You’re only applying the strict definition of the word. The way it is being interpreted and implemented “to force or to manipulate a patient into making a decision by a)denying access to other necessary services b)unlawlfully threatening to reveal patient information to third parties and c)denying access to information about comprehensive services. ”

I should also mention that this definition has only been recently expanded to cover more than the strict definition of coercion.

For any reason other than the urge to play Devil’s advocate?

I don’t ignore it. I’m simply not willing to take a perfectly descriptive word like “coercion” and freight it down with a dozen other unethical things that manipulate behavior.

Real life experience, a nurse practitioner…withheld information to abortion services from a patient…When we asked the patient, she said she was told by the nurse that there was some risk but she would most likely be fine. Now given that the patient had to have a hysterectomy done to save her life and subsequently having to take hormone therapy for the next [redacted] yrs, can someone please explain how this does not constitute a form of coercion?

Because coercion is force or threat of force. Lying isn’t coercion. “If you get this abortion, I will stalk and kill you” = coercion. “You don’t need an abortion, you’ll be fine” = lying.

[done]

P.S: Research on the impact of withholding information can be found at the Guttmacher Institute website.

However, the stinky part is that if you flip that coin over there is no such threat of prosecution for anyone who coerces a woman to have a baby by witholding information regarding abortion services.

To which Robert replied: That’s not coercion.

I think you ignore the fiduciary relationship between clinician and patient, where patients trust the information (which is a form of service) they receive from their providers. Giving the weight of the clinician’s position in providing health information while witholding some information is a form of coercion, especially since the use of information is *not* neutral. That is why state licensing bodies can suspend clinicians when they withold information (at least in my state).

Real life experience, a nurse practitioner working at a clinic (for obvious reasons I can’t disclose where this occured) withheld information to abortion services from a patient and was only caught when the patient came back to the clinic with complications and it was after an extensive review that we discovered that the woman’s life would be in jeopardy if she got pregnant again. When we asked the patient, she said she was told by the nurse that there was some risk but she would most likely be fine. When asked, the nurse said she always encouraged all her patients to continue pregnancy by automatically registering them for prenatal care because that was her religious belief and anything to the contrary was wrong. The nurse was suspended but not prosecuted. Now given that the patient had to have a hysterectomy done to save her life and subsequently having to take hormone therapy for the next [redacted] yrs, can someone please explain how this does not constitute a form of coercion?

Steven said:Withholding information being corercion?

Because we all (most of us) know that women are as smart as men, are they not they be equally capable of finding the information needed to have an abortion?

I think you’re conflating availability of information with access to information. Remember, I am talking about poor women (who I should mention) are also predominantly women of color. If you were a woman living in a rural area in Mississipi, Alabama or even parts of Central California (a fairly reproductive services friendly state) and you got pregnant for the 10th time and knew you wouldn’t survive having another one, how else would you go about finding this information? If you did find the information, how would you be able to get services when the nearest clinic providing abortion is in the next state or at the least 2 counties away? Which brings me back to the issue I was talking about - the people who will be most affected are poor women and women of color.

Just so you know, like most of my colleagues I am of the strong opinion that anyone who coerces a woman to have an abortion or to get sterilized should be prosecuted, not just because of the history of the use of coercion to circumvent the rights of poor women and women of color but because it is fundamentally unethical…. But I am at loss to the manipulations that fail to provide the same protection when information provided is incomplete.

Because we all (most of us) know that women are as smart as men, are they not they be equally capable of finding the information needed to have an abortion? Giving information seems like it is just being kind and assisting them in finding out about abortions. Assisting them with something they can do themselves.

I think Nonini may have a point. Performing an abortion is illegal without the woman’s consent - it’s an assault. So coercing someone to give consent is worrying because it legitimises something which would be a serious crime. The reverse isn’t true. There isn’t a direct parallel between “coercing someone to have an abortion” and “coercing someone to not have an abortion”.

Some rape laws probably parallel this, (some forms of) coercing someone to have sex are a crime - thanks to feminists - but the reverse isn’t true.

Obviously.

Coercion is force or the threat of force. As in, the quoted sentence that opens this very post.

I prefer the term “faux-lifers” myself.

That’s not coercion.

And now that Kerouac a known anti-contraceptive advocate is heading the program you can be sure we’re going to be facing more cuts to the program.

This is my more generous interpretation. The less generous interpretation is “sluts should be punished.”