Planned Parenthood not invited to congressional hearing on organization

[HenryBHough]

When you think of abortion as "Democrat Birth Control" it's easier to comprehend why a certain class of being makes it their hobby.

 

[David_42]

Abortion Is Safe

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

Nothing is a zero risk KG. Are you proposing that all these procedures routinely done in a doctor's office be done under hospital conditions then because there is a slight risk of serious complications? Or, does this only apply to abortion?

I'm saying people who downplay the degree of risk, in conjunction with fighting any sort of reasonable oversight and safety measures that reduce risk, have something to hide and view women as dispensable.

The risk is what it is - minimal, until you get to later in the pregnancy. That is not downplayed.

There is oversight and safety measures (as pointed out in the article I quoted) - there are stringent "best practice" guidelines that practioners have to sign on to. That is most certainly not viewing women as "dispenbsible". If so, then are men viewed as dispensible since those same practices (as per the new laws some states now require) aren't required in vasectimies - where they are actually cut into?

The problem is those on the social right perceive the privacy rights of women to be "dispenbsible."

It's the usual way "small government" conservatives think, keep the gubment out of my life, but utilize it to build a wall, control uteruses, enforce a police state, ban drugs, ban gay marriage, keep a massive military that citizens could never fight back against..

 

[koshergrl]

When you think of abortion as "Democrat Birth Control" it's easier to comprehend why a certain class of being makes it their hobby.

Ugh.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, tell that to the women who die, who get their uteruses and bowels perforated from it every year. What you mean is, "it's safe enough for these women".

Nothing is a zero risk KG. Are you proposing that all these procedures routinely done in a doctor's office be done under hospital conditions then because there is a slight risk of serious complications? Or, does this only apply to abortion?

I'm saying people who downplay the degree of risk, in conjunction with fighting any sort of reasonable oversight and safety measures that reduce risk, have something to hide and view women as dispensable.

The risk is what it is - minimal, until you get to later in the pregnancy. That is not downplayed.

There is oversight and safety measures (as pointed out in the article I quoted) - there are stringent "best practice" guidelines that practioners have to sign on to. That is most certainly not viewing women as "dispenbsible". If so, then are men viewed as dispensible since those same practices (as per the new laws some states now require) aren't required in vasectimies - where they are actually cut into?

The problem is those on the social right perceive the privacy rights of women to be "dispenbsible."

It's the usual way "small government" conservatives think, keep the gubment out of my life, but utilize it to build a wall, control uteruses, enforce a police state, ban drugs, ban gay marriage, keep a massive military that citizens could never fight back against..

You ******* idiots brought the govt into uteruses when you dictated baby killing is a RIGHT. You broke the law with bad law so you could use the government to set up abortion clinics in places where the majority didn't want them. You are the ones mandating government involvement. Not us. We try to protect women from the negative eugenetecists and human traffickers. Who are the bread and butter of pp.

 

[hazlnut]

They didn't see any reason to invite the PP criminal organization. ......

Uh-oh... here comes the irrational butt-hurt and hysteria.

 

[Coyote]

Nothing is a zero risk KG. Are you proposing that all these procedures routinely done in a doctor's office be done under hospital conditions then because there is a slight risk of serious complications? Or, does this only apply to abortion?

I'm saying people who downplay the degree of risk, in conjunction with fighting any sort of reasonable oversight and safety measures that reduce risk, have something to hide and view women as dispensable.

The risk is what it is - minimal, until you get to later in the pregnancy. That is not downplayed.

There is oversight and safety measures (as pointed out in the article I quoted) - there are stringent "best practice" guidelines that practioners have to sign on to. That is most certainly not viewing women as "dispenbsible". If so, then are men viewed as dispensible since those same practices (as per the new laws some states now require) aren't required in vasectimies - where they are actually cut into?

The problem is those on the social right perceive the privacy rights of women to be "dispenbsible."

It's the usual way "small government" conservatives think, keep the gubment out of my life, but utilize it to build a wall, control uteruses, enforce a police state, ban drugs, ban gay marriage, keep a massive military that citizens could never fight back against..

You ******* idiots brought the govt into uteruses when you dictated baby killing is a RIGHT. You broke the law with bad law so you could use the government to set up abortion clinics in places where the majority didn't want them. You are the ones mandating government involvement. Not us. We try to protect women from the negative eugenetecists and human traffickers. Who are the bread and butter of pp.

Thought you guys were all about freedom....guess it's freedom for me and not for thee when it comes to where people get to set up a business.

You do nothing for women. Please. Stop pretending.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm saying people who downplay the degree of risk, in conjunction with fighting any sort of reasonable oversight and safety measures that reduce risk, have something to hide and view women as dispensable.

The risk is what it is - minimal, until you get to later in the pregnancy. That is not downplayed.

There is oversight and safety measures (as pointed out in the article I quoted) - there are stringent "best practice" guidelines that practioners have to sign on to. That is most certainly not viewing women as "dispenbsible". If so, then are men viewed as dispensible since those same practices (as per the new laws some states now require) aren't required in vasectimies - where they are actually cut into?

The problem is those on the social right perceive the privacy rights of women to be "dispenbsible."

It's the usual way "small government" conservatives think, keep the gubment out of my life, but utilize it to build a wall, control uteruses, enforce a police state, ban drugs, ban gay marriage, keep a massive military that citizens could never fight back against..

You ******* idiots brought the govt into uteruses when you dictated baby killing is a RIGHT. You broke the law with bad law so you could use the government to set up abortion clinics in places where the majority didn't want them. You are the ones mandating government involvement. Not us. We try to protect women from the negative eugenetecists and human traffickers. Who are the bread and butter of pp.

Thought you guys were all about freedom....guess it's freedom for me and not for thee when it comes to where people get to set up a business.

You do nothing for women. Please. Stop pretending.

You don't even make sense. Are you floating the notion that PP is an example of entrepreneurship? How ******* disgusting is that, considering they're SUPPOSED to be non profit? You creeps are just straight up criminal ghouls.

 

[Coyote]

The risk is what it is - minimal, until you get to later in the pregnancy. That is not downplayed.

There is oversight and safety measures (as pointed out in the article I quoted) - there are stringent "best practice" guidelines that practioners have to sign on to. That is most certainly not viewing women as "dispenbsible". If so, then are men viewed as dispensible since those same practices (as per the new laws some states now require) aren't required in vasectimies - where they are actually cut into?

The problem is those on the social right perceive the privacy rights of women to be "dispenbsible."

It's the usual way "small government" conservatives think, keep the gubment out of my life, but utilize it to build a wall, control uteruses, enforce a police state, ban drugs, ban gay marriage, keep a massive military that citizens could never fight back against..

You ******* idiots brought the govt into uteruses when you dictated baby killing is a RIGHT. You broke the law with bad law so you could use the government to set up abortion clinics in places where the majority didn't want them. You are the ones mandating government involvement. Not us. We try to protect women from the negative eugenetecists and human traffickers. Who are the bread and butter of pp.

Thought you guys were all about freedom....guess it's freedom for me and not for thee when it comes to where people get to set up a business.

You do nothing for women. Please. Stop pretending.

You don't even make sense. Are you floating the notion that PP is an example of entrepreneurship? How ******* disgusting is that, considering they're SUPPOSED to be non profit? You creeps are just straight up criminal ghouls.

You want to prevent clinics from operating in places where it's perfectly legal to do so. So much for your vaunted notion of freedom or concern about women's health.