Talk about BIG GOVERNMENT, FORCING women to get an ultrasound, though not medically needed. Brought to again by Republican legislating their extreme perception of morality.

http://www.slate.com/arti...ingle.html

so now you are opposed?

and it is alrready a law in texas! so why all mad now?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

and it is alrready a law in texas! so why all mad now?

You're upset about the church and birth control although the church lives with the states imposing the same condition.

So why mad now? Where were you when 28 states were "violating the freedom of religion?"

You don't care. You just hate.

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

and it is alrready a law in texas! so why all mad now?

You're upset about the church and birth control although the church lives with the states imposing the same condition.

So why mad now? Where were you when 28 states were "violating the freedom of religion?"

You don't care. You just hate.

i am always going to be upset when the Constitution is violated. Did I give an opinion on this law?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

You're upset about the church and birth control although the church lives with the states imposing the same condition.

So why mad now? Where were you when 28 states were "violating the freedom of religion?"

You don't care. You just hate.

i am always going to be upset when the Constitution is violated. Did I give an opinion on this law?

Since in this case it isn't I don't see what you're upset about.

If it is Unconstitutional then the states shouldn't be able to do it either, as that would be unconstitutional in itself.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

You're upset about the church and birth control although the church lives with the states imposing the same condition.

So why mad now? Where were you when 28 states were "violating the freedom of religion?"

You don't care. You just hate.

i am always going to be upset when the Constitution is violated. Did I give an opinion on this law?

28 states are doing it, according to you and ONLY you, they are violating the Constitution? Wow, were did you get your degree?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so now you are opposed?

Absolutely not the same thing. Tell that to any woman and they will slap you. Being able to access birth control and being forced to be penetrated with an ultrasound machine for NOT medical purpose are not comparable. It's anothe law targetting women's rights and her right to chose what she does with her life by government. BIG GOVERNMENT!

I've said it once and I'll say it again, unless you are the mother or father or care to pay for baby's healthcare, you have no say on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Republicans love raping women, this is proof.

rudedog said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so now you are opposed?

Absolutely not the same thing. Tell that to any woman and they will slap you. Being able to access birth control and being forced to be penetrated with an ultrasound machine for NOT medical purpose are not comparable. It's anothe law targetting women's rights and her right to chose what she does with her life by government. BIG GOVERNMENT!

I've said it once and I'll say it again, unless you are the mother or father or care to pay for baby's healthcare, you have no say on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

as if the huge metal hook used to rip the baby limb from limb is as less intrusive.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

Absolutely not the same thing. Tell that to any woman and they will slap you. Being able to access birth control and being forced to be penetrated with an ultrasound machine for NOT medical purpose are not comparable. It's anothe law targetting women's rights and her right to chose what she does with her life by government. BIG GOVERNMENT!

I've said it once and I'll say it again, unless you are the mother or father or care to pay for baby's healthcare, you have no say on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

as if the huge metal hook used to rip the baby limb from limb is as less intrusive.

Not the point.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

Absolutely not the same thing. Tell that to any woman and they will slap you. Being able to access birth control and being forced to be penetrated with an ultrasound machine for NOT medical purpose are not comparable. It's anothe law targetting women's rights and her right to chose what she does with her life by government. BIG GOVERNMENT!

I've said it once and I'll say it again, unless you are the mother or father or care to pay for baby's healthcare, you have no say on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

as if the huge metal hook used to rip the baby limb from limb is as less intrusive.

HAHAHAHHAAA! Another Conservative fear tactic! Those are back alley abortions, not PP ones and they are done in the third trimester, STRICTLY ILLEGAL IN THE U.S. Now, you get rid of PP, you will see more of these and women death rate skyrocket. But again, why should you care? You're not the one that has to deal with the kid.

rudedog said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

as if the huge metal hook used to rip the baby limb from limb is as less intrusive.

HAHAHAHHAAA! Another Conservative fear tactic! Those are back alley abortions, not PP ones and they are done in the third trimester, STRICTLY ILLEGAL IN THE U.S. Now, you get rid of PP, you will see more of these and women death rate skyrocket. But again, why should you care? You're not the one that has to deal with the kid.

no fear here. Little bit on an exaggeration? sure but the fact is any abortion at any time is way more intrusives than a vag ultrasound. I also am assuming that they give then ultrasounds before and after in all abortions as they have to make sure they get it all out. Seems like a made up nonsense to get mad over as there is NO case to be made that this violates roe v wade!

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

HAHAHAHHAAA! Another Conservative fear tactic! Those are back alley abortions, not PP ones and they are done in the third trimester, STRICTLY ILLEGAL IN THE U.S. Now, you get rid of PP, you will see more of these and women death rate skyrocket. But again, why should you care? You're not the one that has to deal with the kid.

no fear here. Little bit on an exaggeration? sure but the fact is any abortion at any time is way more intrusives than a vag ultrasound. I also am assuming that they give then ultrasounds before and after in all abortions as they have to make sure they get it all out. Seems like a made up nonsense to get mad over as there is NO case to be made that this violates roe v wade!

I was thinking the same thing about the contraception issue a couple of days back. I guess it's about respect.

V10LETBLUES said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

no fear here. Little bit on an exaggeration? sure but the fact is any abortion at any time is way more intrusives than a vag ultrasound. I also am assuming that they give then ultrasounds before and after in all abortions as they have to make sure they get it all out. Seems like a made up nonsense to get mad over as there is NO case to be made that this violates roe v wade!

I was thinking the same thing about the contraception issue a couple of days back. I guess it's about respect.

or lack of. I am not sure I like this law. But I do not see any conflict with ROE V WADE. I also suppect that they always do ultrasounds for abortions. I am going to say they are medically necessary prior to to make sure there is even a need. Of course some want to call abortions no medical as to avoid any medical standards of safety.

a simualr outrage was heard when it was suggested that all abortion clinis have the same health and safty standards that all medical practices had tells me the pro-aborts (let's face it most woman in need of one choose to have underprotected sex) care less about woman's health and more about their poltical agenda.

and I am not all that opposed to abortions as protectected under Roe V Wade.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

rudedog said:

HAHAHAHHAAA! Another Conservative fear tactic! Those are back alley abortions, not PP ones and they are done in the third trimester, STRICTLY ILLEGAL IN THE U.S. Now, you get rid of PP, you will see more of these and women death rate skyrocket. But again, why should you care? You're not the one that has to deal with the kid.

no fear here. Little bit on an exaggeration? sure but the fact is any abortion at any time is way more intrusives than a vag ultrasound. I also am assuming that they give then ultrasounds before and after in all abortions as they have to make sure they get it all out. Seems like a made up nonsense to get mad over as there is NO case to be made that this violates roe v wade!

Why don't you actually find out and let us know?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I was thinking the same thing about the contraception issue a couple of days back. I guess it's about respect.

or lack of. I am not sure I like this law. But I do not see any conflict with ROE V WADE. I also suppect that they always do ultrasounds for abortions. I am going to say they are medically necessary prior to to make sure there is even a need. Of course some want to call abortions no medical as to avoid any medical standards of safety.

a simualr outrage was heard when it was suggested that all abortion clinis have the same health and safty standards that all medical practices had tells me the pro-aborts (let's face it most woman in need of one choose to have underprotected sex) care less about woman's health and more about their poltical agenda.

and I am not all that opposed to abortions as protectected under Roe V Wade.

Wow. You suspect? You are going to say . . . .

Why not do a little research so you are more knowledgeable?

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

or lack of. I am not sure I like this law. But I do not see any conflict with ROE V WADE. I also suppect that they always do ultrasounds for abortions. I am going to say they are medically necessary prior to to make sure there is even a need. Of course some want to call abortions no medical as to avoid any medical standards of safety.

a simualr outrage was heard when it was suggested that all abortion clinis have the same health and safty standards that all medical practices had tells me the pro-aborts (let's face it most woman in need of one choose to have underprotected sex) care less about woman's health and more about their poltical agenda.

and I am not all that opposed to abortions as protectected under Roe V Wade.

Wow. You suspect? You are going to say . . . .

Why not do a little research so you are more knowledgeable?

well the story as posted assumes there is not. I would think they would have to know what is in there and that they got it all out.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

Wow. You suspect? You are going to say . . . .

Why not do a little research so you are more knowledgeable?

well the story as posted assumes there is not. I would think they would have to know what is in there and that they got it all out.

that is not the intent and you know it.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

well the story as posted assumes there is not. I would think they would have to know what is in there and that they got it all out.

that is not the intent and you know it.

the intent is to make sure the woman is informed and knows what it is she is about to have removed.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

that is not the intent and you know it.

the intent is to make sure the woman is informed and knows what it is she is about to have removed.

So the fact that she's seeking an abortion doesn't tell her that?

Would she be seeking an abortion for say, a mass in her breast?!

Makes no sense . . . .

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

Wow. You suspect? You are going to say . . . .

Why not do a little research so you are more knowledgeable?

well the story as posted assumes there is not. I would think they would have to know what is in there and that they got it all out.

God forbid you go deeper than what someone wrote in a story.

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the intent is to make sure the woman is informed and knows what it is she is about to have removed.

So the fact that she's seeking an abortion doesn't tell her that?

Would she be seeking an abortion for say, a mass in her breast?!

Makes no sense . . . .

Did i say it made sense? I am just playing angel's advocate here. I am not sure how I feel about that law. I do not think it is by any means a violation. And I by NO MEANS buy the sillness that the woman will feel violated by the ultrasound.

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

well the story as posted assumes there is not. I would think they would have to know what is in there and that they got it all out.

God forbid you go deeper than what someone wrote in a story.

which is what I did, I did some research and found that yes ultrasounds are typical. The idea that a woman will feel violated by the vag-ultrasound is silly as the abortion itself is going to be worst.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

God forbid you go deeper than what someone wrote in a story.

which is what I did, I did some research and found that yes ultrasounds are typical. The idea that a woman will feel violated by the vag-ultrasound is silly as the abortion itself is going to be worst.

That is not silly. Unless you expect someone to get used to being violated.

The conception may have been a violation also.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

So the fact that she's seeking an abortion doesn't tell her that?

Would she be seeking an abortion for say, a mass in her breast?!

Makes no sense . . . .

Did i say it made sense? I am just playing angel's advocate here. I am not sure how I feel about that law. I do not think it is by any means a violation. And I by NO MEANS buy the sillness that the woman will feel violated by the ultrasound.

Well let's shove something up your *$@ unneccesarily the next time you go to the doctor and see how you feel.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Did i say it made sense? I am just playing angel's advocate here. I am not sure how I feel about that law. I do not think it is by any means a violation. And I by NO MEANS buy the sillness that the woman will feel violated by the ultrasound.

Well let's shove something up your *$@ unneccesarily the next time you go to the doctor and see how you feel.

at my age it happens every time. But yeah: you know where babies come from, typically speaking....right? well that is the same path through which the fetus is expelled. Physically speaking the Transvaginal ultrasound is fall less of an issue than the abortion process.

this it is like me saying the digital exam prior to a colonoscopy is something for me to get all in a twist over.

[Edited 2/20/12 14:18pm]

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the intent is to make sure the woman is informed and knows what it is she is about to have removed.

So the fact that she's seeking an abortion doesn't tell her that?

Would she be seeking an abortion for say, a mass in her breast?!

Makes no sense . . . .

then if she knows then she should have no issue seeing what it looks like. Seems the only issue they can come up against it is the Transvaginal ultrasound. But given all that a abortion intails this is no issue.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

So the fact that she's seeking an abortion doesn't tell her that?

Would she be seeking an abortion for say, a mass in her breast?!

Makes no sense . . . .

then if she knows then she should have no issue seeing what it looks like. Seems the only issue they can come up against it is the Transvaginal ultrasound. But given all that a abortion intails this is no issue.

She may have no issue, but why the legal requirement?

Why is the government making her look?

You don't want the government making you buy health insurance but you have no problem with the government forcing ultrasounds on women.

Par for the course . . . .

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Well let's shove something up your *$@ unneccesarily the next time you go to the doctor and see how you feel.

at my age it happens every time. But yeah: you know where babies come from, typically speaking....right? well that is the same path through which the fetus is expelled. Physically speaking the Transvaginal ultrasound is fall less of an issue than the abortion process.

this it is like me saying the digital exam prior to a colonoscopy is something for me to get all in a twist over.

[Edited 2/20/12 14:18pm]

BS. You don't need a prostate exam everytime you visit the doctor. Once a decade unless there is a baseline to watch.

Comparing an ultrasound to a digital exam?

Is the issue here comfort or government interference?

If the government can make her have an ultrasound, why can't the same government make you buy insurance as they are looking out for YOUR well being?

SUPRMAN said:

BS. You don't need a prostate exam everytime you visit the doctor. Once a decade unless there is a baseline to watch.

I have such reason to be examined every year.

Comparing an ultrasound to a digital exam?

yeah, the size difference seems comparable.

Is the issue here comfort or government interference?

oh like when they want to force churchs to pay for insurance that provides birth control?

If the government can make her have an ultrasound, why can't the same government make you buy insurance as they are looking out for YOUR well being?

humm... i do not recall ever saying they can.

rudedog said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so now you are opposed?

Absolutely not the same thing. Tell that to any woman and they will slap you. Being able to access birth control and being forced to be penetrated with an ultrasound machine for NOT medical purpose are not comparable. It's anothe law targetting women's rights and her right to chose what she does with her life by government. BIG GOVERNMENT!

I've said it once and I'll say it again, unless you are the mother or father or care to pay for baby's healthcare, you have no say on a woman's decision to have an abortion.

^what he so eloquently said

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Well let's shove something up your *$@ unneccesarily the next time you go to the doctor and see how you feel.

at my age it happens every time. But yeah: you know where babies come from, typically speaking....right? well that is the same path through which the fetus is expelled. Physically speaking the Transvaginal ultrasound is fall less of an issue than the abortion process.

this it is like me saying the digital exam prior to a colonoscopy is something for me to get all in a twist over.

[Edited 2/20/12 14:18pm]

It is an invasion of the woman against her will. It's plenty to get pissed off about. It's rape.

Here is a picture of the "General Pathology Transvaginal Ultrasound" device.

Get one here for only $5,999.00..while supplies last.

http://www.bluephantom.co...px?cid=412

[Edited 2/21/12 13:47pm]

so it is about the size of a speculum...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so it is about the size of a speculum...

ARE YOU MASTURBATING THE PICTURE!!

V10LETBLUES said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so it is about the size of a speculum...

ARE YOU MASTURBATING THE PICTURE!!

so you have never seen a Speculum.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

V10LETBLUES said:

ARE YOU MASTURBATING THE PICTURE!!

so you have never seen a Speculum.

I was only teasing you. Meant as a joke.

V10LETBLUES said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so you have never seen a Speculum.

I was only teasing you. Meant as a joke.

oh ok...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I was only teasing you. Meant as a joke.

oh ok...

I worry about you sometimes.

V10LETBLUES said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

oh ok...

I worry about you sometimes.

well thank you.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

V10LETBLUES said:

I worry about you sometimes.

well thank you.

She worries because she knows you are a perfect candidate for Obama's secret camps, what with all the ridiculous lies you peddle on the net. Big brother is watching!

Indeed it is an abominaiton:

“Under any other circumstances, forcing an unwilling person to submit to a vaginal probing would be a violation beyond imagining. Requiring a doctor to commit such an act, especially when medically unnecessary, and to submit to an arbitrary waiting period, is to demand an abrogation of medical ethics, if not common decency.”*

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so it is about the size of a speculum...

And bigger than a penis. What does the size have to do with anything?

sextonseven said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

so it is about the size of a speculum...

And bigger than a penis. What does the size have to do with anything?

a speculum is going to be used in 100% of abortions so the idea that it is akin to Rape to use on on a woman is flux outrage.

It also seems to say that if the ultrasound can be done externally then there is no problem with it.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sextonseven said:

And bigger than a penis. What does the size have to do with anything?

a speculum is going to be used in 100% of abortions so the idea that it is akin to Rape to use on on a woman is flux outrage.

It also seems to say that if the ultrasound can be done externally then there is no problem with it.

When a woman gets an abortion, she wants the abortion.

These forced ultrasounds are unwanted. That's why they are being compared to rape which has nothing to do with the size of the instrument being used.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell on Wednesday said he would not support a controversial bill requiring women undergo an invasive ultrasound before having an abortion.

sextonseven said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

a speculum is going to be used in 100% of abortions so the idea that it is akin to Rape to use on on a woman is flux outrage.

It also seems to say that if the ultrasound can be done externally then there is no problem with it.

When a woman gets an abortion, she wants the abortion.

These forced ultrasounds are unwanted. That's why they are being compared to rape which has nothing to do with the size of the instrument being used.

sextonseven said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

a speculum is going to be used in 100% of abortions so the idea that it is akin to Rape to use on on a woman is flux outrage.

It also seems to say that if the ultrasound can be done externally then there is no problem with it.

When a woman gets an abortion, she wants the abortion.

These forced ultrasounds are unwanted. That's why they are being compared to rape which has nothing to do with the size of the instrument being used.

Since when has this been about what women want?

SUPRMAN said:

sextonseven said:

When a woman gets an abortion, she wants the abortion.

These forced ultrasounds are unwanted. That's why they are being compared to rape which has nothing to do with the size of the instrument being used.

Since when has this been about what women want?

Since 1973...

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

DiminutiveRocker said:

SUPRMAN said:

Since when has this been about what women want?

Since 1973...

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

Then why this thread?

SUPRMAN said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

Since 1973...

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

Then why this thread?

That's a question for the Republicans supporting this intollerable law.

DiminutiveRocker said:

SUPRMAN said:

Then why this thread?

That's a question for the Republicans supporting this intollerable law.

this law is allowable under roe v wade

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

That's a question for the Republicans supporting this intollerable law.

this law is allowable under roe v wade

We're not talking about abortion, genius. I suggest you see the thread topic.

But if this *is* what you mean, then please post on here the part of the this Virginia proposed law about giving women unnecessary and with no medical reason vaginal ultrasounds that Roe v Wade specifically supports.

Roe v. Wade gave women more rights... this Virginia law seems to want to force instruments into a woman's vagina against her will with no real medical reason. I doubt the authors of Roe V. Wade had this in mind when the law was written.

[Edited 2/25/12 14:34pm]

DiminutiveRocker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

this law is allowable under roe v wade

We're not talking about abortion, genius. I suugest you see the thread topic.

But if this *is* what you mean, then please post on here the part of the this Virginia proposed law about giving women unnecessary and with no medical reason vaginal ultrasounds that Roe v Wade specifically supports.

there is a medical reason for an ultrasound as they have to know what it is they are removing. A Trans Vaginal ultrasound is not always necessary, but it is better early term as it provides a better angle of the fetus.

And where did I say anything what so ever about R V W supporting it? Makes your snarky attempt at an insult a bit ironic.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

We're not talking about abortion, genius. I suugest you see the thread topic.

But if this *is* what you mean, then please post on here the part of the this Virginia proposed law about giving women unnecessary and with no medical reason vaginal ultrasounds that Roe v Wade specifically supports.

there is a medical reason for an ultrasound as they have to know what it is they are removing. A Trans Vaginal ultrasound is not always necessary, but it is better early term as it provides a better angle of the fetus.

And where did I say anything what so ever about R V W supporting it? Makes your snarky attempt at an insult a bit ironic.

No, the irony is that the authors of this law have taken so much heat for it because it is abominable - that it'll probably die. God willing.

typo edit

[Edited 2/25/12 14:43pm]

UPDATE:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell on Friday explained his decision to call for amendments on a controversial bill requiring women to have ultrasounds before getting an abortion, noting that legal advisers had warned him it could be legally problematic.

"I got legal advice from various people, including my attorney general, that these kinds of mandatory invasive requirements might run afoul of Fourth Amendment law," McDonnell said in a Politico panel with Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley on Friday. "Those were the reasons."

DiminutiveRocker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

there is a medical reason for an ultrasound as they have to know what it is they are removing. A Trans Vaginal ultrasound is not always necessary, but it is better early term as it provides a better angle of the fetus.

And where did I say anything what so ever about R V W supporting it? Makes your snarky attempt at an insult a bit ironic.

No, the irony is that the authors of this law have taken so much heat for it because it is abominable - that it'll probably die. God willing.

typo edit

[Edited 2/25/12 14:43pm]

and note: i have never said i was for this law. I just do not buy that there is ANY reasonable complaint to be made that just prior to having an abortion (which is far more intrusive that this device) that a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be an issue.

I suggest that the complaint is one that is a means to stop the law. It is flux outrage for the personal/political pro-abortion agenda.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

No, the irony is that the authors of this law have taken so much heat for it because it is abominable - that it'll probably die. God willing.

typo edit

[Edited 2/25/12 14:43pm]

and note: i have never said i was for this law. I just do not buy that there is ANY reasonable complaint to be made that just prior to having an abortion (which is far more intrusive that this device) that a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be an issue.

I suggest that the complaint is one that is a means to stop the law. It is flux outrage for the personal/political pro-abortion agenda.

I find your response quite amusing when the whole purpose of the law is trying to make an influence. It has nothing to do with health, in fact, it is meaningless. It is a procedure that is not necessary.

Lets not beat around the bush, the whole purpose of this law is the idea that mayber if they get an ultrasound, they won't have an abortion. Now that is just not right. This is coming from someone that is pro-life.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

No, the irony is that the authors of this law have taken so much heat for it because it is abominable - that it'll probably die. God willing.

typo edit

[Edited 2/25/12 14:43pm]

and note: i have never said i was for this law. I just do not buy that there is ANY reasonable complaint to be made that just prior to having an abortion (which is far more intrusive that this device) that a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be an issue.

I suggest that the complaint is one that is a means to stop the law. It is flux outrage for the personal/political pro-abortion agenda.

Do you really not understand that these people wanting a woman to see what she is aborting in hopes that she will change her mind is a problem?

You ever have a transvaginal ultrasound?

buist said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

and note: i have never said i was for this law. I just do not buy that there is ANY reasonable complaint to be made that just prior to having an abortion (which is far more intrusive that this device) that a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be an issue.

I suggest that the complaint is one that is a means to stop the law. It is flux outrage for the personal/political pro-abortion agenda.

I find your response quite amusing when the whole purpose of the law is trying to make an influence. It has nothing to do with health, in fact, it is meaningless. It is a procedure that is not necessary.

and? I understand that. I see both sides playing the same game. I agree this is a move to do 2 things: 1) make woman less likely to have one and 2) ...the real agenda... a step to banning them. at least in the late terms (which are not protected under roe v wade)

Lets not beat around the bush, the whole purpose of this law is the idea that mayber if they get an ultrasound, they won't have an abortion.

Absolutely. they can call in informed choice but it is really a shame thing. But still given what an abortion consists of physically i do not see the issue of the wand. This complaint brings up the question: "so if it was an external one would you feel better about the law?"

Now that is just not right.

why not? because it is a trick or because it will make woman feel bad?

This is coming from someone that is pro-life.

I am on the fence. I am okay with early term abortions. but after some point 27 to 32 weeks i think there should be a good reason other than the woman changing her mind.

Vendetta1 said:

Do you really not understand that these people wanting a woman to see what she is aborting in hopes that she will change her mind is a problem?

how it is a problem? and see you are now proving that it is not about the wand but about the law. as by that you would be just as opposed if it was an external ultrasound only.

You ever have a transvaginal ultrasound?

that has zero to do with this at all. that assumes that only people that have had a given experience can talk about said experience. I have had my rectum scoped while awke.... so i think i have a good idea as to how it might feel.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Vendetta1 said:

Do you really not understand that these people wanting a woman to see what she is aborting in hopes that she will change her mind is a problem?

how it is a problem? and see you are now proving that it is not about the wand but about the law. as by that you would be just as opposed if it was an external ultrasound only.

You ever have a transvaginal ultrasound?

that has zero to do with this at all. that assumes that only people that have had a given experience can talk about said experience. I have had my rectum scoped while awke.... so i think i have a good idea as to how it might feel.

it is about the ultrasound period. anf i am sure you were probed with your permission and not because someone wants to force you to.

Vendetta1 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it is about the ultrasound period. anf i am sure you were probed with your permission and not because someone wants to force you to.

i was in the army for some of them so NO i did not have a choice. but at least you admit it is not about the wand. that is honest at least.

now on that issue: i am as i have said unsure. I do think the dr should do one before and one after to make sure there is nothing left behind. but I am not sure the woman needs to see it. in the end it is a personal choice that is hard on many women. So I am not sure if i agree with it. But I think it is legal.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Vendetta1 said:

it is about the ultrasound period. anf i am sure you were probed with your permission and not because someone wants to force you to.

i was in the army for some of them so NO i did not have a choice. but at least you admit it is not about the wand. that is honest at least.

now on that issue: i am as i have said unsure. I do think the dr should do one before and one after to make sure there is nothing left behind. but I am not sure the woman needs to see it. in the end it is a personal choice that is hard on many women. So I am not sure if i agree with it. But I think it is legal.

you went in the army. you knew you would be probed so weak assed excuse dude.

Vendetta1 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i was in the army for some of them so NO i did not have a choice. but at least you admit it is not about the wand. that is honest at least.

now on that issue: i am as i have said unsure. I do think the dr should do one before and one after to make sure there is nothing left behind. but I am not sure the woman needs to see it. in the end it is a personal choice that is hard on many women. So I am not sure if i agree with it. But I think it is legal.

you went in the army. you knew you would be probed so weak assed excuse dude.

no i did not know I would be. that is very rare in the army... but then again a woman goes into an abortion clinic she knows she might get the wand so weak ass excuse dude.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Vendetta1 said:

it is about the ultrasound period. anf i am sure you were probed with your permission and not because someone wants to force you to.

i was in the army for some of them so NO i did not have a choice. but at least you admit it is not about the wand. that is honest at least.

now on that issue: i am as i have said unsure. I do think the dr should do one before and one after to make sure there is nothing left behind. but I am not sure the woman needs to see it. in the end it is a personal choice that is hard on many women. So I am not sure if i agree with it. But I think it is legal.

You still don't get it. There is no purpose to do it beforehand. You have clearly not read the article. Not it is not legal, in fact it is clearly ILLEGAL. It is clearly a violation because the law has no real purpose and it is clearly as a means to try to get women to not have an abortion. It fails on so many levels.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Vendetta1 said:

you went in the army. you knew you would be probed so weak assed excuse dude.

no i did not know I would be. that is very rare in the army... but then again a woman goes into an abortion clinic she knows she might get the wand so weak ass excuse dude.

my physical for the army included an anal exam so i find it hard to believe you did not know. good to know you think the two are comparable tho.

buist said:

You still don't get it. There is no purpose to do it beforehand.

sure there is, they have to confirm there is something to abort.

You have clearly not read the article.

Stop making up lies about me. Just because I do no agree with the article and its clear ageda is not a basis to assume i did not read and understand it.

Not it is not legal, in fact it is clearly ILLEGAL.

based on what? that you think it is not necessary? So feelings are now legal reasons?

It is clearly a violation because the law has no real purpose and it is clearly as a means to try to get women to not have an abortion.

Unles you can show that it makes an undue burden on the woman you have no case, now you would do better with the wand in terms of the external there is no such burdon.

It fails on so many levels.

for you maybe... and I am not ever sure myself. but it seems legal to me.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

buist said:

You still don't get it. There is no purpose to do it beforehand.

sure there is, they have to confirm there is something to abort.

You have clearly not read the article.

Stop making up lies about me. Just because I do no agree with the article and its clear ageda is not a basis to assume i did not read and understand it.

Not it is not legal, in fact it is clearly ILLEGAL.

based on what? that you think it is not necessary? So feelings are now legal reasons?

It is clearly a violation because the law has no real purpose and it is clearly as a means to try to get women to not have an abortion.

Unles you can show that it makes an undue burden on the woman you have no case, now you would do better with the wand in terms of the external there is no such burdon.

It fails on so many levels.

for you maybe... and I am not ever sure myself. but it seems legal to me.

Boy are soo repulsive. You don't need to perform this procedure to prove that there is something to abort, there are other procedures for this. What do you think that they do now? I'm sorry, but you clearly did not read the article from the argument that you are dictating. You can try to claim that the article is biased, but your whole argument is refuted by the article. You have presented nothing new. Feelings? Who said anything about feelings. The procedure has no real purpose, and hence is illegal.

I find it ironic that you shy away from the fact that any sane person can tell that the whole purpose of this law is to try to get women to not have abortions. The procedure has no real purpose that is already performed in another way. It is clearly unnecessary, and serves an agenda not relating to health.

What sounds legal to you is............ (I'll let others fill in the blank based on what they have seen of your definitions of legal in other threads.)

buist said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Boy are soo repulsive. You don't need to perform this procedure to prove that there is something to abort, there are other procedures for this.

really such as? name one other than the other imaging procedures. (xrays, cat scans, MRIs etc)

OnlyNDaUsa said:

buist said:

Boy are soo repulsive. You don't need to perform this procedure to prove that there is something to abort, there are other procedures for this.

really such as? name one other than the other imaging procedures. (xrays, cat scans, MRIs etc)

What do you think they do now? You don't think that they confirm that the woman is actually pregnant?

[Edited 2/25/12 17:14pm]

buist said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

really such as? name one other than the other imaging procedures. (xrays, cat scans, MRIs etc)

What do you think they do now? You don't think that they confirm that the woman is actually pregnant?

[Edited 2/25/12 17:14pm]

in most cases they use an ultrasound or some other means of imaging or maybe later on a Doppler.

buist said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

really such as? name one other than the other imaging procedures. (xrays, cat scans, MRIs etc)

What do you think they do now? You don't think that they confirm that the woman is actually pregnant?

[Edited 2/25/12 17:14pm]

oh wait: you switched topics here. I did not say anything about confirming she is pregnant. that is a $1 test at the dollar store... what i was saying is they kind of need to know where the fetus is and how far along it is so they know what tools they will need. They also need to confirm it is IN the uterus and that it is actually a real pregnancy and not a lighted ovum.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

buist said:

What do you think they do now? You don't think that they confirm that the woman is actually pregnant?

[Edited 2/25/12 17:14pm]

in most cases they use an ultrasound or some other means of imaging or maybe later on a Doppler.

So you admit that this transvaginal procedure is not necessary to distinguish that the woman is actually pregnant when you already have these less intrusive means? If it were simply about distinguishing pregnancy, these other procedures should be allowed also. So why do you think that they require this much more intrusive one?

buist said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

in most cases they use an ultrasound or some other means of imaging or maybe later on a Doppler.

So you admit that this transvaginal procedure is not necessary to distinguish that the woman is actually pregnant when you already have these less intrusive means? If it were simply about distinguishing pregnancy, these other procedures should be allowed also. So why do you think that they require this much more intrusive one?

who said the transvaginal was required?

http://www.reuters.com/ar...2Y20120223

oh. you seem to mean that due to effectiveness in early pregnancies the internal is better. But I do not think the law ever required it. It is just the one that is often used and many abortions are early term so it is assumed that most of them would use the internal. Ironically that early there is not much to see.

http://www.washingtonpost...ory_1.html

Vendetta1 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

no i did not know I would be. that is very rare in the army... but then again a woman goes into an abortion clinic she knows she might get the wand so weak ass excuse dude.

my physical for the army included an anal exam so i find it hard to believe you did not know. good to know you think the two are comparable tho.

My Army physical (U.S. Army) did not include an intrusive anal exam.

@Only - so you would prefer a woman seeking privacy and non-governmental interference with her decision to do what? A back alley abortion? Let me guess, she should have waited until she was married? That wouldn't necessarily prevent a rape or unwanted pregnancy.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Vendetta1 said:

it is about the ultrasound period. anf i am sure you were probed with your permission and not because someone wants to force you to.

i was in the army for some of them so NO i did not have a choice. but at least you admit it is not about the wand. that is honest at least.

now on that issue: i am as i have said unsure. I do think the dr should do one before and one after to make sure there is nothing left behind. but I am not sure the woman needs to see it. in the end it is a personal choice that is hard on many women. So I am not sure if i agree with it. But I think it is legal.

I don't think it's legal. IF it is a procedure that a doctor does when performing an abortion fine.

But to require the doctor to show her the images, is a step too far.

That's an invasion of privacy. Any patient who wanted to see the images could simply ask.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Vendetta1 said:

Do you really not understand that these people wanting a woman to see what she is aborting in hopes that she will change her mind is a problem?

how it is a problem? and see you are now proving that it is not about the wand but about the law. as by that you would be just as opposed if it was an external ultrasound only.

How is it a problem? Would it be a problem for you if you weren't allowed to say anything negative about President Obama? Are you the one who talks about the freedom not to do? If she chooses not to, why do you support a law that says she does?

You ever have a transvaginal ultrasound?

that has zero to do with this at all. that assumes that only people that have had a given experience can talk about said experience. I have had my rectum scoped while awke.... so i think i have a good idea as to how it might feel.

SUPRMAN said:

Vendetta1 said:

my physical for the army included an anal exam so i find it hard to believe you did not know. good to know you think the two are comparable tho.

My Army physical (U.S. Army) did not include an intrusive anal exam.

@Only - so you would prefer a woman seeking privacy and non-governmental interference with her decision to do what? A back alley abortion? Let me guess, she should have waited until she was married? That wouldn't necessarily prevent a rape or unwanted pregnancy.

You bring up another point, this would be a requirement for those who have been raped or the result of incest.

SUPRMAN said:

I don't think it's legal.

From what I have found out: Ultrasounds are almost always done prior to an abortion. They have to know 3 things: if it is an actual pregnancy, how far along the pregnancy is, where the fetus is, and how many there are...so they are medical necessary. So that issue is DEAD.

IF it is a procedure that a doctor does when performing an abortion fine.

I would think they would be guilty of malpractice if they did not.

But to require the doctor to show her the images, is a step too far.

That's an invasion of privacy.

who's privacy?

Any patient who wanted to see the images could simply ask.

and if she wants to close her eyes she can.

SUPRMAN said:

How is it a problem? Would it be a problem for you if you weren't allowed to say anything negative about President Obama? Are you the one who talks about the freedom not to do? If she chooses not to, why do you support a law that says she does?

what right is being limited? The right to NOT be informed? This sure sounds like it is more about fear that more woman will learn the truth about what an abortion is than woman's rights. Just like how Planed Parenthood was started to prevent the birth of the undesirables.

buist said:

SUPRMAN said:

My Army physical (U.S. Army) did not include an intrusive anal exam.

@Only - so you would prefer a woman seeking privacy and non-governmental interference with her decision to do what? A back alley abortion? Let me guess, she should have waited until she was married? That wouldn't necessarily prevent a rape or unwanted pregnancy.

You bring up another point, this would be a requirement for those who have been raped or the result of incest.

they often do. Seems like a reasonable exclusion. Bring in the police report or medical report that says the fetus has a given birth defect or poses a given elevated birth risk...

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

How is it a problem? Would it be a problem for you if you weren't allowed to say anything negative about President Obama? Are you the one who talks about the freedom not to do? If she chooses not to, why do you support a law that says she does?

what right is being limited? The right to NOT be informed? This sure sounds like it is more about fear that more woman will learn the truth about what an abortion is than woman's rights. Just like how Planed Parenthood was started to prevent the birth of the undesirables.

You do have a right to not be informed don't you?

Why do you think a woman seeking an abortion doesn't know what an abortion procedure is?

They know why they are there. To be forced to listen to someone try to change your mind as a matter of law is unethical and immoral.

Could the law say that you have to be forced to listen to a pitch by President Obama for health care insurance if you are of insurable age?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

buist said:

You bring up another point, this would be a requirement for those who have been raped or the result of incest.

they often do. Seems like a reasonable exclusion. Bring in the police report or medical report that says the fetus has a given birth defect or poses a given elevated birth risk...

WHAT?!!!

You are ridiculous to no end.

So it's not a woman's choice at all, even under Roe v. Wade. Again, she needs male permission and to be paraded in front of them to obtain a legal medical procedure.

Why not require her to post her name and condition in the local paper, so any potential father can lay claim?

SMH

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

they often do. Seems like a reasonable exclusion. Bring in the police report or medical report that says the fetus has a given birth defect or poses a given elevated birth risk...

WHAT?!!!

You are ridiculous to no end.

So it's not a woman's choice at all, even under Roe v. Wade. Again, she needs male permission and to be paraded in front of them to obtain a legal medical procedure.

Why not require her to post her name and condition in the local paper, so any potential father can lay claim?

SMH

i was speaking of as a way to be exempt from this law if it were to pass and be upheld. Also under Roe V Wade late term abortions can be banned and are in many states. Those states do allow for later term abortions under some situations.

and again nearly all if not all abortions are proceeded by an ultrasound. So the issue of the having a trans vaginal ultrasound is moot. It is purly about showing it to the woman. The woman has the right to not look.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

WHAT?!!!

You are ridiculous to no end.

So it's not a woman's choice at all, even under Roe v. Wade. Again, she needs male permission and to be paraded in front of them to obtain a legal medical procedure.

Why not require her to post her name and condition in the local paper, so any potential father can lay claim?

SMH

i was speaking of as a way to be exempt from this law if it were to pass and be upheld. Also under Roe V Wade late term abortions can be banned and are in many states. Those states do allow for later term abortions under some situations.

and again nearly all if not all abortions are proceeded by an ultrasound. So the issue of the having a trans vaginal ultrasound is moot. It is purly about showing it to the woman. The woman has the right to not look.

But why are you arguing the state can make a law saying it has to be shown. If she is not looking, it is not being shown.

Doesn't the fact that the exemption requires such instrusiveness suggest it is a problem?!!

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

i was speaking of as a way to be exempt from this law if it were to pass and be upheld. Also under Roe V Wade late term abortions can be banned and are in many states. Those states do allow for later term abortions under some situations.

and again nearly all if not all abortions are proceeded by an ultrasound. So the issue of the having a trans vaginal ultrasound is moot. It is purly about showing it to the woman. The woman has the right to not look.

But why are you arguing the state can make a law saying it has to be shown. If she is not looking, it is not being shown.

I disagree.

Doesn't the fact that the exemption requires such instrusiveness suggest it is a problem?!!

I have a problem with the law. But I think it will pass constitutional muster. There is a law like this already.

There are also some bills in the works (one or more may have been passed) that would required abortion clinics to have the same health and safety standards as ambulatory or outpatient surgical centers.

Yet thoes Bills are being attacked under the roe v wade flag too!

For now at least, it won't be the law in Virginia.

SUPRMAN said:

For now at least, it won't be the law in Virginia.

Irony?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

For now at least, it won't be the law in Virginia.

Irony?

What are you talking about? What irony?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

WHAT?!!!

You are ridiculous to no end.

So it's not a woman's choice at all, even under Roe v. Wade. Again, she needs male permission and to be paraded in front of them to obtain a legal medical procedure.

Why not require her to post her name and condition in the local paper, so any potential father can lay claim?

SMH

i was speaking of as a way to be exempt from this law if it were to pass and be upheld. Also under Roe V Wade late term abortions can be banned and are in many states. Those states do allow for later term abortions under some situations.

and again nearly all if not all abortions are proceeded by an ultrasound. So the issue of the having a trans vaginal ultrasound is moot. It is purly about showing it to the woman. The woman has the right to not look.

IF THERE IS NO MEDICAL REASON THEN THE TRANSVAGINAL REQUIREMENT IS POINTLESS AND IS ABOSOLUTELY AN INVASION OF THE WOMAN'S UTMOST PRIVACY (see 4th amendment)

The law as written with this procedural requirement is hideous.

SUPRMAN said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

IF THERE IS NO MEDICAL REASON THEN THE TRANSVAGINAL REQUIREMENT IS POINTLESS AND IS ABOSOLUTELY AN INVASION OF THE WOMAN'S UTMOST PRIVACY (see 4th amendment)

The law as written with this procedural requirement is hideous.

You forget that in such abortions (early term) they do the trans viginal ultrasound anyway.

Which is part of the woman's choice. If someone is sticking something inside her against her consent that is rape. There is no other way around it.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said: You forget that in such abortions (early term) they do the trans viginal ultrasound anyway.

Which is part of the woman's choice.

yeah and she is choosing to have an abortion. abortions include ultrasounds. Early term ones often but not always include internal. So she is by going to have the abortion choosing to have an ultrasound. If the DR she chooses uses internal she has the right to tell him to stop. That is her choice.

If someone is sticking something inside her against her consent that is rape.

hog wash! and a demonstrably so!

There is no other way around it.

sure there is: it is called being rational.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Which is part of the woman's choice.

yeah and she is choosing to have an abortion. abortions include ultrasounds. Early term ones often but not always include internal. So she is by going to have the abortion choosing to have an ultrasound. If the DR she chooses uses internal she has the right to tell him to stop. That is her choice.

If someone is sticking something inside her against her consent that is rape.

hog wash! and a demonstrably so!

There is no other way around it.

sure there is: it is called being rational.

Why is this law JUST APPEARING after 35 years of abortion? If it has been needed it would have already been part of the process for 35 years. It is rape and your denial speaks volumes about your character or lack thereof.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Why is this law JUST APPEARING after 35 years of abortion?

I do not know why? maybe they never though of it?

If it has been needed it would have already been part of the process for 35 years.

if what was needed? the ultrasound? they have been used for many years. in fact it is how they price the procedure. but they have to know what it is they are ripping out.... and where it is and all that.

It is rape and your denial speaks volumes about your character or lack thereof.

no it shows you are not thinking clearly.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Why is this law JUST APPEARING after 35 years of abortion?

I do not know why? maybe they never though of it?

If it has been needed it would have already been part of the process for 35 years.

if what was needed? the ultrasound? they have been used for many years. in fact it is how they price the procedure. but they have to know what it is they are ripping out.... and where it is and all that.

It is rape and your denial speaks volumes about your character or lack thereof.

no it shows you are not thinking clearly.

It shows your ignorance once again. You are NOT a woman (as far as we know) - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about (yet again).

DiminutiveRocker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

It shows your ignorance once again. You are NOT a woman (as far as we know) - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about (yet again).

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

It shows your ignorance once again. You are NOT a woman (as far as we know) - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about (yet again).

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

The key words in your post are "against her wishes".

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

It shows your ignorance once again. You are NOT a woman (as far as we know) - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about (yet again).

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

Bingo, that's EXACTLY what rape is. You do realize that you just lost the argument, don't you?

13cjk13 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

Bingo, that's EXACTLY what rape is. You do realize that you just lost the argument, don't you?

so are legitimate body cavity searches rape?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

Bingo, that's EXACTLY what rape is. You do realize that you just lost the argument, don't you?

so are legitimate body cavity searches rape?

She's not going to jail....

sextonseven said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

The key words in your post are "against her wishes".

exactly she is there to have an abortion. the probe is just one of several things that she will experience put in . the choice is hers.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sextonseven said:

The key words in your post are "against her wishes".

exactly she is there to have an abortion. the probe is just one of several things that she will experience put in . the choice is hers.

You lie. This is forced on her outside the abortion procedure. RAPE. Besides, this governor did not sign the bill because of LEGAL ADVICE he received advising this was against the 4th amendments right against unreasonable search and seizure.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

It shows your ignorance once again. You are NOT a woman (as far as we know) - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about (yet again).

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

in most cases gender is immaterial, there are men who 'get' what's happening right here on the ORG (thank you guys!). but you on the other hand seem to be intentionally obtuse.

XxAxX said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

in most cases gender is immaterial, there are men who 'get' what's happening right here on the ORG (thank you guys!). but you on the other hand seem to be intentionally obtuse.

Key word: Intentional which is why he was banned before and why he should be again.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

exactly she is there to have an abortion. the probe is just one of several things that she will experience put in . the choice is hers.

You lie. This is forced on her outside the abortion procedure. RAPE. Besides, this governor did not sign the bill because of LEGAL ADVICE he received advising this was against the 4th amendments right against unreasonable search and seizure.

except ultrasounds are preformed as a matter of routine in abortions. how else would they know if there was anything to remove? If you can provide an answer that is not invasive and not some other form of imaging... i will leave the org forever!

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

You lie. This is forced on her outside the abortion procedure. RAPE. Besides, this governor did not sign the bill because of LEGAL ADVICE he received advising this was against the 4th amendments right against unreasonable search and seizure.

except ultrasounds are preformed as a matter of routine in abortions. how else would they know if there was anything to remove? If you can provide an answer that is not invasive and not some other form of imaging... i will leave the org forever!

Why the need to create this law in 2012 if it is already something that is happening during the procedure?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

except ultrasounds are preformed as a matter of routine in abortions. how else would they know if there was anything to remove? If you can provide an answer that is not invasive and not some other form of imaging... i will leave the org forever!

Why the need to create this law in 2012 if it is already something that is happening during the procedure?

the law is that they have to SHOW it to the woman. The reason the LAW allegedly mentions the transvaginal wand is for image quality early term.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Why the need to create this law in 2012 if it is already something that is happening during the procedure?

the law is that they have to SHOW it to the woman. The reason the LAW allegedly mentions the transvaginal wand is for image quality early term.

You have been asserting this is to prove the woman is pregnant. Who would be going to have an abortion without being sure they are pregnant? Nobody. This law would have forced women to submit to the transvaginal rape so that the state could force the doctor to force the woman to view images of her uterus all in the attempt to guilttrip and coerce women into obeying the whims of religious zealots BY FORCE OF THE STATE. You're getting off on this crap and it's sick.

.

[Edited 2/28/12 16:17pm]

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the law is that they have to SHOW it to the woman. The reason the LAW allegedly mentions the transvaginal wand is for image quality early term.

You have been asserting this is to prove the woman is pregnant.

Not what I said and Not what I am doing.

Who would be going to have an abortion without being sure they are pregnant? Nobody.

So you are saying no woman ever once went to get one only to be told she was not pregnant? And you can prove that? But then again that is not at all what I was getting at. So that fails. As I said: how would could they know there was anything that needed to be aborted in the uterus if not for an ultrasound, some form if imaging, or some other more invasive possibly unnecessary procedure.

This law would have forced women to submit to the transvaginal rape so that the state could force the doctor to force the woman to view images of her uterus all in the attempt to guilttrip and coerce women into obeying the whims of religious zealots BY FORCE OF THE

STATE.

So if it was an external ultrasound you would be fine with this law?

You're getting off on this crap and it's sick.

that is not nice and not true. please do not make up negative and slanderous things about me please.

.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

What are you talking about? What irony?

Virgina

Again, what irony?

Virginia?

Something's lost in translation but my guess is you are misusing irony.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

It shows your ignorance once again. You are NOT a woman (as far as we know) - you have NO IDEA what you are talking about (yet again).

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

This begs the question - How do you define rape?

If I can put something inside a woman's vagina without her permission and not be charged with rape (or sexual assault), please enlighten us.

[Edited 2/28/12 18:23pm]

OnlyNDaUsa said:

13cjk13 said:

Bingo, that's EXACTLY what rape is. You do realize that you just lost the argument, don't you?

so are legitimate body cavity searches rape?

This procedure is not a legitimate body cavity search is it?

I would argue that there can be a body cavity search that is rape. If it is legitimate it is not rape, but having the authority to conduct a body cavity search does not insulate the searcher from being charged with sexual assault or rape or committing sexual assault or rape.

Sexual assault and/or rape can be a subjective rather than an objective determination.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

sextonseven said:

The key words in your post are "against her wishes".

exactly she is there to have an abortion. the probe is just one of several things that she will experience put in . the choice is hers.

What you are saying is that if she wants to exercise her legal right, she has to accept whatever humiliation and abuse others choose to heep on her because they disagree with her decision. That is wrong.

I guess you prefer back alley abortions or maybe any woman considering an abortion simply die.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Why the need to create this law in 2012 if it is already something that is happening during the procedure?

the law is that they have to SHOW it to the woman. The reason the LAW allegedly mentions the transvaginal wand is for image quality early term.

How do they show it to her if she has the right (you say) to look away?

The doctor hasn't complied with the law if he hasn't forced her to see it has he?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

You lie. This is forced on her outside the abortion procedure. RAPE. Besides, this governor did not sign the bill because of LEGAL ADVICE he received advising this was against the 4th amendments right against unreasonable search and seizure.

except ultrasounds are preformed as a matter of routine in abortions. how else would they know if there was anything to remove? If you can provide an answer that is not invasive and not some other form of imaging... i will leave the org forever!

I hope you keep your promise but we all know better than to believe what you post.

A blood test can reveal a pregnancy and thus inform that there is something to remove.

Note: You did not ask how the doctor could locate the embryo to be removed. Morning after pill can be used to initiate a miscarriage/abortion without ever imaging anything.

Is this really goodbye?

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

the law is that they have to SHOW it to the woman. The reason the LAW allegedly mentions the transvaginal wand is for image quality early term.

How do they show it to her if she has the right (you say) to look away?

her looking is independant from the DR showing it

The doctor hasn't complied with the law if he hasn't forced her to see it has he?

i think you are making an assumption

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

How do they show it to her if she has the right (you say) to look away?

her looking is independant from the DR showing it

The doctor hasn't complied with the law if he hasn't forced her to see it has he?

i think you are making an assumption

You said, "the law is that they have to SHOW it to the woman."

If you say the law mandates the doctor show her, if she isn't looking then the doctor hasn't shown her anything. He's just done the ultrasound. Shouldn't the doctor be charged with violating the law if he doesn't know she has seen it?

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

You said, "the law is that they have to SHOW it to the woman."

If you say the law mandates the doctor show her, if she isn't looking then the doctor hasn't shown her anything. He's just done the ultrasound. Shouldn't the doctor be charged with violating the law if he doesn't know she has seen it?

i do not think so. if she was blind can she not have one? and i am not sure of the wording but no she would not have to look at it necessarily for the DR to meet his requirement. Seems to be a major straw grasp.

So what is your issue? that they may have to use an internal wand (which they use anyway) or that they have to show the image?

and what is the worst that could happen? the woman changes her MIND? she exercises her freedom to CHOOSE? oh the humanity!

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

You said, "the law is that they have to SHOW it to the woman."

If you say the law mandates the doctor show her, if she isn't looking then the doctor hasn't shown her anything. He's just done the ultrasound. Shouldn't the doctor be charged with violating the law if he doesn't know she has seen it?

i do not think so. if she was blind can she not have one? and i am not sure of the wording but no she would not have to look at it necessarily for the DR to meet his requirement. Seems to be a major straw grasp.

So what is your issue? that they may have to use an internal wand (which they use anyway) or that they have to show the image?

and what is the worst that could happen? the woman changes her MIND? she exercises her freedom to CHOOSE? oh the humanity!

I quoted you, so you are disagreeing with yourself . . . .

My issue is both. If the woman wants to see it, why can't she simply ask? Have doctor's been refusing to show them in such numbers that legislation is now required?!

Who cares if she changes her mind? Republicans would and do deny women the option to even change their mind by making the procedure all but illegal despite Roe v. Wade.

The following is edited:

http://www.guttmacher.org...rtion.html

INCIDENCE OF ABORTION

• Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion.[1] Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.[2]

• Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 67% among blacks and 53% among Hispanics are unintended.[1] In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.[2]

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.[2,3]

• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.[4,5]

WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

• Eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.[6]

• Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions; women aged 20–24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and women aged 25–29 obtain 24%.[6]

• Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%.[6]

• Thirty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions identify as Protestant and 28% as Catholic.[6]

• Women who have never married and are not cohabiting account for 45% of all abortions [6]

• About 61% of abortions are obtained by women who have one or more children. [6]

• Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children).[6]

• Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level.* [6]

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]

CONTRACEPTIVE USE

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[8]

• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy, 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[8]

• Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.[8]

• About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past.[9,10]

PROVIDERS AND SERVICES

• The number of U.S. abortion providers remained stable between 2005 (1,787) and 2008 (1,793). Eighty-seven percent of all U.S. counties lacked an abortion provider in 2008; 35% of women live in those counties.[2]

• Forty-two percent of providers offer very early abortions (before the first missed period) and 95% offer abortion at eight weeks from the last menstrual period. Sixty-four percent offer at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later), and 23% offer abortion after 20 weeks. Only 11% of all abortion providers offer abortions at 24 weeks.[2]

• In 2009, the average amount paid for a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks’ gestation was $451.[2]

EARLY MEDICATION ABORTION

• In September 2000, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone to be marketed in the United States as an alternative to surgical abortion.

• In 2008, 59% of abortion providers, or 1,066 facilities, provided one or more early medication abortions. At least 9% of providers offer only early medication abortion services.[2]

• Medication abortion accounted for 17% of all nonhospital abortions, and about one-quarter of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation, in 2008.[2]

SAFETY OF ABORTION

• The risk of abortion complications is minimal: Fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience a complication that requires hospitalization.[11]

• Abortions performed in the first trimester pose virtually no long-term risk of such problems as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.[12]

• Exhaustive reviews by panels convened by the U.S. and British governments have concluded that there is no association between abortion and breast cancer. There is also no indication that abortion is a risk factor for other cancers.[12]

• In repeated studies since the early 1980s, leading experts have concluded that abortion does not pose a hazard to women’s mental health.[13]

• The risk of death associated with abortion increases with the length of pregnancy, from one death for every one million abortions at or before eight weeks to one per 29,000 at 16–20 weeks—and one per 11,000 at 21 or more weeks.[14]

• Fifty-eight percent of abortion patients say they would have liked to have had their abortion earlier. Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.[15]

• Teens are more likely than older women to delay having an abortion until after 15 weeks of pregnancy, when the medical risks associated with abortion are significantly higher.[15]

LAW AND POLICY

• In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that women, in consultation with their physician, have a constitutionally protected right to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy—that is, before viability—free from government interference.

• In 1992, the Court reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. However, the ruling significantly weakened the legal protections previously afforded women and physicians by giving states the right to enact restrictions that do not create an “undue burden” for women seeking abortion. Thirty-five states currently enforce parental consent or notification laws for minors seeking an abortion. The Supreme Court ruled that minors must have an alternative to parental involvement, such as the ability to seek a court order authorizing the procedure.[16]

• Even without specific parental involvement laws, six in 10 minors who have an abortion report that at least one parent knew about it.[17]

• Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest.

• Seventeen states use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women, but only four do so voluntarily; the rest do so under a court order.[18] About 20% of abortion patients report using Medicaid to pay for abortions[6] (virtually all in states where abortion services are paid for with state dollars).[19]

• In 2006, publicly funded family planning services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.[20]

[Edited 2/28/12 20:07pm]

XxAxX said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

what does my gender have to do with this? I am thinking comparing a medical exam to rape is outlandish. It asserts that any time any woman has anything put into her vagina against her wishes that is rape.

in most cases gender is immaterial, there are men who 'get' what's happening right here on the ORG (thank you guys!). but you on the other hand seem to be intentionally obtuse.

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

except ultrasounds are preformed as a matter of routine in abortions. how else would they know if there was anything to remove? If you can provide an answer that is not invasive and not some other form of imaging... i will leave the org forever!

I hope you keep your promise but we all know better than to believe what you post.

A blood test can reveal a pregnancy and thus inform that there is something to remove.

Note: You did not ask how the doctor could locate the embryo to be removed. Morning after pill can be used to initiate a miscarriage/abortion without ever imaging anything.

Is this really goodbye?

ectopic pregnancy

I am making a 2nd reply and i do not want to edit the first!

SUPRMAN said:

I hope you keep your promise but we all know better than to believe what you post.

I will if you can do what I said.

A blood test can reveal a pregnancy and thus inform that there is something to remove.

maybe: but what and where is the issue. It could be a blighted ovum that will test as a normal pregnacy for a few weeks then in many cases pass on its own. Or as i said above it may be ectopic.

Note: You did not ask how the doctor could locate the embryo to be removed.

I know what I asked. so far you failed the standard.

Morning after pill can be used to initiate a miscarriage/abortion without ever imaging anything.

I do not think that drug works on an ectopic? could be wrong. But either way has nothing to do with my question.

Is this really goodbye?

not based on that.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I am making a 2nd reply and i do not want to edit the first!

SUPRMAN said:

I hope you keep your promise but we all know better than to believe what you post.

I will if you can do what I said.

A blood test can reveal a pregnancy and thus inform that there is something to remove.

maybe: but what and where is the issue. It could be a blighted ovum that will test as a normal pregnacy for a few weeks then in many cases pass on its own. Or as i said above it may be ectopic.

Note: You did not ask how the doctor could locate the embryo to be removed.

I know what I asked. so far you failed the standard.

Morning after pill can be used to initiate a miscarriage/abortion without ever imaging anything.

I do not think that drug works on an ectopic? could be wrong. But either way has nothing to do with my question.

Is this really goodbye?

not based on that.

Why wouldn't it work on an ectopic pregnancy? How many ectopic pregnancies go to full term?

You are dancing on the head of a pin here. Too bad you can't research anything. Really.

[EDITED]

The standard treatment for ectopic pregnancy follows one of 3 courses: chemically induced abortion (usually by means of a drug called methotrexate ); removal of the entire fallopian tube which contains the baby or a the affected portion of the tube; or removal of the baby and subsequent repair of the affected fallopian tube.

All 3 approaches directly result in the inevitable death of the child.

However, there is at least one more option: Wait. Be ready, but wait. Treat the mother if necessary but do not kill the child. No abortion.

The primary argument against the Watchful Waiting method of treatment is that it is dangerous to the mother. Alarmists will try to equate it to a death sentence – and for what? The child was doomed from the start, right?

No. The outcome is not so easily predicted as some would have you think.

PROGNOSIS/OUTCOME

Yes, there is a high likelihood that the child will die. How high? Nobody really knows, because nobody seems to recommend this approach. There was recently a documented case of anundiagnosed ectopic pregnancy that wa... full term . There are others as well: A baby born in 2000 was a...’s bowel , as was this one in 2005 developed in the fallopian tube, while his two sisters grew in the uterus. The triplet article states that there are 60-100 cases of babies growing outside the womb and surviving.

http://inashoe.com/2008/0...y-of-life/

Please note the 60-100 cases are total in recorded history.

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

Why wouldn't it work on an ectopic pregnancy? How many ectopic pregnancies go to full term?

You are dancing on the head of a pin here. Too bad you can't research anything. Really.

[EDITED]

The standard treatment for ectopic pregnancy follows one of 3 courses: chemically induced abortion (usually by means of a drug called methotrexate ); removal of the entire fallopian tube which contains the baby or a the affected portion of the tube; or removal of the baby and subsequent repair of the affected fallopian tube.

All 3 approaches directly result in the inevitable death of the child.

However, there is at least one more option: Wait. Be ready, but wait. Treat the mother if necessary but do not kill the child. No abortion.

The primary argument against the Watchful Waiting method of treatment is that it is dangerous to the mother. Alarmists will try to equate it to a death sentence – and for what? The child was doomed from the start, right?

No. The outcome is not so easily predicted as some would have you think.

PROGNOSIS/OUTCOME

Yes, there is a high likelihood that the child will die. How high? Nobody really knows, because nobody seems to recommend this approach. There was recently a documented case of anundiagnosed ectopic pregnancy that wa... full term . There are others as well: A baby born in 2000 was a...’s bowel , as was this one in 2005 developed in the fallopian tube, while his two sisters grew in the uterus. The triplet article states that there are 60-100 cases of babies growing outside the womb and surviving.

http://inashoe.com/2008/0...y-of-life/

Please note the 60-100 cases are total in recorded history.

Nice try. But sill it fails. The dr would still need to know what if anything is in the uterus. EDIT that is not in the middle of the night: you very post supports the need for an ultrasound. Removal of a developing fetus outside the womb is major surgery. Establishing she is pregnant is not enough. As for you copy and paste job none of it has anything to do with common abortions. Also the fact that so few have gone full term is as your copy and paste states not meaningful as so few are discovered and fewer still are allowed to have a chance. But in these cases there is almost always major surgery. Either to remove the fetus or to repair the Fallopian tubes. Even if she had her tubes tied repair below the tie (or removal) or a re-tie. all of which are major surgery. certainly an ultrasound would be warranted. The fact that early on in development an external ultrasound is not reliable is not the fault of anyone even the Romans! [Edited 3/3/12 6:21am]

If you'd stop to notice, my post was not addressing the topic of the thread just ectopic pregancies.

SUPRMAN said:

If you'd stop to notice, my post was not addressing the topic of the thread just ectopic pregancies.

I did but as you were trying to show that you provided some evidence that there was some means to know if there was anything to remove in an abortion it was necessary to show how as methods used to deal with ectopic pregnancy have nothing to do with a typical clinical abortion.

your reply to "ectopic pregnancy"-- as a reason why some from of imaging was needed to determine if an abortion was needed or not--should have simply been "you're are correct."

If there is nothing in the uterus then there is no needed to do the procedure. No blood test can tell the abortionist that. the abortionist has to be able to see into the womb to know. And one way to see in an ultrasound. If a trans-vaginal is needed then that is just a fact.

So lets all be honest: the issue is not the wand or probe (she is going to get probed anyway) it is showing it to her because she MIGHT change her mined when fully informed. That is some twisted stuff.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

If you'd stop to notice, my post was not addressing the topic of the thread just ectopic pregancies.

I did but as you were trying to show that you provided some evidence that there was some means to know if there was anything to remove in an abortion it was necessary to show how as methods used to deal with ectopic pregnancy have nothing to do with a typical clinical abortion.

your reply to "ectopic pregnancy"-- as a reason why some from of imaging was needed to determine if an abortion was needed or not--should have simply been "you're are correct."

If there is nothing in the uterus then there is no needed to do the procedure. No blood test can tell the abortionist that. the abortionist has to be able to see into the womb to know. And one way to see in an ultrasound. If a trans-vaginal is needed then that is just a fact.

So lets all be honest: the issue is not the wand or probe (she is going to get probed anyway) it is showing it to her because she MIGHT change her mined when fully informed. That is some twisted stuff.

That is not why I believe the majority of people have a problem with this proposed law.

I don't care if she sees it or not.

I don't care if she changes her mind or not.

I don't care if she chooses at the clinic not to proceed with the procedure.

What I do care about is that the government should not be involved at all. There shouldn't be laws dictating medical procedures. There should not be laws coming between a doctor and patient.

You don't want the government making you buy health insurance but you are ready to see the government control women's health care aren't you?

You don't know that she is going to be probed 'anyway'. Where do there fallacious statements come from? That is not a given in any and every situation.

You are so callous when it comes to others. The government can do what it wants with the rest of its citizens, or at least females, but leave you the hell alone to do as you see fit.

[Expletives deleted]

SUPRMAN said:

That is not why I believe the majority of people have a problem with this proposed law.

I don't care if she sees it or not.

I don't care if she changes her mind or not.

I don't care if she chooses at the clinic not to proceed with the procedure.

What I do care about is that the government should not be involved at all. There shouldn't be laws dictating medical procedures. There should not be laws coming between a doctor and patient.

oh really? So do you extend that to anyone in the health care industry

You don't want the government making you buy health insurance but you are ready to see the government control women's health care aren't you?

how is this law control?

You don't know that she is going to be probed 'anyway'. Where do there fallacious statements come from? That is not a given in any and every situation.

how do they get the baby out then?

You are so callous when it comes to others. The government can do what it wants with the rest of its citizens, or at least females, but leave you the hell alone to do as you see fit.

[Expletives deleted]

that is just a made up lie. where have I ever once said the government should be able to make or limit a woman's right? I never said I agree with this law. I just do not accept the outlandish lie that it is comparable to rape.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

That is not why I believe the majority of people have a problem with this proposed law.

I don't care if she sees it or not.

I don't care if she changes her mind or not.

I don't care if she chooses at the clinic not to proceed with the procedure.

What I do care about is that the government should not be involved at all. There shouldn't be laws dictating medical procedures. There should not be laws coming between a doctor and patient.

oh really? So do you extend that to anyone in the health care industry

You don't want the government making you buy health insurance but you are ready to see the government control women's health care aren't you?

how is this law control?

You don't know that she is going to be probed 'anyway'. Where do there fallacious statements come from? That is not a given in any and every situation.

how do they get the baby out then?

You are so callous when it comes to others. The government can do what it wants with the rest of its citizens, or at least females, but leave you the hell alone to do as you see fit.

[Expletives deleted]

that is just a made up lie. where have I ever once said the government should be able to make or limit a woman's right? I never said I agree with this law. I just do not accept the outlandish lie that it is comparable to rape.

1 - Because you are baiting for pure thrills

or

2 - Your perversion prevents you from seeing it.

Supr is right. You are flipping out over the government dictating that you must be insured and yet have no problem with state sanctioned rape FORCED by dictates that have NOTHING to do with whether or not a procedure is medically necessary.

You really need to be banned again.

We should thank the governer because now Obama has a 12 point lead in Virginia.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

1 - Because you are baiting for pure thrills

or

2 - Your perversion prevents you from seeing it.

Supr is right. You are flipping out over the government dictating that you must be insured and yet have no problem with state sanctioned rape FORCED by dictates that have NOTHING to do with whether or not a procedure is medically necessary.

You really need to be banned again.

Which brings up another point. IF as Only contends, the doctor would do the procedure anyway, why is a law required?

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

1 - Because you are baiting for pure thrills

or

2 - Your perversion prevents you from seeing it.

Supr is right. You are flipping out over the government dictating that you must be insured and yet have no problem with state sanctioned rape FORCED by dictates that have NOTHING to do with whether or not a procedure is medically necessary.

You really need to be banned again.

SUPRMAN said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

1 - Because you are baiting for pure thrills

or

2 - Your perversion prevents you from seeing it.

Supr is right. You are flipping out over the government dictating that you must be insured and yet have no problem with state sanctioned rape FORCED by dictates that have NOTHING to do with whether or not a procedure is medically necessary.

You really need to be banned again.

Which brings up another point. IF as Only contends, the doctor would do the procedure anyway, why is a law required?

Which is the point I made earlier. 35 years of abortions and it took THAT LONG for legislators to figure out what is medically necessary????

Women should be able to take away that child's right to life without having to look them in the eye.

It was the same way in the wild west. You can't force somebody to only kill face to face, they should be able to do it without ever having to actually see their victim.

seekingtruth said:

Women should be able to take away that child's right to life without having to look them in the eye.

It was the same way in the wild west. You can't force somebody to only kill face to face, they should be able to do it without ever having to actually see their victim.

seekingtruth said:

Women should be able to take away that child's right to life without having to look them in the eye.

It was the same way in the wild west. You can't force somebody to only kill face to face, they should be able to do it without ever having to actually see their victim.

We call than the U.S. military. Experts in killing long distance.

SUPRMAN said:

Looks like it is not a external ultrasound and a 24 hour wait and NO obligation for the woman to look at the image. Rape victims are exempt. So there should be no real reason to argue that this law is a problem. The actual spelled out right to buy a handgun is more restricted than this is...

http://news.yahoo.com/va-...46656.html

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Looks like it is not a external ultrasound and a 24 hour wait and NO obligation for the woman to look at the image. Rape victims are exempt. So there should be no real reason to argue that this law is a problem. The actual spelled out right to buy a handgun is more restricted than this is...

http://news.yahoo.com/va-...46656.html

First this is a revised version of the original proposal. Don't pretend people were merely being alarmist.

"Abdominal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions in Virginia will become mandatory under a bill signed into law Wednesday by the state's Republican governor, who had faced a national uproar when earlier versions of the measure had sought to make the exams medically invasive.

The law conservative Gov. Bob McDonnell signed requires all Virginia abortion providers to comply starting July 1 or pay a $2,500 fine for each violation. Patients living within 100 miles of the clinic where the abortion is performed must wait 24 hours after the ultrasound examination before having an abortion. "

It is still too restrictive. Why the 24 hour waiting period AFTER the ultrasound? So they can reconsider if they want the abortion? Or so someone can call them and threaten them not to go back to the clinic?

"Supporters say the law ensures women are fully informed about the gestational age of their fetuses as they decide whether to abort them. Seven states have laws mandating some form of pre-abortion ultrasound exam.

"Women have a right to know all the available medical and legal information surrounding the abortion decision before giving legally effective informed consent," McDonnell said in a statement announcing his signature. "As difficult as an abortion decision is, the information provided by ultrasounds, along with other information given by the doctor pursuant to current law and prevailing medical practice, can help the mother make a fully informed decision."

Now government wants to make sure that citizens can make fully informed decisions? Why does this apply only when a woman is seeking an abortion? Why not open up more information regarding the government of Virginia and officeholders?

SUPRMAN said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Looks like it is not a external ultrasound and a 24 hour wait and NO obligation for the woman to look at the image. Rape victims are exempt. So there should be no real reason to argue that this law is a problem. The actual spelled out right to buy a handgun is more restricted than this is...

http://news.yahoo.com/va-...46656.html

First this is a revised version of the original proposal. Don't pretend people were merely being alarmist.

I never did anything like that at all so,,,don't pretend that I did.

It is still too restrictive. Why the 24 hour waiting period AFTER the ultrasound? So they can reconsider if they want the abortion? Or so someone can call them and threaten them not to go back to the clinic?

So what? that gives her time to give it some thought. And how is that any diffrent than waiting periods for buying a handgun?

Now government wants to make sure that citizens can make fully informed decisions? Why does this apply only when a woman is seeking an abortion? Why not open up more information regarding the government of Virginia and officeholders?

good idea. Lobby the them to do so

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

First this is a revised version of the original proposal. Don't pretend people were merely being alarmist.

I never did anything like that at all so,,,don't pretend that I did.

You did. You said that, "Looks like it is not a external ultrasound and a 24 hour wait and NO obligation for the woman to look at the image. Rape victims are exempt. So there should be no real reason to argue that this law is a problem. "

When this thread was created there was an internal ultrasound, you flat out lied about there not being a waiting period. NOW rape victims are exempt from viewing the ultrasound. As originally written there was plenty reason to argue that the law was a problem. As SIGNED it is a problem. But not for you . . . . I'm guessing you'd feel differently if you were capable of being impregnated.

It is still too restrictive. Why the 24 hour waiting period AFTER the ultrasound? So they can reconsider if they want the abortion? Or so someone can call them and threaten them not to go back to the clinic?

So what? that gives her time to give it some thought. And how is that any diffrent than waiting periods for buying a handgun?

You probably do think that women just rush to abortion clinics without any idea of why they are there. You don't think she (they) thought about it before going? Not everyone lives right next door to an abortion clinic where they can rush in and out without considering what is occurring.

Is the purpose of a waiting period for a handgun to determine if you really want to proceed with buying one? It is not, so please stop. That's an ignorant analogy.

Now government wants to make sure that citizens can make fully informed decisions? Why does this apply only when a woman is seeking an abortion? Why not open up more information regarding the government of Virginia and officeholders?

good idea. Lobby the them to do so

I live in California, not feasible. I'd have more success getting you to factually support your nonsense.

SUPRMAN said:

You did.

No i did not. did you look at the date of the artical?

Is the purpose of a waiting period for a handgun to determine if you really want to proceed with buying one? It is not, so please stop. That's an ignorant analogy.

not just that but it is also a cool down time to make sure you are not being rash. Same with an abortion. what is the worst that could happen a few woman change their mind?

I live in California, not feasible. I'd have more success getting you to factually support your nonsense.

then why would you bring it up? I do not know where you live. If you are so bold to try force your will on some other state I assumed you must live there?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

SUPRMAN said:

You did.

No i did not. did you look at the date of the artical?

Is the purpose of a waiting period for a handgun to determine if you really want to proceed with buying one? It is not, so please stop. That's an ignorant analogy.

not just that but it is also a cool down time to make sure you are not being rash. Same with an abortion. what is the worst that could happen a few woman change their mind?

Do you justify any law with 'what's the worst that could happen?' That's pretty poor public policy.

Who cares if they change their minds? Why does the state care?

I live in California, not feasible. I'd have more success getting you to factually support your nonsense.

then why would you bring it up? I do not know where you live. If you are so bold to try force your will on some other state I assumed you must live there?

That statement makes no sense. Typically.