So what does an appropriations bill focused on agriculture, transportation, and housing have to do with abortion? Ya got me, but Sen. DeMint (R-SC) seems to think it was the appropriate place to add an anti-choice amendment. This amendment would require doctors who communicate with their patients via an internet video conferencing network to use a separate internet channel.
This is due to the fact that Planned Parenthood receives federal money to help provide video conferencing medical services. This sometimes includes telemedicine abortions, so Sen. DeMint wants there to be a whole new internet just for the telemedicine abortions and abortion based questions.
“What about a woman experiencing a high-risk pregnancy who is talking with her doctor through video conferencing… Under Sen. DeMint’s extreme plan, if abortion came up in that doctor-patient conversation, the woman and her physician would have to go to a separate communications system. He’s calling for an abortion-only version of Skype. It is impractical, ridiculous, and, most importantly, bad for women in rural or remote areas who would not be able to discuss the full set of options with their doctor.”
I mean really, the internet is the internet and video conferencing takes up bandwidth no matter what you are talking about and no matter whose internet network you are using. I genuinely cannot figure out what exactly this rule is supposed to accomplish. Well aside from the obvious, making it more complicated for a women to discuss her health options with her doctor. I guess what I’m really wondering is what is the justification for the rule?
Theoretically it should be helping someone right? If nothing else, it should benefit the fetus. But really, it doesn’t. If a woman wants to talk to her doctor about having an abortion, she’ll regardless of what method of communication is used. So seriously, who does this benefit?