SCOTUS Upholds Law Requiring Ultrasounds For Abortions

[Lysistrata]

Yet another indication that the U.S. is circling the drain. Forcing communications between a doctor and a patient is scary and reeks of authoritarianism. An ultrasound is an entirely useless procedure given that the sequence of the gestational process has been known to OBGYNs for a very long time and can be illustrated on a chart on the wall. This law is a total waste of resources brought on by disgusting state legislators with a prurient interest in their citizens' genitals.

Patients, bring earplugs so that you can listen to your favorite music. Doctors, speak quickly and be sure to remind your patients that this entire procedure is being forced by Big Government. Then the entire cost of the episode should be billed to the government so that the time involved for both the doctor and the patient is compensated by the state, with a special award to the patients for invasion of privacy. Big Government should provide a special help line for patients and doctors to make claims and to make complaints to the Big Government folks who are clearly responsible.

A forced medical exam has absolutely nothing to do with "personal responsibility," BTW.

 

[pknopp]

And that's what this is really about: controlling women. Your honesty, though accidental, is refreshing.

It's not about controlling women. It's about saving the lives of the unborn.

Try again.

Now if those who support this ruling would start caring about the born.........

We care about the "born" as well. But also expect people to take responsibility for their actions.

You made a child, it's YOUR responsibility to raise it. Not the states.

This might be the best example I've ever seen of someone speaking out of both sides of their mouths. A child is incapable of caring for themselves.

How in the ever loving fuck did you get "the child must care for themselves" out of what I said?

Because it is what you said.

 

[pknopp]

Make those women

And that's what this is really about: controlling women. Your honesty, though accidental, is refreshing.

It's not about controlling women. It's about saving the lives of the unborn.

Try again.

Now if those who support this ruling would start caring about the born.........

Ah, you are playing that sick little blackmail gambit.

"Pay for my baby or I'll kill it!"

It's sad you think this way. It really is.

 

[satrebil]

It's not about controlling women. It's about saving the lives of the unborn.

Try again.

Now if those who support this ruling would start caring about the born.........

We care about the "born" as well. But also expect people to take responsibility for their actions.

You made a child, it's YOUR responsibility to raise it. Not the states.

This might be the best example I've ever seen of someone speaking out of both sides of their mouths. A child is incapable of caring for themselves.

How in the ever loving fuck did you get "the child must care for themselves" out of what I said?

Because it is what you said.

No it's not. Stop being a moron.

 

[g5000]

Next up: Holding the victims of some of the worst crimes as human shields.

Human shields? I didn’t see where they required them to actually look at the ultrasound.

The worst tactic used by pro-abortion people is the "rape and incest" gambit.

Less than two percent of abortions are connected to rape or incest, but the sickos use these poor women as human shields to justify killing millions of inconvenient babies.

So, you are against abortion?

Of course. I've been a pro-life conservative Republican all my life. Unlike Trump.

Well, I did quit the GOP after Trump was elected since it is no longer the GOP.

 

[g5000]

More than 90% of women change their minds about having an abortion after seeing an ultrasound, Rachel Campos-Duffy says

Politifact ruled that claims as False.


Does Looking at the Ultrasound Before an Abortion Change Women's Minds?

This latest study is much larger. Researchers analyzed 15,575 medical records from an urban abortion care provider in Los Angeles. Each patient seeking an abortion was asked how she felt about her choice: Those who made “clear and confident” replies were rated as having “high decision certainty,” while those who seemed sad, angry, or ambivalent were said to show “medium” or “low” decision certainty. (Only 7.4 percent of the women fell into the latter categories.) Patients underwent ultrasounds as part of the standard procedure, and 42.5 percent of them opted to see the images. Of those, 98.4 percent terminated their pregnancies; 99 percent of the women who did not look at the photographs ended their pregnancies. But here’s the thing: The women who viewed the sonograms and then backed out were all part of that 7.4 percent of women with low or medium decision certainty. Women who knew abortion was the right decision for them continued with the procedure whether they were shown the images or not.


The main takeaway here is definitely that 98.4 percent of the women who saw their ultrasounds went on to get an abortion anyway.

 

[MAGAman]

This might be the best example I've ever seen of someone speaking out of both sides of their mouths. A child is incapable of caring for themselves.

Your purposeful ignorance is astounding. Parents have responsibility for their actions, including protecting their children.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see where it runs counter to RvW.

It runs counter to Democrats' dehumanization of unborn children.

Now if we could quit dehumanizing born ones.

 

[pknopp]

This might be the best example I've ever seen of someone speaking out of both sides of their mouths. A child is incapable of caring for themselves.

Your purposeful ignorance is astounding. Parents have responsibility for their actions, including protecting their children.

They do but it doesn't always work out that way. A lot of you all are proving my point though.

 

[jc456]

How dare women be given information to make informed decisions!

Supreme Court leaves in place Kentucky abortion law mandating ultrasounds

Then the taxpayers should be forced to pay for them.

why?

 

[jc456]

Yet another indication that the U.S. is circling the drain. Forcing communications between a doctor and a patient is scary and reeks of authoritarianism. An ultrasound is an entirely useless procedure given that the sequence of the gestational process has been known to OBGYNs for a very long time and can be illustrated on a chart on the wall. This law is a total waste of resources brought on by disgusting state legislators with a prurient interest in their citizens' genitals.

Patients, bring earplugs so that you can listen to your favorite music. Doctors, speak quickly and be sure to remind your patients that this entire procedure is being forced by Big Government. Then the entire cost of the episode should be billed to the government so that the time involved for both the doctor and the patient is compensated by the state, with a special award to the patients for invasion of privacy. Big Government should provide a special help line for patients and doctors to make claims and to make complaints to the Big Government folks who are clearly responsible.

A forced medical exam has absolutely nothing to do with "personal responsibility," BTW.

yep, you gotta make sure you don't hear that heartbeat right? you fking baby killer wannabe.

 

[bendog]

Make those women

And that's what this is really about: controlling women. Your honesty, though accidental, is refreshing.

It's not about controlling women. It's about saving the lives of the unborn.

Try again.

Hopefully the scouts doesn't go there. If so, it'd validate every concern raised about having a court controlled by four Roman Catholic middle aged white males, plus Thomas who is also a middle aged white Roman Catholic male. Now Gorsuch takes one of the spots, and he is an Episcopalian from a pretty socially liberal Colorado church. Gorsuch represents some none Religion based legal reasoning.

And it was controlling women.

With the advent (-: of pharma and disallowing states to interfere with that and early term terminations, it may be about allowing the States to have the police and regulatory power to control their own views of what life needs protecting.

 

[satrebil]

Yet another indication that the U.S. is circling the drain. Forcing communications between a doctor and a patient is scary and reeks of authoritarianism. An ultrasound is an entirely useless procedure given that the sequence of the gestational process has been known to OBGYNs for a very long time and can be illustrated on a chart on the wall. This law is a total waste of resources brought on by disgusting state legislators with a prurient interest in their citizens' genitals.

Patients, bring earplugs so that you can listen to your favorite music. Doctors, speak quickly and be sure to remind your patients that this entire procedure is being forced by Big Government. Then the entire cost of the episode should be billed to the government so that the time involved for both the doctor and the patient is compensated by the state, with a special award to the patients for invasion of privacy. Big Government should provide a special help line for patients and doctors to make claims and to make complaints to the Big Government folks who are clearly responsible.

A forced medical exam has absolutely nothing to do with "personal responsibility," BTW.

Keep your legs shut and you don't have to worry about it, cupcake.

 

[jc456]

I don't see where it runs counter to RvW.

It runs counter to Democrats' dehumanization of unborn children.

Now if we could quit dehumanizing born ones.

where is that done?

 

[jc456]

Make those women

And that's what this is really about: controlling women. Your honesty, though accidental, is refreshing.

It's not about controlling women. It's about saving the lives of the unborn.

Try again.

Hopefully the scouts doesn't go there. If so, it'd validate every concern raised about having a court controlled by four Roman Catholic middle aged white males, plus Thomas who is also a middle aged white Roman Catholic male. Now Gorsuch takes one of the spots, and he is an Episcopalian from a pretty socially liberal Colorado church. Gorsuch represents some none Religion based legal reasoning.

And it was controlling women.

With the advent (-: of pharma and disallowing states to interfere with that and early term terminations, it may be about allowing the States to have the police and regulatory power to control their own views of what life needs protecting.

controlling women how? please explain, that doesn't make sense to normal humans.

 

[depotoo]

More than 90% of women change their minds about having an abortion after seeing an ultrasound, Rachel Campos-Duffy says

Politifact ruled that claims as False.


Does Looking at the Ultrasound Before an Abortion Change Women's Minds?

This latest study is much larger. Researchers analyzed 15,575 medical records from an urban abortion care provider in Los Angeles. Each patient seeking an abortion was asked how she felt about her choice: Those who made “clear and confident” replies were rated as having “high decision certainty,” while those who seemed sad, angry, or ambivalent were said to show “medium” or “low” decision certainty. (Only 7.4 percent of the women fell into the latter categories.) Patients underwent ultrasounds as part of the standard procedure, and 42.5 percent of them opted to see the images. Of those, 98.4 percent terminated their pregnancies; 99 percent of the women who did not look at the photographs ended their pregnancies. But here’s the thing: The women who viewed the sonograms and then backed out were all part of that 7.4 percent of women with low or medium decision certainty. Women who knew abortion was the right decision for them continued with the procedure whether they were shown the images or not.


The main takeaway here is definitely that 98.4 percent of the women who saw their ultrasounds went on to get an abortion anyway.

But 1.6% didn’t. That is better than none.

 

[pknopp]

I don't see where it runs counter to RvW.

It runs counter to Democrats' dehumanization of unborn children.

Now if we could quit dehumanizing born ones.

where is that done?

Many times I've complained about the indiscriminate bombing we do all over the globe that kill thousands of innocent children. The reply is that "collateral damage" is inevitable. That is nothing more than an attempt at dehumanizing what we do.

 

[g5000]

Nearly half of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used during sex.

Another fifth are the result of improper or inconsistent use of birth control.

And that data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization.


The obvious solution is to get people to regularly use birth control and use it properly.

I don't think repealing Roe v. Wade, or forcing women to watch an ultrasound, will have any impact on the rate of abortions in America. I do believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed as a matter of principle, however.

If Roe were reversed, some states would outlaw abortions, some states would legalize abortions. Most of the states which outlaw abortions would make exceptions for rape, incest, and "health of the mother".

That is the situation which existed prior to Roe.

What most people don't know is that there were about a million abortions a year BEFORE Roe v. Wade. That's because in states where abortion was illegal except for "the health of the mother", doctors were really lenient about what "health of the mother meant". It could be mental health as well as physical health.

Abortion-on-demand has been around so long that it will be impossible to put that genie back in the bottle.


The ONLY way to reduce abortions is to increase the usage of birth control.

That's just plain common sense.

 

[g5000]

I don't see where it runs counter to RvW.

It runs counter to Democrats' dehumanization of unborn children.

Now if we could quit dehumanizing born ones.

where is that done?

Many times I've complained about the indiscriminate bombing we do all over the globe that kill thousands of innocent children. The reply is that "collateral damage" is inevitable. That is nothing more than an attempt at dehumanizing what we do.

Should we not have bombed Germany or Japan or Italy?

Apples and oranges fallacy.

 

[pknopp]

Nearly half of all abortions are the result of no birth control being used during sex.

Another fifth are the result of improper or inconsistent use of birth control.

And that data is from the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization.


The obvious solution is to get people to regularly use birth control and use it properly.

I don't think repealing Roe v. Wade, or forcing women to watch an ultrasound, will have any impact on the rate of abortions in America. I do believe Roe v. Wade should be repealed as a matter of principle, however.

If Roe were reversed, some states would outlaw abortions, some states would legalize abortions. Most of the states which outlaw abortions would make exceptions for rape, incest, and "health of the mother".

That is the situation which existed prior to Roe.

What most people don't know is that there were about a million abortions a year BEFORE Roe v. Wade. That's because in states where abortion was illegal except for "the health of the mother", doctors were really lenient about what "health of the mother meant". It could be mental health as well as physical health.

Abortion-on-demand has been around so long that it will be impossible to put that genie back in the bottle.


The ONLY way to reduce abortions is to increase the usage of birth control.

That's just plain common sense.

Doe V Bolton states that "Health of the Mother" must include nearly every reason. It a woman states that she is not emotionally ready to be a mother a "health" exception would grant that.