House GOP: mandate Ultrasounds before abortions

[007]

 

[Dana7360]

Non-sequitur. The baby is being aborted, dude. There is no scientific or medical reason for it to have an ultrasound.

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

I guess you haven't been listening to your dear leader, everybody has health care now and almost all diagnostic procedures are free. BTW many of the remote problems you describe are diagnosed via ultrasound to begin with so the largest portion of your argument doesn't hold water and most abortion regulations have exceptions for rape and incest.

You're going to have to prove to me that anyone has said that everyone has insurance now.

Because I know what you posted was a lie.

No one ever said that everyone has insurance now.

If you have to lie how valid is your point? And how can you expect anyone to pay any attention to what you say when you state such obvious lies?

 

[Dana7360]

Non-sequitur. The baby is being aborted, dude. There is no scientific or medical reason for it to have an ultrasound.

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

In every bolded case you mentioned there would have already been ultra-sounds and x-rays to determine the baby had a complicating medical issue so that is a poor example.

Yes that's because the woman consented to it. It wasn't forced on her by law.

When a woman finds out she's pregnant doctors don't immediately do an ultra sound. Doctors need to have a medical reason to do it and the woman has to consent to it. If there's a problem it's discussed and if the doctor believes that termination is needed the images on the ultra sound aren't shown to the woman unless she consents to it.

Making her have another ultra sound when she goes to have that needed abortion is just making her go through more hell and pain. It's cruel and no one should have the right to force that sort of suffering on a woman. She already knows what the ultra sound will show, so does the doctor. There's no need for another ultra sound.

But you can pass all the legislation you want in the House. It will never, ever get past the filibuster in the senate.

It won't even make it to the desk of the president for him to veto.

So all the republicans are doing is wasting time and taxpayers' money.

Which plainly shows that republicans aren't willing to do the work of the people. They have no intension of working in a bipartisan way to solve the problems our nation faces. All they want to do is force their big government nanny on women.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

In every bolded case you mentioned there would have already been ultra-sounds and x-rays to determine the baby had a complicating medical issue so that is a poor example.

Yes that's because the woman consented to it. It wasn't forced on her by law.

When a woman finds out she's pregnant doctors don't immediately do an ultra sound. Doctors need to have a medical reason to do it and the woman has to consent to it. If there's a problem it's discussed and if the doctor believes that termination is needed the images on the ultra sound aren't shown to the woman unless she consents to it.

Making her have another ultra sound when she goes to have that needed abortion is just making her go through more hell and pain. It's cruel and no one should have the right to force that sort of suffering on a woman. She already knows what the ultra sound will show, so does the doctor. There's no need for another ultra sound.

But you can pass all the legislation you want in the House. It will never, ever get past the filibuster in the senate.

It won't even make it to the desk of the president for him to veto.

So all the republicans are doing is wasting time and taxpayers' money.

Which plainly shows that republicans aren't willing to do the work of the people. They have no intension of working in a bipartisan way to solve the problems our nation faces. All they want to do is force their big government nanny on women.

Correct.

This idiotic legislation will never become law, and conservatives know that.

 

[hortysir]

Abortion is no one's business but the pregnant woman's.

And the victim?

There is no 'victim.'

To be a victim one must be a person, which as a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not.

I follow God's law before man's.
I follow man's law unless or until it breaks God's law.
"I knew you in the womb" is pretty hard to pass off if what's in the womb isn't a person

 

[hortysir]

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

I guess you haven't been listening to your dear leader, everybody has health care now and almost all diagnostic procedures are free. BTW many of the remote problems you describe are diagnosed via ultrasound to begin with so the largest portion of your argument doesn't hold water and most abortion regulations have exceptions for rape and incest.

You're going to have to prove to me that anyone has said that everyone has insurance now.

Because I know what you posted was a lie.

No one ever said that everyone has insurance now.

If you have to lie how valid is your point? And how can you expect anyone to pay any attention to what you say when you state such obvious lies?

No
Everyone is MANDATED to have insurance.

That sounds so much nicer

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Abortion is no one's business but the pregnant woman's.

And the victim?

There is no 'victim.'

To be a victim one must be a person, which as a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not.

I follow God's law before man's.
I follow man's law unless or until it breaks God's law.
"I knew you in the womb" is pretty hard to pass off if what's in the womb isn't a oerson

So, Mr. Bible, what's the price to be paid for causing a miscarriage? Here's a hint, it has a number...

 

[thanatos144]

Liberalism is the ideology of death and hate

Liberalism founded this nation, dummy.

Not your brand

No, my brand, but smarter and 230 years wiser.

Not your brand. King George was your brand

 

[OnePercenter]

Ultrasounds and counseling before issuing viagra. Yep.

LOL

 

[OnePercenter]

Why not? The government funds 70 year old men who can't get boners.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes forced with wispered threats of union strikes and made up violation fines.

Keep believing that and you'll die ignorant.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Luddly Neddite

Obamacare puts the government in the doctor's office with you. And now, so does the idiot Republican caucus in the House.

Only, Obamacare doesn't do that. Just like Obamagas doesn't put the gubbermint in your car.

Obamascare has decided what regulations control what your healthcare plan is permitted to do.

I prefer to call it Obolascare

 

[thanatos144]

Yes forced with wispered threats of union strikes and made up violation fines.

Keep believing that and you'll die ignorant.

Unlike you i know it to be the truth.

 

[Kondor3]

“Since when has the GOP become the party of big government?”

Since the advent of the bane of the social right, and the Faustian bargain the GOP struck with them.

Whether it's denying a woman her right to privacy or gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, republicans and conservatives, for the most part, will seek more authority for government to interfere in Americans' personal lives at the expense of individual liberty.

Not really.

Only in limited circumstances.

Like preventing unborn children from being slaughtered.

And keeping the filthy, perverse abomination known as homosexuality at bay.

Other than that, I don't thing Pubs want government interfering very much in private life.

 

[hortysir]

Abortion is no one's business but the pregnant woman's.

And the victim?

There is no 'victim.'

To be a victim one must be a person, which as a fact of law an embryo/fetus is not.

I follow God's law before man's.
I follow man's law unless or until it breaks God's law.
"I knew you in the womb" is pretty hard to pass off if what's in the womb isn't a oerson

So, Mr. Bible, what's the price to be paid for causing a miscarriage? Here's a hint, it has a number...

"Mr Bible"?
Mr. Alinsky would be proud


If not alive why double homicide charges for those that kill pregnant women?

 

[Flopper]

“Since when has the GOP become the party of big government?”

Since the advent of the bane of the social right, and the Faustian bargain the GOP struck with them.

Whether it's denying a woman her right to privacy or gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, republicans and conservatives, for the most part, will seek more authority for government to interfere in Americans' personal lives at the expense of individual liberty.

Not really.

Only in limited circumstances.

Like preventing unborn children from being slaughtered.

And keeping the filthy, perverse abomination known as homosexuality at bay.

Other than that, I don't thing Pubs want government interfering very much in private life.

You say, you don't think Pubs want government interfering very much in private life. Government interference in the personal relationship of two people or a women's pregnancy is about as intrusive as it gets.

 

[hortysir]

“Since when has the GOP become the party of big government?”

Since the advent of the bane of the social right, and the Faustian bargain the GOP struck with them.

Whether it's denying a woman her right to privacy or gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, republicans and conservatives, for the most part, will seek more authority for government to interfere in Americans' personal lives at the expense of individual liberty.

Not really.

Only in limited circumstances.

Like preventing unborn children from being slaughtered.

And keeping the filthy, perverse abomination known as homosexuality at bay.

Other than that, I don't thing Pubs want government interfering very much in private life.

You say, you don't think Pubs want government interfering very much in private life. Government interference in the personal relationship of two people or a women's pregnancy is about as intrusive as it gets.

But it's okay to intrude on my beliefs and use my taxes to fund abortions, contraceptives and even the morning after pill



got it

 

[Flopper]

“Since when has the GOP become the party of big government?”

Since the advent of the bane of the social right, and the Faustian bargain the GOP struck with them.

Whether it's denying a woman her right to privacy or gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, republicans and conservatives, for the most part, will seek more authority for government to interfere in Americans' personal lives at the expense of individual liberty.

Not really.

Only in limited circumstances.

Like preventing unborn children from being slaughtered.

And keeping the filthy, perverse abomination known as homosexuality at bay.

Other than that, I don't thing Pubs want government interfering very much in private life.

You say, you don't think Pubs want government interfering very much in private life. Government interference in the personal relationship of two people or a women's pregnancy is about as intrusive as it gets.

But it's okay to intrude on my beliefs and use my taxes to fund abortions, contraceptives and even the morning after pill



got it

Yes, when your beliefs run contrary to our laws and intrude on the freedoms of others.

 

[Bush92]

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Oh, wait, no, it's abortion:

House Republicans Propose Bill Mandating Ultrasounds Before Abortions

Actually, there are THREE new things being bandied about:

Shortly after House Republicans had to cancel a vote on an anti-abortion bill that some members found to be too extreme, GOP congressmen on Thursday introduced three new abortion restrictions, including one that would require women to receive an ultrasound procedure before an abortion.

The mandatory ultrasound bill, introduced by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) and co-sponsored by 10 Republican men, compels women to "receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion."

One of the other bills prohibits federal education funds from going to schools with access to an abortion provider on campus, and the other requires states to report information on Medicaid payments to abortion providers.

Since when has the GOP become the party of big government?

Discuss.

Why not. Liberals want to fight for the life of child killers on death row.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

In every bolded case you mentioned there would have already been ultra-sounds and x-rays to determine the baby had a complicating medical issue so that is a poor example.

Yes that's because the woman consented to it. It wasn't forced on her by law.

When a woman finds out she's pregnant doctors don't immediately do an ultra sound. Doctors need to have a medical reason to do it and the woman has to consent to it. If there's a problem it's discussed and if the doctor believes that termination is needed the images on the ultra sound aren't shown to the woman unless she consents to it.

Making her have another ultra sound when she goes to have that needed abortion is just making her go through more hell and pain. It's cruel and no one should have the right to force that sort of suffering on a woman. She already knows what the ultra sound will show, so does the doctor. There's no need for another ultra sound.

But you can pass all the legislation you want in the House. It will never, ever get past the filibuster in the senate.

It won't even make it to the desk of the president for him to veto.

So all the republicans are doing is wasting time and taxpayers' money.

Which plainly shows that republicans aren't willing to do the work of the people. They have no intension of working in a bipartisan way to solve the problems our nation faces. All they want to do is force their big government nanny on women.

Correct.

This idiotic legislation will never become law, and conservatives know that.

But isn't it just amazing and refreshing how the GOP controlled congress is focusing like a lazer on the economy?

NOT.