defects.

Doctor 2: Oh I absolutely agree with you.

/r/firstworldproblems

Yes and that's really whats wrong with society. The common man, and even some politicians, are too ignorant to make societal decisions. They do not posses the knowledge, or wish to aquire it, to effectively run a society.

We really need a technocracy. This country would be in much better shape if scientists, philosophers, physicians engineers and technologists were running things rather than some war veteran or JD.

you know as well as anyone else on this site my stance on political religion and religion and faith in general.

as for the public, they are swayed by propaganda, it's been indoctrinated into them for decades, kind of like the entire hate for socialism when they have no real facts to back it up.

49%????????????????? Isn't that a minority of people? Ignoring your lack of math skills, imposing laws that favor your majority (49%!!!) opinion are completely ignorant.

Last I recall, 49% is pretty damn close to half.
I'd say our country is still rather divided on the issue.
Which is rather sad, considering how far along women's rights have come and the underlying health repercussions and consequences that come with dictating such matters.

One would like to think fundamental common sense would come into practice rather than adamant religious beliefs.

You're calling Jesi ignorant, and you propose ignoring the wishes (assuming it's true) of 49% of people? Really? For one, let's imagine that 2% of people had no opinion or were undecided. That's not all that far fetched, is it? Where's your majority now?

But don't forget about the responsibility of the majority to the minority. By your thinking, the wishes of the minority don't matter. How often do you disagree with government? Ooops too bad - what you think doesn't matter.

The entire point of what Jesi said is that it's close. There aren't 3 people championing pro-life. It's almost a draw, numbers wise, and you (and anyone else) would be a damned fool to disregard that.

Ummm.... the article clearly states that 49% are pro-choice and 45% are pro-life...

Also, in polls 49% is most likely always the majority as there are usually more than two choices. Like in this case 6% chose neither pro-life or pro-choice.


Did anyone even read the link? lol...

I wish people who said stuff like this actually would leave lol.