Do you think this is as disturbing as i think it is???

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obamacare-mandate-sterilize-15-year-old-girls-free-without-parental-consent

Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free--Without Parental Consent

Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized the regulation earlier this year.

In practical terms, "all women with reproductive capacity" means girls as young as about 12. That, according to the National Institutes of Health, is when girls usually start menstruating.

Under Oregon law, girls from 15 years of age and up are given complete control over whether to be sterilized or not. The parents or guardians of a minor girl--between 15 and 18--can neither grant nor deny consent for a sterilization.

DISTURBING???

What. The. &^$&?!?!?! 64
Depends. 23
What's the problem? 12
I see nothing wrong. 32
Other. 7
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 72 )
  • NeuroNeptunian

    No doctor who values their reputation would sterilize a 15 year old girl. Hell, I am 20 and my doctor told me that she wouldn't even entertain the notion unless it was medically necessary. Most doctors won't perform the procedure on anyone, male or female, unless they have kids already or they are above 30 at the very minimum.

    It may be the new law, and that might be all fine and well. I think it is bullshit and I really wonder why the hell Obama thought to include this. Maybe some dumb ass in his cabinet thought that it would be another step further to women's reproductive rights or some shit. That doesn't mean that it will be practiced, however.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • wigsplitz

    Yeah, well...find a doctor that will actually DO it. They don't just sterilize ANYONE on a whim.

    Did you read the SECTION 1. ORS 436.205 that the article even pointed out??

    (c) All less drastic alternative contraceptive methods,
    including supervision, education and training, have proved
    unworkable or inapplicable, or are medically contraindicated;
    (d) The proposed method of sterilization conforms with standard
    medical practice, is the least intrusive method available and
    appropriate, and can be carried out without unreasonable risk to
    the life and health of the individual;

    ______ ^

    Those 2 paragraphs right there tell you this isn't going to be a sterilization free-for-all. There's nothing 'sick' about it, it's not taken any less seriously.

    And also:

    (3) Whenever any physician has reason to believe an individual
    { - 15 - } { + 18 + } years of age or older is unable to give
    informed consent, no sterilization shall be performed until it is
    determined by a circuit court that the individual involved is
    able to and has given informed consent. Whenever the court
    determines, under the provisions of this chapter, that a person
    lacks the ability to give informed consent, the court shall
    permit sterilization only if the person is 18 years of age or
    older and only upon showing that such operation, treatment or
    procedure is in the best interest of the individual.

    _________

    Consider your source!! CNS news? Come on. That's a biased source if I ever saw one.

    Just because the procedure CAN be offered doesn't mean it WILL be appropriate for everyone, and certainly won't be done willy-nilly. Doctors take this so seriously, try being even a 30 year old woman with kids, it's STILL hard to get a Dr to do a sterilization.

    The language in the law to include all women of reproductive age is probably there mainly just to include them in case their life is in jeopardy, not so much to sterilize teenagers. You're taking this the wrong way and buying this bullshit hook, line and sinker.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • dom180

      Thank you.

      OP: Go join the Tea Party. They like scaremongering too :P

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Ew... I'm Libertarian.

        The entire concept of a federal mandate is appalling, and UNconstitutional.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • dom180

          If you are a libertarian I would have thought you would support extending the freedom of choosing sterilization to more women? I thought extension of individual freedoms and liberty was what libertarians were all about.

          Or does that only go for things you agree with?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • The point here is this: If you understand the 10th Amendment of our Constitution, it says that all powers that have not been expressly given to the Federal Government belong to the States. The Federal Government does NOT need to have it's hand in our medical affairs. That power is for the STATES alone to govern. Now, if the State of Oregon wants to make, I dunno, OregonCare... then that's totally fine, let them do whatever they want. That's THEIR decision as a PEOPLE. But the Federal Government has NO, let me repeat, NO AUTHORITY in this department. They were not given the power to mandate us like this through the Constitution, they were given a very strict set of powers, and they are FAR, FAR beyond where they are supposed to be.

            I want us to be free, but depending on the Federal Government is the exact OPPOSITE of being free.

            I'm just guessing, but you're probably a Democrat, aren't you? Just a wild guess here. :/

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • dom180

              Governments flout the Constitution in America all the time, and I DON'T believe that SOLELY because anything a government does is unconstitutional it MUST be wrong or disturbing. The Constitution is NOT a moral guide about what we should or should not be disturbed by, it is a document designed to - in the context of the 1700s when it was signed - to keep political power in the hands of the people and prevent the government becoming corrupt (an aim in which, I would argue, it failed).

              Just because a matter is unconstitutional, that does not automatically make it disturbing. This is in the same way that just because a citizen acts against the law, that does not automatically make their actions wrong. Using the Constitution to decide the morality of, for example, a piece of legislation, is akin to using the bible as a method of justifying how we should live our lives in the 21st Century.

              You may disagree with the way that the regulation came to exist, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the content of the regulation.

              I'm not an eligible voter, but if I was I would *probably* vote Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election (although if I was not in a swing state I would probably vote for an independent or third party candidate). I'm not a committed supporter of any party in any country though, only causes with I believe in. So no, I'm not a Democrat (I'm also not a traditionalist; I don't believe in the sovereignty of Constitutions, but that's for another debate).

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • robbieforgotpw

    There's a lot of things in the new healthcare law that no one knows about including lawmakers. Wasn't it 2700 pages or so? And they pushed it through just before Christmas break, in the middle of the night, only Dems voting for it.

    Remember the famous Pelosi remark?
    "We have to pass the law to find out what's in it." ...WHAT?!
    And you can keep your doctor... If he can afford to practice anymore!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Porch monkies.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dappled

    You can read it two ways. What the story is actually saying is that health care plans should cover the cost of sterilisation (where previously they may not have).

    You can tell there's an election around the corner when a government trying to give people fairer health options is reported as them sterilising children.

    The majority of the people being sterilised will be middle-aged women who want no (more) children or require the surgery to prevent the spread of cancer.

    My mother had this surgery last year and I'd hate it if the government stopped her having the surgery because they'd been criticised about offering it free for all women of reproductive age.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • VioletTrees

      CNS is like that year round, to be honest.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI

        I suppose liberal news websites and shows are much more trustworthy and 100% unbiased.

        Signed,
        Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • ZING! XD

          Comment Hidden ( show )
        • dappled

          The definition of liberal is "Free in giving; generous, magnanimous". Doesn't sound particularly untrustworthy to me. But I do know it means something different where you are.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • Liberal sounds nice on the surface, but it will always fail when in practice. Think "socialism" or "communism", it will fail every single time.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
          • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI

            There is more than one meaning to liberal.

            Signed,
            Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

            Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I'm criticizing the surgery for older women, but for girls under 18. A girl as young as 15 CANNOT decide for herself if she wants to be sterilized. Also, a federal mandate is UNconstitutional no matter how to want to slice it. Only the STATES have the right to make this kind of law.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • JustDave

        What you don't seem to understand is that age of consent is decided at the state level, not federal level. Your state decides at what age parental consent is required. Don't blame Obama if your state says its 15.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • The mandate itself says all girls from menarche to menopause. The states law does say 15 is the age of consent. I blame Obama for not knowing the damn Constitution. All powers NOT granted to the Fed belongs to the STATE. The Fed cannot mandate anything, only the STATE can. Obamacare is illegal.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • JustDave

            The Supreme Court doesn't share your opinion.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • The Supreme Court is a joke. They're bought and paid for. End of Story. I know what the Constitution says. Anybody with a functioning brain can see it and understand it. :/

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • howaminotmyself

    Are you an Oregonian? because if you are, I am ashamed of your behavior. I really hope you are just trolling, but I know people actually think like you. But if you are an Oregonian, please act like one. You are embarrassing me.

    I had never heard about this until I clicked this post. And then I looked at the source and the other media outlets that chose to run this fake story. They are all right wing sources that are constantly confusing the facts. They play off the ignorance of the people and you are not helping. Obamacare did nothing to change the laws, it only gives more people access to valid healthcare options. Let me stress the term "valid." Amputation is a reasonable medical procedure but do you really think a doctor will preform it for a hangnail?

    But what gets me most about these type of stories is how offended people get that sterilization is an option. They are against the idea of abortion too and have no intention of providing healthcare to a pregnant mother or her infant child. It makes no sense to me. They want you to have lots of babies but they refuse to give you any help in caring for them.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Everyone seems to be missing the point here. I didn't point it out because I wanted to see how many would get it. Sterilizations WILL be available for girls as young as 15, without parental consent. There's a pdf form called "Oregon Health Authority: Ages 15-20 Consent to Sterilization". I have it printed and in my hand. It reads:

      "I understand that the sterilization must be considered permanent and not reversible. I have decided that I do not want to become pregnant, bear children or father children."

      Now you tell me how a 15yo could possibly know if they actually want this or not? AND, under Oregon's state law, if the parent refuses the will of the child, the state can get a court order with its power of "Parens Patriae"

      here.doh.wa.gov/materials/age-of-consent/

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • howaminotmyself

        And you missed mine. This law was in effect before Obamacare.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • MissyLeyneous

          I don't believe so. Have you read the entirety of Obamacare?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • howaminotmyself

            I haven't read the new Act word for word, nor have I read the entirety of the Oregon Health code but it cannot effect laws that are determined by state. Oregon is very progressive in its laws and this threatens some people.

            A 15 year old still needs to prove it is the best option and have a doctor agree. They have to prove they understand the procedure and a judge must agree. That is Oregon law.

            It will not change the availability of the medical procedure in the state, only who pays for it. And insurance companies don't want to pay for anything so they try encourage false information to be spread.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • MissyLeyneous

              You really should read the important parts of it anyway. There's even a part that mandates RFID chips, which have been referred to as the "mark of the beast". :/

              Comment Hidden ( show )
            • A federal mandate is STILL UNconstitutional, no matter how you want to see it. Our dear "constitutional scholar" needs to go back to school.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 048forlife

    It's her body.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Lynxikat

    I say sterilize them JUST so we won't have any more people popping out kids in a world that's already overcrowded.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • MissyLeyneous

      That's also a myth. We're just overcrowded with stupid, not people.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • There will come a time where the general female will have more say over the law in total than the law actually has. We are consantly going against rationality for females of all ages. It is only going to get worse.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • VioletTrees

      Please don't use this post as evidence of that. I know you're not American, but nobody rational takes CNS seriously here. It's not a legitimate news site, it's a place for republican masturbation and fear mongering. Most conservatives I know don't even take it seriously.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • There are plenty of other sites with similar articles. Pick one of your own liking. This was the first one to pop up for me, that's all.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • wigsplitz

      This isn't a female only law. I don't know where you got that from. Males get sterilized too.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Sig_45

    seems to me like part of the plan to decrease human population, jus sayin

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • robbieforgotpw

    The 47% of people who pay no taxes will have their healthcare paid for by the other 53% who actually pay taxes.
    Come to America where you don't have to work. Why work if you can have kids and live off everyone else.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • YEAH! THAT'S REAL COOL!!! Invite more damn MEXICANS!!!!!INTO THIS FUCKIN COUNTRY!!!!SPICKS!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Also, you live in Oregon? TELL YOUR FAMILIES.

    This is just... just... *shivers* EVIL. O_O

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • i cant think of a reason that someone of that age would need sterilizing, i also cant imagine that any doctor would perform it, and another thing how could they give informed consent at 15, perplexing

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • VioletTrees

        Sometimes girls have health problems that necessitate hysterectomies at that age. It's not common, but it happens. Anyway, read wigsplitz's comment.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • yes but a hysterectomy for a medical problem is not strictly a sterilization, anyhow i read wiggs and she made good points but i dont think the reasons for sterilization were discussed, i just wondered what they could be and who would perform it if its not necessary for health at such a young age

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • wigsplitz

            Multiple ectopic pregnancies or any condition that causes the embryo to grow in the wrong place. That's life threatening for mother and baby.

            Reproductive organs that are malformed yet still possibly able to get pregnant but doing so would cause death in either or both mother and child.

            Multiple miscarriages.

            Diabetes, heart disease, hypertension-those conditions can easily be life threatening to a woman if she becomes pregnant. If you have a condition such as these and it's incurable, doctors may very well tell you that you cannot bear children ever or you WILL die.

            HIV/AIDS-well, it's certainly a concern, isn't it? It can be passed to the baby, and also the mother has a death sentence, so perhaps she CAN make the decision to NOT want to have children, no?? Even if the baby is born healthy, how long will the mother live to raise it? There's no shortage of people today aged 0 to 18 who are living with HIV/AIDS.

            There's numerous other conditions and also genetic reasons. Some people have serious genetic conditions and have a 100% or very high likelihood of passing the disease on.

            That's what I can think of off the top of my head.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • wigsplitz

              Here, this was also in the law:

              (e) The nature and extent of the individual's disability, as
              determined by empirical evidence and not solely on the basis of
              standardized tests, renders the individual permanently incapable
              of caring for and raising a child, even with reasonable
              assistance.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI

    Of course it's disturbing! How could a 15 yr. old girl know whether or not she wants to be sterilized? They have trouble picking outfits for the day, how could they rationalize the long term effects of sterilization? And now health care plans will be REQUIRED to provide sterilizations, if the girl WANTS it, without need for parental consent.

    Signed,
    Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I think I love you. :D

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI

        I love you too. ;)

        Signed,
        Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • robbieforgotpw

      How else can the Libs keep costs down?
      Does it actually make sense as they suggest, that covering everybody for everything under the sun including preexisting conditions, will cause healthcare costs to decrease?
      Don't those numb skulls know how insurance works?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI

        I don't understand their logic either. Of course, they'll label me as an ignorant, Bible thumping, homophobic, stupid, conservative asshole.

        Signed,
        Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI

          Oops forgot "racist".

          Signed,
          Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • robbieforgotpw

            Well yeah, you're not progressive, you're narrow minded. Haven't you seen the UTOPIAN success that Greece and the rest of Europe is?

            ...rioting in the streets when the govt realizes it can't afford all the handouts those bums grew accustomed to.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • KnightNigelWellingtonXXI

              Yeah, we should all strive to be just like Europe and Greece. Austerity measures be damned!

              Signed,
              Knight Nigel Wellington XXI

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • theaverageatheist

    i mean fine if their over 18 but 15 and under?? ther is going to be some regret when they are older

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • bristexai

    You need to worry more about forced sterilization. Fuck forced eugenics and everyone who believes in it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Avant-Garde

    Please, tell me you're joking. Because like howaminotmyself I never heard of this until I read your poll.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Yumazing

    It's not that bad. Doctors won't just hold up signs and scream, "FREE STERILIZING!"

    Comment Hidden ( show )