PDA

View Full Version : "Rape by the State": TX Can Force Doctors to Deliver Intrusive Vaginal Ultrasound to



Carol
01-10-2012, 08:32 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149416)

The cognitive dissidence is quite stunning.


Star Member kpete (31,714 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

View profile

"Rape by the State": TX Can Force Doctors to Deliver Intrusive Vaginal Ultrasound to Abortion Seeker

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2012, 05:24 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)
Judges: Texas Can Enforce Sonogram Law Now
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/2011-abortion-sonogram-bill/judges-texas-can-enforce-sonogram-law-now/


"Rape by the State"? Court: Texas Can Force Doctors to Deliver Intrusive Vaginal Ultrasound to Abortion Seekers

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 88 percent of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Because the fetus is so small at this stage, traditional ultrasounds performed through the abdominal wall, "jelly on the belly," often cannot produce a clear image. Therefore, a transvaginal probe is most often necessary, especially up to 10 weeks to 12 weeks of pregnancy. The probe is inserted into the vagina, sending sound waves to reflect off body structures to produce an image of the fetus. Under this new law, a woman's vagina will be penetrated without an opportunity for her to refuse due to coercion from the so-called "public servants" who passed and signed this bill into law.

MORE:
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/761251/%22rape_by_the_state%22_court%3A_texas_can_force_d octors_to_deliver_intrusive_vaginal_ultrasound_to_ abortion_seekers/
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/2011-abortion-sonogram-bill/judges-texas-can-enforce-sonogram-law-now/
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/01/federal_appeals_court_rules_te.php

Star Member LiberalEsto (12,955 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. Could this procedure cause a miscarriage?

This is not just insane, but I have to wonder how safe it is.

And what if an improperly sanitized probe caused an infection?


Star Member uppityperson (60,295 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
5. No more so than a speculum, a penis, a finger.

It is rather like getting a pelvic with a speculum.


Star Member TwilightGardener (34,449 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
2. Well, she's just a vessel for the fetus--who cares how she feels about it?

Seriously, though, these people are sick.No, that's how liberals think-the fetus is just a parasite on the woman


Star Member JitterbugPerfume (17,482 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
3. that is obscene


Star Member uppityperson (60,295 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
4. Assholes. Is this website (link) a joke? The writeup on this is really weird

View profile
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/patients-win-in-texas-sonogram-case-137029568.html
Patients Win in Texas Sonogram Case
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) applauds the magnificent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit this morning, which affirmed the strengthening of informed consent contained in the amended Texas Woman's Right to Know Act. Specifically, the Fifth Circuit upheld the "sonogram law" that was enacted in May 2011.

This law helps ensure that women will be fully informed before agreeing to an abortion. AAPS, which supports the Nuremberg Code for all treatments, not merely experimental ones, has long supported fully informed consent for patients.

It is the standard of care for abortion providers to perform sonograms on patients, but many do not show those sonograms to the women. Such information should not be withheld from patients in the delivery of medical care. Many women change their mind about abortion if they see their sonogram before they consent to the operation, and no one should be hiding information from a patient in order to obtain consent for a procedure that she may later regret.

AAPS filed an amicus brief in this case along with one of its Texas members. We urged the Fifth Circuit to vacate a preliminary injunction that had blocked enforcement of the sonogram law to the detriment of hundreds of women who have abortions each day there. "There is no legitimate right to deny patients informed consent, and no injunction should remain in place to perpetuate such a denial," AAPS wrote. "The preliminary injunction violates the right of the people to protect themselves against procedures performed without informed consent."...


I mean, wtf? "Patients win" by making something mandatory? What?

Well, that's what we were told time after time about Obamacare.
Star Member my2sense (2,460 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
6. Unbelievable

I weep for this country. We are quickly regressing. So the state can rape women with a probe now (for her benefit) of course.

They'll screech about putting a probe into the vagina, calling it "rape", but they're perfectly fine with putting something in the uterus in order to abort a baby. In actuality they hate that women see exactly what they are aborting.

That group is not "Pro choice" they are pro abortion.

michaelsean
01-11-2012, 09:13 AM
Star Member LiberalEsto (12,955 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore
1. Could this procedure cause a miscarriage?

This is not just insane, but I have to wonder how safe it is.

And what if an improperly sanitized probe caused an infection?

Yeah you'd sure hate to have a miscarriage before the abortion. Kind of like the condemned having a heart attack the night before the execution. Takes all the fun out of it.

Arroyo_Doble
01-11-2012, 10:20 AM
They'll screech about putting a probe into the vagina, calling it "rape", but they're perfectly fine with putting something in the uterus in order to abort a baby.

The issue is consent. Penetration without consent is rape.

Odysseus
01-11-2012, 10:28 AM
The Guttmacher Institute is a highly partisan, pro-abortion think tank that makes its living promoting abortion. Their statements about the mandatory vaginal probe are BS. If the sonogram cannot see the fetus, then that is what the doctor reports, that the fetus isn't developed enough to see, or to hear the heartbeat.

The real issue is that women who are informed about the development of the fetus are less likely to abort, which means less federal money for Planned Parenthood and other abortion-providers. The Dallas Observer column even included this bit of idiocy:


"This court ruling says you have to start putting those requirements in place," Wheat says. "Even more appalling is the court said a woman can decline -- she can say, 'I've got all the information I need, thank you' -- but the doctor still has to provide all those things.

Her 'choice' is plug her ears and cover her eyes. That's what is so significant. Regardless of what she says or what her wishes are, the physician still has provide those steps."

This is called "informed consent." In every other surgical procedure, the physician is required by law to inform the patient of every possible complication from the surgery, no matter how unlikely, and no matter what the patient says. This applies to elective procedures and necessary operations. The only exception to this has been abortion, because informed consent actually reduces the likelyhood of the patient opting for it.

When liberals claim that they want abortion to be "safe, legal and rare," what they really mean is that they want it to be lucrative, protected and pervasive.

Adam Wood
01-11-2012, 10:46 AM
The issue is consent. Penetration without consent is rape.

Penetration is necessary for an abortion.

Arroyo_Doble
01-11-2012, 11:31 AM
Penetration is necessary for an abortion.

OK. What does that have to do with consent?

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 11:54 AM
Penetration is necessary for an abortion.

The consent for the abortion procedure is not general permission to put anything you like up the vagina.

Odd that some of the folks who raise the boogey man of government interference in individual healthcare in a universal healthcare system, are the same folks who have no problem requiring females to jump through hoops to get an abortion.

I understand requiring counseling prior to abortion. I do not understand requiring unnecessary medical procedures prior to abortion.

Adam Wood
01-11-2012, 12:06 PM
OK. What does that have to do with consent?If you're consenting to an abortion, then you're consenting to let a doctor use medical instruments to penetrate. It's not really all that complicated to figure out.


The consent for the abortion procedure is not general permission to put anything you like up the vagina. No one said it did. You really beat the shit out of that straw man, didn't you?


Odd that some of the folks who raise the boogey man of government interference in individual healthcare in a universal healthcare system, are the same folks who have no problem requiring females to jump through hoops to get an abortion. Is the federal government making this requirement? No? Well then, your argument is again for shit and you're beating up another straw man. Congratulations!

Arroyo_Doble
01-11-2012, 12:27 PM
If you're consenting to an abortion, then you're consenting to let a doctor use medical instruments to penetrate. It's not really all that complicated to figure out.


Ah. We are talking about two different things. I was referring to the (dubious, at best) claim of a probe being used to get an ultrasound image of the person in the womb. I wasn't referring to an abortion.

Adam Wood
01-11-2012, 01:06 PM
Ah. We are talking about two different things. I was referring to the (dubious, at best) claim of a probe being used to get an ultrasound image of the person in the womb. I wasn't referring to an abortion.So was I.

If you (well, not you, since you're not likely to have an abortion any time soon, but the Royal You) are going to agree to an abortion, then you're going to agree to be penetrated by medical instruments. As such, it's not unreasonable that one of those instruments be an ultrasound dildo.

Arroyo_Doble
01-11-2012, 01:27 PM
So was I.

If you (well, not you, since you're not likely to have an abortion any time soon, but the Royal You) are going to agree to an abortion, then you're going to agree to be penetrated by medical instruments. As such, it's not unreasonable that one of those instruments be an ultrasound dildo.

Then we are back to Nova's straw; consent for an abortion means consent to stick whatever the State wants into your (Royal Your) vagina.

Lanie
01-11-2012, 01:41 PM
link (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002149416)

The cognitive dissidence is quite stunning.






No, that's how liberals think-the fetus is just a parasite on the woman





They'll screech about putting a probe into the vagina, calling it "rape", but they're perfectly fine with putting something in the uterus in order to abort a baby. In actuality they hate that women see exactly what they are aborting.

That group is not "Pro choice" they are pro abortion.

Sounds to me like they just wish to be control freaks. Even people I know who are against abortion thinks this is cruel.

If they want to make abortion illegal and they have the proof to do so, do it. Stop doing it through harassing women.

I'm sorry, but I honestly think sometimes that some just don't have compassion toward women.

Rockntractor
01-11-2012, 01:45 PM
Sounds to me like they just wish to be control freaks. Even people I know who are against abortion thinks this is cruel.

If they want to make abortion illegal and they have the proof to do so, do it. Stop doing it through harassing women.

I'm sorry, but I honestly think sometimes that some just don't have compassion toward women.

Are you Megan McCain?:confused:

Adam Wood
01-11-2012, 02:00 PM
Then we are back to Nova's straw; consent for an abortion means consent to stick whatever the State wants into your (Royal Your) vagina.That would matter if the state wanted to mandate that doctors stick a beer bottle into someone's vijayjay. They don't. This is an established, painless medical procedure. Honestly, I would be surprised if this wasn't routinely done with any D&X.

djones520
01-11-2012, 03:38 PM
That would matter if the state wanted to mandate that doctors stick a beer bottle into someone's vijayjay. They don't. This is an established, painless medical procedure. Honestly, I would be surprised if this wasn't routinely done with any D&X.

I wouldn't go as far as to say painless. Let me ask you a question, what medical necessity does this have?

You are ok with the state requiring women to undergo an invasive procedure, that yes can be considered rape by almost all the laws out there, for no medical necessity.

It's all so that the legislature feels better about themselves.

This is wrong, it is the state bullying women. Forcibly trying to discourage them from practicing something that the Supreme Court said was legal.

linda22003
01-11-2012, 03:41 PM
DJ has it in one sentence: it's so the legislature feels better. This is an easy vote to make so you can say you're "defending life". :rolleyes:

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 03:47 PM
This is wrong, it is the state bullying women. Forcibly trying to discourage them from practicing something that the Supreme Court said was legal.

It's a workaround, and as any employed person knows: a workaround is a violation. It is an attempt to do what you know you are prohibited from doing.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 03:49 PM
Sounds to me like they just wish to be control freaks. Even people I know who are against abortion thinks this is cruel.

If they want to make abortion illegal and they have the proof to do so, do it. Stop doing it through harassing women.

I'm sorry, but I honestly think sometimes that some just don't have compassion toward women.

It would be nice if the next challenge at the Supreme Court level provides for prosecution of legislators who keep trying to pull this crap.

Lanie
01-11-2012, 03:55 PM
It would be nice if the next challenge at the Supreme Court level provides for prosecution of legislators who keep trying to pull this crap.

Well, that would be as bad as Gingridge wanting "activist judges" arrested. It's still a free country. We want to keep it that way. :D

Adam Wood
01-11-2012, 04:03 PM
I wouldn't go as far as to say painless.That is exactly the word that my wife used when she went through the exact same procedure (the ultrasound, not an abortion).


Let me ask you a question, what medical necessity does this have?That's not the standard, but it necessarily forces a birth mother to consider that she is taking a life instead of disposing of a parasite.

If the standard were "necessity," then the state shouldn't be able to compel me to wear clothes in public. After all, there's no need for me to wear clothes in public.


You are ok with the state requiring women to undergo an invasive procedure, that yes can be considered rape by almost all the laws out there, for no medical necessity.I'm OK with a state requiring that women who elect to undergo a particular invasive procedure have full knowledge of in what they are engaging.


It's all so that the legislature feels better about themselves.Not really. It's more about making sure that people think twice before murdering their baby.


This is wrong, it is the state bullying women. Forcibly trying to discourage them from practicing something that the Supreme Court said was legal.The Supreme Court says that it's perfectly legal for me to drink alcohol, and yet the state of Tennessee says that I can't go to a liquor store on Sunday. States have the right to impose restrictions on things, and that includes otherwise legal activities. If you don't like it, then don't get an abortion in Texas.

michaelsean
01-11-2012, 04:20 PM
Sounds to me like they just wish to be control freaks. Even people I know who are against abortion thinks this is cruel.

If they want to make abortion illegal and they have the proof to do so, do it. Stop doing it through harassing women.

I'm sorry, but I honestly think sometimes that some just don't have compassion toward women.


They can't make it illegal because the Supreme Court usurped their authority to do so.

linda22003
01-11-2012, 04:42 PM
Well, that would be as bad as Gingridge wanting "activist judges" arrested. It's still a free country. We want to keep it that way. :D

"Gingridge"?? :eek:

Odysseus
01-11-2012, 05:03 PM
Sounds to me like they just wish to be control freaks. Even people I know who are against abortion thinks this is cruel.

If they want to make abortion illegal and they have the proof to do so, do it. Stop doing it through harassing women.

I'm sorry, but I honestly think sometimes that some just don't have compassion toward women.
First off, the only source for this is the Guttmacher Institute, which is the propaganda arm of Planned Parenthood. There is no evidence that the law requires invasive procedures in order to conduct an ultrasound. What the law does compel is informed consent, which every other surgical procedure requires.

I wouldn't go as far as to say painless. Let me ask you a question, what medical necessity does this have?

You are ok with the state requiring women to undergo an invasive procedure, that yes can be considered rape by almost all the laws out there, for no medical necessity.

It's all so that the legislature feels better about themselves.

This is wrong, it is the state bullying women. Forcibly trying to discourage them from practicing something that the Supreme Court said was legal.

The state bullies people all of the time, and progressives usually like it when it does. After all, if the Surgeon General can confiscate the space on a cigarette pack in order to lecture us on the perils of smoking, and provide graphic illustrations of same, then the state can compel doctors to inform patients of the consequences of their procedures. Not that I agree with the former, but I must point out the hypocrisy in play here. The progs' only objection this time is that it cuts into one of their sacred (cash) cows. But, informed consent is of greater medical necessity than the abortion is in the first place. The overwhelming majority of abortions are elective procedures, done solely because of the inconvenience of the pregnancy. They are of necessity only if you accept that preventing the birth of a healthy child to a healthy woman is medically necessary. Those few cases in which an abortion is medically necessary, due to an inability to carry the fetus to term or a genuine risk to the life of the mother, are those cases where an ultrasound is redundant, as all of the procedures have already been done, and the determination has been made after due consideration.

However, if one has chosen to undergo an elective medical procedure, then the issue is not the medical necessity of the information regarding that procedure, but whether the state has a compelling interest in ensuring that people make informed decisions about their health care. Informed consent laws in every other area of medical practice demonstrate that this is the case, so the question becomes, why the exemption for abortion? Why, of all surgical procedures, should an abortion be exempted from the requirement to inform the patient of the details of the procedure and exactly what is being done? After all, if a woman were going to have a lump removed from her breast, she'd be informed of the size, location and risks to her health that the lump presents, as well as the consequences of not having it removed. She'd be informed of the biological nature of the lump, and how quickly it had developed, and whether or not it was benign or malignant. She'd be shown images of the lump from the various diagnostic tools used by her doctors, and presented with all of the facts before she made up her mind. If she is to undergo a medically necessary procedure, such as a mastectomy or lumpectomy, the law says that she must be informed of every possible outcome. But, if she is seeking a purely elective procedure, the abortionists would argue that she needs to know none of these things, and is better left ignorant, that her right to choose precludes her right to be informed exactly what she is choosing.

There are, of course, other differences between removal of a cancer and removal of a fetus, but can anyone here argue that a fetus deserves less consideration than a cancerous tumor?

JB
01-11-2012, 05:21 PM
...If we made the thing vibrate, would that be OK?

Adam Wood
01-11-2012, 05:54 PM
If we made the thing vibrate, would that be OK?I know I really shouldn't laugh, but I just can't help it.



http://i44.tinypic.com/poe9l.gif

JB
01-11-2012, 06:03 PM
I know I really shouldn't laugh, but I just can't help it.I was on the fence about making the post but since you put the argument to bed in post# 20, I figured I was good to go. :D

DumbAss Tanker
01-11-2012, 06:42 PM
Star Member kpete (31,714 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

View profile

"Rape by the State": TX Can Force Doctors to Deliver Intrusive Vaginal Ultrasound to Abortion Seeker

They use a live dude's penis for ultrasounds in Texas? Wow, now that's different!

:rolleyes:

kpete, you're a cut-and-pasted idiot.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 07:23 PM
That's not the standard, but it necessarily forces a birth mother to consider that she is taking a life instead of disposing of a parasite.

Do men who are having a vasectomy have to put up with a bunch of bullshit so the religious right can discourage them from being childless?

Adam Wood
01-11-2012, 07:24 PM
Do men who are having a vasectomy have to put up with a bunch of bullshit so the religious right can discourage them from being childless?Men who have a clip job are not carrying a human life inside their body.

Madisonian
01-11-2012, 07:56 PM
Do men who are having a vasectomy have to put up with a bunch of bullshit so the religious right can discourage them from being childless?

Short answer... yes.
When I got mine, the doc "requested" that I talk to a counselor and required a 7 day wait between his original exam when I requested it and he would perform it so I could think it over and be sure.
Even though I am not very religious, he also "suggested" I talk to my spiritual adviser to be sure I would have no future religious qualms over the surgery, particularly if I was Catholic.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 10:48 PM
Men who have a clip job are not carrying a human life inside their body.

According to the Holy Kqiran they are.

Novaheart
01-11-2012, 10:49 PM
Short answer... yes.
When I got mine, the doc "requested" that I talk to a counselor and required a 7 day wait between his original exam when I requested it and he would perform it so I could think it over and be sure.
Even though I am not very religious, he also "suggested" I talk to my spiritual adviser to be sure I would have no future religious qualms over the surgery, particularly if I was Catholic.

Did he stick a camera up your penis?

Odysseus
01-11-2012, 11:57 PM
I know I really shouldn't laugh, but I just can't help it.



http://i44.tinypic.com/poe9l.gif
My dad used to tell me that. I would answer, "I'm over here, Dad." :D


Did he stick a camera up your penis?

You can't have the photos.

MrsSmith
01-12-2012, 12:34 AM
Did he stick a camera up your penis?

Does getting "snipped' involve anything else going in the penis? :rolleyes:

As one who has received a vaginal ultrasound, I can attest that it was no worse than a PAP smear. In fact, it was less intrusive because I didn't have to put my feet in stirrups and slide my nakedness to the end of the table.

It in no way resembled rape. The probe doesn't have very, um, exciting dimensions...

http://ob-ultrasound.net/images/vag_scan_s.jpg

If you didn't know, the normal male is a lot better "hung." :D

Novaheart
01-12-2012, 12:37 AM
Does getting "snipped' involve anything else going in the penis? :rolleyes:

As one who has received a vaginal ultrasound, I can attest that it was no worse than a PAP smear. In fact, it was less intrusive because I didn't have to put my feet in stirrups and slide my nakedness to the end of the table.

It in no way resembled rape. The probe doesn't have very, um, exciting dimensions...

http://ob-ultrasound.net/images/vag_scan_s.jpg

If you didn't know, the normal male is a lot better "hung." :D

Thank you for sharing, but you left out two key components:

1- The vaginal ultrasound is not medically necessary
2- The state is forcing the patient to have a vaginal ultrasound as a hindrance to a legal medical procedure.

There is no defense for this intrusion. Sticking something into a woman's vagina either by force or coercion is by definition rape. Look it up.

Rockntractor
01-12-2012, 01:11 AM
Odd how libs will scream about this yet when actual rapes were occurring at OWS camps all over the country the victims were told to let it go and not report them.

Novaheart
01-12-2012, 01:46 AM
Odd how libs will scream about this yet when actual rapes were occurring at OWS camps all over the country the victims were told to let it go and not report them.

How many rapes were there? Who told whom not to report them? What has that got to do with a bunch of self-righteous legislators trying to pander to ethically challenged people?

Rockntractor
01-12-2012, 09:07 AM
How many rapes were there? Who told whom not to report them? What has that got to do with a bunch of self-righteous legislators trying to pander to ethically challenged people?

Read the threads, they are in the OWS, you would have to have been in a coma last year not to have heard about them.

SarasotaRepub
01-12-2012, 09:22 AM
"Gingridge"?? :eek:


Easy Linda!!!!:D

noonwitch
01-12-2012, 09:54 AM
I've witnessed a few ultrasounds in the course of my job-every one I saw involved rubbing the censor over the girl's stomach. Just like the one they did to detect my gallstones. I haven't seen one in a while, though, has the standard practice changed to using vaginally implanted sonograms?


I'm pro choice, and I don't like the idea of forcing a medically unnecessary procedure of either kind on women seeking abortions-they know what they are doing, and the Texas legislature is wrong to enact this type of legislation on a legally allowed procedure. It's particularly wrong if it is exceeding standard medical practices and forcing a more invasive procedure to make political points with the religious right.

BadCat
01-12-2012, 10:46 AM
The issue is consent. Penetration without consent is rape.

Well, that is one topic on which you should be extremely knowledgeable.

Odysseus
01-12-2012, 11:29 AM
Thank you for sharing, but you left out two key components:

1- The vaginal ultrasound is not medically necessary
2- The state is forcing the patient to have a vaginal ultrasound as a hindrance to a legal medical procedure.

There is no defense for this intrusion. Sticking something into a woman's vagina either by force or coercion is by definition rape. Look it up.
The abortion is medically unnecessary. It's an elective procedure.
The only source of this claim is the Guttmacher Institute, a highly partisan shill for Planned Parenthood. I have as yet to see any independent documentation of this claim.

I've witnessed a few ultrasounds in the course of my job-every one I saw involved rubbing the censor over the girl's stomach. Just like the one they did to detect my gallstones. I haven't seen one in a while, though, has the standard practice changed to using vaginally implanted sonograms?
Nope. When we had our girls, Mrs. O had sonograms done the same way, well into the first trimester in both cases. The Guttmacher Institute is lying. Let's remember that these are the same folks who denied that Partial Birth Abortions were elective, and deliberately hid the numbers. Their integrity on this issue is, to put it gently, highly dubious.


I'm pro choice, and I don't like the idea of forcing a medically unnecessary procedure of either kind on women seeking abortions-they know what they are doing, and the Texas legislature is wrong to enact this type of legislation on a legally allowed procedure. It's particularly wrong if it is exceeding standard medical practices and forcing a more invasive procedure to make political points with the religious right.
Take it up with Planned Parenthood. They do everything that they can to sell a medically unnecessary procedure to women, and oppose every attempt to regulate it the way that we do with other medical procedures. As I stated above, the overwhelming majority of abortions are elective procedures, done solely because of the inconvenience of the pregnancy. They are of necessity only if you accept that preventing the birth of a healthy child to a healthy woman is medically necessary. Adding an informed consent requirement simply brings it into line with all other medical procedures.

Arroyo_Doble
01-12-2012, 11:47 AM
The only source of this claim is the Guttmacher Institute, a highly partisan shill for Planned Parenthood. I have as yet to see any independent documentation of this claim.


I doubt the claim is accurate. It was just an abstract conversation for me.

Novaheart
01-12-2012, 11:49 AM
The abortion is medically unnecessary. It's an elective procedure.

Go tell a girl who has been raped that it's an elective procedure and that because you consider her to be murdering the zygote/embryo in her womb then you are going to force her to undergo a totally unnecessary procedure violating her vagina because a bunch of self righteous legislators pandering to the Vatican think it's a cute workaround to the law.

linda22003
01-12-2012, 12:00 PM
Easy Linda!!!!:D

Oh, come on. It's not like his name is unknown. Usually. :rolleyes:

Bailey
01-12-2012, 12:28 PM
Go tell a girl who has been raped that it's an elective procedure and that because you consider her to be murdering the zygote/embryo in her womb then you are going to force her to undergo a totally unnecessary procedure violating her vagina because a bunch of self righteous legislators pandering to the Vatican think it's a cute workaround to the law.

I'd like you to tell me what the unborn child did so wrong that it should be sucked out and destroyed?

Arroyo_Doble
01-12-2012, 12:30 PM
Go tell a girl who has been raped that it's an elective procedure and that because you consider her to be murdering the zygote/embryo in her womb then you are going to force her to undergo a totally unnecessary procedure violating her vagina because a bunch of self righteous legislators pandering to the Vatican think it's a cute workaround to the law.

It is Texas. The Vatican is not who they are pandering to.

And yes, the girl who decides to kill the person in her womb elects to do so regardless of the actions of that person's father.

Bailey
01-12-2012, 12:34 PM
It is Texas. The Vatican is not who they are pandering to.

And yes, the girl who decides to kill the person in her womb elects to do so regardless of the actions of that person's father.

OMG we agree on something.

Odysseus
01-12-2012, 12:43 PM
Go tell a girl who has been raped that it's an elective procedure and that because you consider her to be murdering the zygote/embryo in her womb then you are going to force her to undergo a totally unnecessary procedure violating her vagina because a bunch of self righteous legislators pandering to the Vatican think it's a cute workaround to the law.
No, I won't tell her that, because it isn't true. The Guttmacher Institute is making a claim that is patently false. The law does not demand invasive ultrasounds. In fact, it also permits women to opt out, something I didn't know until I read the actual law, rather than relying on partisans with an agenda. From the text of the law:


Sec. 171.0122. VIEWING PRINTED MATERIALS AND SONOGRAM IMAGE; HEARING HEART AUSCULTATION OR VERBAL EXPLANATION.


(a) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to view the printed materials provided under Section 171.012(a)(3) after she has been provided with the materials.

(b) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to view the sonogram images required to be provided to and reviewed with the pregnant woman under Section 171.012(a)(4).

(c) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to hear the heart auscultation required to be provided to and reviewed with the pregnant woman under Section 171.012(a)(4).

(d) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to receive the verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images under Section 171.012(a)(4)(C) if:


(1) the woman's pregnancy is a result of a sexual assault, incest, or other violation of the Penal Code that has been reported to law enforcement authorities or that has not been reported because she has a reason that she declines to reveal because she reasonably believes that to do so would put her at risk of retaliation resulting in serious bodily injury;

(2) the woman is a minor and obtaining an abortion in accordance with judicial bypass procedures under Chapter 33, Family Code; or

(3) the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality, as previously identified by reliable diagnostic procedures and documented in the woman's medical file.

So, you can drop that lie. But, if you do want to determine what the impact of this law would be on rape and incest victims, lets go by the numbers. Rape and incest together account for less than 1% of all abortions. In 1979, a rape counselor named Dr. Sandra Mahkorn actually did a study on the percentage of rape victims seeking abortions and found that 75-80% carried their babies to term. So, you're pounding the table over 0.3% of all abortion seekers, who already have the option to opt out, as per the law, i.e., you are expressing outrage over a false report, fomented specifically to whip up that outrage by people who profit from abortions.

So, any other objections?

Adam Wood
01-12-2012, 12:51 PM
Go tell a girl who has been raped that it's an elective procedure and that because you consider her to be murdering the zygote/embryo in her womb then you are going to force her to undergo a totally unnecessary procedure violating her vagina because a bunch of self righteous legislators pandering to the Vatican think it's a cute workaround to the law.And yet she is voluntarily engaging in a medically unnecessary procedure that specifically involves violating her vagina, and that part is somehow OK with you.

Odysseus
01-12-2012, 02:34 PM
Go tell a girl who has been raped that it's an elective procedure and that because you consider her to be murdering the zygote/embryo in her womb then you are going to force her to undergo a totally unnecessary procedure violating her vagina because a bunch of self righteous legislators pandering to the Vatican think it's a cute workaround to the law.


And yet she is voluntarily engaging in a medically unnecessary procedure that specifically involves violating her vagina, and that part is somehow OK with you.

None of that matters. Nova's response will ignore the point, and focus on rape and incest victims, because unless that is the narrative, he cannot win this argument.

ABC in Georgia
01-12-2012, 02:37 PM
And yet she is voluntarily engaging in a medically unnecessary procedure that specifically involves violating her vagina, and that part is somehow OK with you.

TMI coming up from another female. :eek:

What a bunch of hogwash all the complaints from these women are.

- Back in the 60's if you wanted to prevent becoming pregnant and didn't want birth control pills ... you had to be measured for a diaphragm.

- Still to this day, if you elect to have a Pap Smear ... Need to have an exam for unusual bleeding between periods ...

I could go on and on, but won't, will get to the point.

Just what the hell orifice do you think doctors had to "violate" in order to do the procedure? The ears, nose, throat, etc.?

Don't make me laugh! Women are *used* to this type of so called invasion!

There is definitely more to this than meets the eye, and the lefties know it. :mad:

~ ABC

Adam Wood
01-12-2012, 02:51 PM
Just what the hell orifice do you think doctors had to "violate" in order to do the procedure? The ears, nose, throat, etc.? Bingo. The inconvenient elephant in the room. You can't have an abortion without "violating the vagina" in the first place, so the complaint is utterly moot.

Odysseus
01-12-2012, 05:51 PM
Guys, we're arguing around each other. The law doesn't require that the woman submit to the procedure. She can opt out. It's all BS.

Madisonian
01-12-2012, 07:38 PM
You asked...


Do men who are having a vasectomy have to put up with a bunch of bullshit so the religious right can discourage them from being childless?

I answered...

Short answer... yes.
When I got mine, the doc "requested" that I talk to a counselor and required a 7 day wait between his original exam when I requested it and he would perform it so I could think it over and be sure.
Even though I am not very religious, he also "suggested" I talk to my spiritual adviser to be sure I would have no future religious qualms over the surgery, particularly if I was Catholic.

Had you asked if they shoved a camera up my ass, I would have answered no. They did that 3 times before they removed my prostate last month. They did however, shove a catheter up my penis after the prostatectomy in case you are really interested.

Odysseus
01-12-2012, 09:47 PM
You asked...



I answered...


Had you asked if they shoved a camera up my ass, I would have answered no. They did that 3 times before they removed my prostate last month. They did however, shove a catheter up my penis after the prostatectomy in case you are really interested.

That shuffling sound that you're hearing is every guy in the thread crossing our legs and cringing. :eek:

Novaheart
01-12-2012, 10:05 PM
No, I won't tell her that, because it isn't true. The Guttmacher Institute is making a claim that is patently false. The law does not demand invasive ultrasounds.

All of the exceptions you have listed appear to be exceptions to seeing or hearing the results of the procedures, not exceptions to having the procedures. Correct me if I am wrong.



N
So, you can drop that lie. But, if you do want to determine what the impact of this law would be on rape and incest victims, lets go by the numbers. Rape and incest together account for less than 1% of all abortions. In 1979, a rape counselor named Dr. Sandra Mahkorn actually did a study on the percentage of rape victims seeking abortions and found that 75-80% carried their babies to term. So, you're pounding the table over 0.3% of all abortion seekers ....

Utterly irrelevant, as I stated in my earlier post. The incidence does not matter one iota, if abortion is murder then it is always murder and the woman should be arrested and charged with murder. If aborting a horribly damaged fetus is murder, then so is a product of rape, as is a stupid indiscretion in the back of a minivan. It doesn't matter if rapes account for (as I said) one thousandth of one percent, the issue is the same.

Kay
01-12-2012, 10:08 PM
Don't make me laugh! Women are *used* to this type of so called invasion!


Exactly! It's as routine (and fun) as going to the dentist.

ABC in Georgia
01-12-2012, 10:12 PM
That shuffling sound that you're hearing is every guy in the thread crossing our legs and cringing. :eek:

Ooh!

There, there, now guys. You'll be OK in a minute. Just take a few deep breaths!

In ... out! In ... out! That's right!

Oh Mercy! Glad I don't have one of those things! :D :D :D

Sounds terribly painful!

~ ABC

ABC in Georgia
01-12-2012, 10:18 PM
Exactly! It's as routine (and fun) as going to the dentist.

Ha! Ha!

At least the dentist can give you a freezing shot.

Oops! What am I saying? On second thought, forget it! :eek:

~ ABC

Carol
01-12-2012, 10:21 PM
The issue is consent. Penetration without consent is rape.

I haven't read everything so someone might have made this point already.

When I want any kind of birth control I have to have a medical appointment once a year that includes a pelvic exam.

If I don't do the pelvic exam, I don't get birth control.

It's the same here. If you want an abortion you consent to the ultrasound.

Anyone has the right to not agree and refuse. But when you refuse you take the consequences for that refusal.

This is also an issue of informed consent to the abortion. Women have the responsibilty to know what an abortion entails.......including what it does....how it is done.......and what the fetus actually looks like (a human being, not a clump of cells

Many years ago I worked in a clinic that saw many Hmong women; many that were getting abortions. When the Hmong worker at the clinic was asked about it she said that if they knew what was really happening they would not get abortions. They saw it as "magic" and so was acceptable.

While not the same thing, many women have bought into the lie that a fetus is simply a clump of cells. They are entitled to see what a "clump of cells" looks like BEFORE they make a decision on an abortion.

Why do liberals have such a problem with a woman being fully informed before an abortion?

ABC in Georgia
01-12-2012, 10:38 PM
Why do liberals have such a problem with a woman being fully informed before an abortion?

Perhaps because they don't want to think about destroying ... what they know deep down ... is a human life?

~ ABC

Carol
01-12-2012, 10:40 PM
This is wrong, it is the state bullying women. Forcibly trying to discourage them from practicing something that the Supreme Court said was legal.

No. What liberals (and those that profit from abortions) are admitting to is that IF women were given informed consent that they WOULD NOT agree to an abortion, therefore they must keep women ignorant so that abortion continues to be legal (because some of those women would change their mind and be pro life) and those that profit off abortions continue to profit from them.

ABC in Georgia
01-12-2012, 11:00 PM
No. What liberals (and those that profit from abortions) are admitting to is that IF women were given informed consent that they WOULD NOT agree to an abortion, therefore they must keep women ignorant so that abortion continues to be legal (because some of those women would change their mind and be pro life) and those that profit off abortions continue to profit from them.

Yes, yes, yes! You are absolutely correct.

Was really just referring to the women contemplating the abortion, not the huge industry supporting it.

~ ABC

Carol
01-12-2012, 11:28 PM
As to the claim that the Supreme Court said it was legal therefore there should be no need to do other tests or do full informed consent, I'd ask this:

What other medical procedure do you not need to do full informed consent?

What other medical procedure (surgery actually) is the federal government able to tell the state that they cannot require a test or procedure in order to fully inform the woman what is going to happen and what the results will be?

Oh, and I did see the opt out clauses in the bill, so it makes it even more clear that this is about the abortion industry wanting to keep women ignorant and their coffers full.

Odysseus
01-13-2012, 03:02 AM
All of the exceptions you have listed appear to be exceptions to seeing or hearing the results of the procedures, not exceptions to having the procedures. Correct me if I am wrong.
You're wrong. The amendment states that the doctor must provide the service, but the woman can opt out. In addition, it does not specify that transvaginal ultrasound must be employed. Transabdominal ultrasound is the accepted practice.


Utterly irrelevant, as I stated in my earlier post. The incidence does not matter one iota, if abortion is murder then it is always murder and the woman should be arrested and charged with murder. If aborting a horribly damaged fetus is murder, then so is a product of rape, as is a stupid indiscretion in the back of a minivan. It doesn't matter if rapes account for (as I said) one thousandth of one percent, the issue is the same.

No, the incidence does matter. You're attacking the law because you're claiming that it imposes undo hardships on rape victims, but the law specifically exempts rape victims, so your point is moot. And either way, the issue is still informed consent. If a fetus is "just a clump of cells", as the activists claim, then this is not an issue, since the woman will see that. If, however, there's more to it than that, then she has a right to know what she is getting rid of. Why do you insist that this is wrong?

NJCardFan
01-13-2012, 12:07 PM
Utterly irrelevant, as I stated in my earlier post. The incidence does not matter one iota, if abortion is murder then it is always murder and the woman should be arrested and charged with murder. If aborting a horribly damaged fetus is murder, then so is a product of rape, as is a stupid indiscretion in the back of a minivan. It doesn't matter if rapes account for (as I said) one thousandth of one percent, the issue is the same.

Your arguments are tired and silly. You keep harping on a woman getting pregnant by rape when that happens, more than likely, maybe in the neighborhood of 3% of the time and I'm being real generous here. The other 97%, most of those are from women and men being irresponsible.

Lanie
01-13-2012, 01:22 PM
I do want to briefly address this rape argument. No, it's not rape and here's why. She's still giving her consent. She may be giving it under circumstances that she wouldn't prefer, but she's giving consent.

Lanie
01-13-2012, 01:27 PM
They can't make it illegal because the Supreme Court usurped their authority to do so.

What they did is is declare that due to a constitutional right to privacy (founded on an earlier case, NOT Roe vs. Wade) that a woman had a right to an abortion.

What activists have been trying to do to get that overturned is to prove there isn't a constitutional right to privacy. Personally, I think they're going about that all wrong because nobody wants to be the judge that says "No, you don't have a right to privacy."

What they have to do is prove once and for all that abortion is murder, so it can be declared to not be a privacy issue, but a human rights issue. Just because the Supreme Court made a ruling doesn't mean it can't be overturned. It also doesn't mean that activists should use a bunch of sneaky back door methods. It's funny how the occupy movement is condemned along with every other liberal movement, but a movement that often has harassment, threats, often bigotry, telling lies, stalking (list website), and flat out murder isn't condemned. That's messed up.

and yes, I'd be happy to make a nice, long post discussing why all the above is true, so unless somebody wants to read it, don't go there.

txradioguy
01-13-2012, 01:53 PM
What they did is is declare that due to a constitutional right to privacy (founded on an earlier case, NOT Roe vs. Wade) that a woman had a right to an abortion.

There never was a "right to privacy" in the constitution. The wording from the constitution was purposely changed in a gross misinterpretation of the 9th and 14th Amendments by IIRC Justice John Marshall Harlan in the concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut in (I think) 1965. This privacy issue started even BEFORE Griswold...the case mentioned in the debates the other night by that political hack George Stephanapolous. It started about contraception...not abortion...about an alleged "marital right to privacy" not just the made up "right to privacy" but the legalese in one dissent and one majority opinion in two cases prior to Roe is what gave the murders at PP the hook they needed to get abortion on demand.

Since then...as far as the left is concerned..."right to privacy" applies exclusively to one thing and one thing only...abortion on demand.

Roe had already been heard twice before in front of the Supreme's before they got the third bite at the apple. And the other two cases gave the Roe side of the case the wording and the legal terminology worked into the decisions in the prior two cases to shove Roe down our throats.

Prior to 1965...all the way back to July 4th 1776...there never was a Constitutional "right to privacy".

It's a created right...just like gay rights and the "right" to an abortion.

linda22003
01-13-2012, 02:14 PM
The case TxRadioGuy is trying to summon up is Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) [381 U.S. 479]. Hugo Black did not "change any wording", he diseented from the findings of the majority, and it was an overwhelming majority of 7-2.
It did find a right to privacy in the process of establishing the legal right to obtain contraception. This is the case that Diane Sawyer referred to when she (bizarrely) tried to find out if any of the GOP candidates would want to outlaw contraception. Even Santorum thought that was out of the question.

michaelsean
01-13-2012, 02:57 PM
What they did is is declare that due to a constitutional right to privacy (founded on an earlier case, NOT Roe vs. Wade) that a woman had a right to an abortion.

What activists have been trying to do to get that overturned is to prove there isn't a constitutional right to privacy. Personally, I think they're going about that all wrong because nobody wants to be the judge that says "No, you don't have a right to privacy."

What they have to do is prove once and for all that abortion is murder, so it can be declared to not be a privacy issue, but a human rights issue. Just because the Supreme Court made a ruling doesn't mean it can't be overturned. It also doesn't mean that activists should use a bunch of sneaky back door methods. It's funny how the occupy movement is condemned along with every other liberal movement, but a movement that often has harassment, threats, often bigotry, telling lies, stalking (list website), and flat out murder isn't condemned. That's messed up.

and yes, I'd be happy to make a nice, long post discussing why all the above is true, so unless somebody wants to read it, don't go there.

You can get it overturned by another ruling from the Supreme Court, but until then it can't be made illegal.

ABC in Georgia
01-13-2012, 03:01 PM
The case TxRadioGuy is trying to summon up is Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) [381 U.S. 479]. Hugo Black did not "change any wording", he diseented from the findings of the majority, and it was an overwhelming majority of 7-2.


Oh Miss Linda ... you mispelled the word "dissented!"

Karma is a bitch, is it not? :D

Now, can we all laugh at you?

As ever ~ Auntie Mame :p

linda22003
01-13-2012, 03:08 PM
Oh Miss Linda ... you mispelled the word "dissented!"

Karma is a bitch, is it not? :D

Now, can we all laugh at you?

As ever ~ Auntie Mame :p

Yes, you certainly may. I proofread before I post, but that one eluded me. This typeface is getting smaller all the time.... :D

Speaking of things that are bitches, "mispelled" is misspelled in your post. :p

Rockntractor
01-13-2012, 03:08 PM
Oh Miss Linda ... you mispelled the word "dissented!"

Karma is a bitch, is it not? :D

Now, can we all laugh at you?

As ever ~ Auntie Mame :p

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

txradioguy
01-13-2012, 03:09 PM
Oh Miss Linda ... you mispelled the word "dissented!"

Karma is a bitch, is it not? :D

Now, can we all laugh at you?

As ever ~ Auntie Mame :p

And if The Beltway Bitch wasn't so quick to try and prove how much smarter she is than the rest of us...and failing miserably in the process...she'd see I went in and edited my original post for factual accuracy.

linda22003
01-13-2012, 03:10 PM
And if The Beltway Bitch wasn't so quick to try and prove how much smarter she is than the rest of us...and failing miserably in the process...she'd see I went in and edited my original post for factual accuracy.

Okay. I read and move on, who has time to go back?

ABC in Georgia
01-13-2012, 03:15 PM
Yes, you certainly may. I proofread before I post, but that one eluded me. This typeface is getting smaller all the time.... :D

Speaking of things that are bitches, "mispelled" is misspelled in your post. :p

Like I give a hang, dahling!

With the exception of my correction to you ... I never insist on correcting anyone's spelling, grammar, punctuation, syntax, etc. ... and YOU my dear, most definitely do!

~ Auntie Mame xxx

linda22003
01-13-2012, 03:23 PM
I do indeed. This is a written medium, and we should be able to express ourselves in a literate manner to get our point across.

Bailey
01-13-2012, 03:29 PM
And if The Beltway Bitch wasn't so quick to try and prove how much smarter she is than the rest of us...and failing miserably in the process...she'd see I went in and edited my original post for factual accuracy.

The Beltway Bitch lol I love it!!! :D:D:D

linda22003
01-13-2012, 03:31 PM
I like it too. It has a certain Joan Crawford aspect to it:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1qAPnYhuCcU/Tbhf2VzH7qI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/B7vjsrnbqtE/s320/joan_crawford_johnny_guitar.jpg

Adam Wood
01-13-2012, 03:32 PM
I only just now realized that TRG wasn't talking about Debbie Stupidwoman-Shultz.

Bailey
01-13-2012, 03:33 PM
I like it too. It has a certain Joan Crawford aspect to it:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1qAPnYhuCcU/Tbhf2VzH7qI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/B7vjsrnbqtE/s320/joan_crawford_johnny_guitar.jpg

Well Crawford had more heart and warmth then you but its you pretty much to a T.

Odysseus
01-13-2012, 05:30 PM
The court didn't create a right to privacy, there's an explicit right in the Fourth Amendment, but how that right was understood then and now is the big difference.


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In other words, there are limits on how the government can intrude on your personal business, but that doesn't mean that the government cannot declare certain acts illegal, even if they occur in private. Sexual assault, for example, or murder, almost always occur in private. The Constitutional understanding of privacy was that government couldn't simply walk into your home and search everything unless you were suspected of an explicitly stated criminal act and that there was sufficient cause to suspect you. It doesn't mean that whatever you do in private is okay.

The regulation of medical procedures was left out of the Constitution, as was pretty much everything else that wasn't the business of the federal government, so it was a prerogative of the states or, if the state law was silent on the issue, the people. Abortion, as a medical procedure, was regulated by the states, some of which permitted it on demand, some of which banned it outright, and the vast majority which were somewhere in between. What Roe V. Wade did was to sweep away 50 states' laws on abortion and impose a single, highly liberal, federal standard. This has done tremendous damage to our nation, not simply by virtue of the abortion issue, but by creating a precedent by which the courts may create laws from whole cloth, infringing on the critical functions of legislatures to draft laws, and the right of the people to be governed by their representatives, rather than by the courts.

Madisonian
01-13-2012, 06:22 PM
There never was a "right to privacy" in the constitution. The wording from the constitution was purposely changed in a gross misinterpretation of the 9th and 14th Amendments by IIRC Justice John Marshall Harlan in the concurring opinion in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut in (I think) 1965. This privacy issue started even BEFORE Griswold...the case mentioned in the debates the other night by that political hack George Stephanapolous. It started about contraception...not abortion...about an alleged "marital right to privacy" not just the made up "right to privacy" but the legalese in one dissent and one majority opinion in two cases prior to Roe is what gave the murders at PP the hook they needed to get abortion on demand.

Since then...as far as the left is concerned..."right to privacy" applies exclusively to one thing and one thing only...abortion on demand.

Roe had already been heard twice before in front of the Supreme's before they got the third bite at the apple. And the other two cases gave the Roe side of the case the wording and the legal terminology worked into the decisions in the prior two cases to shove Roe down our throats.

Prior to 1965...all the way back to July 4th 1776...there never was a Constitutional "right to privacy".

It's a created right...just like gay rights and the "right" to an abortion.

There is no right to breathe in the Constitution either.
The Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it places limitations on the government to stop them from co-opting the rights we have by virtue of our existence.
If there is no right to privacy, how can a Peeping Tom be arrested?

txradioguy
01-13-2012, 07:18 PM
There is no right to breathe in the Constitution either.

Yup. Just like there's nothing in there that says people can't give stupid answers to serious discussions.



The Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it places limitations on the government to stop them from co-opting the rights we have by virtue of our existence.

Learned that in 10th Grade civics.


If there is no right to privacy, how can a Peeping Tom be arrested?

The state has the right to say that it's illegal to peek into the windows of a house that is not yours.

Kay
01-14-2012, 12:12 AM
I do want to briefly address this rape argument. No, it's not rape and here's why. She's still giving her consent. She may be giving it under circumstances that she wouldn't prefer, but she's giving consent.

True and good point. To be considered rape they'd have to be holding the woman down
Inserting the ultra sound stick by physical force against her will. They are not doing that.
The woman can refuse it at any time.


I do indeed. This is a written medium, and we should be able to express ourselves in a literate manner to get our point across.

Agree. I appreciate good writting.

MrsSmith
01-14-2012, 10:04 AM
Thank you for sharing, but you left out two key components:

1- The vaginal ultrasound is not medically necessary
2- The state is forcing the patient to have a vaginal ultrasound as a hindrance to a legal medical procedure.

There is no defense for this intrusion. Sticking something into a woman's vagina either by force or coercion is by definition rape. Look it up.

I notice that you've become silent in the last few pages of this thread. I'm guessing all the facts refuting your position made it tough to keep beating your dead horse. But just in case you missed something, if the vaginal ultrasound is not medically necessary, the woman is not forced to have one, an external ultrasound will be done. It is not under force or coercion as she must consent to it. If a woman is considering an abortion and does not want to chance consenting to a vaginal scan, she can simply let the child grow for a couple more weeks and then he or she will be large enough to show up on an external scan.

And I'd like to add that this is a free country, if she doesn't like the Texas laws, she can simply cross the state line and get her abortion done elsewhere. No one is forcing her to do anything.

I do find it amusing that you consider this woman to be rational enough to choose abortion, yet so irrational that she would be more harmed by a far less intrusive ultrasound scan than by having her cervix opened and various instruments inserted to dismember and remove that child, sac and umbilical cord, and then scrape her uterus to insure no fetal matter remains behind to cause an infection. I've never had an abortion, but I'm quite sure the procedure she is rationally choosing is far, far more intrusive and damaging than ANY ultrasound scan. It is more intrusive than a catheter, a vasectomy, and a tubal ligation. It is more intrusive than the rape you presume. But of course, you already know that...you just hate the idea the a woman may actually change her mind when she sees her own child.

linda22003
01-14-2012, 10:23 AM
Agree. I appreciate good writting.

Okay, that was funny. ;)

Novaheart
01-14-2012, 11:03 AM
I notice that you've become silent in the last few pages of this thread.

I generally avoid abortion threads because they are pointless. This one is an exception because it's somewhat peripheral to abortion and goes to the issue of local governments trying to work around the law.



I'm guessing all the facts refuting your position made it tough to keep beating your dead horse.

Keep telling yourself that.

MrsSmith
01-14-2012, 11:58 AM
I generally avoid abortion threads
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Rockntractor
01-14-2012, 12:02 PM
I generally avoid abortion threads because they are pointless. This one is an exception because it's somewhat peripheral to abortion and goes to the issue of local governments trying to work around the law.






No, you generally avoid vaginas, threads about them you jump right in the middle.

Kay
01-14-2012, 12:04 PM
Okay, that was funny. ;)

Ha! What's really funny is that I was being most sincere when I said that
and didn't realize I had misspelled "writting" till you pointed it out. :D

ABC in Georgia
01-14-2012, 12:46 PM
Ha! What's really funny is that I was being most sincere when I said that
and didn't realize I had misspelled "writting"till you pointed it out. :D

Oh my! ... and to think how unlike Miss Linda to yet again make fun of someone ... even if indirectly! :eek:

Linda, for cryin' out loud woman ... this is NOT a "writers forum" this is a political forum ... and as such ... opinions are far more relevant than what you waste time, energy, and bandwidth on in correcting folks in here.

Capiche?

As ever, once again ~ Auntie Mame :p

Rockntractor
01-14-2012, 12:58 PM
Oh my! ... and to think how unlike Miss Linda to yet again make fun of someone ... even if indirectly! :eek:

Linda, for cryin' out loud woman ... this is NOT a "writers forum" this is a political forum ... and as such ... opinions are far more relevant than what you waste time, energy, and bandwidth on in correcting folks in here.

Capiche?

As ever, once again ~ Auntie Mame :p

:smilie_catfight::rotfl:

ABC in Georgia
01-14-2012, 01:21 PM
:smilie_catfight::rotfl:

Hell's bells, Rock ... (smiling at you while typing)

Is Saturday, and we have passed the required number of serious on topic posts in here, have we not? :D

And besides, taking on Miss Linda for her lack of manners, is almost de rigueur for me!

Not to mention enjoyable to boot! :eek: :D

~ ABC

txradioguy
01-14-2012, 01:59 PM
Oh my! ... and to think how unlike Miss Linda to yet again make fun of someone ... even if indirectly! :eek:

Linda, for cryin' out loud woman ... this is NOT a "writers forum" this is a political forum ... and as such ... opinions are far more relevant than what you waste time, energy, and bandwidth on in correcting folks in here.

Capiche?

As ever, once again ~ Auntie Mame :p

TBB wouldn't care if it was a hunting forum...her uncontrollable desire to show us how much smarter she thinks she is than the rest of us would override any shred of reality or common sense,

linda22003
01-14-2012, 02:34 PM
And besides, taking on Miss Linda for her lack of manners, is almost de rigueur for me!

Not to mention enjoyable to boot! :eek: :D

~ ABC

And how's it working, so far? :rolleyes:

Odysseus
01-14-2012, 05:04 PM
I generally avoid abortion threads because they are pointless. This one is an exception because it's somewhat peripheral to abortion and goes to the issue of local governments trying to work around the law.

How does this work around the law? Roe V. Wade established the right to an abortion. That's the law that you're referring to. In what way does providing factually accurate information impinge on the right of a woman to have an abortion?


Keep telling yourself that.

She doesn't have to. The facts are there. You keep ignoring them and arguing around them. Every objection that you have raised has been shot down in flames, but it hasn't stopped you from coming back with even more absurd arguments. The informed consent requirement is not medically unnecessary, unless it is medically unnecessary in every other surgical procedure in which it is a requirement, which means every other surgical procedure. Abortions are intrusive surgical procedures. A few years ago, when I had my tonsils removed, I had to sign a consent form after being told of every possible complication that I might expect, up to and including death from infection. If my tonsils had a heartbeat, I'd have been informed about it. Why do you object to the same standard of informed consent for an abortion as a tonsillectomy?

Kay
01-14-2012, 07:05 PM
And besides, taking on Miss Linda for her lack of manners, is almost de rigueur for me!

Now ABC, you know I love you dear, but speaking of lack of manners, if I might politely point out that you're interjecting yourself into mine and Linda's side conversation. I like Linda quite well and never mind her pointing out my misspellings as it makes me more conscious of that word in the future. We should all try to better ourselves when we can. One of the things I really like about this forum compaired to a few others I've read on, is that this place seems to have a better educated membership. We all use slang now and then as this is a fun place, but I did mean my original post to Linda that I appreciate her keeping us in line on our grammar. Linda is good people here in my book. :) .....Ok, maybe the TBB title was earned, but better to have earned a title for being outstanding at something in life than going through it in the shadows I say.

ABC in Georgia
01-14-2012, 07:13 PM
Oops! ... You are right.

Sorry about that!

~ ABC

Odysseus
01-14-2012, 07:38 PM
Now ABC, you know I love you dear, but speaking of lack of manners, if I might politely point out that you're interjecting yourself into mine and Linda's side conversation. I like Linda quite well and never mind her pointing out my misspellings as it makes me more conscious of that word in the future. We should all try to better ourselves when we can. One of the things I really like about this forum compaired to a few others I've read on, is that this place seems to have a better educated membership. We all use slang now and then as this is a fun place, but I did mean my original post to Linda that I appreciate her keeping us in line on our grammar. Linda is good people here in my book. :) .....Ok, maybe the TBB title was earned, but better to have earned a title for being outstanding at something in life than going through it in the shadows I say.


Oops! ... You are right.

Sorry about that!

~ ABC

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/Alphonsegaston.jpg

ABC in Georgia
01-14-2012, 08:41 PM
Ooh! You wretch! :) ODY!

Or should I say ... Bastard! Bastard! Bastard! :D

Was only admitting to having no right to be interrupting a conversation between the two of them.

In no way, was I taking back what I said about the BB!

~ ABC :p

Kay
01-14-2012, 09:16 PM
Was only admitting to having no right to be interrupting a conversation between the two of them.

In no way, was I taking back what I said about the BB!

~ ABC :p

Fair enough :)

Kay
01-14-2012, 09:21 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/Alphonsegaston.jpg

That reminds me of that old clip of two men crashing their cars at an intersection.
They both get out screaming and yelling, and end up in a fist fight over who was at fault.
Then we see two women crash into each other, and they both immediately and politely try
to accept the blame and end up admiring each others shoes. :)

Odysseus
01-15-2012, 12:41 AM
Ooh! You wretch! :) ODY!

Or should I say ... Bastard! Bastard! Bastard! :D

Was only admitting to having no right to be interrupting a conversation between the two of them.

In no way, was I taking back what I said about the BB!

~ ABC :p

It was either that or the Warner Brothers gophers, Mack and Tosh. :D

Novaheart
01-15-2012, 01:16 AM
How does this work around the law? Roe V. Wade established the right to an abortion. That's the law that you're referring to. In what way does providing factually accurate information impinge on the right of a woman to have an abortion?



She doesn't have to. The facts are there. You keep ignoring them and arguing around them. Every objection that you have raised has been shot down in flames, but it hasn't stopped you from coming back with even more absurd arguments. The informed consent requirement is not medically unnecessary, unless it is medically unnecessary in every other surgical procedure in which it is a requirement, which means every other surgical procedure. Abortions are intrusive surgical procedures. A few years ago, when I had my tonsils removed, I had to sign a consent form after being told of every possible complication that I might expect, up to and including death from infection. If my tonsils had a heartbeat, I'd have been informed about it. Why do you object to the same standard of informed consent for an abortion as a tonsillectomy?

Keep telling yourself that.

Odysseus
01-15-2012, 11:41 AM
Keep telling yourself that.


Keep telling yourself that.

I'm not the one who's repeating himself. The facts are what they are.

The informed consent requirement is not intrusive
The transvaginal ultrasound is not mandated by the law
The mandated transabdominal ultrasound can be waved by the patient (unlike every other informed consent requirement for surgery), especially in cases of rape or incest.
Rape or incest accounts for less than 1% of abortions. Medical necessity (medical conditions which will have impact on the health of the mother or child) accounts for less than 6%. 93% of abortions are therefore elective.
70-80% of rape victims choose to carry the pregnancy to term, rather than abort.


The proof of this is the text of the law, itself. Once again:


Sec. 171.0122. VIEWING PRINTED MATERIALS AND SONOGRAM IMAGE; HEARING HEART AUSCULTATION OR VERBAL EXPLANATION.


(a) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to view the printed materials provided under Section 171.012(a)(3) after she has been provided with the materials.

(b) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to view the sonogram images required to be provided to and reviewed with the pregnant woman under Section 171.012(a)(4).

(c) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to hear the heart auscultation required to be provided to and reviewed with the pregnant woman under Section 171.012(a)(4).

(d) Authorizes a pregnant woman to choose not to receive the verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images under Section 171.012(a)(4)(C) if:


(1) the woman's pregnancy is a result of a sexual assault, incest, or other violation of the Penal Code that has been reported to law enforcement authorities or that has not been reported because she has a reason that she declines to reveal because she reasonably believes that to do so would put her at risk of retaliation resulting in serious bodily injury;

(2) the woman is a minor and obtaining an abortion in accordance with judicial bypass procedures under Chapter 33, Family Code; or

(3) the fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality, as previously identified by reliable diagnostic procedures and documented in the woman's medical file.

In other words, every argument that you have provided has been proven false. However, you persist in repeating these falsehoods and ignoring the facts that have been presented and pretend that they don't exist, because any restriction on abortion offends your sensibilities. Instead, you pretend that it's about freedom of choice, and that every attempt to inform that choice is an infringement of it. That's absurd, and you'd know it if you stopped to think about it, but you won't.

We'll keep telling you that until it sinks it.