OK anti-abortion ultrasound un-Constitutional

[koshergrl]

You would think the amount of writing you've committed to it, you'd just accidentally hit on a valid point...

But so far, nothing.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

You would think the amount of writing you've committed to it, you'd just accidentally hit on a valid point...

But so far, nothing.

youd think with the amount of time you spend spewing garbage on this board you would have said something intelligent by now. but so far..... nothing.

 

[koshergrl]

Wait...didn't I just say that?

What the hell is with lefties that they can't come up with their own material? At least let a couple of posts pass in between the material you're stealing, and your regurgitation of it.

 

[LeftCoastVoter]

more blah blah blah garbage out of your mouth. do you have anything intelligent to say? didnt think so, that avatar must be a nice self portrait.

 

[koshergrl]

You did it again.

 

[Dragonlady]

Wait...didn't I just say that?

What the hell is with lefties that they can't come up with their own material? At least let a couple of posts pass in between the material you're stealing, and your regurgitation of it.

I'm waiting for studies and links from you, Bitch. So far I've seen nothing that indicates that you're anything but a troll.

No logic, no information, no links, and certainly no argument based on facts, logic and reason.

So far, all I've seen is "I know you are but what am I?" type posts. Unless the troll has reasoned arguments or anything at all above the level of neener, neener, neener, I won't respond to it further.

 

[koshergrl]

I provided the evidence that the stats you retards cling to are nothing more than guestimations based on bloviation.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for any of you to show that you've found some real numbers in this country.

I know they don't exist, so really, I'm not waiting for anything. Morons.

 

[Dragonlady]

I provided the evidence that the stats you retards cling to are nothing more than guestimations based on bloviation.

I provided links to abortion statistics from every government in the world. Accurate statistics, not guestimates, taken from hospital and clinic records, you provided . . . an assertion that the US doesn't keep accurate statistics.

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for any of you to show that you've found some real numbers in this country.

So you are finally admitting that you're lying about the numbers of the late term abortions being performed and just making shit up, and then falling back on the argument that we can't dispute what you're saying because no one keeps numbers.

Why don't you take your signs outside, made a nice little bonfire out of them and toast some marshmallows. Do something useful with them for a change. I'm going to look for the ignore function on this board and add you to my ignore list. I don't usually use the ignore function, but then it's not often I find someone with absolutely nothing of value to say, and so obnoxious that I can't be bothering skipping their posts.

 

[OKTexas]

Don't know about where you live but men in OK want their women to have all the information available BEFORE they make a decision. Ain't nothing worse than an ignorant woman.

Maybe men should be subjected to a rectal ultrasound and receive information about STD's before they are permitted to have sex. Nothing worse than an ignorant man.

Some of the so-called "information" required to be provided in "informed consent" states is of questionable validity, especially that bit about women who have had abortions having a higher risk for breast cancer. Any studies which they quote were done by anti-abortion groups and the figures are highly suspect.

There is a substantial body of evidence which says that women who don't breast feed are at a higher risk of breast cancer, but you don't hear right-wingers saying that all women should breast feed their babies for the sake of their own health as well as the baby's health.

There is also evidence which suggests that having sex regularly reduces a women's risk for breast cancer. Betcha never heard about that one either. The religious right isn't keen on that one either.

It would seem that God WANTS us to have regular sex and to breast feed our babies. The "taking birth control encourages the wrong kind of sex" crowd certainly doesn't want you to find out that recreational sex reduces the risk of breast cancer now do they. Sadly, multiple partners does lead to a greater incidence of cervical cancer so maybe God just intended for us to be horny, but faithful. I'm fine with that.

As for the "wrong kind of sex", I have difficulty understanding what would that be. I mean Rick Santorum and the guys probably think that this means sex where the woman has fun, or worse, at least one orgasm, but I always think of it as sex which one or the other partner derives no pleasure or finds it outright distasteful for some reason. For some reasons it really bothers fundamentalists when women enjoy sex. Christians, Muslims, doesn't matter. Fundamentalists want to control the women and keep them from enjoying sex.

I think that if God didn't want us to have sex, He wouldn't have issued the equipment.

I'm not going to address the many strawmen you threw in to the mix, but informed consent is impossible unless you have all reasonably available information. Any ultrasound would be considerably less invasive than an abortion, and denying the information that can be gained from an ultrasound could be beneficial not only to the woman in making her decision to proceed, but also to the doctor as to fetal positioning or structural problems such a scar tissue. It could easily make the procedure safer. I don't favor abortions in general but at this point they are legal, I do however think they should be banned beyond the 25th week. If a woman can't make up her mind in six months then the baby should be allowed to live, and the only exception beyond the 25th week should be if the continued pregnancy would endanger the mothers life, where an emergency c section should be performed if at all practical.

 

[AmyNation]

Abortion is illegal past the 25th week, many states limit it to the 20th week and if an ultrasound is needed, it is performed. It is not for the state to demand a doctor do something they don't feel is medically necessary just to shame women into not having an abortion.

 

[OKTexas]

Abortion is illegal past the 25th week, many states limit it to the 20th week and if an ultrasound is needed, it is performed. It is not for the state to demand a doctor do something they don't feel is medically necessary just to shame women into not having an abortion.

Yet we see videos of partial birth abortions being performed, and no one going to jail. Can you explain that? Also imaging is used in virtually all invasive procedures now days, why should abortion be different? An abortion doctor has a monetary conflict of interest in not providing fully informed consent and there are risk in abortions. Why would you as a supposed advocate for women not want them to have information, do you fear they might not conform to your ideology? Do you really give women that little credit? Also do you deny that an ultrasound could make the procedure safer? After all women still die from abortions, there are risks.

 

[AmyNation]

Partial birth abortion is illegal. It hasn't always been but it is now.

As to the rest of your post, it's a lot of nonsense. If an ultrasound is necessary, the doctor will perform one. There is no special information that a woman will get that she doesnt already have by sticking a probe up her vagina and demanding she face the screen.

 

[OKTexas]

Partial birth abortion is illegal. It hasn't always been but it is now.

As to the rest of your post, it's a lot of nonsense. If an ultrasound is necessary, the doctor will perform one. There is no special information that a woman will get that she doesnt already have by sticking a probe up her vagina and demanding she face the screen.

So you don't think women can make a rational decision being fully informed? Also you failed to address the possibility that the doctor might gain information that could make the procedure safer.

 

[AmyNation]

The state has no right to demand women seeking abortion get an ultrasound that they don't want, and that their doctor doesn't feel is necessary. Period.

It seems clear you want to believe these laws are about safty, but they aren't. You might have a better argument if the laws didn't specify the placement of the screen or to require a picture of the fetus be printed out and kept in the woman's medical records.

 

[Dragonlady]

Any ultrasound would be considerably less invasive than an abortion, and denying the information that can be gained from an ultrasound could be beneficial not only to the woman in making her decision to proceed, but also to the doctor as to fetal positioning or structural problems such a scar tissue. It could easily make the procedure safer. . . . .

While an ultrasound examination may be helpful to the physician performing the abortion, of what value is it to force the woman to look at the picture obtained while the doctor tells her about the fetus about to be destroyed. How does this in any way assist her in deciding whether the surgery is safe, or whether this pregnancy should continue? How does making her wait three day in an out-of-state motel room do anything but increase the cost of the abortion or force her to take additional time off work to obtain it.

In countries with government funded single payer health care, the abortion rate is going down because poor women have access to medical care with no restrictions and no co-pays. If a poor woman gets pregnant, she doesn't have to pay for pre-natal care, supplements, or labour and delivery for her child. Many of these countries also have government regulated and subsidized day care, health care, maternity/paternity leave which guarantees her and her partner that their jobs will be waiting for them if they take time off to be with their new-born, and other programs which support poor and low-income families.

If you don't want women to have abortions, make it easier for them to have and keep the babies, don't make it harder and more expensive to get abortions. American women are starting to turn up at hospitals with injuries from self-aborting or back-alley abortions because of the difficulties and expense of obtaining legal abortions in the United States.

If a woman can't make up her mind in six months then the baby should be allowed to live, and the only exception beyond the 25th week should be if the continued pregnancy would endanger the mothers life, where an emergency c section should be performed if at all practical.

Nearly half of the women who have abortions after 20 weeks, cite the difficulty of obtaining an abortion as the reason for the delay. I personally know of no-one who has had an abortion in the third trimester. Any people I know of who had second trimester abortions, did so because of medical reasons involving the health of the fetus.

If the decision to abort is based on the results of amnio-centisis, the test cannot be performed until at least the 15th week of gestation due to the risk of miscarriage -later is better. Results take 9 to 14 days. Friends who have had the test said they all waited 20 weeks at the recommendation of their doctors (in part because conception dates are guesses at best), and got the results back at 23 weeks. The doctors expected an instant decision if the results were not good. If you're in a high risk group for genetic abnormalities you have had your entire pregnancy to think about this and know what that decision will be. If you had a 6-month ultra-sound which raised questions you hadn't previously thought about, you may need more time to think this through.

If the woman has waited past 25 weeks to "make a decision", this is not a woman who was deciding whether she wanted or could afford this baby, this is a woman whose decision involves the life or death of either herself, her child or both. Those who consider a pregnancy a "mistake" or who cannot afford to have a child, end it early, before the baby quickens. That's why "informed consent" laws generally have a waiting period. Those who framed the law want the woman to remain pregnant long enough to bond with her baby. It's not about the baby, it's about controlling the woman.

No woman who has ever had an abortion has not thought it through completely, before she EVER got to the clinic door. In fact, from the moment she got pregnant, until the moment she goes to the clinic, she has likely thought about little else. She doesn't need to be shamed or guilted about her decision. She needs everyone involved to treat her as any other patient who seeks an elective surgery because of a medical condition - with privacy and respect.

 

[OKTexas]

The state has no right to demand women seeking abortion get an ultrasound that they don't want, and that their doctor doesn't feel is necessary. Period.

It seems clear you want to believe these laws are about safty, but they aren't. You might have a better argument if the laws didn't specify the placement of the screen or to require a picture of the fetus be printed out and kept in the woman's medical records.

States have regulatory authority over physicians practicing in their state. They can require physicians to do pretty much anything they want, withing accepted practices, I know you lefties want all laws to be federal so there is no escaping them, but that's not the system we have. I sincerely hope OK appeals this ruling because I think they can prevail.

 

[Plasmaball]

Partial birth abortion is illegal. It hasn't always been but it is now.

As to the rest of your post, it's a lot of nonsense. If an ultrasound is necessary, the doctor will perform one. There is no special information that a woman will get that she doesnt already have by sticking a probe up her vagina and demanding she face the screen.

So you don't think women can make a rational decision being fully informed? Also you failed to address the possibility that the doctor might gain information that could make the procedure safer.

Sticking a probe up a womans Vag isnt giving her more info. Its an emotional solution based on control and morals.

That being said a woman should know by 20 weeks or so if she plans on keeping it. There really is no need to go beyond that point, unless health issues arise.

 

[OKTexas]

Any ultrasound would be considerably less invasive than an abortion, and denying the information that can be gained from an ultrasound could be beneficial not only to the woman in making her decision to proceed, but also to the doctor as to fetal positioning or structural problems such a scar tissue. It could easily make the procedure safer. . . . .

While an ultrasound examination may be helpful to the physician performing the abortion, of what value is it to force the woman to look at the picture obtained while the doctor tells her about the fetus about to be destroyed. How does this in any way assist her in deciding whether the surgery is safe, or whether this pregnancy should continue? How does making her wait three day in an out-of-state motel room do anything but increase the cost of the abortion or force her to take additional time off work to obtain it.

In countries with government funded single payer health care, the abortion rate is going down because poor women have access to medical care with no restrictions and no co-pays. If a poor woman gets pregnant, she doesn't have to pay for pre-natal care, supplements, or labour and delivery for her child. Many of these countries also have government regulated and subsidized day care, health care, maternity/paternity leave which guarantees her and her partner that their jobs will be waiting for them if they take time off to be with their new-born, and other programs which support poor and low-income families.

If you don't want women to have abortions, make it easier for them to have and keep the babies, don't make it harder and more expensive to get abortions. American women are starting to turn up at hospitals with injuries from self-aborting or back-alley abortions because of the difficulties and expense of obtaining legal abortions in the United States.

If a woman can't make up her mind in six months then the baby should be allowed to live, and the only exception beyond the 25th week should be if the continued pregnancy would endanger the mothers life, where an emergency c section should be performed if at all practical.

Nearly half of the women who have abortions after 20 weeks, cite the difficulty of obtaining an abortion as the reason for the delay. I personally know of no-one who has had an abortion in the third trimester. Any people I know of who had second trimester abortions, did so because of medical reasons involving the health of the fetus.

If the decision to abort is based on the results of amnio-centisis, the test cannot be performed until at least the 15th week of gestation due to the risk of miscarriage -later is better. Results take 9 to 14 days. Friends who have had the test said they all waited 20 weeks at the recommendation of their doctors (in part because conception dates are guesses at best), and got the results back at 23 weeks. The doctors expected an instant decision if the results were not good. If you're in a high risk group for genetic abnormalities you have had your entire pregnancy to think about this and know what that decision will be. If you had a 6-month ultra-sound which raised questions you hadn't previously thought about, you may need more time to think this through.

If the woman has waited past 25 weeks to "make a decision", this is not a woman who was deciding whether she wanted or could afford this baby, this is a woman whose decision involves the life or death of either herself, her child or both. Those who consider a pregnancy a "mistake" or who cannot afford to have a child, end it early, before the baby quickens. That's why "informed consent" laws generally have a waiting period. Those who framed the law want the woman to remain pregnant long enough to bond with her baby. It's not about the baby, it's about controlling the woman.

No woman who has ever had an abortion has not thought it through completely, before she EVER got to the clinic door. In fact, from the moment she got pregnant, until the moment she goes to the clinic, she has likely thought about little else. She doesn't need to be shamed or guilted about her decision. She needs everyone involved to treat her as any other patient who seeks an elective surgery because of a medical condition - with privacy and respect.

Out of state motel room, no one has the right to make you leave the state, and I can't say I've heard this claim before. Why is it all the pro choicers don't want the women considering an abortion to see the being she is about to terminate? If it causes her to change her mind, how is that a bad thing? And I appreciate your honesty that the information that an ultrasound provides could be beneficial to the doctor.

 

[zakdavis]

Because her seeing it is unnecessary to the procedure.

 

[Dragonlady]

Out of state motel room, no one has the right to make you leave the state, and I can't say I've heard this claim before. Why is it all the pro choicers don't want the women considering an abortion to see the being she is about to terminate? If it causes her to change her mind, how is that a bad thing? And I appreciate your honesty that the information that an ultrasound provides could be beneficial to the doctor.

In some states, there are no doctors who will perform abortions, and state law requires that doctors must reside in-state to have admitting privileges in any hospital there. This is one of the ways states restrict access to abortions. So women are effectively barred from getting an abortion in their home states.

People who are pro-choice think that forcing the woman to look at the fetus is emotional abuse. It assumes that the woman either hasn't thought this through sufficiently, or she's too stupid to understand what she's doing. Neither idea is flattering to women. I think there is nothing wrong if the woman's physician asks to have an ultra-sound for valid medical reasons, and the woman asks to see the baby before terminating the pregnancy, but should be her choice not a government requirement. Pro-choice people believe abortion is a matter between a woman and her doctor. If you truly believe in smaller government, then you will understand this. Informed consent as it relates to abortion, is "nanny state taken to the extreme". Women are deeply offended that we are being subjected to this shit.