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

[michaelsean]

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]

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]

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]

...

If we made the thing vibrate, would that be OK?

[Adam Wood]

If we made the thing vibrate, would that be OK?

I know I really shouldn't laugh, but I just can't help it.

[JB]

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]

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!



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

[Novaheart]

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]

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]

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.