Well, thank God! Clearly this bill is not intended to punish anyone! Having a doctor say “look he has your eyes” or whatever horseshit they will be saying to persuade the mother (out of concern for her mental health down the road OF COURSE ) not to abort - none of that is meant to punish or hurt anyone. I am so relieved. I had no idea that when Lynn said “If the goal is to punish a woman for seeking an abortion, then the kind that requires an insertion is **usually **the kind that the lawmakers specify.” that actually meant always. As in - if it’s not transvaginal, everything is hunky-dory and we women should be happy they are are looking out for us.
Yup, pointing out the features of the baby is totally medically necessary, duh! Us girls are too dumb to know that medical stuff; good thing the guys are around to explain it to us. We might get all hysterical if no one explained all that first.
Sorry, if I was the mythical indian maiden:p naming her 3 kids [who never were] they would be OrthoNovum DOn’t Work, OrthoNovum Dont Work Rubber Broke and My Tubal Didn’t Work. Yes, someone taking proper precautions can end up pregnant.
[quote=MLS;16445884
I know two women personally who had gone to the trouble of getting a tubal ligation, only to become pregnant a couple of years later. In both cases, the women had ample means to provide for the baby, did not have any medical condition indicating the pregnancy was dangerous, and welcomed the “surprise” addition to the family.[/quote]
You probably don’t know me personally, but I had the old style tubal where it was just rubber banded, and the band snapped and scar plug popped thanks to an abdominal infection. I found out I was pregnant because back in the day [the mid 90s] the Navy hospital had a habit of running a pregnancy test on every female of reproductive age automatically, and mine came up positive.
So, can we conclude, by your question, that you would like to imply an indefensible position? That, contrary to prevailing opinion, the bill in question is nothing more but a wholesome effort to improve the well being of Wisconsin’s women?
An ultrasound by whatever means is most likely harmless, and can accurately determine pregnancy. Superfluous information, given the circumstances. Unless you have some medical information to offer us? That makes an early pregnancy sonogram something that ought to be fucking mandatory!
Correct me if I’m wrong and you dare, but isn’t prevailing medical opinion on that fairly well settled? And the answer is no?
Absent any such valid medical purpose, what other conclusion can we draw but that this is an effort to impede, harass and inconvenience a woman’s right to choose?
It’s shitty to put up all these barriers for women to get an abortion – stupid fucking bible thumpers.
However, at least you have abortion – here in Ireland they are still talking about it ……. 17, 18, 19 (…who’s counting) years later, trying to legislate and not coming to a solution on how to legislate.
The weird thing here is, every year around 4000-7000 Irish women just hop into a plane to the UK and get it done there – but openly they condone it – plain nuts to me.
Thanks for this- I still oppose the bill as completely unnecessary, harmful to women (and intended to punish those who choose abortion), and a transparent attempt to close abortion clinics, but at least they’re not sticking things into women with no medical reason. Reported for a title change.
Perfectly reasonable. You liberals are always the ones screaming about “informed consent,” so what’s your problem?
Like when we freed the slaves, but first required each of them to prove that they could function as free citizens, or gave women the vote but only if they could prove that they understood the political process.
It’s ultimately in their best interest. Medicine is too important to be left to the doctors.
Not if the sonogram is mandatory. Women can choose to get abortions, and they can choose to get sonograms. Why is the state mandating unnecessary sonograms? And who’s paying?
253.10(3): The Department of Health Services is required, under the bill, to compile a list of facilities that perform ultrasounds at no cost, make the list available to the public, and provide the list to every facility that performs or induces an abortion.
You say they are unnecessary. I say they perform the valuable function of showing prospective mothers that what’s involved is not just an anonymous mass of tissue, but a human being. And I say that the desperation with which pro-abortion forces greet such a requirement indicates that, far from a free choice, pro-abortion people want women to make their “choice” without learning too much about how their unborn child looks.
Is “unborn child” a legal term, with a precise meaning or is it a term used to elicit an emotional response from the reader?
The correct term is “fetus”, since “child” (unborn or otherwise) implies personhood, which our current legal system does not bestow on a fetus before a certain point. Legally, according to the constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS, it is just an anonymous mass of tissue.
Because they are. Medical procedures should be performed for, you know, medical reasons.
So you admit it’s not medically necessary. How is mandating an unnecessary medical procedure not a violation of individual rights? What other unnecessary medical procedures can be mandated by the state, or is it just this one?
No, it’s because no one should be mandated by the state to undergo an unwanted and unnecessary medical procedure.
