Funnier than mine, anyway.
If Bob was all prepped for surgery and at the point where to not follow through with the procedure would kill him and I was all set to do my part, if I revoke my consent at that point will I be charged?
And I do believe that a woman has a right to revoke consent to use her uterus at any time. How the baby (see, I can even call it a baby) is removed is between her and her doctor. It works for Canada. I’m not going to say that the majority of Canadians feel this way but enough feel that it is acceptable to ensure the political will to change it is not there.
Will you need a gun to vote, just to complete the triangle?
Charged with what? A bad analogy? 
Well, you have an extreme view, so good luck convincing everyone else. I shudder to think that there would be a licensed doctor out there somewhere who would perform an abortion on a viable fetus when the health of the mother is not an issue.
Meh, I can see it happening but being so rare that banning it to punish a handful of cases isn’t worth it because it puts a far greater number of women at risk - women who are having late-term abortions not electively but because of serious medical problems.
I haven’t worked out all the details yet. I’d still like to get something in there with a Fireworks Permit and flag burning.
I have a greater trust in the doctor versus either the politician or regular Joe public when it ones to making medical decisions.
I had to get some medical procedures done on Thursday. These are fairly common medical procedures, and the hospital where I got them done as an outpatient is about a quarter of a mile from me.
The lab was booked for a week and a half, so I had to wait 10 days before I could get them done. I had a $100 copay for the procedures. I had to follow pre-lab instructions of fasting and medication routines. For an ultrasound, you also can’t pee when you get up in the morning, IIRC. The procedures themselves took a total of about 15 minutes…but the check in process, and all the verification of insurance, and med problems, and ID, and then the waiting period took about four or five hours. And remember, this was a service that was not a free service, if it had been a free offering I’m sure that the waiting period for an open slot would have been longer, and my processing and waiting period would have been longer. I was also lucky in that I had a lab that was fairly close to me. In some of the less densely populated areas of my state, you have to drive at least five hours in order to get to someplace that can do any medical procedures other than handing the patient a couple of aspirin.
A 24 hour waiting period for a “free” ultrasound might mean a delay of two weeks or more, and it might mean a considerable cost in time and money for a woman. The ultrasound requirement cannot be medically justified.
… and before long, wouldn’tcha know it, the 20 weeks are up and your legal ability to decide your own life is gone. Almost as if that were part of the idea, huh?
It is also my understanding that many, if not all, of these so-called pregnancy counseling centers that offer free ultrasounds will refuse to forward the ultrasound results (or whatever is supposed to be forwarded) to abortion providers because they don’t want to contribute to anyone actually getting an abortion.
Does anyone know if that’s true? Because if true, that list of “free ultrasound providers” could be worse than useless.
What other enterprise provides free ultrasounds?
Well, as I recall, Bricker proposed a metric to test if the ultrasound requirement was useless (i.e. what if 30% of woman, upon seeing the ultrasound, changed their minds about aborting), what metric could we test to see if it is burdensome? 30% of women find they have to wait ten days or more after their ultrasounds to get an abortion appointment?
We ask** Bricker**. And he will tell us. Simple, really.
That’s an ethical decision first, and then a medical decision.
Doctors have ethics. They’re not lawyers, after all.
When “might” changes to “did,” I am certainly willing to reconsider my support.
It’s my understanding that people opposed to this legislation are planning to post stuff they just made up, or heard from unrealible sources, in order to spread misinformation.
Does anyone know if that’s true?
He did say 30% at first, then changed it to 20%, and then after learning about (but not acknowledging) a study that found that NONE of the participants changed their minds after seeing an ultrasound he’s downgraded that to a claim that “some” women will change their minds.
Wow. I sound so flaky.
I’m fine with 30%. Who is accepting that metric from your side: the claim that if 30% of women change their minds, this isn’t simply an attempt to harass and delay, but a valid piece of additional information?
You mean he’s posting stuff he just made up, or heard from unrealible sources, in order to spread misinformation?
I wouldn’t accept that, because I don’t believe the legislature has the authority to require this. But see, I don’t view abortion at this stage as “taking a human life”, and so it doesn’t matter to me how many women do or do not have such abortions.