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

[ABC in Georgia]

Oops! ... You are right.

Sorry about that!

~ ABC

[Odysseus]

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

[ABC in Georgia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.