The Title X Gag Rule

[Nous]

Why?

You didn't.

I did mention that, by the way.

Sorry about that. I meant to include the link where my figures came from:
AFCARS Report #25

 

[Mister Emu]

The statute doesn't forbid referrals, period. Right?

It would certainly forbid grant recipients from referring for abortion.

But I've never known one doctor or other medical professional to make a referral to another doctor and require the patient to obtain a particular procedure from the other doctor. Rather, the referring professional merely gives a referral in order for the patient to consult with the other doctor, so that the patient and the referred doctor can decide what procedures are appropriate. Right?

I've unfortunately had quite a bit of experience with the medical world, and it can be both. When I had my gallbladder removed, my GP first referred me for an MRI and then directly to a surgeon for removal.

I've also been referred to a specialist to figure out what to do.

 

[Nous]

It would certainly forbid grant recipients from referring for abortion.

Quote where the statute restricts the speech between doctor and patient.

If the statute actually restricts the lawful communications between doctor and patient, then it is unconstitutional. Right?

When I had my gallbladder removed, my GP first referred me for an MRI and then directly to a surgeon for removal.

Did your GP actually require what you had to do, and what the surgeon had to do, or did your GP just give you a name and number of a surgeon?

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry about that. I meant to include the link where my figures came from:
AFCARS Report #25

Thank you.

I think that you need to look at the report you used.

Yes, there seem to be approx. 400,000 children in foster care nationally...but I didn't quarrel with that.

You also claimed that there were 700,000 children waiting to be adopted. (Post #6). Your source certainly doesn't support that claim.

In fact, I could have used your source to support my claims. Indeed, I think I will.

According to your source, there were 123,437 children waiting to be adopted, NATIONALLY, in 2017. The problem is, if you look at the next line you will see that only 69,525 children who were waiting for adoption had clearance to be adopted...that is, all parental rights had been terminated. Of those children, (and remember, these numbers are national, and I can only speak to California) about 60,000 had been adopted. In other words, nearly half of the children waiting to be adopted were not available to be adopted.

In Kern county, where my daughter lives, there are at least six families ready to adopt for every child who can be adopted. As you can see from your own numbers, 'waiting to be adopted' doesn't mean 'available for adoption.' They are waiting for things other than families ready to take them. Like bureaucratic red tape, and getting their birth parent's rights removed so that they can be adopted. It is a sad and complicated problem, and your numbers support my point.

But I need to ask again: where on earth did you get the 700,000 number? Because it sure ain't in the source you provided.

 

[Nous]

Thank you.

I think that you need to look at the report you used.

Yes, there seem to be approx. 400,000 children in foster care nationally...but I didn't quarrel with that.

You also claimed that there were 700,000 children waiting to be adopted. (Post #6). Your source certainly doesn't support that claim.

In fact, I could have used your source to support my claims. Indeed, I think I will.

According to your source, there were 123,437 children waiting to be adopted, NATIONALLY, in 2017. The problem is, if you look at the next line you will see that only 69,525 children who were waiting for adoption had clearance to be adopted...that is, all parental rights had been terminated. Of those children, (and remember, these numbers are national, and I can only speak to California) about 60,000 had been adopted. In other words, nearly half of the children waiting to be adopted were not available to be adopted.

In Kern county, where my daughter lives, there are at least six families ready to adopt for every child who can be adopted. As you can see from your own numbers, 'waiting to be adopted' doesn't mean 'available for adoption.' They are waiting for things other than families ready to take them. Like bureaucratic red tape, and getting their birth parent's rights removed so that they can be adopted. It is a sad and complicated problem, and your numbers support my point.

But I need to ask again: where on earth did you get the 700,000 number? Because it sure ain't in the source you provided.

Thank you. You are correct. I got the nearly 700,000 figure from the number given for how many children were served by foster care in 2017.

 

[dianaiad]

Thank you. You are correct. I got the nearly 700,000 figure from the number given for how many children were served by foster care in 2017.

No problem. I THINK we are both concerned by the same problems, but coming at it from different beginning points. It is a common position, taken by pro-abortionists, that there are more babies/children waiting to be adopted than there are people willing to adopts. As it happens, that is entirely untrue.

If it WERE true, there wouldn't be so many people going to China or Russia or other nations to adopt. Again, I'm not all that familiar with national figures (though thanks to you I am more familiar with them than I was yesterday...) but I am extremely and personally familiar with the problems encountered by families in California who wish to adopt. I have gone through this with my daughter for many years now.

She has pretty much given up, after having been told by a social worker that her age (nearly 45) and her husband's age (fifty...and he is disabled) pretty much guarantee that she won't be able to adopt any child from foster care.

She would have been a fantastic mom. She tried hard enough...and whatever you do, do not engage her on abortion 'rights.' She, having miscarried more than fifteen times and having given birth to one little girl who lived for four hours, has absolutely no tolerance for women who get pregnant and then abort because it's not convenient for them to be pregnant.

She would have crawled over glass on her knees to take the child of any one of them.

 

[Nous]

No problem. I THINK we are both concerned by the same problems, but coming at it from different beginning points. It is a common position, taken by pro-abortionists, that there are more babies/children waiting to be adopted than there are people willing to adopts. As it happens, that is entirely untrue.

If it WERE true, there wouldn't be so many people going to China or Russia or other nations to adopt. Again, I'm not all that familiar with national figures (though thanks to you I am more familiar with them than I was yesterday...) but I am extremely and personally familiar with the problems encountered by families in California who wish to adopt. I have gone through this with my daughter for many years now.

She has pretty much given up, after having been told by a social worker that her age (nearly 45) and her husband's age (fifty...and he is disabled) pretty much guarantee that she won't be able to adopt any child from foster care.

She would have been a fantastic mom. She tried hard enough...and whatever you do, do not engage her on abortion 'rights.' She, having miscarried more than fifteen times and having given birth to one little girl who lived for four hours, has absolutely no tolerance for women who get pregnant and then abort because it's not convenient for them to be pregnant.

She would have crawled over glass on her knees to take the child of any one of them.

I am embarrassed to admit that for a long time I have been under the impression that there are a lot more children available for adoption in the US than there are, even more than 700,000. I've quoted figures on other boards; I don't know where I got them, and no one corrected me. Really, I should pay you.

I am terribly sorry about your daughter's plight. I know it's no substitute, but there are plenty of dogs and cats available for adoption. (I work for animals these days. They don't pay a damn thing.)

 

[Mister Emu]

Quote where the statute restricts the speech between doctor and patient.

You already did 'none of these funds will be used in a program where abortion is a method of family planning'. If a family planning program is giving a referral for abortion, obviously it is a method.

If the statute actually restricts the lawful communications between doctor and patient, then it is unconstitutional. Right?

The statute doesn't restrict lawful communications, it limits the purpose of a grant. To those programs where abortion is not considered a method of family planning.

Did your GP actually require what you had to do, and what the surgeon had to do, or did your GP just give you a name and number of a surgeon?

My GP communicated with the surgeons office my need and contact information, and sent over my diagnostic information. All I did was go in, meet the surgeon and schedule a date for surgery.

A referral can be far more than a "name and a number". Now when I went to my allergist, it was more like that, because the GP didn't have the tools to address diagnosing allergies.

 

[Nous]

You already did

There's no need to bother me with nonsense. As obvious to everyone who can read and comprehend English, the words, "none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning” do not mean or imply that doctors are forbidden to communicate referrals for their patients.

 

[dianaiad]

I am embarrassed to admit that for a long time I have been under the impression that there are a lot more children available for adoption in the US than there are, even more than 700,000. I've quoted figures on other boards; I don't know where I got them, and no one corrected me. Really, I should pay you.

I am terribly sorry about your daughter's plight. I know it's no substitute, but there are plenty of dogs and cats available for adoption. (I work for animals these days. They don't pay a damn thing.)

I'm sorry....but you are quite correct. Pets are wonderful. My daughter has two dogs and four cats. They are no substitute, none at all...and anybody who "adopts" a pet as a substitute for a child has absolutely no business having either pet OR child. Animals are not children. They deserve their own respect for what they are. They can't be children. They shouldn't be treated like or as children. It's not fair to them at all. It's not fair to the 'pet parents,' either (Heavens, I hate these cutesy names for pets and those who love them....and I have a 'service dog' who sleeps on my bed with me and is with me almost all the time. He is, however, a dog, much as I love him. He is NOT one of my children. If I outlive him (highly unlikely, as things stand) I will mourn deeply...but he is not one of my children and could never be a substitute for one of them. He is his own individual. He's a dog. He needs to be treated like a dog, with respect and a realistic acknowledgment of his limitations and his differences; the things he can do that I can't, and the things he can't do that I can.

Should he outlive me...he's only three...then my daughter already figures to take him, so I'm not worried about him.

Sorry, side track.

ANY way, thank you for posting that pdf file. It was very informative. I wasn't aware that national figures mirrored so closely those of California. Very helpful.

Now if we could just figure out how to get those children who are 'waiting for adoption' but whose parents are so selfish that they won't relinquish parental rights, even when they know that they won't get out of prison until well after those children are 'of age..."

I'm thinking that if parents do illegal street drugs, or have used illegal drugs while pregnant? Those parents should have their parental rights instantly and automatically removed. Period. Short of actively beating on their kids with baseball bats, I can't think of anything more harmful to a child.

............and no, I'm not talking about 'weed.' I'm talking about cocaine and heroine and the other things out there. Of course, I think that anybody who gets a DUI while his/her kids are in the car...THAT parent should lose his/her kids, too.

Maybe such a draconian measure would make the parents think twice?

If not, then those kids absolutely need new parents.

 

[Nous]

I'm sorry....but you are quite correct. Pets are wonderful. My daughter has two dogs and four cats. They are no substitute, none at all...and anybody who "adopts" a pet as a substitute for a child has absolutely no business having either pet OR child. Animals are not children. They deserve their own respect for what they are. They can't be children. They shouldn't be treated like or as children. It's not fair to them at all. It's not fair to the 'pet parents,' either (Heavens, I hate these cutesy names for pets and those who love them....and I have a 'service dog' who sleeps on my bed with me and is with me almost all the time. He is, however, a dog, much as I love him. He is NOT one of my children. If I outlive him (highly unlikely, as things stand) I will mourn deeply...but he is not one of my children and could never be a substitute for one of them. He is his own individual. He's a dog. He needs to be treated like a dog, with respect and a realistic acknowledgment of his limitations and his differences; the things he can do that I can't, and the things he can't do that I can.

Should he outlive me...he's only three...then my daughter already figures to take him, so I'm not worried about him.

Sorry, side track.

ANY way, thank you for posting that pdf file. It was very informative. I wasn't aware that national figures mirrored so closely those of California. Very helpful.

Now if we could just figure out how to get those children who are 'waiting for adoption' but whose parents are so selfish that they won't relinquish parental rights, even when they know that they won't get out of prison until well after those children are 'of age..."

I'm thinking that if parents do illegal street drugs, or have used illegal drugs while pregnant? Those parents should have their parental rights instantly and automatically removed. Period. Short of actively beating on their kids with baseball bats, I can't think of anything more harmful to a child.

............and no, I'm not talking about 'weed.' I'm talking about cocaine and heroine and the other things out there. Of course, I think that anybody who gets a DUI while his/her kids are in the car...THAT parent should lose his/her kids, too.

Maybe such a draconian measure would make the parents think twice?

If not, then those kids absolutely need new parents.

I agree with everything you said here. It is especially heartbreaking about the kids who don't have fit parents who won't give them up for adoption.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree with everything you said here. It is especially heartbreaking about the kids who don't have fit parents who won't give them up for adoption.

Oh, there is another class of foster kids....a class that is larger than one would think. These are the kids who are disabled in some way; mentally or intellectually disabled, as well as sheer physical disabilities, or those who are ill with some incredibly expensive disease: cancer comes instantly to mind. Shoot, I have that, and I found out that some of the treatment I received costs somebody (not me, thank heavens) last year cost a hundred thousand bucks a month for two months, and some pills I take are thirty six thousand bucks a month. As long as the child is the 'ward of the state,' the state covers the bills. Once adopted, however, the parents are responsible. Let's face it; there aren't a lot of people who can afford that level of medical care, even if they have insurance. Most insurance companies require a six to twelve month waiting period before they will cover pre-existing conditions, if they will cover them at all.

So those kids get put in permanent foster homes. The foster parents behave like 'real' parents, agree to raise the children and not 'hand them back,' until they are of age. That way they get the children but the state helps with the bills. They may even become permanent guardians (something most foster parents are NOT, by the way) with decision making authority most foster parents don't have. I know a couple of people who have gone that route, and then do the formal adoption on the child's 18th birthday. They wouldn't have been able to have the child at all if they had not.

Adoption...a very complicated maze where everybody, in today's bureaucratic mash-up, loses.

 

[Mister Emu]

There's no need to bother me with nonsense. As obvious to everyone who can read and comprehend English, the words, "none of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning” do not mean or imply that doctors are forbidden to communicate referrals for their patients.

There's definitely more than a little nonsense in asserting that sending people to get an abortion isn't utilizing abortion as a method.