New Justices, New Rules: How the Supreme Court's Validation of the Federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act Affects Women's Constitutional Liberty and Equality. A two-part FindLaw analysis of Gonzales v. Carhart.
posted on May 8, 2007 - View this thread

It's baby killing time. Taking on one of the most highly charged questions in the abortion debate, a team of doctors has concluded that fetuses probably cannot feel pain in the first six months of gestation and therefore do not need anesthesia during abortions.
posted on Aug 23, 2005 - View this thread

"Family Values, My Ass!" That article in the Lexington Herald-Leader inspired me to look up the Nation article it referred to. Now I'm beginning to see why many women won't go to "evangelical Christian" MDs: this guy Hager (previously brought up on MetaFilter in 2003, in fact twice, and then again in 2004) is strongly anti-abortion -- so pro-conception that he tried to keep the "morning-after pill" known as "Plan B" away from women -- but he's apparently pro- sodomy and pro-rape. It almost sounds like fiction.
posted on May 13, 2005 - View this thread

Conscience Clauses and Health Care --"Yes, we need to respect individual freedom of religion. But at what point does it cross the line of not providing essential medical care? At what point is it malpractice?" she asked. "If someone's beliefs interfere with practicing their profession, perhaps they should do something else." The Protection of Conscience Project feels differently: Protection of Conscience Laws are needed because powerful interests are inclined to force health care workers and others to participate, directly or indirectly, in morally controversial procedures, while NARAL says: ... Many of these clauses go far beyond respecting individuals' beliefs to the point of harming women by not providing them with full information or access to medical treatment. Medicine, not ideology, should determine medical decisions.
posted on Sep 17, 2004 - View this thread

"The Conscientious Objector Policy Act" just passed the Michigan Assembly, and awaits voting in the state Senate. The bill legalizes the right for a doctor, or any health provider, to deny treatment based on "ethical, moral, or religious grounds." In addition to the obvious notion of restricting abortion, in the most extreme example the bill technically allows doctors to deny treatment to gays simply for believing that homosexuality is immoral.
posted on Apr 22, 2004 - View this thread

A bill is currently being pushed through Congress that will give health care providers, including those that are federally funded, the right to refuse to perform abortions or administer contraceptive medication for personal moral reasons. Next week: firefighters allowed to let houses burn down because they hate the color of the curtains.
posted on Sep 25, 2002 - View this thread

Health Care For Youngest Americans...or Sneak Attack On Pro-Choice Lobby? Interesting proposal from HHS...guaranteed to fan the flames of what has been called the "most divisive issue in modern America." Should a fetus be classified as a "beneficiary" of health care benefits under the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)? If this proposal is approved, will it forever change the debate?
posted on Jul 7, 2001 - View this thread

"Men Too" abortion leaflet.
"Men have no legal rights when it comes to abortion. Legally an abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor - and this is as it should be. "
posted on May 14, 2001 - View this thread

It's about time. (More inside)
posted on Sep 28, 2000 - View this thread

Anchors away! Abortions at sea. Another example of people trying to evade the confines of national laws.
posted on Jun 22, 2000 - View this thread