Florida again: House OKs bill requiring waiting time, ultrasound before abortions

[madfloridian]

They are not going to give up here. Ronda Storms bill to require DNA tests from doctors for all pregant teens...failed. She will try again.

Our Democratic Party has said the issue is not up for discussion, but the Republicans just keep on pushing it. Our Democrats may just have to fight back.

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070428/LOCAL/704280365/-1/news

"TALLAHASSEE - A woman seeking an abortion in Florida would have to wait 24 hours before going through with it under a bill passed Friday by the state House. The measure could also make it more likely that she would see an ultrasound image of the fetus before undergoing the procedure.

The House may be as far as that idea goes this year, however, with the waiting period and the effort to require more pre-abortion ultrasounds unlikely to be accepted by the Senate.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Trey Traviesa, R-Orlando, would require abortion providers perform ultrasounds before almost all abortions, instead of just those in the second or third trimesters as required by current law.

Viewing the images would be optional, but women would have to sign waivers stating they declined the doctors' offers to do so.

The bill (HB 1497) passed 71-42, mostly along party lines with Republicans in favor."

[Erika]

1. Don't they see how they demean women?

I'm so sick of the GOP. They don't like women but they don't mind using DC madams.

But men are always held harmless. It's always those nasty and immoral women.

Men don't know it takes two to create life?

[madfloridian]

2. And our 3 leading candidates are going to the forum by one who supports the SC decision

the partial birth abortion ban, so-called.

I posted about it, and most of the stuff was very negative toward me....though Wallis openly says he supported that ban.

Religion now trumps medicine and science. And doctors can be out in jail for two years.

And I was criticized for posting about it because I asked for a real debate on women's rights.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1298

I don't think people understand that the religious groups are not going to stop. Not even the ones supposedly on our side.

[Erika]

3. The fundies never care about the poor, the Iraqi dead, etc

But they damn well want control over a woman's body. It's the Taliban in them. Always let men off the hook.

Throw it back at them at every chance.

[MountainLaurel]

28. Do you think they care about demeaning women?

Demeaning women is what they get off on. I doubt it even enters their minds.

[baldguy]

4. Waiting periods for abortions, but not for guns.

We live in a sad, sick world.

[Kool Kitty]

5. Bravo, baldguy.

Excellent point.

[slackmaster]

63. Gun control advocates and anti-abortion people have a lot in common

Both positions when taken to the point of harassing and inconveniencing people, and backed up with the threat of criminal prosecution for non-compliance, reveal themselves as inherently authoritarian.

We have a national database of people who are prohibited by law from owning a firearm. If you're not in the database, no interest is served by forcing you to wait in order to exercise that right. You've already decided you need or want a gun and are willing to pay for it. You don't need more time to think it over. You don't need to be interviewed by a cop to see if you are of good moral character or have a "legitimate" need for a weapon.

Likewise, a woman who has decided to get an abortion has already been thinking about it for more than 24 hours by the time she requests it. She doesn't need more time, she doesn't need an ultrasound examination, she doesn't need someone going over "alternatives". She doesn't need to be shown gory colorful photos of aborted fetuses.

In both cases the "waiting period" serves only as an attempt to intimidate the person into not going through with the decision - There is no hard evidence that the delay does any good in either situation.

Both anti-abortion extremists and gun control zealots claim to be working to save the lives of innocent people. Both claim deep moral convictions and the moral high ground. Both say that those who don't share their extreme views are complicit in an ongoing slaughter of children. Both will accuse those who disagree of just not having thought the matter through to its (one and only) logical conclusion, or having been brainwashed by an organized conspiracy to perpetuate a profitable evil.

Another hallmark of a zealot is the use of logically disjoint bits of propaganda. Extreme gun control advocates will tell you you don't need a weapon for protection. They'll say the police will protect you, that if handguns are banned that the bad guys won't have them, and that if you have a gun it will end up being used against you. Anti-abortionists say you should just have the baby and give it up for adoption, or that once you give birth your natural instincts will take over and you'll want to keep the child. Never mind that you may be the subject of a stalker who wants to kill you; or that bearing the child of a man you don't want to have anything to do with, or at a time when you are just not ready, will ruin your life.

Rather than trying to win over hearts and minds, authoritarians go straight to the use of the force of law to eliminate a practice they see as unacceptable, and that while most people in general never indulge of it a majority, when asked in an objective manner, will say they don't want to have their options restricted.

My eighth grade political science teacher explained it in a way I've never forgotten. He drew a diagram of characteristics of the left and the right. He bent the spectrum into a large curve that covered most of the blackboard (this was in the early 1970s when people still used chalk). His point, which he made eloquantly, was that when you go far enough to the right or to the left you end up at the same place: Government decides what's best for you, you don't get to decide any more, disagree and you go to jail.

[ProudDad]

73. Abortions DON'T KILL people

Guns kill people.

Your argument is bullshit.

As is the dumb argument of your 8th grade poli-sci "teacher"...

[slackmaster]

83. Whether abortions kill people or not is a matter of personal opinion

Not fact. Obviously people don't all agree. If it does kill people I'm OK with that. It doesn't necessarily make abortion wrong.

I'm solidly on the pro-choice side, ProudDad. But I do make an effort to understand differing points of view on things. Few people are capable of carrying on a nuanced discussion of emotionally charged matters like this - You can really paint yourself into a corner by making simplistic, absolute declarations like saying that killing people is always wrong. Sinking that kind of statement takes negligible effort and just a little thought. Arguing over whether or not a fertilized egg qualifies as a person avoids issues that really matter. I really don't care whether abortion kills people or not.

Guns kill people.

No, killing requires volition. Guns are tools that are sometimes used to kill people, and as with (IMO) abortion sometimes the killing is justified. But that's another oversimplification of course - Guns are also used to defend people, to prevent violence from occurring. That's why police and people with concealed weapons permits carry them. Guns are also used for activities that have no direct relation to perpetrating or stopping violence. Some people use them only for hunting. Some for target shooting. I collect them for their value and intrinsic interest, thus keeping them out of the hands of people who would misuse them. I also use them as tools for teaching gun safety.

I think abortion is a nasty, unpleasant business that no reasonable person would take lightly. But sometimes it's necessary to prevent a greater evil, and IMO only the woman has the right to make that moral judgement. I think the ongoing erosion of that right is one of the most important social issues we now face, and it's symptomatic of a much deeper political issue - The rise of authoritarianism. If the history of the 20th Century were limited to teaching a single lesson, IMO that would have to be the danger of allowing ANY fanatical ideology to be taken to the point of micromanaging the lives of individuals.

Your argument is bullshit.

As is the dumb argument of your 8th grade poli-sci "teacher"...

Yet you have no rational, logical response to it, just trying to shall we say kick the shit out of it with bumper sticker slogans, an unoriginal fusillade of schoolyard bully insults and snarky misuse of punctuation, which often seems to be your strategy for handling ideas you don't like.

[fuzzyball]

6. Support Life!

A living fetus feels pain, joy, hears sounds!
I don't see anything wrong if the mother is given
time to think about ending that precious life.
What is the hurry to kill off a potential human being?

And I support abortion in cases of rape or incest or
serious threat to mother's health.

[madfloridian]

7. Well, good for you....nice to know you get to pick for all women.

Isn't that a nice warm fuzzy feeling?

[fuzzyball]

15. I am eternally grateful to my mother for not aborting me!

[Scout]

46. if your mother had aborted you, you wouldn't know it! n/t

[fuzzyball]

49. May be, but a magnificent life and family I am blessed with would

be lost for us and the world. The extreme joy of watching
my kids excelling in school and sports would be lost. The
tremendous contributions I made to the success of the small
company I worked for would have been lost and the job
expansion which accompanied would have been lost.

Thank God my mother had more sense than to consider abortion
even though I was the result of a surprise pregnancy quite
late in my mother's child bearing age. My parents already had
5 kids before me, and did not really need another child to
be taking care of.

[Scout]

69. self-delete n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

10. good for you

then don't have an abortion. but you don't get to interfere in the private medical decisions of other people.

[Gloria]

11. If they've made up their mind, they are getting hassled, not being given

extra time to "think about" it. It's like coercion. PS--Do men have to be "given time" to wait before buying Viagra so they can consider the risk of getting a heart attack or dropping dead from taking it????

[slackmaster]

64. The one that really scares me is Cialis

The TV commercials warn, besides the danger of priapism, to call a doctor at once if you experience a sudden loss of vision.

I'm grateful to my good genes that even close to age 50 I have no sign of erectile dysfunction. Blindness scares me more than just about anything else.

:scared:

[Skittles]

12. I do not understand your position

how is that so-called life any less prcecious if a woman is raped?

[fuzzyball]

14. Because you have to weigh the aftermath on a rape victims life

due to the unwanted pregnancy against aborting a very
early period fetus. In fact I have very few objections
to 1st trimester abortions. But I am strongly against
3rd trimester abortions.

[Skittles]

17. you can be against anything you want

just don't be FOR making personal decisons for OTHERS

[fuzzyball]

30. A murder is NOT a personal matter in a civilized world!!

[wicket]

39. So who should be thrown in jail for murder?

The woman getting the abortion? The doctor performing it? In that case, does that mean every miscarriage should be investigated as a possible homicide? :shrug:

[fuzzyball]

48. Late term abortion should be investigated same as any murder..

The same effort, the same priority, the same punsihment.

I am sorry, but I just can't accept killing of a fetus who
CAN SURVIVE ON ITS OWN OUTSIDE OF THE MOTHER"S WOMB. If that
is not murder, I don't know what is.

[wicket]

55. I could see your point, if it was true

The fact is, these abortions account for less than 1% of all performed. They are performed on fetuses who will either be stillborn, will die during birth or shortly thereafter. They have severe health defects. I trust the many medical groups who have spoken out in support of keeping D&X as an option.

[Scout]

70. self-delete n/t

[Scout]

43. well abortion is not murder... civilized world or not....

and I'd say it is certainly an UNcivilized world that treats women as incubators.

[ProudDad]

74. The definition of murder is

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with "malice aforethought."

Take your fucking right-wing talking point and stick it where the sun don't shine...

Thanks; :hi:

[wicket]

82. Ha!

Thanks ProudDad, :yourock: :hi:

[slackmaster]

85. My state's definition of murder is a little different

From the California Penal Code, famous for its verbosity and complexity:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law....

Full chapter at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

;-)

[sandnsea]

18. So you decide the worthy "aftermath"?

You decide the woman, or girl, has to go to the police and go through the trauma of a trial to get a verdict to make sure she's telling the truth about the rape - and what if the jury decides she's lying, can she not get an abortion in that case? And what if the jury's wrong? And what if this takes so long that it's no longer a first trimester pregnancy, what then?

And why is the aftermath of a rape, a child - worse than the aftermath of an abusive relationship or poverty or just making a bad decision when you're too young.

And when are you going to require all menstrual materials be submitted for analysis in order to properly mourn the poor little dots of so-called potential life.

If people didn't believe in hell - people wouldn't care about abortions any more than they care about fertilized eggs that don't get implanted. And they would remember that there have always been complications in pregnancy and sometimes fetuses are "taken" in order to save the life of the mother; and we used to know that was a TRAGEDY and not a crime.

All the nonsense around abortion today is just a big load of religious myths that are totally unnecessary.

[Skittles]

21. EXCELLENT, sandnsea

you are absolutely RIGHT ON.....and even the religious crap makes no sense to me, since so many "pro-life" people are also very much pro-war :puke:

[fuzzyball]

29. I just don't relish the idea of killing even a potential human being

In fact I detest all killers, serial murderers, mass
murderers, and those who kill a fully formed baby
capable of living on its own. No one has explained
why killing a baby at 8 or 9 months and THEN delivering
is helpful to the mothers health versus delivering the
same baby alive.

[sandnsea]

31. All women are serial murderers then

All our bodies have flushed fertilized eggs, potential human beings, lots of them. Do you understand that?

[fuzzyball]

50. You are completely missing my point...

I am sorry to say. I am against killing a fetus which
is so advnaced in its development that it can survive
easily on its own outside of the mother's womb. There is
just no excuse for killing such a baby. It is murder in the
1st degree.

But I will defer to a mother's wish to abort when the fetus
is in the 1st trimester when the fetus is 100% dependent
on the mother's body. Any unwanted pregnancy should be
terminated very early. Not when the baby is fully formed
and can breathe and live on its own if given a chance.

[sandnsea]

53. Nobody does that

I am against killing a student who is so advanced in its development that it can survive easily on its own outside of the parent's home.

WTF? Nobody is doing that. So what kind of point is it?

It's a lie to confuse people and push buttons and gain Repubican votes. Stop telling it.

[ProudDad]

75. I'm afraid our friend fuzzy

has this delusion that everyone who aborts in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is doing so for their convenience.

We've tried but we can't seem to shake fuzzy of that erroneous notion.

[wicket]

84. Looks like our friend fuzzy has been tombstoned!

:evilgrin:

[colinmom71]

32. Because that doesn't happen....

Except in the most extreme of circumstances. We're talking situations where it literally comes down to saving either the pregnant woman or the baby.

There is a lot of misinformation floating around about later abortions. The language of the "Partial Birth Abortion" ban doesn't address gestational age, implying to those who read it that certain abortion procedures can be performed at any stage in pregnancy. That is simply not true. Abortions after the fetus is considered medically viable is illegal in every state in the US. It is also considered to be medically unethical and grounds for license revokation if a pregnancy is aborted for any reason beyond an imminent and extreme threat to the pregnant woman's health.

Intact Dilation and Extraction (ID&X) is the second trimester abortion procedure that is most closely related to the purported method that a "PBA" involves. Except that the anti-choice groups who coined the "PBA" terminology conveniently omitted info from the technical description of an ID&X that illustrates the procedure's limitations. For one, an ID&X cannot be performed beyond 26 weeks gestation because by that point in development, the fetus is too large to be safely removed through the cervix without risking the very damage an ID&X seeks to avoid (such as cervical or uterine perforation or excessive bleeding for OB patients with a history of bleeding disorders).

Also, an ID&X takes days to perform, with pre-surgery prep being crucial to protecting maternal health. Part of that prep is determining gestational age accurately, garnering relevant medical info on the fetus and the pregnant woman, and dilating the cervix for the surgery the next day. The fetus is also euthanized via direct injection so as to reduce reflexive movements by the fetus that might cause complications during the surgery. That and it is also a comfort for the already grieving parents to know that their baby will not experience pain during the procedure. Though that couldn't happen anyway, due to reasons I mentioned in a post in this thread earlier (reference RCOG study on fetal pain). Still, it keeps worried and scared expectant parents from having more to worry about.

But of course the language of the "PBA" doesn't address this either. It's designed to make people think that women can just walk into a clinic and abort any time they decide they no longer want to be pregnant, which is far from the case. The further along a pregnancy is, the more medically risky it is to end a pregnancy. Once a woman is close to or in the third trimester, no responsible physician is going to allow an abortion when aborting at that stage in pregnancy is actually more risky to the woman's health and future fertility than remaining pregnant and giving birth at term.

For well over a decade now, the accepted medical practice is to deliver a viable fetus early (usually about 24 weeks and up) if maternal health complications deem ending the pregnancy to be in her better therapeutic interests. Indeed, this practice is the only reason my son, who was born at 24 weeks 11 years ago, is alive today...

[fuzzyball]

51. But there are people who want abortion to be legal AT ANY STAGE

of pregnancy.

And thanks for a good explanation of what goes on in the
real world.

I am still confused as to how it makes any difference to
the mother's health whether the fetus is delivered dead or
alive. If the mother is unable to take care of the baby,
because of health reasons, is'nt there a shortage of very
young babies available for adoption?

[colinmom71]

54. The majority of maternal health issues do not render her incapable of caring for her child...

Provided that her health issues are addressed and managed properly by her personal physician.

Severe fetal health defects are the primary reason abortions are performed past 18 weeks until 24 weeks. In other words, the pregnancy is ended before the fetus is even viable (able to live outside the womb). The fetus usually doesn't have a chance to live anyway in these situations, even if the pregnancy were carried to term.

Physicians who present an ID&X as an option are doing so because the pregnant woman's health will withstand fewer risks of foreseeable complications to pre-existing health problems where it has already been decided to terminate the pre-viability pregnancy. A large part of protecting maternal health in these situations is to reduce the potential for damage to the female's reproductive system as is possible, such as damage to the uterus and cervix which can have lasting effects upon her ability to carry future pregnancies. It's not just a matter of avoiding imminent health threats such as bleeding complications. It is also a matter of protecting the woman's long term health and reproductive function. Unless you somehow believe that a woman who opts to terminate a pregnancy for fetal health issues also deserves to lose her future childbearing ability? Somehow, you don't strike me as that vindictive or narrow-minded.

As for whether there is a shortage of people willing to adopt newborns... Well, there's not a shortage of those wanting to adopt HEALTHY newborns. Unfortunately, a lot of these fetuses in these situations are not at all healthy. In fact, most would not even survive to term and/or delivery. Those unhealthy babies who do survive are not considered very "adoptable" by anxious prospective adoptive parents. Look up any local or state level foster system and you'll see numerous babies with chronic health problems who remain unadopted and even unfostered.

When my son was in the NICU 11 years ago, the nurses once told me about a sweet little girl who lived in the pediatric ward after her own stay in the NICU for a year or so. She was 5 years old by that time and had never lived outside the hospital walls. Her parents had abandoned her once it became clear she was not going to ever be a healthy and typically abled child. They had never managed to find a qualified and willing foster home to suit her medical needs, so she lived in the hospital. So no, there is not a shortage of adoptive homes for kids with these extreme medical needs...

I have to admit it is my own personal issues that compel me to defend abortions that help optimize a woman's future reproductive health where the pregnancy is already essentially doomed. My son's premature birth was rife with complications and essentially left me unable to have any more children (high risk of uterine rupture, incompetent cervix, etc.). It's been a long hard road of depression and heartbreak to accepting the fact that I will never have a child from whom I will hear the words "I love you mommy" or "Watch this!"... My son is severely and permanently disabled from his premature birth. I love him dearly and am very grateful he's alive, but it came at a high cost after the fact. A cost I truly feel that every woman has a right to defend herself and her family from experiencing....

[wicket]

57. Thank-you for sharing your very personal story

:hug:

[ProudDad]

76. ABORTION ALREADY IS legal at any stage

to preserve the health or life of the mother except for this new fucked up SCOTUS decision concerning hopefully but not clearly) one procedure

This is a SECULAR country. We don't want ignorant myth believers depriving women of a right they already have!!!

Don't you realize that sometimes it IS the medically safer procedure to abort the fetus (NOT CHILD, FETUS) than to give it (still)birth?

I would trust a doctor and the woman carrying the fetus to make that decision. We don't need the fucking government, the courts or you to do it for them.

[wicket]

36. Well that's nice, especially since you'll never be faced with that decision

Being male :hi:

[fuzzyball]

52. Except there are 3 females in my own family who could face

such a decision. So just because I am male does not mean
I am disconnected from this issue of life and death.

[wicket]

56. You will never face the decision, period

:shrug:

[avrdream]

19. Be very careful before you make that generalization.

Fuzzy math, I think.

1) When does said living fetus feel pain?

2) When does said living fetus feel joy?

3) When does said living fetus hear sounds?

I challenge you to prove that the 7-12 week fetus (the time when most terminations occur) feels pain or joy or has the auditory system to hear sound.

As a matter of fact, I know lots of adults who have yet to feel joy.

[colinmom71]

25. Well, I can address two of those questions...

When does a fetus feel pain? According to the consensus and conclusion from the 1997 RCOG (Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology) study concerning fetal pain awareness, fetuses are not capable of pain perception until around 26 weeks, when the final neural connections between the body's neural system, hypothalamus, and brain are made and become fully functioning. A more recent study by US doctors arrived at the same conclusion.

When does a fetus have the capability to hear? Well, we do know that sounds can alter stats in premature neonates as young as 24 weeks, so it does seem that hearing is functioning at around this gestational age. Not that it has any meaningful contribuion to determining fetal viability though.

The notion of emotional awareness is a far more complex function and is not something that can be appreciably measured in neonates, especially preemies... And as such, it also has no relevance to determining fetal viability. But then viability is a mater of medical functioning and not a matter of philosophical issues of personhood.

[raccoon]

37. And a fetus that was the result of rape or incest doesn't feel pain,

joy, hear sounds?

I'm pro-choice myself. But seems to me that when somebody is anti-abortion except in cases of rape or incest, what they're really saying is that abortion is only allowed if the woman didn't have consensual sex.

[ProudDad]

77. "abortion is only allowed if the woman didn't have consensual sex." Exactly

they are PUNISHING the woman from (allegedly) having a good time during conception and/or having sex without desiring conception.

That's the theocracy raising its ugly, myth filled head to tell the rest of us how we MUST live.

Fuck 'em.

[JetCityLiberal]

41. It is NONE of your business

You are male, none of your business. Ever. Get over your need to CONTROL women because that is what this is all about.

The rest is bullshit right wing talking point spew.

Paul

[Scout]

45. how exactly does a fetus feel joy?

The pregnant woman has ALREADY had time to think about terminating her pregnancy, before she made the appointment. She doesn't need a lecture and a pat on the head, to be sent home to think about it.

How can you be ok with terminating some fetuses (in case of rape or incest) but not others? Aren't they all the same? Aren't they all worth the same "protections"?

I'd really like to know how a fetus can experience joy....

[Gloria]

8. Who would pay for the ultrasound???? If YOU had to pay it and didn't have the $$,

I guess you'd not get a safe abortion in FL! Off to the back alley, with you! F*CK THEM!

[colinmom71]

26. Actually most clinics already do perform ultrasounds...

It's considered a routine part of the pre-abortion exam in order to determine correct gestational age of the embryo/fetus and thus decide which aborion procedure is most appropriate and least risky for the patient. The cost is minimal and is rolled into the cost of the abortion itself... It's just that the clinic doesn't force the woman to see the actual ultrasound, as this bill would attempt to have them do...

[yellowcanine]

61. But ultrasounds are not risk free and it is still a medical procedure. So a legislature has no

business ordering it. In fact, the case could be made that the legislature is practicing medicine without a medical license - a felony in most states.

[MLFerrell]

9. Well, on the surface, I don't have a problem with THIS part of the bill...

"A woman seeking an abortion in Florida would have to wait 24 hours before going through with it under a bill passed Friday by the state House."

Until I read the following sentence, that is: "The measure could also make it more likely that she would see an ultrasound image of the fetus before undergoing the procedure."

Yeah, that's a Rightist for you. Their policies are predicated on sheer lunacy, and fearmongering. Or in this case, a largely futile tug at the proverbial heartstrings.

Fuck each and every one of them. I'm not female, yet this pisses me off to no end. Why? Because I know that it won't be limited to a "picture of an ultrasound". These bastards will drop their "It's ALIVE!" rhetoric at every single turn.

"DO YOU WANT TO BE A MURDERER?" "Cause this here baybay is ALIVE! Praise the Jebus!"
Fuck, every day in the empire makes me hate it more and more.

Yeah, lurking freeps, you heard me right. I HATE GWBs America!

[madfloridian]

13. What if the timeline is crucial?

Why does the legislature get to decide?

[MLFerrell]

23. I would certainly make an exception in cases where the need was imminent.

[yellowcanine]

62. Not good enough because then doctors are in the position of being second guessed by prosecutors.

Don't you think that would influence their medical judgement? Legislators need to stay out of the doctor - patient conversation.

[ProudDad]

78. I reiterate the previous question

WHY THE HELL does the "legislature" decide???

They have NO right...

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[avrdream]

20. Like it appears to be destroying you, mate.

This is clearly an emotional issue for you.

Do us all a favor and use some FACTS in your argument.

[MLFerrell]

24. "Hate will destroy you from inside!!"

Huh. You don't say.

That's funny, 'cause it hasn't yet, and I kind of doubt it will. Hate is the raw, unrefined expression of psychic anguish. Some prefer to mold it into sorrow, or rage, or action... I prefer to let it persist in its native state.

[colinmom71]

27. I have a problem with waiting periods....

It's demeaning to require a waiting period. It treats a woman like she can't possibly be cognizant enough to have actually put forethought into the decision of terminating a pregnancy before she shows up at the clinic. As does the ultrasound provision of this bill... Implying that no woman actually knows that a continued pregnancy results in the birth of a baby so she must be shown "the way"...

And yeah, I agree with the rest of your post. Sometimes the anti-choicers drive me nuts with the sanctimonious "women as dumb chattle" mentality. Grr...

[Bridget Burke]

34. Waiting periods can cause real-life difficulty.

We've got them in Texas. Outside the cities, abortion providers can be rare. And this is a big state.

So--the woman drives to the nearest clinic. (Or takes the bus.) She has her initial appointment. Then checks into a motel until the procedure. Meanwhile--what about her job? Who's taking care of the kids she may already have? What about other family obligations?

Extra time & extra money. Yeah, abortion is done on "impulse."

[JetCityLiberal]

42. I will tell you too

as a man, it is NONE of your business what a Woman does with her body. Period. Waiting period? Gimmee a break, it is 'control period'.

Glad it pisses you off but it is never your business what a woman does with her body. Get out there and fight for her right to 100 percent control over her body like you have.

Paul

[Kool Kitty]

44. JetCityLiberal,

:loveya:

[JetCityLiberal]

47. I have been busy in the Choice Forums today

and they are really pissing me off...to read that crap on Democratic Forums!!! Utter bs and I intend to call every right wing talking point I see on this.

Women rock. This is about control. Men needing to control. I will stand with Women on this always.

bliss_eternal is gathering support for a Pro-Choice Forum, can't believe it has to come to that but I am onboard.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x5231

Right back at ya Kool Kitty! :yourock:

Paul

[wicket]

65. I love you Paul!

:hi: :D

[Pugee]

22. A very interesting blog/table that compares anti-choicers talking points

with consistency with other beliefs and how the talking points punish women. Scroll down a bit and look at the table.

.....the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to penalize women who have sex.......



http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/03/21/why-its-difficult-to-believe-that-anti-choicers-mean-what-they-say/

[raccoon]

38. Thanks for the link. nt

[RapidCreek]

33. I have an idea

Let's have a national referendum and ask all the voters who supports this idea and or the abolishment of abortions. When we find out let's make this idiotic idea law and charge those who support it for the DNA test and Ultrasound. The same thing should be done with the proposed abolishment of abortions, any form beyond late term. It should include the womans health care costs while pregnant and any charges uncured as a result of damage to the woman due to the birth. In addition is should include the cost of raising the child from birth to the twenty first year.

I'm just guessing here, mind you, but I would surmise that interest in such an abrogation of ones civil rights would dissipate instantly.


RC

[tigereye]

35. this is incredibly manipulative

these women don't need more incentive to make a personal decision....

[wicket]

40. Exactly

n/t

[sampsonblk]

58. I am good with a waiting period

What is 24 hours? Big deal.

[yellowcanine]

60. It could be a lot if a doctor thinks it is medically necessary to do it right now.

And then the doctor runs the risk of being second guessed by a gung ho prosecutor. No thanks. No doctor is going to be in favor of such a situation.

[sampsonblk]

68. That's a minor issue

Surely that can be resolved by sensible people. In any event, in principle the waiting period is fine in my opinion.

[yellowcanine]

71. Not really. We are not always dealing with sensible people, There have been

prosecutors ready to throw young girls in jail if they didn't tell who made them pregnant and prosecutors ready to throw abortion providers in jail if they didn't provide the state confidential medical information in attempts to ferret out who had gotten an abortion so the prosecutor could make sure a crime hadn't been committed (not to investigate probable cause of a crime}. Sensible people indeed. And this doesn't even get into the problem of making a vulnerable young woman "run the gauntlet" of abortion protesters twice to get a legal medical procedure done. Do you really think protesters wouldn't begin following the women home to "help them" make the "right" decision? What's to stop them?

[ProudDad]

79. Well

thank you very little.

You weren't asked and have no say over what WOMEN do with their own bodies...

A waiting period IS a big deal if you're poor and have to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest provider.

Glad you're comfortable though... :grr:

[sampsonblk]

81. Oh boy...

I certainly was asked. I am an American and a voter. And this issue is going to be decided at the polls. So I do have a say. And I get asked every election day.

[yellowcanine]

59. Since when did legislators become medical practitioners? Ordering an ultrasound is a medical

decision. Aren't legislators practicing medicine without a license to order ultrasounds for patients? Not to mention giving a medical order without actually seeing the patient. Ultrasounds are not risk free and they are also not cheap. Are the legislators going to appropriate funds to pay for these procedures?

[wicket]

67. "Are the legislators going to appropriate funds to pay for these procedures?"

I think we already know the answer to that. :grr:

[sakabatou]

66. Let the guilt tripping begin!

[Jack Sprat]

72. They require waiting time and utrasounds for voting, too.

[ProudDad]

80. ???

I didn't get your "joke"..

[Jack Sprat]

86. I am sure "glad". Downy for the "panties"?