SCOTUS Upholds Law Requiring Ultrasounds For Abortions

[g5000]

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

So YOU pay for the ultrasound. The woman is there because she already has made a decision to terminate the pregnancy, so YOU pick up the extra tab. You should pay for your own beliefs that you want to force on others.

Why not just side step the whole problem, use birth control. If you refuse to use it, then there is no abortion on demand. Either have the child and take care of it, or put it up for adoption.

Easy peasy beautiful....

I am sure, you would probably even get a majority of the nation to fund birth control as a compromise for having no abortion.

It seems simple enough to end the mass murders. . .

If birth control worked and it largely does and you wanted to stop abortions, I would think you would want to fund it as opposed to demanding some sort of compromise.

I don't think a lack of funding is the cause of so many people not using contraception.

It's not the complete cause. It is a cause.

See post 95.

Cost isn't even a factor.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

How does an ultrasound do that? The women know they are pregnant. What does the ultrasound do?

 

[pknopp]

That's a question I'd never considered. Has the scotus approved any state scheme that does not allow for post first trimester abortions if likely death or serious injury will result to the "mother."?

The ban on Intact dilation and retraction method had no exemption and was upheld.

But late term abortions of non-viable fetuses or when the life of the mother is implicated can be done with a different procedure.

What procedure would that be?

 

[bendog]

Imo, the real test will come when a Bible Humper states passes a law saying "no abortion at all unless the woman's life is in danger or the fetus is going to die anyway."

 

[g5000]

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/news/20120914/2-in-5-women-dont-use-birth-control#1

2 in 5 Women Don't Use Birth Control
Many Women Mistakenly Believe They Can’t Get Pregnant


Two in five women of childbearing age in the U.S. didn't use any birth control in the month before they took a new survey on contraception.

The main reasons why these women skip contraception is that they think they are infertile or are not currently sexually active. But some may be placing themselves at risk for unintended pregnancy.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

The ACA ("Obamacare") never forced any medical procedure on anybody, so there is no comparison. It isn't like the ACA forced anyone to have their prostate checked.

sure they did, they said you had to have insurance. mandate, show me I'm wrong.

The ACA never, ever mandated that a person have a specific procedure performed whether the individual wanted it done or not. There was no order from Obama that you lie down on an exam table and spread your cheeks.

(However: I would highly recommend that every person with a prostate do so because I went through caring for my father before he died, and I wish that everyone avoid the same suffering as I saw him go through. Not being able to pee is awful, living one's life on a catheter is awful, and ripping it out is very painful)

 

[pknopp]

So YOU pay for the ultrasound. The woman is there because she already has made a decision to terminate the pregnancy, so YOU pick up the extra tab. You should pay for your own beliefs that you want to force on others.

Why not just side step the whole problem, use birth control. If you refuse to use it, then there is no abortion on demand. Either have the child and take care of it, or put it up for adoption.

Easy peasy beautiful....

I am sure, you would probably even get a majority of the nation to fund birth control as a compromise for having no abortion.

It seems simple enough to end the mass murders. . .

If birth control worked and it largely does and you wanted to stop abortions, I would think you would want to fund it as opposed to demanding some sort of compromise.

I don't think a lack of funding is the cause of so many people not using contraception.

It's not the complete cause. It is a cause.

See post 95.

Cost isn't even a factor.

Women won't bother with the cost if they are infrequently having sex.

 

[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.

How does an ultrasound do that? The women know they are pregnant. What does the ultrasound do?

It makes them feel like ungrateful to be pregnant SLUTS for wanting an abortion! But it is not an "undue restriction" of a woman's right to choose even when the fetus is not yet viable. It seems strange, doesn't it?

 

[g5000]

Why not just side step the whole problem, use birth control. If you refuse to use it, then there is no abortion on demand. Either have the child and take care of it, or put it up for adoption.

Easy peasy beautiful....

I am sure, you would probably even get a majority of the nation to fund birth control as a compromise for having no abortion.

It seems simple enough to end the mass murders. . .

If birth control worked and it largely does and you wanted to stop abortions, I would think you would want to fund it as opposed to demanding some sort of compromise.

I don't think a lack of funding is the cause of so many people not using contraception.

It's not the complete cause. It is a cause.

See post 95.

Cost isn't even a factor.

Women won't bother with the cost if they are infrequently having sex.

Birth control is cheap.

You can even get it for free at Planned Parenthood.

 

[bendog]

That's a question I'd never considered. Has the scotus approved any state scheme that does not allow for post first trimester abortions if likely death or serious injury will result to the "mother."?

The ban on Intact dilation and retraction method had no exemption and was upheld.

But late term abortions of non-viable fetuses or when the life of the mother is implicated can be done with a different procedure.

What procedure would that be?

I'm not a doctor, but from what I read, if the woman's life is in real danger, the docs can chemically stop the fetus's heart prior to extracting it.

 

[Seawytch]

https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/news/20120914/2-in-5-women-dont-use-birth-control#1

2 in 5 Women Don't Use Birth Control
Many Women Mistakenly Believe They Can’t Get Pregnant


Two in five women of childbearing age in the U.S. didn't use any birth control in the month before they took a new survey on contraception.

The main reasons why these women skip contraception is that they think they are infertile or are not currently sexually active. But some may be placing themselves at risk for unintended pregnancy.

Which is why education and science are the only proven effective methods of reducing unwanted pregnancies.

 

[g5000]

The surveys of women make it very clear that cost is not the problem. Lack of education is the problem.

 

[pknopp]

That's a question I'd never considered. Has the scotus approved any state scheme that does not allow for post first trimester abortions if likely death or serious injury will result to the "mother."?

The ban on Intact dilation and retraction method had no exemption and was upheld.

But late term abortions of non-viable fetuses or when the life of the mother is implicated can be done with a different procedure.

What procedure would that be?

I'm not a doctor, but from what I read, if the woman's life is in real danger, the docs can chemically stop the fetus's heart prior to extracting it.

Why would you do that? We are speaking late term. Why not simply extract the baby?

 

[RealDave]

They tried that shit in PA & it didn't make it.

First, you can see the fetus with a standard ultrasound until 8 weeks.

To see any better, the ultrasound must be done from inside the vagina.

So, in order to get a legal procedure, the Republicans want to make women go through this invasive procedure.

This is never pass appeal.

Maybe before you assfucks get that blue pill, we need to shove a probe up your ass to check your prostate.

 

[RealDave]

Make those women

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

Oh shut the hell up. Women are free to do whatever they like when it only affects themselves. There's another life at stake in an abortion, fuckwit.

When does life begin?

 

[DBA]

Make those women

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

It has nothing to do with controlling women.

 

[bendog]

That's a question I'd never considered. Has the scotus approved any state scheme that does not allow for post first trimester abortions if likely death or serious injury will result to the "mother."?

The ban on Intact dilation and retraction method had no exemption and was upheld.

But late term abortions of non-viable fetuses or when the life of the mother is implicated can be done with a different procedure.

What procedure would that be?

I'm not a doctor, but from what I read, if the woman's life is in real danger, the docs can chemically stop the fetus's heart prior to extracting it.

Why would you do that? We are speaking late term. Why not simply extract the baby?

It is considered less humane by medical ethicists

 

[g5000]

Maybe before you assfucks get that blue pill, we need to shove a probe up your ass to check your prostate.

It's usually a finger, not a wand. But I have had a probe the size of a police baton shoved up my ass to check my colon.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

How does an ultrasound do that? The women know they are pregnant. What does the ultrasound do?

It makes them feel like ungrateful to be pregnant SLUTS for wanting an abortion! But it is not an "undue restriction" of a woman's right to choose even when the fetus is not yet viable. It seems strange, doesn't it?

I don't see how shoving a wand up someone's hooha is going to change their mind about wanting an abortion.

 

[bendog]

The surveys of women make it very clear that cost is not the problem. Lack of education is the problem.

And surveys show free IUD's are the most effective, but we both know Bible Humper states are not going to provide that, but they are going to enact restrictions to make women feel "bad" for asking for abortions even when the fetus is not viable.