Healthcare Debate

[Nobunaga]

... The Bamster sold a judgeship to an undecided Dem's brother to buy a vote.

... Where's the outrage?

.... Ah, never mind.

http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-n ... care-votes

[spurgistan]

The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. Although the project was estimated in 1985 at $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006[update]), over $14.6 billion ($8.08 billion in 1982 dollars) had been spent in federal and state tax dollars as of 2006[update]. A July 17, 2008 article in The Boston Globe stated, "In all, the project will cost an additional $7 billion in interest, bringing the total to a staggering $22 billion, according to a Globe review of hundreds of pages of state documents. It will not be paid off until 2038."

The Big Dig was run by private contractors? And not just any, every liberal's model exemplar of capitalism run amok, Halliburton.

[Snorri1234]

That's not a great article, that's a ridiculously stupid article.

Written like the true rose colored, polarized, blinder attached glasses wearing progressive that you are. You know, if the tables were reversed, and you were the conservative and I was the progressive, this would be the point where I play the "race" card, you ignorant bigot.

No, written like someone who actually lives in Europe so actually knows a little about these things.
I don't give a flying f*ck about whether this dude is black or has written stuff about economics (most of which has to do with race which is therefore irrelevant to healthcare). He could be the smartest man alive and i would still call this article bullshit because it is bullshit.


I mean, I haven't even brought up all the evidence aside from things like life-expectancy that show just how twisted and absurd the american system is. And I don't really need to because I already gave several reasons as to why the article was dumb and you decided to ignore them.

[PLAYER57832]

And I suspect you did not even read the article, because this was just a complaint about one hotline number.

And I suspect that you did not read the article, because the article was not about the denial of a claim, the article was about hostility against someone reporting potential fraud.

Now you are either being intentionally obtuse or you really cannot understand what you read.

For a while there you had a few legitimate points, but now... trolling.

[Night Strike]

Anyone who supports this bill after what the Speaker said yesterday is clearly out to deceive the American people. Since when do you pass a bill before you know what is in it?

Earlier in the day, Pelosi suggested to the National Association of Counties that the bill must be passed before the details are all sorted out.

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy," she told local executives.

I would also like to contend that her argument is a complete fallacy anyway because more controversy is likely to arise after it's passed. This is a ridiculous outrage.

Full Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... se-health/

[PLAYER57832]

Anyone who supports this bill after what the Speaker said yesterday is clearly out to deceive the American people. Since when do you pass a bill before you know what is in it?

Earlier in the day, Pelosi suggested to the National Association of Counties that the bill must be passed before the details are all sorted out.

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy," she told local executives.

I would also like to contend that her argument is a complete fallacy anyway because more controversy is likely to arise after it's passed. This is a ridiculous outrage.

Full Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03 ... se-health/

You took this a good deal out of context.

The real jiist is that she wants it passed because then BOTH the Senate and House versions can be modified into one bill, rather than debating the minutia now, because nothing passed right now will be final and it is better to just get on with the process. (this, too is a shortened version, but is far more accurate than the Fox News version)

[tzor]

If the senate bill is passed in the house, that's it. Game over. The Senate wins!

There is a traditional viewpoint in the House, the opposite party is the opposition; the Senate is the enemy.

Case in pont (actually it's almost Q.E.D.): The energy bill was passed in the house. It was worked on for ages. Members of the house put their necks on the chopping board for critical votes that were needed to get it passed. FOR WHAT? For nothing, because it sits dead on the table of the Senate. This is the only reason why Pelosi doesn't have the votes yet.

Lucy (the Senate) has the football and Pelosi is demanding that Charlie Brown (the members of the House) try to kick it. Who's fooling who?

[Night Strike]

You took this a good deal out of context.

The real jiist is that she wants it passed because then BOTH the Senate and House versions can be modified into one bill, rather than debating the minutia now, because nothing passed right now will be final and it is better to just get on with the process. (this, too is a shortened version, but is far more accurate than the Fox News version)

That's not taking it out of context; it's the exact reason it's a problem! Once the House approves the Senate plan, nothing else has to be changed: it can go to Obama's desk. The whole issue is that the minutia HAS to be debated before it's voted on. Any other method is idiocy or outright deception.

[silent wind]

This is fucking awesome. I hope those of you who are fucking interested in this sort of fucking thing are fucking watching. You can get it on various fucking sites. I think they need to do this sort of fucking thing for all important fucking bills.

[V.I.]

This is ass-fucking awesome. I hope those of you who are dog-fucking interested in this sort of donkey-fucking thing are goldfish-fucking watching. You can get it on various bean-bag-chair-fucking sites. I think they need to do this sort of grandmother-in-law-fucking thing for all important corey haim-fucking bills.

[silent wind]

This is ass-fucking awesome. I hope those of you who are dog-fucking interested in this sort of donkey-fucking thing are goldfish-fucking watching. You can get it on various bean-bag-chair-fucking sites. I think they need to do this sort of grandmother-in-law-fucking thing for all important corey haim-fucking bills.

Corey Haim fucking?!?

sir, you go to fucking far....


lol... no, just fucking kidding... I lol'ed pretty fucking hard at that...

[PLAYER57832]

You took this a good deal out of context.

The real jiist is that she wants it passed because then BOTH the Senate and House versions can be modified into one bill, rather than debating the minutia now, because nothing passed right now will be final and it is better to just get on with the process. (this, too is a shortened version, but is far more accurate than the Fox News version)

That's not taking it out of context; it's the exact reason it's a problem! Once the House approves the Senate plan, nothing else has to be changed: it can go to Obama's desk. The whole issue is that the minutia HAS to be debated before it's voted on. Any other method is idiocy or outright deception.

No, it might seem that way, but the two bills have to be reconciled and then voted on again, unless the differences are pretty minor. I am skipping a few steps, but it is certainly not "approval the house" = "goes to the Senate".

And most of the "minutia" is strictly abortion issues... and most people on BOTH sides (pro life and pro choice) want to keep things "as is", but there is a small minority, bowing largely to pressure from the Roman Catholic Bishops that is holding it up.

[Snorri1234]

You took this a good deal out of context.

The real jiist is that she wants it passed because then BOTH the Senate and House versions can be modified into one bill, rather than debating the minutia now, because nothing passed right now will be final and it is better to just get on with the process. (this, too is a shortened version, but is far more accurate than the Fox News version)

That's not taking it out of context; it's the exact reason it's a problem! Once the House approves the Senate plan, nothing else has to be changed: it can go to Obama's desk. The whole issue is that the minutia HAS to be debated before it's voted on. Any other method is idiocy or outright deception.

No, it might seem that way, but the two bills have to be reconciled and then voted on again, unless the differences are pretty minor. I am skipping a few steps, but it is certainly not "approval the house" = "goes to the Senate".

And most of the "minutia" is strictly abortion issues... and most people on BOTH sides (pro life and pro choice) want to keep things "as is", but there is a small minority, bowing largely to pressure from the Roman Catholic Bishops that is holding it up.

The only reason conservatives are acting like voting the bill in now means DOOOM!!!! is because they won't be allowed to fillibuster for the next vote.

[tzor]

And most of the "minutia" is strictly abortion issues... and most people on BOTH sides (pro life and pro choice) want to keep things "as is", but there is a small minority, bowing largely to pressure from the Roman Catholic Bishops that is holding it up.

BUT the lack of the status quo is the whole problem in the first place. The SENATE bill does not preserve the status quo. It funds abortion! It is the whole "status quo" democrats that are causing problems in the House, becasuse they know that there is no way the senate is going to let restrictions on abortions get into the bill in reconciliation; they don't have the democratic votes for that, which is why it's not in the Senate bill in the first place. At this point this is all about the Senate bill and some pie in the sky fantasy that the Senate will actually address the concerns of the House when they blatanly ignored those concerns on the first pass.

[PLAYER57832]

And most of the "minutia" is strictly abortion issues... and most people on BOTH sides (pro life and pro choice) want to keep things "as is", but there is a small minority, bowing largely to pressure from the Roman Catholic Bishops that is holding it up.

BUT the lack of the status quo is the whole problem in the first place. The SENATE bill does not preserve the status quo. It funds abortion! It is the whole "status quo" democrats that are causing problems in the House, becasuse they know that there is no way the senate is going to let restrictions on abortions get into the bill in reconciliation; they don't have the democratic votes for that, which is why it's not in the Senate bill in the first place. At this point this is all about the Senate bill and some pie in the sky fantasy that the Senate will actually address the concerns of the House when they blatanly ignored those concerns on the first pass.

Baloney... and I can GAURANTEE I know a good deal more about all sides of this than you ever will or possibly can.

1. The only "expansion" is that people who buy their own policies will be able to have this coverage, as they do now.

2. No one has the right to dictate to someone else what they do medically. This is some people's churches trying to dictate to OTHERS-- both Christian and other religious institutions their morals.

I am sick of people who try to claim this is somehow a "moral" stance. You have never had to deal with a severely disabled child (and I don't mean simply wheel-chair bound, simply with a very low IQ or any other idiotic example, I mean SEVERELY disabled). You have never had to face a choice between trying to carry a pregnancy that has no chance of success or ending it early. You have never had to make the very difficult choice between getting medical treatment that is necessary, but which would seriously harm a child you carry. Chances are you have never had to deal with these decisions at all. Yet, you, who in other instances is all about the freedom of the individual, who refuses to accept any increase in taxes, etc... you will claim that you somehow have the "higher moral ground" on that issue? Get real! You cannot judge what you don't understand. and no, you DO NOT!

This is not about "liking abortion", this is about choosing between a series of horrible choices. Pretending otherwise is idiotic.

The Bible makes plenty of statements about live beginning with the first breath. It is science, the same science you eschew in other contexts, that provides us a different answer. The reason why abortion is legal up until 3 months is largely because the miscarriage rate is so very extremely high. In fact, a large number of so-called "abortions" are really miscarriages in the minds of most intelligent people, but somehow not in the minds of the extremely patriarchial Roman Catholic church and equally male-centered so-called "evangelical" churches.

[tzor]

I am sick of people who try to claim this is somehow a "moral" stance. You have never had to deal with a severely disabled child (and I don't mean simply wheel-chair bound, simply with a very low IQ or any other idiotic example, I mean SEVERELY disabled).

Oh cry me a f*cking river. I’m sick and tired of this tear jerking use of the extreme case to justify everything. The notion that, without abortion, in the United States, we would have some 3,700 severely defected children born each day is absolute bullshit. (SOURCE)

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Yes the abortion mills like Planned Parenthood would like to give the impression that they are as American as apple pie, but the fact remains that they routinely give abortions to minors, neither telling their legal guardians nor informing authorities about possible rape scenarios letting child molesters go scot free. (Oh and did I mention how conveniently abortions are used on minority communities?)

Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who's having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Bullshit! I’m not having my hard earned tax dollars go to these abortion mills who in turn use their monies to lobby congress for exclusive rights while women die from these barbaric procedures.

[silent wind]

I am sick of people who try to claim this is somehow a "moral" stance. You have never had to deal with a severely disabled child (and I don't mean simply wheel-chair bound, simply with a very low IQ or any other idiotic example, I mean SEVERELY disabled).

Oh cry me a f*cking river. I’m sick and tired of this tear jerking use of the extreme case to justify everything. The notion that, without abortion, in the United States, we would have some 3,700 severely defected children born each day is absolute bullshit. (SOURCE)

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Yes the abortion mills like Planned Parenthood would like to give the impression that they are as American as apple pie, but the fact remains that they routinely give abortions to minors, neither telling their legal guardians nor informing authorities about possible rape scenarios letting child molesters go scot free. (Oh and did I mention how conveniently abortions are used on minority communities?)

Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who's having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Bullshit! I’m not having my hard earned tax dollars go to these abortion mills who in turn use their monies to lobby congress for exclusive rights while women die from these barbaric procedures.

I like your language... and I agree with you. f*ck

[Snorri1234]

I am sick of people who try to claim this is somehow a "moral" stance. You have never had to deal with a severely disabled child (and I don't mean simply wheel-chair bound, simply with a very low IQ or any other idiotic example, I mean SEVERELY disabled).

Oh cry me a f*cking river. I’m sick and tired of this tear jerking use of the extreme case to justify everything. The notion that, without abortion, in the United States, we would have some 3,700 severely defected children born each day is absolute bullshit. (SOURCE)

Hey, guess what. Nobody gives a f*ck!

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Yes the abortion mills like Planned Parenthood would like to give the impression that they are as American as apple pie, but the fact remains that they routinely give abortions to minors, neither telling their legal guardians nor informing authorities about possible rape scenarios letting child molesters go scot free. (Oh and did I mention how conveniently abortions are used on minority communities?)

Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Who's having abortions (race)?
While white women obtain 60% of all abortions, their abortion rate is well below that of minority women. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are roughly 2 times as likely.

Bullshit! I’m not having my hard earned tax dollars go to these abortion mills who in turn use their monies to lobby congress for exclusive rights while women die from these barbaric procedures.

If women are dying you are doing it wrong. But I am totally convinced you are only against abortion to protect the women....

[tzor]

If women are dying you are doing it wrong. But I am totally convinced you are only against abortion to protect the women....

First and foremost, I am against the abortion industry / abortion lobby. (I will be frank and blunt here, I am talking about an international organization whose branch in the United States is known as "Planned Parenthood.") They have, literally, been getting away with murder since Roe v Wade made an abortion procedure somehow sacrosanct and above every other medical regulation that states can adopt. (Consider the following, the amount of paperwork required for a minor to have an asprin is mind boggling; tons of that paperwork involves parental consent. Abortion, which technically qualifies as an operation, doesn't need any notification whatsoever in many states.)

• Planned Parenthood deaths
• Planned Parenthood covers up statutory rape
• Planned Parenthood protects pedophiles (Cautuon sound on webpage)
• Planned Parenthood's Condoms - rated worst by Consumer Reports
• Planned Parenthood uses underage girls in "clinical trials"

[Snorri1234]

If women are dying you are doing it wrong. But I am totally convinced you are only against abortion to protect the women....

First and foremost, I am against the abortion industry / abortion lobby. (I will be frank and blunt here, I am talking about an international organization whose branch in the United States is known as "Planned Parenthood.") They have, literally, been getting away with murder since Roe v Wade made an abortion procedure somehow sacrosanct and above every other medical regulation that states can adopt. (Consider the following, the amount of paperwork required for a minor to have an asprin is mind boggling; tons of that paperwork involves parental consent. Abortion, which technically qualifies as an operation, doesn't need any notification whatsoever in many states.)

• Planned Parenthood deaths
• Planned Parenthood covers up statutory rape
• Planned Parenthood protects pedophiles (Cautuon sound on webpage)
• Planned Parenthood's Condoms - rated worst by Consumer Reports
• Planned Parenthood uses underage girls in "clinical trials"

If you're arguing your case it is usually not a good idea to pick such blatantly biased sources. It's like citing Loose Change as your source when you're saying bush and cheney blew up the WTC.
I mean, I took a gander at other stories on lifenews and holy shit that is a mix of every insane right wing point without shame.

Anyways, that realchoice article is fucking dishonest. Unless you prescribe homeopathic stuff people will occasionally die. Of everything. You could die of aspirin and that wouldn't mean the aspirin-lobby is somehow trying to kill you. Shit happens.

[PLAYER57832]

I am sick of people who try to claim this is somehow a "moral" stance. You have never had to deal with a severely disabled child (and I don't mean simply wheel-chair bound, simply with a very low IQ or any other idiotic example, I mean SEVERELY disabled).

Oh cry me a f*cking river. I’m sick and tired of this tear jerking use of the extreme case to justify everything. The notion that, without abortion, in the United States, we would have some 3,700 severely defected children born each day is absolute bullshit. (SOURCE)

What's bullshit is the claim that there are 3,700 healthy children aborted everyday simply because their mothers have nothing else better to do and no morals at all... and that you or anyone else knows enough about this.

I find it supremely ironic that if I were to start talking in detail about issues of pregnancies.. and I don't mean graphic pictures, I mean just "run of the mill" stuff that EVERY mother pretty much has to go through, things like what it really is to go through a miscarriage (roughly 1 in 3 women do have at least 1).. etc. You folks run for the hills. Yet, you somehow feel you are educated enough to tell the women of this country and their husbands, boyfriends, etc. what to do.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

Yes the abortion mills like Planned Parenthood would like to give the impression that they are as American as apple pie, but the fact remains that they routinely give abortions to minors, neither telling their legal guardians nor informing authorities about possible rape scenarios letting child molesters go scot free. (Oh and did I mention how conveniently abortions are used on minority communities?)

I noticed you did not reference those figures.

You talk of "child molestors going free" and then accuse me of using extreme examples? States vary on parental notification laws, but here's a fact... most of those teens getting abortions HAD SEX WILLINGLY! The time to educate them, the time to prevent an abortion is before the girls even become pregnant! Ironically enough, the rate of teen pregnancies is going up in the conservative areas that advocate "abstinance only" "education". REAL education absolutely does emphasize abstinence, but within a framework of knowledge, not deceit, not lack of knowledge. When kids are given the real and true facts, most will make reasonable choices.

The REAL truth is that if you miscarry and have a D & C, THE most common procedure or any other procedure, then it is termed "an abortion". The REAL truth is that "social reasons" includes a heck of a lot more than healthy children who are simply "inconvenient". You have to look seriously at WHY a woman would decide that a CHILD is "inconvenient." Ironically enough, one major reason is lack of health care and education. Strangely, though, it seems you hollar and scream about increasing health care.


The REAL Truth is that this debate just does not belong in the healthcare bill. It is, however, the kind of back-handed hypocritical garbage which have become highlights of the so-called "conservative" agenda. In fact, it is not even conservative, it is a blatant attempt to move us to the very far right, (less so fiscally..)

The REAL truth is that if you want to reduce abortions, a law won't do it. What's needed is better education.
BUT, here is the deal NOT EVERYONE SHARES YOUR VIEWS. YOU simply do not have the RIGHT to dictate to someone else Your personnal religious or ethical beliefs.

Who's having abortions (age)?
52% of women obtaining abortions in the U.S. are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 32% of all abortions; Teenagers obtain 20% and girls under 15 account for 1.2%.

Bullshit! I’m not having my hard earned tax dollars go to these abortion mills who in turn use their monies to lobby congress for exclusive rights while women die from these barbaric procedures.[/quote]
I am not sure the relevance, except that the numbers of young teens getting abortions is extremely low.
(and note that virtually all of those can be considered "for health reasons" because the risk for those girls to carry their babies to term is very, very high... in addition since they so rarely have taken steps like getting proper nutrition, etc, rates of serious problems to both the child and the mother are very high)
You sort of gloss over the fact that your own figures show 48% of women are over 25 -- hardly "innocent young women". Even amongst the 20-25 age group which you pulled out to be 32% are old enough to be making fully informed decisions. The 16-19 age group is the group that had been going WAY down, up until this most recent push for "abstinence only" education. In areas that have implemented it for a few years, the numbers of teen pregnancies is going up.. and not by small numbers, either. This again, points to a need for education, not legislation.


EDUCATE yourself.

Just about one HALF the woman I know have had an "abortion" by the standards of the "right to life" groups, by the standards of the law. Why? because, as I said before there is no data collected, not distinction made between miscarriages that are surgically removed and real and true abortions. LEGALLY, there is no distinction because, plain and simply, there is no definition of life. I had to encouter this garbage MYSELF at one of the very worst times in my life. So don't eve try to claim I don't know of what I speak. AND, believe me, I am MOST DEFINITELY NOT AN "EXCEPTION". Anyone undergoing certain procedures are said to be "having an abortion", whether the child is alive or not.


SECOND, I really don't care about your personnal beliefs or wants. People who don't believe in Vaccinations have to pay for them. People who don't believe in hospic care, have to pay for it. People who don't believe in blood transfusions, have to pay for them in part.

If you or anyone else wants to argue about abortion, a HEALTH CARE bill is plain and simply not the place to do it. BULLYING by the Roman Catholic church on this matter is well beyond what should be reasonably allowed by a religious, tax-exempt, institution.

[tzor]

If you're arguing your case it is usually not a good idea to pick such blatantly biased sources.

Who can I cite then? Do you think the main stream media would ever report on the great sacred cow of the progressive liberal movement? That's the damn problem with progressive liberals they go about life wearing filtered glasses that keeps them from seeing anything they don't want to see and when people mention those things they dismiss them with either "blatantly biased" or "astroturf."

Note to Snorri ... everyone is biased and if you are so biased you are going to actually start researching stuff you are blatantly so!

[Snorri1234]

If you're arguing your case it is usually not a good idea to pick such blatantly biased sources.

Who can I cite then? Do you think the main stream media would ever report on the great sacred cow of the progressive liberal movement? That's the damn problem with progressive liberals they go about life wearing filtered glasses that keeps them from seeing anything they don't want to see and when people mention those things they dismiss them with either "blatantly biased" or "astroturf."

Note to Snorri ... everyone is biased and if you are so biased you are going to actually start researching stuff you are blatantly so!

No. You don't get to do this. You don't get to pretend that Teh Liberul Media are repressing this story. It is bullshit. This is the fucking USofA we're talking about, not Norway. A respectable major newspaper would leap on these stories and sell a shitton of papers if any of this was true. That argument is fucking bullshit because it is self-contradicting.


I don't trust people who obviously have already made up their mind to present me with honest information. Why does your "hey man researching before you make an opion is good" not apply to these guys?

[tzor]

What's bullshit is the claim that there are 3,700 healthy children aborted everyday simply because their mothers have nothing else better to do and no morals at all... and that you or anyone else knows enough about this.

Where did I ever mention that? It's 3,441 children by the way (ignoring rape and incest because those pre-born are generally "healthy" but I'm digressing) who are getting abortions because of social reasons. Many of these women are being told flat out lies about both the precedure and the state of the preborn child in their wombs. It is interesting to point out that when women actually do get ultrasounds of their preborm babies many choose not to have the abortion (which is why Planned Parenthood fights tooth and nail to keep women from having a right to have them).

These women are just as much victims as their preborn babies. They are lied to (and deliberately so) and then forgotten afterwards. They are used, abused, and forgotten.

I find it supremely ironic that if I were to start talking in detail about issues of pregnancies.. and I don't mean graphic pictures, I mean just "run of the mill" stuff that EVERY mother pretty much has to go through, things like what it really is to go through a miscarriage (roughly 1 in 3 women do have at least 1).. etc. You folks run for the hills.

I'm not running for the hills. By the way, did you hear the Morning Edition article from yesterday, Panel: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Not Common? "Ms. SHANNON MITCHELL (VBAC activist, Florida): This is a human rights issue. I am being cut open because obstetricians have decided that I need to be. I have the right to say no just as much as they do."

The REAL truth is that if you miscarry and have a D & C, THE most common procedure or any other procedure, then it is termed "an abortion". The REAL truth is that "social reasons" includes a heck of a lot more than healthy children who are simply "inconvenient". You have to look seriously at WHY a woman would decide that a CHILD is "inconvenient." Ironically enough, one major reason is lack of health care and education. Strangely, though, it seems you hollar and scream about increasing health care.

(SIGH) Isn't that "health of the mother" issues, not "social issues?" So for everyone who wants to know what we are talking about here is a good link from americanpregnancy org which I think is an unbiased source.

Unfortunately, miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage, and most miscarriages occur during the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.

...

The main goal of treatment during or after a miscarriage is to prevent hemorrhaging and/or infection. The earlier you are in the pregnancy, the more likely that your body will expel all the fetal tissue by itself and will not require further medical procedures. If the body does not expel all the tissue, the most common procedure performed to stop bleeding and prevent infection is a D&C

...

Is a D&C necessary after a miscarriage?
About 50% of women who miscarry do not undergo a D&C procedure. Women can safely miscarry on their own, with few problems in pregnancies that end before 10 weeks. After 10 weeks, the miscarriage is more likely to be incomplete, requiring a D&C procedure to be performed. Choosing whether to miscarry naturally (called expectant management) or to have a D&C procedure is often a personal choice, best decided after talking with your health care provider.

Given this information it is hard to put this down into pure numbers. If you can give me a break as to how much of that 6% mentioned in my original link (potential health problems regarding either the mother or child) - or the 222 per day are due to post miscarriage D&E then we might be able to discuss this in a manner that is not apple/organge number comparisons.

Determining the prevalence of miscarriage is difficult. Many miscarriages happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant. Treatment of women with miscarriage at home means medical statistics on miscarriage miss many cases. Prospective studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's Last Menstrual Period). Clinical miscarriages (those occurring after the sixth week LMP) occur in 8% of pregnancies.

The risk of miscarriage decreases sharply after the 10th week LMP, i.e. when the fetal stage begins. The loss rate between 8.5 weeks LMP and birth is about two percent; loss is “virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period."

I did find abortion / miscarrage numbers for Saskatchewan (Canada)

[tzor]

No. You don't get to do this. You don't get to pretend that Teh Liberul Media are repressing this story. It is bullshit.

The media doesn’t cover stuff all the time. (The liberal media doesn’t cover some stuff; the conservative media doesn’t cover other stuff.) You seem to forget that the number one goal of any media organization is to make money. The number one goal of any reporter is to make his editor happy. Every single media has a bias; what they will cover and what they will cover. We had an excellent example of this just the last week where the media devoted three times as much coverage to a senator who was blocking a bill than it did to a congressman who had to resign due to a sex scandal involving minors.

I also would like to point out the tea party movement, who was completely ignored for most of 2009.