Sunday, February 28, 2016

Republican War on Women - Alabama Aims at Abortion Doctors' Financial Privacy

This is the fortieth in a series of articles on the subjects of women, abortion rights and the Republican Party. 

Republicans continue to say they don’t have to change their core principles, they only have to change the language they use to get their message out.  One perception they want to alter is the idea that they are running a “War on Women”.  Looking at the news over the past few years, I’d say the Republican Party has a long way to go on this subject.
  • Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): “Talk about a manufactured issue.  There is no issue.” 
  • RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:  “It’s a fiction.”

The Alabama Front

This past Tuesday, a committee in the Alabama House held a hearing on the "Ultrasound Access Act."

Alabama State Representative
Kerry Rich (R)
One interesting twist to the Alabama edition of this been-there, done-that abortion restriction, (a similar ultrasound requirement bill was permanently blocked in North Carolina in 2014), is what committee Republicans are calling a "conflict of interest disclaimer."  This provision, proposed by Representative Kerry Rich (R), would require abortion doctors to disclose their annual income to their patients, including a breakdown of the percentage of their income that comes from performing abortions and how much it costs the doctor if a patient changes her mind.

Doctors convicted of breaking the law could be fined up to $1 million and/or be sent to prison for up to 10 years.

what eye thynk:  First, let's call this bill what it really is: the "Medically Unnecessary and Intrusive Ultrasound but We Are Going to Require It Anyway Because We Can Act."

Now, about that twist.  Here we have another example of the party of small government believing that no regulation that stands in the way of a woman and her constitutionally protected right to make her own medical decisions is too small.  

You didn't really think small government meant less government oversight for everyone did you?  Silly you.  Less regulation is only for those who can afford to pay for it.  Or for those who are not born with a vagina.

Abortion doctors would be forced to reveal their income to their patients. And how exactly is this supposed to protect women's health?  Really, abortion opponents aren't even trying to hide their true motives any longer.

I don't think this "conflict of interest disclaimer" is necessarily a bad idea; I just think it is focused on the wrong segment of our society.  How about we require our politicians to disclose their annual income, maybe as an attachment to all those re-election mailers we receive.  In it they could include their total yearly income, a breakdown of the money they receive from outside interest groups, and how much they'll lose if they don't vote the way their money handlers tell them too.  

Now THAT is an example of a small government regulation I could support.

Personally, I don't care how much my doctor makes.  I hope he makes more than I do--a LOT more.  After all, what I do for a living isn't a matter of life or death.  

On the other hand, my life or death should not be decided by some bought and paid for politician who undoubtedly DOES make more than I do.  But I'm willing to compromise:  I'll show him mine if he'll show me his.

The Republican War on Women is "fiction?"


No comments:

Post a Comment