SCOTUS Upholds Law Requiring Ultrasounds For Abortions

[satrebil]

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.

Agreed. In 2015 there were 638,169 abortions reported in the USA. If 1.6% of them were averted that would be over 10,000 lives saved.

 

[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?

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.

who started the need to bomb? who hides behind 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.

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.

Should we not be bombing Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lybia? No, we should not be. All the same, you didn't address my point.

 

[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.

who started the need to bomb? who hides behind children?

Mostly Wall Street.

 

[jc456]

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.

no one forces any woman to be a mother. not one. in fact, around chicago, just drop the baby at a local firehouse.

 

[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.

no one forces any woman to be a mother. not one. in fact, around chicago, just drop the baby at a local firehouse.

Irrelevant to my point. A health exemption would mean an exemption pretty much for anyone that wanted to get an abortion.

 

[g5000]

CONTEXT: Knowing the extent to which contraceptive nonuse, incorrect or inconsistent use, and method failure account for unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, as well as reasons for nonuse and imperfect use, can help policymakers and family planning providers support effective contraceptive use.

<snip>

Forty-six percent of women had not used a method in the month of conception, but 38% had used one previously. Of these prior users, 42% had used a contraceptive method within three months of conception, and 65% had used a method within six months (not shown). Eight percent of women having abortions indicated that they had never used a contraceptive method, down from 11% in 1994 and 9% in 1987.

Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001

 

[jc456]

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.

no one forces any woman to be a mother. not one. in fact, around chicago, just drop the baby at a local firehouse.

Irrelevant to my point. A health exemption would mean an exemption pretty much for anyone that wanted to get an abortion.

why do you want to kill babies? they do something to you?

 

[Lysistrata]

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?

Because these procedures are being forced by Big Government to take place regardless of the wishes of the patients. The taxpayers are responsible for the actions of their governments. Ever hear of an "unfunded mandate"? The individual should not be forced to bear to cost of a decision mandated by government. If the government wants to order a medical procedure, it should build and fund facilities to perform them. Some states require pregnant people to attend mandatory sessions at these "pregnancy crisis centers"? Why can't these procedures be performed there, with the government picking up the tab?

Unnecessary ultrasounds should be billed to the state directly.

 

[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.

no one forces any woman to be a mother. not one. in fact, around chicago, just drop the baby at a local firehouse.

Irrelevant to my point. A health exemption would mean an exemption pretty much for anyone that wanted to get an abortion.

why do you want to kill babies? they do something to you?

To address the issue one must know the laws. Obviously that knowledge is lacking here. I am noting what a "health" exception would allow legally. It's why I do not support "health" exception. You have to use the "life" exception. Yes, legally there is a big difference.

One would be wise to accept knowledge on something they are not aware of as opposed to shooting off at the hip.

 

[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?

Because these procedures are being forced by Big Government to take place regardless of the wishes of the patients. The taxpayers are responsible for the actions of their governments. Ever hear of an "unfunded mandate"? The individual should not be forced to bear to cost of a decision mandated by government. If the government wants to order a medical procedure, it should build and fund facilities to perform them. Some states require pregnant people to attend mandatory sessions at these "pregnancy crisis centers"? Why can't these procedures be performed there, with the government picking up the tab?

well don't have an abortion. that is still a choice right? don't spend the money I give two shits. but I do care about the heartbeat within. It means life. no matter how much you wish it didn't.

prove no heartbeat, there's only one way.

 

[pknopp]

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?

Because these procedures are being forced by Big Government to take place regardless of the wishes of the patients. The taxpayers are responsible for the actions of their governments. Ever hear of an "unfunded mandate"? The individual should not be forced to bear to cost of a decision mandated by government. If the government wants to order a medical procedure, it should build and fund facilities to perform them. Some states require pregnant people to attend mandatory sessions at these "pregnancy crisis centers"? Why can't these procedures be performed there, with the government picking up the tab?

Unnecessary ultrasounds should be billed to the state directly.

I support UHC so obviously I am good with this being covered.

 

[jc456]

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.

no one forces any woman to be a mother. not one. in fact, around chicago, just drop the baby at a local firehouse.

Irrelevant to my point. A health exemption would mean an exemption pretty much for anyone that wanted to get an abortion.

why do you want to kill babies? they do something to you?

To address the issue one must know the laws. Obviously that knowledge is lacking here. I am noting what a "health" exception would allow legally. It's why I do not support "health" exception. You have to use the "life" exception. Yes, legally there is a big difference.

One would be wise to accept knowledge on something they are not aware of as opposed to shooting off at the hip.

dude, your health exception would be used for every mthr fking abortion then. that's my point. what a fking loser you still are.

 

[satrebil]

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?

Because these procedures are being forced by Big Government to take place regardless of the wishes of the patients. The taxpayers are responsible for the actions of their governments. Ever hear of an "unfunded mandate"? The individual should not be forced to bear to cost of a decision mandated by government. If the government wants to order a medical procedure, it should build and fund facilities to perform them. Some states require pregnant people to attend mandatory sessions at these "pregnancy crisis centers"? Why can't these procedures be performed there, with the government picking up the tab?

Unnecessary ultrasounds should be billed to the state directly.

"The individual should not be forced to bear to cost of a decision mandated by government."

Cool story bro. Now do Obamacare.

 

[pknopp]

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.

no one forces any woman to be a mother. not one. in fact, around chicago, just drop the baby at a local firehouse.

Irrelevant to my point. A health exemption would mean an exemption pretty much for anyone that wanted to get an abortion.

why do you want to kill babies? they do something to you?

To address the issue one must know the laws. Obviously that knowledge is lacking here. I am noting what a "health" exception would allow legally. It's why I do not support "health" exception. You have to use the "life" exception. Yes, legally there is a big difference.

One would be wise to accept knowledge on something they are not aware of as opposed to shooting off at the hip.

dude, your health exception would be used for every mthr fking abortion then. that's my point. what a fking loser you still are.

LOL, it's not "my" exception. I'm not the one that suggested it.

 

[jc456]

no one forces any woman to be a mother. not one. in fact, around chicago, just drop the baby at a local firehouse.

Irrelevant to my point. A health exemption would mean an exemption pretty much for anyone that wanted to get an abortion.

why do you want to kill babies? they do something to you?

To address the issue one must know the laws. Obviously that knowledge is lacking here. I am noting what a "health" exception would allow legally. It's why I do not support "health" exception. You have to use the "life" exception. Yes, legally there is a big difference.

One would be wise to accept knowledge on something they are not aware of as opposed to shooting off at the hip.

dude, your health exception would be used for every mthr fking abortion then. that's my point. what a fking loser you still are.

LOL, it's not "my" exception. I'm not the one that suggested it.

it seems you support it.

 

[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.

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.

That's what I'm saying. Those states which had a "health of the mother" exemption were really lenient about what that meant. It was a loophole which virtually provided abortion-on-demand.

So many states which technically outlawed abortion had quite a few abortions under that loophole.


I dug deep into the data many years ago and was surprised to learn that nearly a million abortions a year were occurring before Roe v. Wade. This upended all of my assumptions.

 

[pknopp]

Irrelevant to my point. A health exemption would mean an exemption pretty much for anyone that wanted to get an abortion.

why do you want to kill babies? they do something to you?

To address the issue one must know the laws. Obviously that knowledge is lacking here. I am noting what a "health" exception would allow legally. It's why I do not support "health" exception. You have to use the "life" exception. Yes, legally there is a big difference.

One would be wise to accept knowledge on something they are not aware of as opposed to shooting off at the hip.

dude, your health exception would be used for every mthr fking abortion then. that's my point. what a fking loser you still are.

LOL, it's not "my" exception. I'm not the one that suggested it.

it seems you support it.

Then you obviously have a reading comprehension problem. I was explaining it and how it is applied in the law per the Doe V Bolton ruling.

 

[g5000]

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.

no one forces any woman to be a mother. not one. in fact, around chicago, just drop the baby at a local firehouse.

Irrelevant to my point. A health exemption would mean an exemption pretty much for anyone that wanted to get an abortion.

why do you want to kill babies? they do something to you?

To address the issue one must know the laws. Obviously that knowledge is lacking here. I am noting what a "health" exception would allow legally. It's why I do not support "health" exception. You have to use the "life" exception. Yes, legally there is a big difference.

One would be wise to accept knowledge on something they are not aware of as opposed to shooting off at the hip.

dude, your health exception would be used for every mthr fking abortion then. that's my point. what a fking loser you still are.

That is basically what was happening before Roe v. Wade. Those states which outlawed abortion, but allowed an exemption for "health of the mother" pretty much had the same abortion rates as states which legalized abortion.

The "health of the mother" loophole was exploited to the max.

 

[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?

Because these procedures are being forced by Big Government to take place regardless of the wishes of the patients. The taxpayers are responsible for the actions of their governments. Ever hear of an "unfunded mandate"? The individual should not be forced to bear to cost of a decision mandated by government. If the government wants to order a medical procedure, it should build and fund facilities to perform them. Some states require pregnant people to attend mandatory sessions at these "pregnancy crisis centers"? Why can't these procedures be performed there, with the government picking up the tab?

Unnecessary ultrasounds should be billed to the state directly.

I support UHC so obviously I am good with this being covered.

of course you do. why not just give them all your money? there is no logic on why fks like you keep your own money.