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.
Congressman Walsh IS CORRECT. The International Symposium on Maternal Health that recently took place in Dublin, Ireland in September 2012 concluded that abortion is NEVER medically necessary to save the life of a pregnant mother. If you disagree please refute this international medical symposium's findings.
Funny, when I look them up on the internets, they're pretty much anti-choice.
Got anything real?
By "real" you mean pro-abortion?
Or do you mean is there anything to refute their findings? So far no person or entity has been able to refute this medical symposium's findings, but if you'd like to please be my guest. More reading:
Response to Politician's Inaccurate Abortion Comments - October 19, 2012
Washington, DC -- Contrary to the inaccurate statements made yesterday by Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL), abortions are necessary in a number of circumstances to save the life of a woman or to preserve her health. Unfortunately, pregnancy is not a risk-free life event, particularly for many women with chronic medical conditions. Despite all of our medical advances, more than 600 women die each year from pregnancy and childbirth-related reasons right here in the US. In fact, many more women would die each year if they did not have access to abortion to protect their health or to save their lives.
These inaccurate comments are yet another reason why The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (The College) message to politicians is unequivocal: Get out of our exam rooms.
Just this week, The College and other major medical organizations joined together in calling for an end to legislative and political interference in the patient-physician relationship in The New England Journal of Medicine.
Increasingly in recent years, legislators in the United States have been overstepping the proper limits of their role in the health care of Americans to dictate the nature and content of patients' interactions with their physicians. Some recent laws and proposed legislation inappropriately infringe on clinical practice and patient–physician relationships, crossing traditional boundaries and intruding into the realm of medical professionalism. We, the executive staff leadership of five professional societies that represent the majority of U.S. physicians providing clinical care — the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American College of Surgeons — find this trend alarming and believe that legislators should abide by principles that put patients' best interests first. Critical to achieving this goal is respect for the importance of scientific evidence, patient autonomy, and the patient–physician relationship. Examples of inappropriate legislative interference with this relationship are proliferating, as lawmakers increasingly intrude into the realm of medical practice, often to satisfy political agendas without regard to established, evidence-based guidelines for care. Of particular concern are four specific types of laws or legislative proposals.
Congressman Walsh IS CORRECT. The International Symposium on Maternal Health that recently took place in Dublin, Ireland in September 2012 concluded that abortion is NEVER medically necessary to save the life of a pregnant mother. If you disagree please refute this international medical symposium's findings.
Or do you mean is there anything to refute their findings? So far no person or entity has been able to refute this medical symposium's findings, but if you'd like to please be my guest. More reading:
You have got to be freaking kidding me. That "Symposium" was hosted by a well known, rabid pro-life activist, and an active member of the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations. Yeah, no bias there.
You have got to be freaking kidding me. That "Symposium" was hosted by a well known, rabid pro-life activist, and an active member of the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations. Yeah, no bias there.
So can you refute their conclusions or are you just sticking to ad hominem?
I know the truth can be hard to accept for some. Are you pro-abortion?
So can you refute their conclusions or are you just sticking to ad hominem?
I know the truth can be hard to accept for some. Are you pro-abortion?
Haha! I did refute their conclusion above, as did The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), formerly the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. They represent over 90 percent of U.S. board-certified obstetrician-gynecologists.
"We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
So in other words, "we will not intentionally provide for the abortion of a fetus to save your life, but we will engage in treatments where death to the fetus is a by product in the effort to save your life".
Sounds like a bunch of verbal flim flam, if some people choose to fool themselves with it, who am I to demand that they wake up and face the real world.
maybe he is. after all, with obama care, the goverment will now allow politicians to take care of all your health care needs. what the hell makes them qualified to make a medical decision?
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.