Good for Charlie Crist

[Immanuel]

First of all, I do not term abortion as being murder. Murder has a specific meaning and is defined roughly as the illegal killing of a human being. In the case of abortion, since it is clearly legal in all cases, it is not murder. I do believe that abortion for convenience sake, is immoral. It is not murder.

I couldn't agree with you more on the use of the term "murder" in the abortion debate. I wish more anti-abortion people felt that way, but the fact is: "Abortion is murder" is almost a battle cry.

I really respect your logical view on the matter.

Should the laws change that would be different.

As a pro-lifer, I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, although I would have preferred it never having been decided as it was. If the federal government simply washed its hands of the issue and turned the issue over to the states, you would have states such as mine (well maybe not with Gov. Crist at the helm) limiting abortions or some even making it illegal in all cases and you would have other states such as my former state, now guided by the likes of those witches Boxer and Feinstein, that make it legal in all cases. This in effect would make it legal in all cases for some and cause nothing but confusion.

I would prefer education to making it illegal. I would prefer some restrictions i.e. third trimester restrictions as compared to what we have today, abortion on demand up to and including the moment of birth.

As you can tell, I disagree with you on the "far cry from requiring that she get one" point. If abortion proponents could be honest with their practices things would be different. But, honesty is not the norm from either side of this discussion.

Immie

We are just going to disagree on the ultrasound issue. That is fine. I agree with you about Roe and the abortion issue at large. If people want to do away with abortion, they should address the issue from the top. However, I disagree that it should be an issue for the states only for this reason: that's what led to the Roe decision to begin with. If anything is going to come out of this hugely divisive issue legally, then I think it should be federal.

If the federal government banned abortion and the courts upheld it, then I would disagree with, but obviously respect the law.

I see this piece of legislation as an underhanded attempt to humiliate women who choose to have a legal medical procedure done. I don't think the intent was ever education.

We can disagree on the ultrasound issue. Ain't America great?!

We do not disagree on the "states issue". If you think we do, then maybe I didn't do a good enough job of getting my point across. In today's mess, returning Abortion to the states would be a disaster! Because you would have some states banning it in full, some restricting it to various degrees and some with no restrictions at all. That would be a catastrophe.

If the federal government banned abortion and the courts upheld it, then I would disagree with, but obviously respect the law.

Pulled that out so I can address it specifically. I respect this statement because that is how I view my position today. I disagree with the laws that we have today. I respect my country and the rules under which we live. That does not mean I have to agree with those rules or that I have to "mind my own business". I can speak my mind and lobby for the laws to change in legal manners. I can not take those laws into my own hand.

I completely agree with the top-down approach, if what you mean is via education. Making abortion illegal is not going to eliminate abortion. As far as I can tell, the only thing that will do that is changing the hearts and minds of the people. If I believe abortion is immoral (and I do) then it is my job to teach the rest of the country that abortion is immoral and then to allow them to make their own decisions. I cannot force my opinions upon you or anyone else. I can only share them and hope the rest of the world agrees with me.

Thank God we live in a free country where I can express my opinions and I don't have to worry about someone who either agrees or disagrees with me forcing me (or you) to change our opinions.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

As a pro-lifer, I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, although I would have preferred it never having been decided as it was. If the federal government simply washed its hands of the issue and turned the issue over to the states, you would have states such as mine (well maybe not with Gov. Crist at the helm) limiting abortions or some even making it illegal in all cases and you would have other states such as my former state, now guided by the likes of those witches Boxer and Feinstein, that make it legal in all cases. This in effect would make it legal in all cases for some and cause nothing but confusion.

Immie

Acknowledging that I cherry picked the paragraph from Immie's post that I wanted to comment on.

If the courts had upheld the spirit and intent of Roe v Wade, the whole debate would be a lot easier. It wasn't that bad a piece of legislation though I wish the court had strengthened the language so that the lower courts wouldn't be able to dicker with it so much. The language that is there is reasoned, sensible, and exquisite, however.

Basically the principle is that in the first trimester, the law should leave it up to the mother and doctor as to what will happen. It is there that personal morality would dictate all decisions and the state will stay out of it.

In the second trimester the state has increasing interest. It is here that it would be reasonble for laws as to what would constitute legal and illegal abortions to come into play.

By the third trimester, the state would have a great deal of interest and could outlaw abortions for most reasons other than to protect the mother from harm or require a court order to get one or whatever.

So basically these days, anything goes so far as some of the courts and pro abortion crowd are concerned, and Roe v Wade is the license for anything goes but is otherwise declared effectively dead.

I am hoping there will be a challenge to interpretation of Roe v Wade one of these days, and the original concept will be strengthened. I think that's the best we will probably be able to do on this issue.

Not "everything" goes. Late term abortions are banned.

Why didn't the GOP try and address Roe through legal channels when it had control of the house and senate?

Banned? Where?

My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that Roe allows for the banning of late term abortions, however, I don't know of anywhere that they are actually banned. In fact, I believe that South Dakota and Nebraska (as well as a couple of other states) have attempted to do so and been shot down time after time after time.

If they are then why the "partial birth abortion" debate at all?

Why didn't the GOP address Roe?

I don't know, I'm not in the know on those kinds of things and I have not been a Republican since shortly after GWB's re-election. My theory is that the GOP views this issue as a dividing point between their base and the Democratic base and just like the Democrats, the GOP thrives on divisive issues.

Do you really think the GOP wants to remove one of the major walls of division between the GOP and Dems?

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

First of all, I do not term abortion as being murder. Murder has a specific meaning and is defined roughly as the illegal killing of a human being. In the case of abortion, since it is clearly legal in all cases, it is not murder. I do believe that abortion for convenience sake, is immoral. It is not murder.

I couldn't agree with you more on the use of the term "murder" in the abortion debate. I wish more anti-abortion people felt that way, but the fact is: "Abortion is murder" is almost a battle cry.

I really respect your logical view on the matter.



We are just going to disagree on the ultrasound issue. That is fine. I agree with you about Roe and the abortion issue at large. If people want to do away with abortion, they should address the issue from the top. However, I disagree that it should be an issue for the states only for this reason: that's what led to the Roe decision to begin with. If anything is going to come out of this hugely divisive issue legally, then I think it should be federal.

If the federal government banned abortion and the courts upheld it, then I would disagree with, but obviously respect the law.

I see this piece of legislation as an underhanded attempt to humiliate women who choose to have a legal medical procedure done. I don't think the intent was ever education.

We can disagree on the ultrasound issue. Ain't America great?!

We do not disagree on the "states issue". If you think we do, then maybe I didn't do a good enough job of getting my point across. In today's mess, returning Abortion to the states would be a disaster! Because you would have some states banning it in full, some restricting it to various degrees and some with no restrictions at all. That would be a catastrophe.

If the federal government banned abortion and the courts upheld it, then I would disagree with, but obviously respect the law.

Pulled that out so I can address it specifically. I respect this statement because that is how I view my position today. I disagree with the laws that we have today. I respect my country and the rules under which we live. That does not mean I have to agree with those rules or that I have to "mind my own business". I can speak my mind and lobby for the laws to change in legal manners. I can not take those laws into my own hand.

I completely agree with the top-down approach, if what you mean is via education. Making abortion illegal is not going to eliminate abortion. As far as I can tell, the only thing that will do that is changing the hearts and minds of the people. If I believe abortion is immoral (and I do) then it is my job to teach the rest of the country that abortion is immoral and then to allow them to make their own decisions. I cannot force my opinions upon you or anyone else. I can only share them and hope the rest of the world agrees with me.

Thank God we live in a free country where I can express my opinions and I don't have to worry about someone who either agrees or disagrees with me forcing me (or you) to change our opinions.

Immie

I misread your comments on the states. Sorry for that. It looks like we are basically in agreement over the issue, just on opposite sides (and some minor nuance).

I wish more anti-abortion people were like you. For the record, I am not a fan of abortion. I don't think my hospital provides them, so on my OB rotation I don't think I'll have to make a decision on whether to opt out of attending one. However, if I had too, I would. It's just not something I want to ever be associated with.

However, I respect that people feel otherwise and that woman should be allowed the right to choose without being harassed and that is further supported by the simple fact that it is legal. Frankly, I don't agree with elective cosmetic surgery either (not trying to make a non sequitur here), but I respect that it is not my place to intervene in someone else's medical choices. In fact, as we are taught, it is not even our place to intervene when someone who is of sufficient mental capacity deliberate makes a poor health decision. For instance, if a cancer patient refuses chemo because they don't want to go through with it, that is there right even though it means they will die.

Back on topic, I don't know if my views make me anti-abortion or pro-abortion. I have never seen this as an "all or nothing" debate where we can't do nuance. Only the activists feel that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

As a pro-lifer, I do not believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, although I would have preferred it never having been decided as it was. If the federal government simply washed its hands of the issue and turned the issue over to the states, you would have states such as mine (well maybe not with Gov. Crist at the helm) limiting abortions or some even making it illegal in all cases and you would have other states such as my former state, now guided by the likes of those witches Boxer and Feinstein, that make it legal in all cases. This in effect would make it legal in all cases for some and cause nothing but confusion.

Immie

Acknowledging that I cherry picked the paragraph from Immie's post that I wanted to comment on.

If the courts had upheld the spirit and intent of Roe v Wade, the whole debate would be a lot easier. It wasn't that bad a piece of legislation though I wish the court had strengthened the language so that the lower courts wouldn't be able to dicker with it so much. The language that is there is reasoned, sensible, and exquisite, however.

Basically the principle is that in the first trimester, the law should leave it up to the mother and doctor as to what will happen. It is there that personal morality would dictate all decisions and the state will stay out of it.

In the second trimester the state has increasing interest. It is here that it would be reasonble for laws as to what would constitute legal and illegal abortions to come into play.

By the third trimester, the state would have a great deal of interest and could outlaw abortions for most reasons other than to protect the mother from harm or require a court order to get one or whatever.

So basically these days, anything goes so far as some of the courts and pro abortion crowd are concerned, and Roe v Wade is the license for anything goes but is otherwise declared effectively dead.

I am hoping there will be a challenge to interpretation of Roe v Wade one of these days, and the original concept will be strengthened. I think that's the best we will probably be able to do on this issue.

Not "everything" goes. Late term abortions are banned.

Why didn't the GOP try and address Roe through legal channels when it had control of the house and senate?

Late term abortions are banned? So far I think it is 36 states that have passed laws banning most late term abortions. And pro abortion groups are still maintaining that those bans are unconstitutional. Sooner or later it will no doubt wind up in the high court again. But there are also states, such as Illinois, in which a viable fetus can be aborted and, if it survives the abortion, medical assistance is withheld so that it goes ahead and dies.

And what does the GOP have to do with it? There is certainly no more consensus among Republicans as to what the law should be than there is among Democrats.

 

[geauxtohell]

Banned? Where?

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though, I realize there is a little more to this and that some physicians have found work-arounds (i.e. Dr. Tiller before he was assassinated). As you pointed out, obviously it's still an issue since we are still debating it.

Why didn't the GOP address Roe?

I don't know, I'm not in the know on those kinds of things and I have not been a Republican since shortly after GWB's re-election. My theory is that the GOP views this issue as a dividing point between their base and the Democratic base and just like the Democrats, the GOP thrives on divisive issues.

Do you really think the GOP wants to remove one of the major walls of division between the GOP and Dems?

Immie

That's basically my take on it as well.

 

[Immanuel]

Banned? Where?

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though, I realize there is a little more to this and that some physicians have found work-arounds (i.e. Dr. Tiller before he was assassinated). As you pointed out, obviously it's still an issue since we are still debating it.

Why didn't the GOP address Roe?

I don't know, I'm not in the know on those kinds of things and I have not been a Republican since shortly after GWB's re-election. My theory is that the GOP views this issue as a dividing point between their base and the Democratic base and just like the Democrats, the GOP thrives on divisive issues.

Do you really think the GOP wants to remove one of the major walls of division between the GOP and Dems?

Immie

That's basically my take on it as well.

Thanks for the link. I didn't realize that had been passed or was even on the books.

However, it only bans one procedure, "intact dilation and extraction". Does it ban late term abortions? My gut feeling is no, it does not.

I'm no expert but I suspect there are other procedures that can be performed:

There are two other methods described in this link:

Late-term abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methods

There are at least three medical procedures associated with late-term abortions:

* Dilation and evacuation (D&E)
* Early labour induction
* Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or D&X), sometimes referred to as "partial-birth abortion"

Abortions done for fetal abnormality are usually performed with induction of labor or with IDX; Elective late-term abortions are usually performed with D&E.[citation needed]

Are they banned as well? Note: I'll go back and review your link better to see if I can answer my own question.

edit: in answer to that question this is what I see:

The present statute is directed only at a method of abortion, rather than at preventing any woman from obtaining an abortion.[4]

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Note re thread:

This is scary. Three people with basically two different opinions (FF and I generally agree) can discuss this issue and not end every post with, "you effing idiot!"

Thank you G-T-H. You have made this an enjoyable discussion.

Immie

 

[The T]

Why should women/couples be coerced into NOT doing what they already KNOW to be wrong?

And on that merit? Crist is correct. He stopped more Gubmint meddling in personal affairs. And this is where the CRIST connection and any semblence of Conservative ends.

As to Crist the Candidate? He is a chameleon...that changes with whichever the political winds are blowing...and is being courted by OBAMA.

This should raise an eyelash or two...

~T

 

[hortysir]

From the link, BTW

The state already requires ultrasounds for second- and third-trimester abortions. As of May 1, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported Florida was among 14 states with specific requirements for ultrasounds as part the abortion procedure.

Just thought I should point that out to ya'll

 

[hortysir]

Told ya' I killed the thread!!!

 

[AquaAthena]

Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed a Republican-backed bill that would have required women seeking a first-trimester abortion to pay for an ultrasound exam and, with few exceptions, view the image or have it described to them by their doctor.

Crist vetoes Fla. abortion ultrasound measure - Decision 2010- msnbc.com

Whether you agree with abortion or not, it's impossible to deny that this procedure was nothing more than a cheap tactic to try and shame women out of getting an abortion.

There is absolutely no medical indication for it.

If this is what the Florida GOP is throwing up, it's easy to see why Crist left them.

I agree with this statement by Crist: "Individuals hold strong personal views on the issue of life, as do I," Crist wrote. "However, personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary."

 

[The T]

Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed a Republican-backed bill that would have required women seeking a first-trimester abortion to pay for an ultrasound exam and, with few exceptions, view the image or have it described to them by their doctor.

Crist vetoes Fla. abortion ultrasound measure - Decision 2010- msnbc.com

Whether you agree with abortion or not, it's impossible to deny that this procedure was nothing more than a cheap tactic to try and shame women out of getting an abortion.

There is absolutely no medical indication for it.

If this is what the Florida GOP is throwing up, it's easy to see why Crist left them.

I agree with this statement by Crist: "Individuals hold strong personal views on the issue of life, as do I," Crist wrote. "However, personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary."

Exactly. Crist got this one correct.

 

[AquaAthena]

Crist vetoes Fla. abortion ultrasound measure - Decision 2010- msnbc.com

Whether you agree with abortion or not, it's impossible to deny that this procedure was nothing more than a cheap tactic to try and shame women out of getting an abortion.

There is absolutely no medical indication for it.

If this is what the Florida GOP is throwing up, it's easy to see why Crist left them.

I agree with this statement by Crist: "Individuals hold strong personal views on the issue of life, as do I," Crist wrote. "However, personal views should not result in laws that unwisely expand the role of government and coerce people to obtain medical tests or procedures that are not medically necessary."

Exactly. Crist got this one correct.

I like to reference him as Benedict Crist...

 

[Anguille]

First let me thank you for the respectful reply. I much prefer discussions that start out this way. We disagree, but we live in America and we can freely disagree.

Second, I don't see this as an attempt to shame a mother-to-be out of an abortion. This is why. Who provides the Ultra-sound? My understanding is that it can and would most likely be the abortion provider. Am I correct in that assumption? If so, do you really believe "shame" will be involved? Will an abortion provider tell the woman she is "evil" (I am NOT saying she is) because, "look at that cute little nose and ahhhh, see, she's sucking her thumb?" No, I don't think that is how things will go down. The mother-to-be will simply see the fetus within her and then be allowed to determine on her own, whether or not she wants to go on with this procedure.

Of course, it would still depend on the honesty of the provider. I'm no ultra-sound technician, but I have seen ultra sounds and I can say, that when the technician told me, "there is your daughter's head, I can't be certain that it is a girl, but I think so, she's modest, her hand is covering the important areas". I had to take her word for it. The tech could have been showing a picture of my wife's gallbladder for all I know!

Immie

No, I doubt the abortion provider would moralize during the procedure. In fact, I would suspect that they would be sufficiently annoyed that they had to do this.

What's at issue is that this procedure is not necessary. Thus, the only reason this law was passed (prior to it's veto) was to try and change women's minds.

As I said, I don't think the law should get into coercion.

Please explain to me where you see coercion in this case.

The law as I understand it, does not attempt to prevent abortions in any manner. It only attempts to give the mother-to-be a clearer picture as to the stage of development of the fetus within her.

Why would you think that would not be necessary? I would agree that it may not be medically necessary, but in my view, as much information as possible is necessary. The fact that abortion providers want to hide that information is alarming to me.

Immie

If you agree that the procedure may not be medically necessary then why would you support requiring it in the first place? Should we also require women carrying pregnancies to term to view photos of women who have died or been disformed from giving birth? Or to view photos of deformed babies? Are women so ignorant that they can't be relied upon to make informed decisions on their own? If women who are considering abortion wish to have an ultra sound first before making a final decision, they certainly have that option. Why force it on them? I think it's quite obvious why some people would wish to force it on them . They have an misguided agenda to coerce women into bearing children they do not wish to bear.

I might add that should this ever become law I doubt it would achieve the effect anti abortionists desire. Women will still have abortions.

 

[Anguille]

First, I am 100% pro life. I believe life begins at conception and that abortion ends a human life.

Second, I would not support abortion for any reason being outlawed because there are legitimate reasons that abortion is indicated.

Third, I don't presume to judge those who determine legitimate reasons differently than I would.

Fourth, I want the federal government out of abortion and allow the states or preferably the local communities decide their own policies.

Fifth, I would think requiring an ultrasound for a mother who was having to make the heart wrenching decision to end an unviable or dangerous pregnancy would be extremely cruel. However, because I believe abortion is ending a human life, in the case of abortion for convenience, I have a hard time thinking it unreasonable to advise the mother of all the ramifications of what she is doing.

So I guess for me, I would settle for a hospital or clinic having the legal right to require just about anything before they would perform an abortion for convenience. And I very much want us to get back to the social norm where they would feel it the moral choice to do so. I don't want the state or federal government getting involved in that, however.

Thanks.

FWIW, the move of medicine away from paternalism and towards patient autonomy means that we taught in school not to moralize to patients in most instances. For instance, it would be inappropriate to tell a patient to stop drinking because you are morally opposed to alcohol. However, it's appropriate to advise a patient to stop drinking because their liver is hanging on by a thread.

I think don't think the being a moralist is a yolk that most health care providers want to wear. The basic medicine is sufficiently difficult without going into ancillary issues.

An interesting aside to this line of thought is the Quinlan case were the Catholic Hospital she was at refused to remove her life support on the grounds of moral objections. I think the family took them to court and won on the matter.

It's off the top of my head, so I could be wrong.

I know Quinlan set the stage for Cruzan which set the stage for Schiavo.

But don't they still teach ethics in medical school? Would you remove a healthy hand or foot because somebody had some kind of mental fetish and wanted you to? Is there no room left for a hospital or doctor to refuse to perform an abortion for convenience, not because the mother is 'evil', but because they value that human life that would be killed?

Again I try hard not to get into the area of judging other people. But if I was medical personnel, I would not want to be put in the position of having to assist with ending the life of an unborn child for no other reason than the mother didn't want it.

And because I believe people should be free to follow the dictates of their own conscience, that is why I wish they would just leave the policy to the local community and/or hospital and/or clinic.

The point is, that it could hardly be argued that removing a healthy hand or foot from a person would benefit that person's health whereas pregnancy is never beneficial to a woman's heath and can be a real danger to her health.

When people start talking about "abortion for convenience" I have wonder who is the arbiter of what constitutes "convenience".

 

[Immanuel]

No, I doubt the abortion provider would moralize during the procedure. In fact, I would suspect that they would be sufficiently annoyed that they had to do this.

What's at issue is that this procedure is not necessary. Thus, the only reason this law was passed (prior to it's veto) was to try and change women's minds.

As I said, I don't think the law should get into coercion.

Please explain to me where you see coercion in this case.

The law as I understand it, does not attempt to prevent abortions in any manner. It only attempts to give the mother-to-be a clearer picture as to the stage of development of the fetus within her.

Why would you think that would not be necessary? I would agree that it may not be medically necessary, but in my view, as much information as possible is necessary. The fact that abortion providers want to hide that information is alarming to me.

Immie

If you agree that the procedure may not be medically necessary then why would you support requiring it in the first place? Should we also require women carrying pregnancies to term to view photos of women who have died or been disformed from giving birth? Or to view photos of deformed babies? Are women so ignorant that they can't be relied upon to make informed decisions on their own? If women who are considering abortion wish to have an ultra sound first before making a final decision, they certainly have that option. Why force it on them? I think it's quite obvious why some people would wish to force it on them . They have an misguided agenda to coerce women into bearing children they do not wish to bear.

I might add that should this ever become law I doubt it would achieve the effect anti abortionists desire. Women will still have abortions.

Actually it is the so-called pro-choice groups that have the mis-guided agendas.

Of course women will still have abortions, it is not intended to stop abortions. Nothing in it prevents the woman from having an abortion. It simply prevents the abortion provider from lying about what is actually inside the woman.

Immie

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Well fer sure we wouldn't want all those women to see that "baby" that they are getting ready to abort.

New rule: from now on after every time you poop, you are required to pay for a doctor to come take pictures of your crap, and either show you the pictures, or describe them to you.

This is one place where you and I disagree completely. You see, when I hear abortion proponents telling us that the fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". I know that is dishonest, because the fact is that even if this issue were brought up 10 days after conception which it is not, then that so called "clump of cells" is a developing human being which makes it more than a "clump of cells".

Except, it is a clump of cells at that point. That is literally what it is.

Not a tree:

I enjoy your reasonable perspective overall, Immie, but I had to comment here.

 

[Immanuel]

Well fer sure we wouldn't want all those women to see that "baby" that they are getting ready to abort.

New rule: from now on after every time you poop, you are required to pay for a doctor to come take pictures of your crap, and either show you the pictures, or describe them to you.

This is one place where you and I disagree completely. You see, when I hear abortion proponents telling us that the fetus is nothing more than a "clump of cells". I know that is dishonest, because the fact is that even if this issue were brought up 10 days after conception which it is not, then that so called "clump of cells" is a developing human being which makes it more than a "clump of cells".

Except, it is a clump of cells at that point. That is literally what it is.

Not a tree:

I enjoy your reasonable perspective overall, Immie, but I had to comment here.

You and I will just have to disagree on that. It is a human being and will never be anything else.

Immie

 

[Anguille]

Please explain to me where you see coercion in this case.

The law as I understand it, does not attempt to prevent abortions in any manner. It only attempts to give the mother-to-be a clearer picture as to the stage of development of the fetus within her.

Why would you think that would not be necessary? I would agree that it may not be medically necessary, but in my view, as much information as possible is necessary. The fact that abortion providers want to hide that information is alarming to me.

Immie

If you agree that the procedure may not be medically necessary then why would you support requiring it in the first place? Should we also require women carrying pregnancies to term to view photos of women who have died or been disformed from giving birth? Or to view photos of deformed babies? Are women so ignorant that they can't be relied upon to make informed decisions on their own? If women who are considering abortion wish to have an ultra sound first before making a final decision, they certainly have that option. Why force it on them? I think it's quite obvious why some people would wish to force it on them . They have an misguided agenda to coerce women into bearing children they do not wish to bear.

I might add that should this ever become law I doubt it would achieve the effect anti abortionists desire. Women will still have abortions.

Actually it is the so-called pro-choice groups that have the mis-guided agendas.

Of course women will still have abortions, it is not intended to stop abortions. Nothing in it prevents the woman from having an abortion. It simply prevents the abortion provider from lying about what is actually inside the woman.

Immie

I doubt any abortion provider has lied to any woman and told her that abortion means removing any thing other than the fetus. If that has ever happened, it would be a rare incident indeed and hardly justifying women in FL from having to fork over even more cash to pay for ultrasounds which are medically unnecessary. What you are trying to claim, is that anyone who does not hold your personal view on the morality of abortion is a liar. It's not up to abortion providers to make moral judgemnet for their patients. That is up to the patient.

This law is clearly a loony attempt to force doctors to intimidate women out of having abortions, either by imposing a financial burden on them and/or by attempted intimidation.

I find your claims to want to educate women patronizing and insulting. You think anyone who does not have the same view as yourself uneducated? I think it is you who could do with some education.

I note you avoided my question of whether pregnant women should also be subjected to excessive warnings about of the dangers of pregnancy.

 

[oreo]

Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed a Republican-backed bill that would have required women seeking a first-trimester abortion to pay for an ultrasound exam and, with few exceptions, view the image or have it described to them by their doctor.

Crist vetoes Fla. abortion ultrasound measure - Decision 2010- msnbc.com

Whether you agree with abortion or not, it's impossible to deny that this procedure was nothing more than a cheap tactic to try and shame women out of getting an abortion.

There is absolutely no medical indication for it.

If this is what the Florida GOP is throwing up, it's easy to see why Crist left them.

such a requirement was intended to be and would have been abusive and harassing.

more loveliness from the small government rightwingnut loons...

good on Crist.

This is why normal people shouldn't be repubs.

Abortion is ABUSE--and homicide of an innocent human being---

And that little heart-beat shows up very clearly on an ultra-sound.

Really--How many contraceptive devices are on the market today--and can easily be obtained for FREE?