From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Medical Enforcers?
Date: 17 Nov 92 00:21:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA


This post has gotten a little long.  I cut out the parts of Elizabeths
proposed legislation that I figure would not be quite as dangerous
and left out what I felt was the main dangers of her proposal.

eb>In article <1992Nov13.204558.22806@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley) writes:
dk>In article <1992Nov10.223901.14440@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
 
dk>So you require medical approval prior to the abortion, but judicial
dk>approval after.
 
eb>If full medical approval (two concurring opinions) is obtained prior
eb>to the abortion, the judicial approval is presumed given -- and if
eb>it's withheld, all that happens is that the doctors in question can't
eb>presume judicial approval again....
 
So under your scheme, third tri-mester abortion would not be a 
personal decision between a woman and her doctor.  It would now
be a decision between a woman, her certified abortionist, and 
another certified abortionist with potential for the decision 
to be far from private by subjectating it to judicial review.  
Sounds like a huge change just for a problem that you have so 
far failed to identify.

eb>My suggested proposal potentially involves the judicial process, as
eb>all laws potentially involve the judicial process; it is invoked if a
eb>wrongdoing is charged.  If the full medical approval is given, the
eb>judicial process is invoked only if there's a reason to believe
eb>something's wrong.
 
Do you have any kind of ball park figures for how often this would be?
Guess how many cases groups such as the National Right to Life 
Committee or Operation Rescue are going to challenge these doctor's
decisions?  Can you imagine them not challenging a doctor's decision
if given the chance?  I would guess you'd want to include some sort
of de incentives to keep them from constantly creating nuisance 
challenges.  I have trouble thinking of de incentives strong enough
to stop a group like OR from using your new legislation to challenge
each and every third tri-mester abortion.  Hell, I could even 
imagine them challenging second tri-mester abortions in attempt 
to force doctors to prove they were truly second tri-mester 
abortions.  Does giving a group like O.R. another tool for them
to use bother you at all?

dk>Is this some sort of new certification program you want to set up?

eb>It might be.
 
This could be just part of the reason I am assuming a bureaucracy
that you apparently are not.
 
dk>Who is going to review all these abortion decisions?

eb>No one unless wrongdoing is charged, with some facts to back the
eb>charge up.
 
And who is going to decide if there is enough facts?  Almost every
abortion that can be challenged will be by the fetus fanatics. 
Some part of the judiciary is going to need to decide if there 
is enough facts to go to trial.  It would seem you have this
belief that there is some sort of consensus of what constitutes
therapeutic abortion.  There is no such consensus among the
medical community, let alone the legal community.  Here in T.A.
DOD and some of his cohorts are pushing for a very narrow 
definition of health.  As an example, do you see any kind of
consensus if a therapeutic abortion would be allowed if two
doctors believe there is a 20% chance of a woman being 
permanently crippled if she continues a pregnancy?  Is there
some percent you would allow an abortion, and some were you
wouldn't?  What kind of proof would you require from a doctor
to support his estimate of percentage?
 
dk>Who is going to review all these abortion decisions?

eb>No one unless wrongdoing is charged, with some facts to back the
eb>charge up.
 
I can guarantee that fetus fanatics such as O.R. will challenge
every abortion possible under your new scheme.
 
dk>Who is going to keep track of all abortions?

eb>No one; doctors keep records anyway for fear of malpractice suits and
eb>those records can be subpeonaed if there's a reason to presume
eb>wrongdoing.  The records could of course be falsified, but so could
eb>anything the doctors sent in.
 
So you'll believe their records but not them?
 
eb>You're assuming a bureaucracy I'm not.
 
eb>You are assuming the judiciary process reviews every single abortion
eb>performed in the third trimester.  I'm assuming a system whereby
eb>review is possible if there's reason to believe wrongdoing, but review
eb>is not performed unless a credible charge of wrongdoing is made.

There is no way every single possible abortion will not be 
brought to question by OR.  At the minimum each questioning
will add bureaucracy.

There is no way you can get the government involved in something
and not increase bureaucracy.  This is how the government functions.
You want to include abortion certification, multiple certified 
doctor approval and judicial approval of abortions that are third 
tri-mester and might be close to third tri-mester and you don't
believe this will add bureaucracy?  I don't share your optimism.

eb>As an analogy, think about a decent system of laws against child
eb>abuse.  If a charge is made, it's investigated and something is done
eb>if it's found accurate.  But the police don't come to everyone's home
eb>to see if if they're beating up their kids.
 
A huge difference between the two groups is you do not have a
group of well organized and financed people willing to do 
anything to separate parents from their children.  If you did
then I would guess they would be very willing to use child 
abuse laws to accomplish their goals.  To set up laws with
out that in mind would be extremely naive.  And it would also
be very stupid to do it if you were not aware of any child
abuse happening anytime in the past.  Why create needless
and possibly dangerous laws to deal with a non-problem?
 
eb>In the normal case, the added burden on the woman would be going to a
eb>second doctor, and the taxpayers would pay the doctor's bill.  In a
eb>medical emergency, the doctor would perform an abortion and justify it
eb>after the fact.  That would be somewhat unpleasant, but if it's enough
eb>of a medicial emergency that an abortion couldn't wait for a second
eb>opinion, it shouldn't be all that difficult to prove that the abortion
eb>was necessary.
 
But the proving would have to be done.  The doctor would have to
go into a court of law and justify why he performed this abortion.
He will not know if the judge is prejudice toward him or the 
fetus fanatics bringing the charges.  He will not know, because 
it will not be spelled out in this feel-good legislation what 
exactly constitutes a therapeutic abortion.  I kind of get the 
feeling many doctors will be very leery of performing legitimate
therapeutic abortions under your legislation.  

Again I ask why are you adding all these dangers and what not 
for a problem you have admitted in the past does not exist.  
For a woman to get a late term abortion for "trivial" reasons
it would first require a woman that would decide to do this 
late in term rather than early and then finding a doctor 
willing to do it.  I have seen no facts to support anyones
suspicion that this is happening.  

>Pro-Choice                 Anti-Roe                     - E. Elizabeth Bartley
>            Abortions should be safe, legal, early, and rare.
 
Okay, but why legislated?
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: talk.abortion