Women Must Show ID To Get Abortion

<http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dallas/tsw/stories/011604dntexabortion.26f98.html>

AUSTIN – In a move endorsed by abortion opponents but that critics say goes beyond the letter of the law, the state Board of Health on Thursday decided that all women must provide identification before getting an abortion.

The board also handed abortion rights advocates a partial victory, deciding not to require abortion clinics to give their clients copies of a pamphlet that critics said was designed to dissuade women from terminating their pregnancies.

<snip>

Kathryn Allen, senior vice president for Planned Parenthood of North Texas, said Friday that the new law has thus far proven to be little more than a nuisance.

She said that while the clients were "shocked and surprised" by the new requirements, they weren't dissuaded from aborting their pregnancies, as the supporters of the new law had envisioned.

"Women will do whatever it takes to terminate an unwanted pregnancy," Ms. Allen said. "We can either provide that legally and safe in this country and preserve the health of the woman, or we will go back in this country to women who will continue to seek out and terminate an unwanted pregnancy and die from it."

<snip>

I love my state. But damnit, sometimes it's more like a dysfunctional relationship than a worthwhile relationship.

If any of you really want to see what Republican dominion looks like, look no further than Texas. Republicans control most of the administration, the Governorship, Lieutenant-Governorship, Speaker, House, Senate, and the courts. My beloved Lone Star State has been reduced over the years of Republican control to an environmental wreck, an educational joke, a public health disaster, and perhaps the closest thing to a theocracy that you will find in the United States of America.

Regardless of who wins the nomination, I hope all of us will get behind them and, perhaps even more important, get behind our candidates for House and Senate. We need to stem the Republican tide in the House and if we're not careful we are going to lose our grasp on the Senate. I'd rate the House and Senate elections as important if not slightly more important than the Presidency this year.

n/t

And yeah, I have a love/hate relationship with it to. I know a lot of cool people from Texas, but goddamn! the politics suck!

I am FROM South Texas. I currently live in North Texas. BOY! What a difference a few hundred miles makes.

I never saw nearly as much rampant psychotic fundamentalism in San Antonio and Austin in over 25 years of living in those areas as I have in 2 years in Dallas.

South Texas is much like North Mexico. There are a lot of people with very little money and relatives that are doing far worse than they are. South Texans remember what it is like to be poor and powerless.

North Texans, (like the Bushies and Cheneys) are a bunch of dry county, Bible Thumping, damn near lynch mobbing, too damn rich to care about the little guy, world class A-holes.

Just my dos pesos!

I'm from mesquite (a dry county) and we'd have to go to dallas to get beer. But if we wanted some liquor, we'd have to go to a different building in the same parking lot owned by the same company and purchase it there, because you can't sell beer and liquor in the same store and the stores can't be attached.

And it wasn't until i was 10 or so that stores were allowed to be open on sunday. But thanks to the high population of baptists, you can experience zero wait time in the line at wal-mart on sundays since everyone is at church. Just get your shopping done before noon.

There's also the occasional news from dallas that a clerk got arrested for selling an undercover cop a copy of "The Backdoor Bradys" at a porn store or some lady who sold an undercover cop some vibrators.

I call the people responsible for such sillyness "The Big Hairs" in tribute to Jan Crouch.

In San Antonio there is no such thing as not being able to buy beer/wine in a grocery store. It was very weird for me when I moved here.

I remember the Blue Laws too. They used to rope off the toy section in the grocery store. Of course that is when my uncle and I would got swipe Star Wars figures.

The rampant Baptist holier than thou vibe is infuriating. Just because they don't want to drink shouldn't mean that I can't get my wine at the store.

My home county (Denton, hence the link through the Denton Record Chronicle!) has turned from a fairly mixed Democratic-Republican country about 15 years ago to a staunchly and overwhelmingly Republican county. In our upcoming county elections we had one, I repeat ONE, Democrat stand for a county-wide office. The remainder are uncontested outside of the Republican primaries.

The theocratic explosion has also been out-of-control through the same time period (not a coincidence!). Part of the issue is that while Denton is a college town (two schools, UNT and TWU, population ~100,000), the remainder of the county consists of small towns and the blooming suburbs of the Lewisville and Dallas corridor. While you still find some yellow dog Dems in the small towns, the suburbs (where most of the population of the county resides and where the wildest growth in population takes place) are either insanely Republican or overwhelmingly apathetic.

It's a very different beast from West Texas and South Texas.

Texas also has no sales tax on food, which benefits low income people the most, car tags are very cheap because, unlike some states, they aren't based on the value of the car (Example: I bought a $25,000 car and my tag was $750!! In Texas it would've been about $50).

Texas has cheap car registration and no taxes, but they also have a lot of poverty and a lot of struggling schools..

Calif has no tax on food or prescription medicine..as a lot of states have done..

Taxes are not a bad thing.... It's the cost of having civilization...

Roads are not free, schools are not free,etc..



The "cheap" approach just manifests itself in other ways. People who are poor, use the emergency room, and we all end up paying for it in higher costs, which drives up OUR insurance rates.. so you see , that wasn't really free at all..

about the abortion thing.. I don't see a problem with providing ID.. You need ID to cash a check or rent a video.. why would you expect a medical procedure without providing ID??

The clinic may not record the name , in case they are robbed by the fetus worshipers, or they may use a phony name.. I would suspect that the women who do not want to use their name, will just provide bogus ID anyway..

This country needs to help the fetus worshipers find a new hobby.. They are getting quite boring :(

dollars on healthcare. When I go to the grocery store my average tax on the bill is maybe 7.00. When I go to the doctor, my average bill is 45.00 to be paid in full.

Texas appears to me, and I don't live there, to have their priorities all screwed up. Just look up the pork bill thread and look at what money is earmarked for Texas. Over 3 million for Sugarland Regional Airport and a mere 350,000 for Texas Children's hospital.

gall to claim that they're "pro-life" and aim to "protect the lives of children."

you mean Texas actually has something that benefits its low-income citizens? Amazing!

Repukes must really hate women, especially women they can't control. They also keep coming up with all of these bullshit laws for abortion clinics and those seeking abortions, laws designed for no other purpose than harassment in the hope that women will be scared away from an abortion. You'd think they'd have realized by now that that just doesn't work and is never going to work.

also just gave the shaft to 100,000 low income children whose healthcare was covered by the state.

And they rank just about last on every scale you can imagine.

That's some trade-off for low taxes.

Everyone has made some very good points here, from the note on no sales tax on food and the inexpensive nature of car tags to the many things you already have to show your ID for in life, like allergy shots.

My intuition on this particular issue is that what is being done with showing IDs has very little to do with routine identification and much more to do with intimidation. Allergy shots are a matter of routine and by and large have absolutely no controversy attached to them. Abortion couldn't be any different, particularly in a state which is hostile to women's health from the individual level right up through the state institutional level.

With incidents like the recent boycott of contractors for a women's center in Austin organized by a Christian contractor where he contacted individual contractors working on the building and pressured them to quit the project through public sanction, there is a war on here in Texas for women's health issues. It's a war where your identification is just as much in play as any other piece of information about you. The enemies of women's health in Texas are the sea of hypocritical, hateful theocrats who obviously missed out of the Christian admonishments of love and forgivenes and instead dwell on punishment, and they play hardball.

what woman, would ever want her identity recorded. Just chilling (and very sad). This country is driven deeper and deeper into one I don't recognize as my own.

it is pompous old men telling women what to do. Men should stay out of women's business. When men can get pregnant then they should be allowed an opinion.

180

The whole concept of abortion affects our society, our families, our loved ones. To say we have no right to an opinion is downright offensive.

The father of a child about to be aborted should be punished for fathering said child. He is as responsible for the pending abortion as the woman is.

Do you have an opinion on that? What should the punishment be?

180

The father of said child (hard to prove prior to birth I believe) should agree to help pay for the medical expenses. It's the morally correct thing to do.

Punished? You must be kidding. Where did I say a woman should be punished?

Women are being punished for getting pregnant. Humiliated they are going into clinics, being targets of right wing zealots, their clinics bombed, doctors murdered. Yes women are being punished by the dominate males. Let us humiliate the males too. Let the lovers, husbands, boyfriends accompany their women to the clinics, show their identification too, observe the procedure, suffer. Pregnancy is a two people responsibility.

180

Somehow you are treating me like the enemy and that is far from the case. Neither group should be punished. That's my take on it.

Neither group should be hurt or humiliated.

You are right that is a two-person responsibility. But beware that line of thought. With responsibility comes rights, just as it goes the other way.

As the father of two adopted children I have a special place in my thoughts for the men that use women and abandon them to an uncertain fate.

I intend no harm or offense to you Muddle.

180

I have only been lucky enough to date one adopted woman in my life. My best college girlfriend. I remember, I asked her if she ever wanted to meet her "real parents."

Her reply sticks in my mind to this day. She said she knew who her real parents were. They were the ones who cared for her, fed her, clothed and loved her every day that she could ever remember. The other folks were, "accidents of biology" and of little consequence.

More power to you for being a proud and responsible father.

a crisis pregnancy, including dealing with the agonizing decision of whether or not to have an abortion (I ultimately decided against it), whose fiance threw me out of the house when I was three months pregnant because he didn't want to deal with it and left me to deal with everything alone, and who endured men telling me what I should do and why, men who had no idea of what I was dealing with and didn't care, I say I don't really give a shit what men have to say about it, or what their opinion is.

When THEY can get pregnant and have to deal with all the bullshit that women do, including the stigma and the attitude that women get pregnant on their own and therefore are the only responsible ones, while men are let off the hook, THEN they can have their opinion.

And I am sorry for what you went through.

But abortion is a major legal and medical issue of our time. Abortion, and its consequences, impact us all.

And yes, though men cannot get pregnant, they do indeed have to cope with raising or paying to raise the child if a birth occurs. Women do not get pregnant on their own. Nor are men solely to blame. It is an issue for both groups.

does "abortion, and its consequences, impact us all?" It is a private medical decision that's no one else's business.

First of all, it is a legal issue. Not all abortions are legal anymore and it a great point of discussion. Where are the legal lines drawn? How about abortions for those underage?

Next it is a financial issue -- as a medical procedure it is often taxpayer supported. How taxpayer money is spent is always an issue.

As a societal issue. Abortion and the causes and effects of unwanted pregnancies are major concerns for our society.

Then, as individuals, the choices women make or don't make also impact us. If every woman who had an abortion instead gave birth, are you telling me that wouldn't impact us?

I believe that everyone is entitled to an opinion on this matter. You're absolutely right. I think shouting men out of the debate does nothing to further the cause.

And my love for the Old American Republic and all that it stood for was so deep it sometimes teared me up.

But we are now Citizens-in-Exile of a nation that no longer even exists except in our memories (may the Old Republic one day be restored).

And when the Busheviks are finished consolidating their unchecked, unopposed hemeonic power at the top, history says they'll turn their dogs loose on us.

History says so, and I believe history.

Hint: It usually has a picture of a dead President on it.

Or name?

Can I check into a hospital without showing an ID?

If so, next time I am giving a phony name.

Hotels are much cheaper.:) Hospitals can make you sick :)

An abortion should be available for every ADULT woman who chooses to pursue that procedure.

This is a major medical procedure. I see nothing wrong with having to present identification.

the same ones who put a hit list of abortion doctors on the internet and crossed names out when something happened to them (like the Texas and New York doctors who were shot and killed), or who staked out women's health clinics and wrote down the license plate numbers of cars and sent letters to the clients, etc., etc., get ahold of the client list, that is.

It is a PRIVATE medical procedure that is no one else's business, and I see no reason for ID, except to make the fundie wingnuts happy because they would then have their hit list.

As long as HIPAA regulations to protect confidentiality are in place, fine. I took this article to mean that this was beyond normal procedures and that might result in a database for other purposes, including intimidation from receiving the procedure.

Hillary Clinton, or anybody else she wanted if there was now ID required?

What to do with the underaged who are seeking legal abortions, so as not to drive them into illegal unsafe settings. This is really the question.

From the planned parenthood site:
In the 33 states with laws in effect that mandate the involvement of at least one parent in the abortion decision, teenagers who cannot tell their parents must either travel out of state or obtain approval from a judge - known as a "judicial bypass" procedure - to obtain an abortion. The result is almost always a delay that can increase both the cost of the abortion and the physical and emotional health risk to the teenager, since an earlier abortion is a safer one (Paul, et al., 1999). --snip--

Requiring Parental Consent for Abortion Is Not Consistent with State Laws Regulating a Range of Medical Services for Minors

Proponents of mandated parental involvement contend that parents have a right to decide what medical services their minor children receive. However, states have long recognized that many minors have the capacity to consent to their own medical care and that, in certain critical areas such as mental health, drug and/or alcohol addiction, treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and pregnancy, entitlement to confidential care is a public health necessity (Donovan, 1998).

In fact, evidence suggests that lack of confidentiality in accessing prescription contraceptive services severely curtails minors' use of sexual health care services. In August 2002, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study of minors seeking sexual health care services at Planned Parenthood health centers in Wisconsin. Nearly half (47%) of the respondents reported that they would discontinue use of all Planned Parenthood services if their parents were notified that they were seeking prescription contraceptives. An additional 12% would delay or discontinue using specific sexual health care services if parental notification were required. But only one percent said they would stop having vaginal intercourse (Reddy, et al., 2002)

The informed consent of a patient, if competent, has always been a prerequisite to medical treatment. The common law assumed that a minor was not wise enough or mature enough to determine his or her medical needs and gave the right to consent to the parent or guardian. However, except in the area of abortion, there have never been criminal penalties for treating a minor on her own consent.

Various exceptions to the common law rule currently exist. In fact, many states have passed laws that protect providers from civil liability for providing care in specific areas. Implicit in the passage of these laws is the recognition that a minor can give an informed, competent consent. For example:


Approximately 27 states and the District of Columbia grant all minors the authority to consent to contraceptive services. Seven other states grant some minors this authority (AGI, 2003a).

Approximately 33 states and the District of Columbia authorize a pregnant minor to obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification (AGI, 2003b).

All 50 states and the District of Columbia give minors the authority to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (AGI, 2003c).
Many of these laws allow minors to give consent to treatments that involve greater medical risk than a first-trimester abortion, such as surgical interventions during pregnancy and cesarean sections. Nevertheless, many of these same states require parental consent for abortion.

More

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/laws.html

Can you name any other group in America, for profit or not for profit, that performs more abortions than Planned Parenthood? They have a vested interest in whether these young teens get abortions.

I take information from them with the same seriousness that I do when I read that McDonalds claims their food is healthy.

Or that the RJ Reynolds claims cigarettes are good for you.

for you to consider. It IS NOT true, that all states require parental permission for a minor to have an abortion. So, when you argue that "how else will they know the age," you seem to be implying that you believe it mandatory for parental consent to have an abortion for a 17 year old. I'm not arguing the case either way. It just seemed that you were unaware that THAT is not the case currently, at least in all states.

But, your comments on planned parenthood are revealing, I must say.

age girl and not ask for her ID?

I am no trial lawyer, but that is asking for a lawsuit.

<And maybe I missed your point. I saw nothing in your article that dealt with Texas>

Many physicians have, and if you read the information from the website I cited it is clear that they have not been prosecuted. While it is a question for debate, clearly there are instances of parental abuse, even incest, where involving the parents may not make sense-- thus many states allow for minors to receive the procedure or to go to court for the right to do so, in lieu of parental involvement. While I think that these are unusual cases, and clearly difficult for good parents to imagine (or accept), the fact is that most states laws allow for this possibility.

Because of the sensitivity of abortion, requirements for identification have not been required, as for other medical procedures, where insurance and other payers have made that necessary. Those who comment on requiring id for an allergy shot are commenting on the requirement based on payment by a third party. One can receive medical care and pay cash throughout this country without showing proof of identity. For the purposes of ensuring ongoing good medical care, this practice is (and should) be discouraged. But neither should its requirement prevent someone from receiving the care they need.

abuse by the abortion doctor.

Should we be taking the word of the industry that can profit from quick, rash decisions by young, vulnerable girls?

And I take it that you would, except under extreme circumstances, require proof of identification before you performed an abortion?

I am absolutely pro-choice. Nonetheless, I'm saddened to see you refer to Planned Parenthood as an abortion industry. That sounds so much like the RWers who assume that international aid money given for family planning must be halted to ensure that no one ever receives abortion counseling. That we simultaneously ensure an increase in HIV (and other STD) spread and population explosion, seems immaterial, as long as no one ever discusses abortion.

While PP does include all pregnancy options, they are NOT an abortion profiteering industry. Their counseling of young girls and those without medical care, undoubtedly reduces the need for abortions and unwanted pregnancies. It is sad that this piece of their mission is ignored, simply because they offer the full range of options. To do so in this day in age, is a courageous thing, IMO.

The answer to your question? Yes, I would have qualms about performing an abortion on a young woman who may be underage, but then I'd have qualms about performing one on anyone, much less having one myself. I don't believe physicians take this responsiblity lightly either and weigh the situation very carefully in most instances.

"Should we be taking the word of the industry that can profit from quick, rash decisions by young, vulnerable girls?"

You mean the adoption industry? Let's do the math, shall we?


Since 1973:

40,000,000 abortions x $300=$1,200,000,000

3,500,000 adoptions x $20,000=$70,000,000,000

The adoption industry is just as unregulated as the abortion industry, and the adoption industry is dealing with living, breathing, already born human beings.

As far as this thread, I am not required to show my ID when I go to the doctor or the dentist. Abortion is an outpatient procedure. I did not have to show my ID when I had my tubes tied, why should I show it for an abortion? If my health insurance covers it, they already have my name anyway. And if not, all they need to know is name of next of kin in case of an emergency.


I have had both an abortion and have surrendered a child for adoption, as well as raised my youngest while being a single parent. I've been an adoption education and reform activist and a clinic volunteer for years.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2991/

How much money does PP make if the girl chooses adoption?

How much money does Catholic Charities or any of the other adoption agencies make if a woman chooses abortion?

Also, nice way of totally disregarding who REALLY makes the most money off women's unintended pregnancies.

vulnerable girls?" WTF????

Excuse me, but as a woman who's had to deal with that extremely agonizing, heart-rending, and most difficult of decisions, I really resent that characterization. I've known many women who've had abortions, and I know women in general, and it is NEVER EVER EVER a "quick, rash decision!"

That is very insulting to the intelligence of women, to assume that we just skip merrily on over to the clinic, hop happily on the table, and then go tra-la-la-ing merrily on our way afterwards without a sad thought in our pretty little heads. THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT IS.

You have no idea just what an agonizing, difficult, heart-rending decision it really is. It's been thirteen years for me and the memory's as fresh as if it were yesterday. I will NEVER forget that. And I don't know any other woman who would take it so lightly either. That's another piece of fundie RW wingnut propaganda.

And yes, while I ultimately chose to have my son and have been a single parent since, I will fight for the right of other women to choose abortion if that's what they decide.

This could be the important decision of their lives. Young and scared often means a rash decision. No?

I've worked with Planned Parenthood organizations before, and I know people who have as well, and that is simply not true. That's RW wingnut propaganda. They are more concerned about women and teens than the wingnuts are and will ever be, and their main focus is on providing information and basic health checks.

than Planned Parenthood?

from offering abortions, and even several OB/GYN training programs from teaching the procedure..... Given they have murdered abortion providers....

Yes, it is possible that by default, PP performs more abortions than any other group. How, is that (in any way) suggestive that they are an abortion "industry," just because they are the only remaining source in many geographic areas?

The reason they developed so many clinics in the 70s and 80s was because of the antiabortion violence in the 90s?

including the pill, for the first time allowed women true reproductive options. PP clinics arose to serve the need of so many women, who needed access to these options, regardless of income. PP arose to try to give women the control over their reproductive lifes that had previously been denied them.

RU, perhaps you are anti-Choice. If so, that's your opinion and I can respect that. But, if you are pro-choice, I don't quite understand how to reconcile your scathing comments about Planned Parenthood. It seems pretty paradoxical, at least to me.

sprung up (sprung? sprang? springed? no... anyway...) was because of the violence, which didn't happen until the 90s.

I would have to disagree with that.

Unless I missed a post somewhere, I believe the point was that the reason they're the biggest providers today is because other providers have been pressured and intimidated away from providing abortions. Abortions aren't the only thing PP provides. It is just the highest profile one. They are a woman's health organization, and one of the very few that happens to provide abortions, therefore they receive more scrutiny, and many people mistakenly assume that is their main, or even only, purpose.

it is because they are one of the few remaining sources of abortion left in many areas of the country, given the extreme intimidation, including murder by RW activists. They arose in prominence to give women options over their reproductive health, which, after Roe v Wade, also included the option of abortion among the range of services they provide. That is what I said. YOU said that they came into being or rather "sprang up" to profit on the abortion "industry."

whose local clinics are too intimidated by your RW conservative cohorts to provide this *LEGAL* option.

Planned Parenthood also provide health and birth control counseling to women who can't afford it. And with more than 40 million people without health insurance in this country, I would say that they're doing a fantastic job of offering women access to healthcare.

must be challenged as much as if it came from Rove himself.

They are an industry, and yes, a *LEGAL* one. But why should this legal industry avoid scrutiny because they serve the poor?

why do you think the government should interfere with a PERSONAL choice of a woman? Usually the same people who are anti-choice are bible-thumpers and pro-gun. Typical RW hypocrisy.

How do we know the patient is an adult woman? How do we know without ID?

Adult women should have the right to legal abortion. Under-age children should require parental consent as they should in other serious medical procedures.

Who get pregnant, are in most states, considered emancipated minors, meaning they have all the rights and responsibitilies of an adult during the pregnancy. For example, a 14 year old girl can give birth and surrender a child for adoption withOUT her parent's consent. She can give birth and keep the child without her parent's consent. The only scenario where a minor girl CANNOT make her own decision regarding the outcome of her pregnancy is if she chooses abortion. It is absolutely RIDICULOUS! 99% of all pregnant teens WILL go to their parents for support in whatever decision they make. It is SAFER for teens to get a 1st trimester abortion than to give birth, as well. I'm sick of people using the 'minor' issue as an excuse to restrict abortion.

I note that even your post doesn't claim that this practice is universal.

Nor should it be. A 14-year-old who is pregnant is not ready to make such permanent decisions for her life. Further, there is a reasonable chance she has been raped and that needs to be looked into as well.

Abortion remains a procedure I support, but it is not perfect and does not lack for medical risks and complications. Parents are left to pick up the pieces if they are not involved. They need to be except for the MOST extreme cases.

I've been to community hospitals in the past when I didn't have insurance but severely injured myself (cut top of my finger off once, cut part of my thumb off once, got into a bicycle accident once, dislocated my knee once) -- twice I was a minor, the other 2 times I was an adult.

In NONE of those cases was I required to show an ID. Both times, when I was a minor (15 and 16 respectively), I went to the hospital on my own without my mother present. In both instances, because it was an emergency, I was allowed to be treated without the 'authorization' of my legal guardian.

Again, NEVER have I been asked to show photo ID for ANY medical procedure EVER.

Why is abortion any different? Why should women, regardless of age, be required to show ID for an abortion, but not to get a root canal, or to get liposuction, or to get back surgery, or any other medical procedure.

And if one were to bring up the canard of "an insurance card is a form of ID"...it's not a picture ID. There's no way that my insurance card identifies me in any way other than name and insurance number. ANYONE who fits the information that the insurance company has for me (age, sex, race) could use my insurance card and pretend to be me. So that's not an ID card anymore than a birth certificate is.

And not every person uses insurance, or has insurance to cover procedures. When I see my dentist, I pay out of pocket. When I signed up with the dentist, they asked for no id and i offered them none. I filled out a form and listed my name, address and date of birth--all easily forgeable information.

But how does the dentist know she's doing a wisdom-tooth extraction on an adult woman? How does she know without asking me for an ID?

Maybe, just maybe, because an ID isn't needed. It shouldn't be required for ANYTHING other than cashing a check, getting a passport, driving a car, etc.

What procedures would you suggest that MEN be required to show ID for? How do doctors at Planned Parenthood KNOW that they're treating an ADULT MALE for syphllis and not a 15-year old boy? How would they KNOW that an adult man is getting an AIDS test (which requires a signed consent form and the drawing of up to 3 tubes of blood) and not a 16-year old boy? How can a 16 year old boy sign a consent form (usually an adult has to sign such, since it's allowing the testing facility to send the results of the test (HIV pos or HIV neg) to state reporting agencies) How can a 16 year old boy consent to allowing an invasive medical procedure (veinipuncture to withdraw up to 30mg of blood)?

Would you suggest that we just show ID for everything? Buying groceries (how do we KNOW that a 14 year old isn't buying condoms? Or hemmorhoid cream? Or KY jelly?), sitting in our house watching television (15 year olds should NOT watch R-rated movies!) Posting on Message Boards (Show me your ID so that I know you're not a 13 year old boy talking about adult issues and using adult language! How do we know you're of age to agree to the terms and conditions of this website, or any website, that generally require users under a certain age to obtain parental permission before becoming a member of said site???)

No ID for Abortion. The procedure is too personally invasive as it is. Between waiting periods and parental notification/consent, approval of judges in some jurisdictions, having to travel outside the state if an abortion provider isn't readily available, having to go through the gauntlet of pro-lifer's blocking clinic access, having to fight for clinics in areas to stay open because of pro-lifers essentially intimidating women to stay awya even for NON-ABORTION procedures such as Pap-Smears, pregnancy tests, STD tests and treatment....ID's are not needed. I think we have to go through enough as it is.

putting words in my mouth.

Read my posts.

I simply said we should be suspicious of PP and their spin since they make money on one choice, but not the other choice.

In the same way we should also be suspicious of what the Pentagon says. But don't start claiming that I want to make the Army illegal.

This is the first post of yours I've reponded to.

You must've confused me with someone else.

:shrug:

<<why do you think the government should interfere with a PERSONAL choice of a woman?>>

These are YOUR words, not mine. Why do you think this is my position?

Just because I say we should judge the words of the profiteers in the abortion industry does not equate with the opinion you assigned to me.

And just because I say we should verify everything the Pentagon says about the Iraq war, does not mean that I am trying to make the army illegal. (which is what you think I am saying about abortion)

My beloved Lone Star State has been reduced over the years of Republican control to an environmental wreck, an educational joke, a public health disaster, and perhaps the closest thing to a theocracy that you will find in the United States of America.

I completely agree with you. When we were young, there was no shame or embarrassment involved in telling people you were from Texas. People didn't automatically look at you like you were a nutjob or a raving conservative loon. We all used to be proud of being Texans. We all used to be happy to tell someone, "Yep, I was born in Texas!"

Then one day the neo-cons took over. The Bush family co-opted the state as their home base. They sullied the pride and great traditions of the Lone Star State. Before they and theirs, Texas was a symbol of independence and rugged strength. Texas was a bastion of big thinkers and big dreamers.

I can only imagine that the state of Connecticut kicked their sorry asses out and told them to go ruin another state. I completely understand why Connecticut didn't want them. They ruined our land, our air, our water, and have endangered the health and lives of young Texans and Texans-to-be for a long time.

The saddest part for us is that once the Bush cabal is run out of Washington, they are just going to come back to Texas and continue their shenanigans here.

I weep for the Yellow Rose of Texas, for her petals will brown and crumble under their charge. We all mourn Deep in the Heart of Texas.

I'm going to Kaiser to get a routine allergy shot.

your provider is because Kaiser is paying for your bill and because you have an ongoing medical provider relationship with them. Good medical practice which ensures continuity of care (as well as ensures against payment fraud), but you could receive (at least emergency)care via cash without proof of identity. People do this in hospital ERs all the time. This is a bit different from the abortion example. Historically women have not been required to show proof of id (nor even age in many states) and typically paid cash for the procedure since if is unlikley to be covered by insurance.

I worked as a counselor at a pregnancy termination clinic and an ID was required. Mainly it is for juveniles who are required to have parental consent. We had a few who tried to use fake IDs and while they may have been "old enough" to make this decision it is still required by law to prove their age.

This has been going on for at least 10 years. Texas was known for being somewhat more liberal on this, but in the last 5 years they have really cracked down on these laws.

This should make it a lot easier to identify all those "baby-murders" when the hardcore right wing gets the power they are aiming for. :scared:

Everyone has made some very good points here, from the note on no sales tax on food and the inexpensive nature of car tags to the many things you already have to show your ID for in life, like allergy shots.

My intuition on this particular issue is that what is being done with showing IDs has very little to do with routine identification and much more to do with intimidation. Allergy shots are a matter of routine and by and large have absolutely no controversy attached to them. Abortion couldn't be any different, particularly in a state which is hostile to women's health from the individual level right up through the state institutional level.

With incidents like the recent boycott of contractors for a women's center in Austin organized by a Christian contractor where he contacted individual contractors working on the building and pressured them to quit the project through public sanction, there is a war on here in Texas for women's health issues. It's a war where your identification is just as much in play as any other piece of information about you. The enemies of women's health in Texas are the sea of hypocritical, hateful theocrats who obviously missed out of the Christian admonishments of love and forgivenes and instead dwell on punishment, and they play hardball.

As long as privacy is respected I see nothing wrong with asking for ID.

that one has to question why they're requiring ID, and why they're targeting this one procedure specifically. People who perform and have abortions have been threatened and killed. If I were ever faced with the decision, and decided to have an abortion, I would want to be anonymous. They aren't just pushing a law requiring ALL medical procedures to require ID; they're targeting abortion specifically. They know they can't legally do away with it at the moment, so they try to make it as difficult as possible to have one, and I think this is just one more trick they've come up with.