Yep, and in Australia those same pro life views would get you shunned and burned at the stake for protesting etc and interfering with an individuals own choice for what is best for them!!

Ok a bit of an exaggeration, but we have laws here preventing protests etc within a certain distance of an abortion clinic etc.

We just hardly hear about it. It’s not such a big issue that it creates much in the ways of news over here (ie abortion reform).

The parts I find objectionable are what l listed in post 7 — the part about requiring states to grant child support in ways that undermine the rights of the father and the wrongly-accused-non-father. Those seem like bad ideas and certainly are not good enough ideas to require all states to adhere to them.

If the standard is whether this poses an “insurmountable” hurdle to privacy protection, the answer is surely “no.” If the standard is whether this could lead to significant privacy invasions against people who don’t take the steps you’re describing, the answer may be “yes.” At the very least, people who claim that this bill has strong privacy protections are misreading it.

If that’s the case then I’d also say that at the very least those who are afraid this is some backhanded way to create a database to track pregnant women are also misreading it.

My comment about the insurmountable hurdle was not to highlight any standard for privacy protection. It was to point out that if we accept the OPs premise that this is in fact some attempt to track pregnant women for right wing political buffoonery then it is quite obviously a ridiculously low budget and poorly attempted way of doing so. So much so that it’s nothing to get anyone’s panties in a bunch of it doesn’t require social security numbers or legal ID to proceed and access the database.

Do I believe this is a way for the politics to get involved by blacklisting any provider that isn’t pro-choice ? Sure, absolutely. Do I think that means it’s a way to database the women to track them for nefarious purposes because it asks for contact information (like every other website out there)? No. Advertising and/or proselytizing? Sure. Tracking to impose legal repercussions? No.

Basically agree. I don’t think the bill’s sponsors’ intent is to cause such tracking. It might be possible to abuse this site and do some tracking. And, the bill could have built in a lot more privacy protection. So, neither extreme position would be correct: the bill is not some privacy outrage but it also is not well-designed from a privacy protection perspective.

The laws of nature and their predictability are what science investigates and all really that science investigates. Science easily seems as the only trustworthy endeavour after the brutalities and disappointments that ideology and politics have inflicted upon us in the 20th century. People often feel they should not enquire about the nature of things beyond the bounds of scientific experimentation. This leaves out morality, purpose, direction and even hope. It seems like in some ways we are falling back into the old Greek and Roman ways of thinking where we are subject merely to fate.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Yeeper wrote:

that this is in fact some attempt to track pregnant women for right wing political buffoonery then it is quite obviously a ridiculously low budget and poorly attempted way of doing so.

I don't know. I haven't read the whole thing (yet), but this bit near the top caught my eye.




There's consent. But we all now how common it is to make Web consent forms very easy to click past. Almost no one reads them. And the assessment could lure people in with offers of free services.

Women are going to take the assessment, and their contact information, which may include identity, address/location, phone, and email will be entered in a database.

Then that database will be used for the Government to contact you directly. It is unclear what the qualifications and motivations the Government representative contacting you would have? What if the pregnant woman talks about seeking services not legal for her location? Will that information be recorded? Will HIPAA or HIPAA-like protections be in place? And it says, "the Secretary," which, to me, means a Federal representative. I assume this is the Secretary of Federal HHS. My state, Nevada, cannot have a Nevada rep., with regional knowledge about Nevada resources, make the call.

How long is the information stored? Who can view the information? Can a user revoke consent and have their information deleted?

While the tone of some articles may indeed be excessively conspiratorial, there is indeed a database with very opaque purpose and unknown guardrails.


Britt, et al. granting broad authority to the executive office of HHS is a bit odd, and not consistent with the MAGA principle of reducing the discretionary power of Executive Branch agencies. This is Xavier Becerra right now, someone with a stated intent of preserving access to abortion, and using available executive power to do so.

Oh, for God’s sake! People have always and will always grapple with ideas of fate and purpose and morality. Just because science leaves you cold, that does not mean your religious ideas should replace scientific ideas in healthcare.

Please feel free to promote your religious ideas in the appropriate setting. Don’t promote religion in a government healthcare website! Be honest about what you are offering people. If you are pro-life and want to talk about morality, do not do it under a guise of “healthcare,” which is defined in laws and in informal settings as a science-backed system to promote health.

I would like to say that federal assistance and the provision of resources to women, infants, and children is very close to my heart.

In the late 70s, my father worked for WIC, which is a federal program that provides assistance to women and infants and children. My mother worked for Headstart, which is a federal program that provides assistance to low income families through pre school, parent education, outreach. As part of her job, my mom helped families navigate obtaining health insurance and medical care and other resources. This was spiritually enriching work.

Progressives have been champions of women, infants and children for my entire life. Republicans have opposed spending money on these programs my entire life.

Today Republicans are suddenly concerned about prenatal and post natal care. Their concern is driven entirely by a pro-life agenda. It is written into that bill. The help offered by pro-life people is 100% conditioned on the recipient accepting the pro-life viewpoint. Our federal government should not offer help to only people with pro-life views. It should offer help to everyone.

Say, I just signed up for an exciting continuing legal education about Jewish ethics and health care decisions. One of the questions posed is: “is it ethical for a mother to continue a pregnancy that threatens her life?”

Pro-life Christians do not hold a monopoly on ethics and morality. Pro-life Christians do not hold a monopoly on caring for women, infants and children. Pro-life Christians do not hold a monopoly on hope.

If you are feeling bleak and hopeless, I hope you get up and go do something useful on this Mother’s Day to provide assistance to women in such a way that respects the diverse religious views of women. Do not disrespect others as you do your work.