Jump to content


Ultrasounds Already Part of VA Planned Parenthood Abortion Procedure


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#1 George F. Will

George F. Will

    Ki Aldrich

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,866 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 22 February 2012 - 11:55 AM

Planned Parenthood clinics already require ultrasounds prior to performing surgical and drug-induced abortions.
Low Taxes | Minimal Regulation | Stable Currency





#2 pcf

pcf

    Dutch Meyer

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,592 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 12:43 PM

Planned Parenthood clinics already require ultrasounds prior to performing surgical and drug-induced abortions.


Do they make them have a vaginal ultrasound? If I understand the uproar over the VA law, it is that every patient has to have a vaginal ultrasound when the fetus is too small to show up on a regular ultrasound like the regular ones we probably took our wives to at however many months.

I find this article lacking in information relative to the controversy.

The controversy seems to be the use of vaginal ultrasound in hopes of finding signs of life extremely early in hopes of shocking or scaring the patient into curtailing the abortion process.

#3 George F. Will

George F. Will

    Ki Aldrich

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,866 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:00 PM

Do they make them have a vaginal ultrasound? If I understand the uproar over the VA law, it is that every patient has to have a vaginal ultrasound when the fetus is too small to show up on a regular ultrasound like the regular ones we probably took our wives to at however many months.

I find this article lacking in information relative to the controversy.

The controversy seems to be the use of vaginal ultrasound in hopes of finding signs of life extremely early in hopes of shocking or scaring the patient into curtailing the abortion process.


Could be. Here is the legislation.

I am not sure that I agree with the legislation. Of course if you can place restrictions on constitutional rights, why would we prevent a state from doing the same in this instance?
Low Taxes | Minimal Regulation | Stable Currency

#4 pcf

pcf

    Dutch Meyer

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,592 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:33 PM

Could be. Here is the legislation.

I am not sure that I agree with the legislation. Of course if you can place restrictions on constitutional rights, why would we prevent a state from doing the same in this instance?


http://www.huffingto..._n_1276799.html

The bill -- which then passed the House 63 to 36 -- would require any woman seeking an abortion in the state to receive an ultrasound first. As an external ultrasound is not able to produce a necessary picture early in pregnancy, a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be needed to produce an image of the fetus or embryo.

Here's the attitude that makes me mad:
He noted he had a conversation with one GOP lawmaker regarding his amendment where the lawmaker had told him that women had already made the decision to be "vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant."

What business is it of these religious busybodies? There's a point where it is the state's business and there's a point where it is not. There's a point where we interfere in severe human rights situations around the world and there's situations where we wish them the best.

#5 George F. Will

George F. Will

    Ki Aldrich

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,866 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:54 PM

He noted he had a conversation with one GOP lawmaker regarding his amendment where the lawmaker had told him that women had already made the decision to be "vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant."


Crass, but true.
Low Taxes | Minimal Regulation | Stable Currency

#6 George F. Will

George F. Will

    Ki Aldrich

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,866 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 22 February 2012 - 01:56 PM

The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable.
Low Taxes | Minimal Regulation | Stable Currency

#7 FriskyFrog

FriskyFrog

    Bob Lilly

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,268 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Louisville, KY

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:08 PM

Crass, but true.


Really? The mere existence of a fetus says nothing about the mother's decision-making power during the impregnation act.
The sun comes up, it's a new day dawning
It's time to sing Your song again
Whatever may pass, and whatever lies before me
Let me be singing when the evening comes
--Matt Redman, 10,000 Reasons

#8 NewfoundlandFrog

NewfoundlandFrog

    Davey O'Brien

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,021 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:11 PM

Really? The mere existence of a fetus says nothing about the mother's decision-making power during the impregnation act.


What do you think you are doing butting in on what should apparently only be discussed by men? Mostly old and mostly white ones at that!

Posted Image

Posted Image
“... at night ... guarded by eighty sentinels ... Ernesto IV trembles in his room. All the doors fastened with ten bolts, and the adjoining rooms, above as well as below him, packed with soldiers... If a plank creaks in the floor, he snatches up his pistols and imagines there is a Liberal hiding under his bed. At once all the bells in the castle are set ringing ... the Minister of Police takes good care not to deny the existence of any conspiracy; on the contrary, alone with the Prince, and armed to the teeth, he inspects every corner of the rooms, looks under the beds, and, in a word, gives himself up to a whole heap of ridiculous actions worthy of an old woman." --Stendahl, The Charterhouse of Parma (1839)
 
 
Posted Image

#9 The Uniballer

The Uniballer

    Darrell Lester

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,968 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:22 PM

It was a hearing on religious freedom

#10 NewfoundlandFrog

NewfoundlandFrog

    Davey O'Brien

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,021 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:24 PM

It was a hearing on religious freedom


... with contraception issues as the seminal part of said freedoms!
“... at night ... guarded by eighty sentinels ... Ernesto IV trembles in his room. All the doors fastened with ten bolts, and the adjoining rooms, above as well as below him, packed with soldiers... If a plank creaks in the floor, he snatches up his pistols and imagines there is a Liberal hiding under his bed. At once all the bells in the castle are set ringing ... the Minister of Police takes good care not to deny the existence of any conspiracy; on the contrary, alone with the Prince, and armed to the teeth, he inspects every corner of the rooms, looks under the beds, and, in a word, gives himself up to a whole heap of ridiculous actions worthy of an old woman." --Stendahl, The Charterhouse of Parma (1839)
 
 
Posted Image

#11 pcf

pcf

    Dutch Meyer

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,592 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:24 PM

What do you think you are doing butting in on what should apparently only be discussed by men? Mostly old and mostly white ones at that!

Posted Image

Posted Image


Frisky made an excellent point, but I guess we'll have to disqualify it since it came from a woman.

#12 burford

burford

    Kyle Clifton

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 8,283 posts

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:40 PM

Really? The mere existence of a fetus says nothing about the mother's decision-making power during the impregnation act.

I think I need clarification. Are you referring to the instance of rape?

#13 pcf

pcf

    Dutch Meyer

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,592 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:40 PM

It was a hearing on religious freedom


Religious freedom? You mean they can poke their nose in on us, but we dare not poke our nose in on their business? That definition of religious freedom?

#14 George F. Will

George F. Will

    Ki Aldrich

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,866 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:48 PM

Really? The mere existence of a fetus says nothing about the mother's decision-making power during the impregnation act.


Generally speaking of course...
Low Taxes | Minimal Regulation | Stable Currency

#15 NewfoundlandFrog

NewfoundlandFrog

    Davey O'Brien

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,021 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:49 PM

Religious freedom? You mean they can poke their nose in on us, but we dare not poke our nose in on their business? That definition of religious freedom?


Claiming religious freedom when running a public business is a real slippery slope for me.
“... at night ... guarded by eighty sentinels ... Ernesto IV trembles in his room. All the doors fastened with ten bolts, and the adjoining rooms, above as well as below him, packed with soldiers... If a plank creaks in the floor, he snatches up his pistols and imagines there is a Liberal hiding under his bed. At once all the bells in the castle are set ringing ... the Minister of Police takes good care not to deny the existence of any conspiracy; on the contrary, alone with the Prince, and armed to the teeth, he inspects every corner of the rooms, looks under the beds, and, in a word, gives himself up to a whole heap of ridiculous actions worthy of an old woman." --Stendahl, The Charterhouse of Parma (1839)
 
 
Posted Image

#16 George F. Will

George F. Will

    Ki Aldrich

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,866 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:50 PM

... with contraception issues as the seminal part of said freedoms!


Were you expecting female priests to show up?
Low Taxes | Minimal Regulation | Stable Currency

#17 George F. Will

George F. Will

    Ki Aldrich

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,866 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:50 PM

Claiming religious freedom when running a public business is a real slippery slope for me.


Religion is not public? What about the press?
Low Taxes | Minimal Regulation | Stable Currency

#18 NewfoundlandFrog

NewfoundlandFrog

    Davey O'Brien

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,021 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:52 PM

Religion is not public? What about the press?


What paper puts its sexual moralistic strictures into its insurance coverage for its employees? Should a church-run one do so, I am against that.

Basically, this is another reason to get health insurance out of the hands of employers IMO.
“... at night ... guarded by eighty sentinels ... Ernesto IV trembles in his room. All the doors fastened with ten bolts, and the adjoining rooms, above as well as below him, packed with soldiers... If a plank creaks in the floor, he snatches up his pistols and imagines there is a Liberal hiding under his bed. At once all the bells in the castle are set ringing ... the Minister of Police takes good care not to deny the existence of any conspiracy; on the contrary, alone with the Prince, and armed to the teeth, he inspects every corner of the rooms, looks under the beds, and, in a word, gives himself up to a whole heap of ridiculous actions worthy of an old woman." --Stendahl, The Charterhouse of Parma (1839)
 
 
Posted Image

#19 The Uniballer

The Uniballer

    Darrell Lester

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,968 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:53 PM

Religious freedom? You mean they can poke their nose in on us, but we dare not poke our nose in on their business? That definition of religious freedom?

I don't think the government should force a religious institution to offer insurance coverage that covers products/procedures that they have a moral opposition to. If a woman has a problem with that, she could pay for the product/procedure out of pocket, or work for an employer that does offer that kind of insurance coverage. If doctor assisted suicide was legal and insurance companies offered to cover that, I don't think religious institutions should be forced to cover that either.

On the original topic, even though I am a pretty strict pro lifer, I don't like these ultrasound laws (although I object to vaginal ultrasounds being equated to rape). Like it or not (and I don't) abortion is legal. I think forcing women to undergo unneccessary procedures to try and scare them out of a procedure that is legal, isn't right.

#20 NewfoundlandFrog

NewfoundlandFrog

    Davey O'Brien

  • Member - Restricted
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,021 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2012 - 02:56 PM

I don't think the government should force a religious institution to offer insurance coverage that covers products/procedures that they have a moral opposition to. If a woman has a problem with that, she could pay for the product/procedure out of pocket, or work for an employer that does offer that kind of insurance coverage. If doctor assisted suicide was legal and insurance companies offered to cover that, I don't think religious institutions should be forced to cover that either.

On the original topic, even though I am a pretty strict pro lifer, I don't like these ultrasound laws (although I object to vaginal ultrasounds being equated to rape). Like it or not (and I don't) abortion is legal. I think forcing women to undergo unneccessary procedures to try and scare them out of a procedure that is legal, isn't right.


Let's say I don't want to be forced to give my tax money to support Catholic hospitals because they refuse to treat certain health issues? Do I get a say? Why is it only one way?
“... at night ... guarded by eighty sentinels ... Ernesto IV trembles in his room. All the doors fastened with ten bolts, and the adjoining rooms, above as well as below him, packed with soldiers... If a plank creaks in the floor, he snatches up his pistols and imagines there is a Liberal hiding under his bed. At once all the bells in the castle are set ringing ... the Minister of Police takes good care not to deny the existence of any conspiracy; on the contrary, alone with the Prince, and armed to the teeth, he inspects every corner of the rooms, looks under the beds, and, in a word, gives himself up to a whole heap of ridiculous actions worthy of an old woman." --Stendahl, The Charterhouse of Parma (1839)
 
 
Posted Image


KillerFrogs Sponsor


Click here for 30% off




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users