Mike Chewbacca: Whether she changes her mind because that little 14-week fetus just looks so adorable, or because the woman doesn't want a wand-like object shoved into her hoohah doesn't matter to the GOP. Although, yes, shoving a wand-like object up a slut's hoohah is part of the attraction for conservatives, because those sluts deserve to be punished for their sluttery.

I mean, doesn't this little fetus just look so cuddly???

Actually, it does look kinda cute.

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: The doctor deciding an ultrasound is needed and the government mandating it are two very different things.

Actually, you missed my point.

The procedure in and of itself is not a problem, and it may or may not be medically unnecessary. In fact, a pre-abortion ultra-sound may identify potential problems before an abortion and thereby benefit the health and well being of women having abortions.

I do not know that a case has been made for medical necessity here, but I can see how it might be a good idea nonetheless.It is my understanding from a friend of mine who works at Planned Parenthood that they will sometimes do this anyway if they suspect there might be a problem, or if they need to determine how far along someone is (a lot of young girls don;t track their cycles and don't really know).

My observation is that if this mandate was from a [D] and not an [R], most of the Farkers going apoplectic here woudl likely be silent if they saw it as a "woman's health issue".

Theaetetus: According to the doctors involved, this is not "used primarily to ensure a safe abortion."
So, in light of that, would you admit this is a godawful terrible thing?

As I said initially, I disagree with this legislation. But no, I don't consider it a horrible, terrible thing. Compared to the abortion itself, it's a non-issue in terms of mental and physical discomfort, and is sometimes done anyway as a precaution. If this wrong-minded bullshiat legislation however means that the rare issue is spotted before the abortion and thereby makes abortions safer overall, that's a good thing. Even if it is an unintended consequence.

Both procedures have been around for decades. It is not standard practice so the "if it was medically necessary it wouldn't hurt" line of reasoning is already debunked by it NOT BEING STANDARD PRACTICE. It is definitely a terrible thing meant only to punish women. Its a ridiculous argument and you know it.

KWess: Doctor: Possibly, but in your case I wouldn't normally have done it.
Patient: So why do they force you to do it?
Doctor: .....
Patient: Oh no.

It kind of seems like a big deal.

We need an amendment to the bill...

BojanglesPaladin:
My observation is that if this mandate was from a [D] and not an [R], most of the Farkers going apoplectic here woudl likely be silent if they saw it as a "woman's health issue".




If it was a woman's health issue, it wouldn't need to be forced.

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: The doctor deciding an ultrasound is needed and the government mandating it are two very different things.

Actually, you missed my point.

The procedure in and of itself is not a problem, and it may or may not be medically unnecessary. In fact, a pre-abortion ultra-sound may identify potential problems before an abortion and thereby benefit the health and well being of women having abortions.

I do not know that a case has been made for medical necessity here, but I can see how it might be a good idea nonetheless.It is my understanding from a friend of mine who works at Planned Parenthood that they will sometimes do this anyway if they suspect there might be a problem, or if they need to determine how far along someone is (a lot of young girls don;t track their cycles and don't really know).

My observation is that if this mandate was from a [D] and not an [R], most of the Farkers going apoplectic here woudl likely be silent if they saw it as a "woman's health issue".

Theaetetus: According to the doctors involved, this is not "used primarily to ensure a safe abortion."
So, in light of that, would you admit this is a godawful terrible thing?

As I said initially, I disagree with this legislation. But no, I don't consider it a horrible, terrible thing. Compared to the abortion itself, it's a non-issue in terms of mental and physical discomfort, and is sometimes done anyway as a precaution. If this wrong-minded bullshiat legislation however means that the rare issue is spotted before the abortion and thereby makes abortions safer overall, that's a good thing. Even if it is an unintended consequence.

You either don't have a friend at Planned Parenthood or he/she is lying to you. This type of ultrasound is not needed to find out how far along a woman is. My wife just had a baby and she did not get this kind of ultrasound once during pregnancy. She had the standard ultrasound everytime. Even in the first trimester. Their are times when the transvaginal is needed but that isn't standard.

The reason they want to do this type of ultrasound is to get a clearer picture of the fetus so they can try to guilt the woman into not having the abortion. Go and read the right to life websites. That is exactly why they have been pushing for this. Stop pretending it is something else and trying to trivialize it.

I remember the days when the GOP didn't want legislation to come between a patient and a doctor. Apparently, everyone missed the part where filthy whores don't count.

lennavan: Mike Chewbacca: Whether she changes her mind because that little 14-week fetus just looks so adorable, or because the woman doesn't want a wand-like object shoved into her hoohah doesn't matter to the GOP. Although, yes, shoving a wand-like object up a slut's hoohah is part of the attraction for conservatives, because those sluts deserve to be punished for their sluttery.

I mean, doesn't this little fetus just look so cuddly???

Actually, it does look kinda cute.

Like... planning your death cute? Or french bulldog cute?

/just trying to figure this out

Another question. One assumes this procedure is not free. Who pays?

I assume the woman will be billed for her unwanted vaginal penetration...just to complete the humiliation utterly.

wait, transvaginal ultrasounds got them pregnant in the first place?!

NewportBarGuy: I'm glad that CNN allows Eva Braun to present the other side of this issue.

Ha!

KWess: Intent is all that matters here.

Which is why I disagree with the legislation.

But all the hue and cry about the ultra-sound being non-consensual, a terrible emotionally crippling invasion, etc. is missing the point and innacurate and hyperbolic. Especially in the context of the actual abortion. Compared to that, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is not as much of an inconvenience.

Further, While I disaprove of a mandate for a procedure of dubious medical benefit, I think that at least it may help spot problems that would otherwise result in complications following an abortion, and that is a good thing. It tends not to get much coverage, but even in good facilities, women sometimes suffer serious health consequences due to complications of an abortion and extremely rarely die. So, this couldn;t hurt, might help, and if it reduces the rate of complications, then it's a good thing.

Does the legislation require the woman to VIEW the ultra-sound?

GWLush: All of the women in America should all go out and protest. They should do a "stay out of my pussy" march.


I am against this.

I'd imagine this law will be appealed rather quickly and hopefully the courts will issue an injunction. Meanwhile the resulting media attention, court rulings, and GOP talking heads trying to justify the law will send even more women away from the party.

/crosses fingers

Theaetetus: What you meant to say was:
Since the victims are women, I don't know that this is so godawful terrible a thing.

fark you.

My point is that despite the poorest of intentions, this may actually help have safer abortions and benefit women's health overall when they have abortions.

Kazan: EnviroDude: Diogenes: Still doesn't address why they're mandating an unnecessary medical procedure. Except, you know, what Chariset said.

Government mandates lots of medical procedures. Try getting your kid admitted into high school/college without vaccinations.

you really are a farking idiot aren't you?

[www.niaid.nih.gov image 537x732]

EABOD you unamerican bovine fornicator

Jenny?

BojanglesPaladin: Further, While I disaprove of a mandate for a procedure of dubious medical benefit, I think that at least it may help spot problems that would otherwise result in complications following an abortion, and that is a good thing. It tends not to get much coverage, but even in good facilities, women sometimes suffer serious health consequences due to complications of an abortion and extremely rarely die. So, this couldn;t hurt, might help, and if it reduces the rate of complications, then it's a good thing.

How would you feel about mandatory monthly prostate exams? After all, it might help detect cancer early.


Bend over...

BojanglesPaladin: KWess: Intent is all that matters here.

Which is why I disagree with the legislation.

But all the hue and cry about the ultra-sound being non-consensual, a terrible emotionally crippling invasion, etc. is missing the point and innacurate and hyperbolic. Especially in the context of the actual abortion. Compared to that, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is not as much of an inconvenience.

Further, While I disaprove of a mandate for a procedure of dubious medical benefit, I think that at least it may help spot problems that would otherwise result in complications following an abortion, and that is a good thing. It tends not to get much coverage, but even in good facilities, women sometimes suffer serious health consequences due to complications of an abortion and extremely rarely die. So, this couldn;t hurt, might help, and if it reduces the rate of complications, then it's a good thing.

Does the legislation require the woman to VIEW the ultra-sound?

Sol, you'd be ok with a government mandate that every man who wants a vasectomy to undergo a thorough prostate examination then, right?

GWLush: You either don't have a friend at Planned Parenthood or he/she is lying to you. This type of ultrasound is not needed to find out how far along a woman is. My wife just had a baby and she did not get this kind of ultrasound once during pregnancy. She had the standard ultrasound everytime. Even in the first trimester. Their are times when the transvaginal is needed but that isn't standard.

Really? During my wife's pregnancy, she had both types of ultrasound (trans-vaginal earlier and trans-abdominal later in the pregnancy). The OB certainly made it sound like this was standard for pre-natal care.

Would be interested to hear the comments of an OB in this thread.

BojanglesPaladin: But all the hue and cry about the ultra-sound being non-consensual, a terrible emotionally crippling invasion, etc. is missing the point and innacurate and hyperbolic. Especially in the context of the actual abortion. Compared to that, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is not as much of an inconvenience. It's not like you haven't had a bunch of other things stuck up your pussy at one point or another. Amiright? *wink nudge*

r1chard3: CapnBlues: They have a point. Sluts is sluts.

/sarcasm
//don't pillory me, bro!

oh, and let's get this out of the way:

[www.amptoons.com image 475x1100]

Chart leaves out opposition to Stem Cell research.

chart is not my chart. you're welcome to replicate it and revise it. I am too lazy to do so. though i think perhaps stem cell research is not as directly related to the right to get an abortion. maybe. I don't know. I'm kind of an idiot.

KWess: Another question. One assumes this procedure is not free. Who pays?

I assume the woman will be billed for her unwanted vaginal penetration...just to complete the humiliation utterly.

You think the state is going to pay for your pre-abortion family photos?

/Take a good, hard look at your freeloading abortionist self.

Doc Daneeka: GWLush: You either don't have a friend at Planned Parenthood or he/she is lying to you. This type of ultrasound is not needed to find out how far along a woman is. My wife just had a baby and she did not get this kind of ultrasound once during pregnancy. She had the standard ultrasound everytime. Even in the first trimester. Their are times when the transvaginal is needed but that isn't standard.

Really? During my wife's pregnancy, she had both types of ultrasound (trans-vaginal earlier and trans-abdominal later in the pregnancy). The OB certainly made it sound like this was standard for pre-natal care.

Would be interested to hear the comments of an OB in this thread.

I linked to a quote from the spokesperson for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying it was not indicated for abortion. Does that qualify?

We should pass a law where a man has to watch an abortion being performed every time he has sex.

What what? This has nothing to do with men? Because I thought they were in there somewhere.

/not that they'd give a fark anyway
//just like most of the women don't
///come to think of it, half the guys would probably get a boner at that view

GWLush: All of the women in America should all go out and protest. They should do a "stay out of my pussy" march.

Oh they aren't going to do that. It's not their place.

For anyone who bothers to argue with Trolljangles, there is no medical evidence that an ultrasound is a medical necessity under these circumstances and it's defenders don't even use this as an argument.

cryinoutloud: We should pass a law where a man has to watch an abortion being performed every time he has sex.

I think you just ruined sex for me. Forever.

how come things like this are never pre-emptively threatened with a voter referendum veto? priorities, jeezuz

libs and rational moderates better wake the fark up, as the regressives thrash out in their prolonged death throes, shiat's gonna get real, yo

Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: GWLush: You either don't have a friend at Planned Parenthood or he/she is lying to you. This type of ultrasound is not needed to find out how far along a woman is. My wife just had a baby and she did not get this kind of ultrasound once during pregnancy. She had the standard ultrasound everytime. Even in the first trimester. Their are times when the transvaginal is needed but that isn't standard.

Really? During my wife's pregnancy, she had both types of ultrasound (trans-vaginal earlier and trans-abdominal later in the pregnancy). The OB certainly made it sound like this was standard for pre-natal care.

Would be interested to hear the comments of an OB in this thread.

I linked to a quote from the spokesperson for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying it was not indicated for abortion. Does that qualify?

Yeah, that's not what I was asking about.

I was asking whether it was generally performed during the course of standard pre-natal care (i.e. not abortions).

Philip Francis Queeg: Sol, you'd be ok with a government mandate that every man who wants a vasectomy to undergo a thorough prostate examination then, right?

Theaetetus: How would you feel about mandatory monthly prostate exams? After all, it might help detect cancer early.

No. I disagree with this legislation. As I have said nearly every single post, I believe the mandate is the wrong way to go about this.

Please pay attention to what is being said. You are trying to have an argument that is different from the point I am making.

And your analogy is flawed. If you were going in for a surgury to remove a polyp on your prostate, You wouldn't sweat a prostate exam.

LazarusLong42: Ignoring that this is horrible slut shaming, just for a moment...

What about the ones who didn't consent to the first penetration? You know, the girls who were raped once already.

Conservatives think they're whores who were asking for it, so they should be raped again.

Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: GWLush: You either don't have a friend at Planned Parenthood or he/she is lying to you. This type of ultrasound is not needed to find out how far along a woman is. My wife just had a baby and she did not get this kind of ultrasound once during pregnancy. She had the standard ultrasound everytime. Even in the first trimester. Their are times when the transvaginal is needed but that isn't standard.

Really? During my wife's pregnancy, she had both types of ultrasound (trans-vaginal earlier and trans-abdominal later in the pregnancy). The OB certainly made it sound like this was standard for pre-natal care.

Would be interested to hear the comments of an OB in this thread.

I linked to a quote from the spokesperson for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying it was not indicated for abortion. Does that qualify?

Yeah, that's not what I was asking about.

I was asking whether it was generally performed during the course of standard pre-natal care (i.e. not abortions).

Sometimes. It's apparently potentially indicated for some on-going pregnancies, but is not indicated for abortions.

BojanglesPaladin: KWess: Intent is all that matters here.

Which is why I disagree with the legislation.

But all the hue and cry about the ultra-sound being non-consensual, a terrible emotionally crippling invasion, etc. is missing the point and innacurate and hyperbolic. Especially in the context of the actual abortion. Compared to that, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is not as much of an inconvenience.

Further, While I disaprove of a mandate for a procedure of dubious medical benefit, I think that at least it may help spot problems that would otherwise result in complications following an abortion, and that is a good thing. It tends not to get much coverage, but even in good facilities, women sometimes suffer serious health consequences due to complications of an abortion and extremely rarely die. So, this couldn;t hurt, might help, and if it reduces the rate of complications, then it's a good thing.

Does the legislation require the woman to VIEW the ultra-sound?


Let me underline this for you:

It makes no G-D difference if it's much of a bloody inconvenience or not! It only matters that the gov't is mandating that a person be vaginally penetrated without consent!

Bloody hell.

Here's a news flash, most women enjoy sex. EXCEPT IF THEY DON'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN! It's the same physical act, so why all the fuss, right?

Also, he off-chance that there is a net-benefit is NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to force people against their wills.

I know you don't believe in this...why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible?

Dr Dreidel: Sounds like you also think a full-body scan should happen at every checkup.

You should read more carefully. I think this legislation is wrong.

But if it passes, it may, as a side effect, prevent some of the rare cases where post-abortion complications arise. Kind of like having High School athletes have their hearts checked out. Basically, it's a couldn't hurt, might possibly help' kind of thing.

Has anyone clarified whether the legislation requires the woman to VIEW the ultrasound?

Doc Daneeka: Theaetetus: Doc Daneeka: GWLush: You either don't have a friend at Planned Parenthood or he/she is lying to you. This type of ultrasound is not needed to find out how far along a woman is. My wife just had a baby and she did not get this kind of ultrasound once during pregnancy. She had the standard ultrasound everytime. Even in the first trimester. Their are times when the transvaginal is needed but that isn't standard.

Really? During my wife's pregnancy, she had both types of ultrasound (trans-vaginal earlier and trans-abdominal later in the pregnancy). The OB certainly made it sound like this was standard for pre-natal care.

Would be interested to hear the comments of an OB in this thread.

I linked to a quote from the spokesperson for the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists saying it was not for abortion. Does that qualify?

Yeah, that's not what I was asking about.

I was asking whether it was generally performed during the course of standard pre-natal care (i.e. not abortions).

I can only speak from our personal experience. Could be that is standard procedure at her OB. I was at every ultrasound and they were able to tell us hwo far along, size, etc with just the standard ultrasound. It was clear as day.

FirstNationalBastard: jayhawk88: Before this is over, some pundit is just going to snap on live TV, and start yelling the phrase "Stone the Whores" repeatedly.

The next day, he will nominated as the Republicans 2012 Presidential Candidate.

/here in Virginia, the Republicans are also trying to get that stupid "life begins at conception" thing passed, too. It's times like this you have to be glad that Northern VA is more liberal, otherwise the entire state would be sitting in the dark, burning witches, and waiting for some city boy to pass through so he can be made to squeal like a pig.

I have to say, having been to almost all the states, that Virginia is the creepiest police state I will ever refuse to live in.

BojanglesPaladin: Philip Francis Queeg: Sol, you'd be ok with a government mandate that every man who wants a vasectomy to undergo a thorough prostate examination then, right?

Theaetetus: How would you feel about mandatory monthly prostate exams? After all, it might help detect cancer early.

No. I disagree with this legislation. As I have said nearly every single post, I believe the mandate is the wrong way to go about this.

You've also said that it's wrong unless it's medically necessary, but you backpedaled on that once it was pointed out that it wasn't medically necessary, so I'm not really going to take you at your word that you allegedly disagree with the legislation.

And your analogy is flawed. If you were going in for a surgury to remove a polyp on your prostate, You wouldn't sweat a prostate exam.

Since there's no need to do a transvaginal ultrasound for an abortion, then the analogy is dead accurate. It's more like a mandatory prostate exam when you're in for a hemorrhoid treatment. And specifically, like a mandatory prostate exam you can't decline, even while the doctor is freely admitting there's no need to do it.

BojanglesPaladin: The procedure in and of itself is not a problem, and it may or may not be medically unnecessary. In fact, a pre-abortion ultra-sound may identify potential problems before an abortion and thereby benefit the health and well being of women having abortions.

I do not know that a case has been made for medical necessity here, but I can see how it might be a good idea nonetheless.It is my understanding from a friend of mine who works at Planned Parenthood that they will sometimes do this anyway if they suspect there might be a problem, or if they need to determine how far along someone is (a lot of young girls don't track their cycles and don't really know).


First off, this argument is simply disingenuous given that the people pushing this bill have made it more than clear that their reason for it is not concern for the woman's health, but rather, to put yet one more onerous, humiliating hurdle between women and their right to do with their bodies what they please. I realize that it would make arguing with people so much easier if you could just change your statements to something else after they initially gets torn to shreds, but causality just doesn't work that way so you don't get to pretend it's possible and be taken seriously.

Secondly, it isn't medically necessary for men to get a full-blown colonoscopy every time they get a physical either, but it would certainly "identify potential problems" and thus, by your logic, "might be a good idea nonetheless". No doubt you would be in favor of a law requiring all doctors to add this procedure to the repertoire of their annual examinations, yes? Or perhaps one requiring all doctors to give any patient seeking a prescription for Viagra a full cardiovascular stress-test? I can assure you that the latter would save far more lives that this ultrasound will, given that the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, when the danger to the woman getting the procedure is almost nil.

KWess: I know you don't believe in this...why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible?

successful troll is extremely successful.

Since there is not a medical reason for the procedure, I don't see how this is any different than passing a law that says women must have graphic, close-up pictures of her genitalia taken and posted to a state website before she can get an abortion.

Heron: I realize that it would make arguing with people so much easier if you could just change your statements to something else after they've initially getsbeen torn to shreds...

bah. FTFM

CapnBlues: KWess: I know you don't believe in this...why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible?

successful troll is extremely successful.

I only have four people on ignore status, and s/he's apparently one of them. Yet people keep on a'quotin' the trolls.

Because let's be honest, who would defend this law but a troll?

KWess: why do you keep trying to defend the indefensible?

What on earth have you read that leads you to believe I am defending this? Is it the 15 times I have said I disagree with the legilation, that it is bullshiat, and that the mandate is the wrong waty to go about this?

KWess: It only matters that the gov't is mandating that a person be vaginally penetrated without consent!

An abortion involves vaginal penetration. A woman who consents to an abortion will be consenting to be vaginally penetrated, and in this state (should this bullshiat pass), under this legislation, that means all related procedures. And compared to the discomfort of an abortion, an ultra-sound is nothing.