House Passes Amendment on Medical Training in GYN

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
House Passes Amendment on Medical Training in GYN
89
Fri, 05-27-2011 - 9:01pm

Note:

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-13-2006
Fri, 05-27-2011 - 11:02pm
I agree with Rep. Garamendi (D-Calif.) that it's "really not wise to have ignorant physicians."

The article discusses the possible removal of some federal funds for this training. What other medical training is funded via federal funds? Is any of that up for reduction, as well? If so, where are the news articles crying foul over those procedures, etc.

In other words, the article focuses on training for abortion procedures using Federal Funds, because it's a hot button issue. The legislation up for a vote , as I understand it - which is why I posted the above questions - is to cut federal funds for medical training, in general. Thus leaving the training costs to be absorbed either by state, private or other local institutions and funds.

The federal government has no Constitutional jurisdiction over medical training. This, in a sense, gives control back to the local - state, etc. - governments.

MM

"It is right to be contented with what we have, but never with what we are."

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Sat, 05-28-2011 - 10:09am
I think that the feds fund a lot of medical training. In this particular instance, they want to cut funds so GYN residents don't learn how to do D&Cs because they *could* be used to remove a fetus. Never mind that it is a procedure that can be vital to the health of a woman and these bastards want to prevent physicians from learning it. The continual dumbing down of America.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sat, 05-28-2011 - 2:40pm
Republicans tried to cut funds for Planned Parenthood. Bush also refused to allow federal funds for new lines of stem cell research.

I wonder if they realize that one of the forms of abortion (D&C) is also used as a diagnostic tool for dysmenorrhea. Lack of knowledge about how to perform the procedure could result in perforation of the uterus. Probably not. This is the gang that doesn't, at the end of the day, really give a damn about a woman's right to control her own body. I am underwhelmed.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sat, 05-28-2011 - 2:58pm

Here's the kicker.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sat, 05-28-2011 - 10:57pm

Apparently, they're going to try to whittle it down in the same way that Roe -v- Wade is being pared down to a nubbin. It cannot be coincidence that they're going for a twofer here.

Yes, that could be it. Not a bad strategy. Well, whatever works. If you can't get it

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
Sun, 05-29-2011 - 10:45am
How do you feel about attempting to limit a physician's education so that OB/GYNs won't be educated to take care of certain conditions that affect a woman's health?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-30-2007
Sun, 05-29-2011 - 11:29am

What is wrong with these people?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 05-29-2011 - 4:30pm
I would guess that most males aren't very knowledgeable about the female reproductive system. Profound ignorance by a number of individuals seems to be the case.

For a woman to propose this legislation--inexcusable. Either she's rigidly ideological or she's breathtakingly unaware of her own anatomy and the medical procedures that might be used to address issues such as dysmenorrhea. Appalling.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-28-2008
Mon, 05-30-2011 - 4:34am

<>>

WOW! so you have a constitutional right to shoot someone in the face as long as you are defending someone but hey,a woman has no right to her body?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2005
Mon, 05-30-2011 - 4:36pm

(Note: This is tongue-in-cheek)

I think that for all elective abortions there should be a 48-hour waiting period.





Pages