No, the whole point of the thread is that this ultrasound is not MEDICALLY required, but only required in order to make an abortion more intrusive and expensive. As others have pointed out, in most cases this ultrasound isn’t medically required at all. IF an ultrasound is required, it doesn’t require that huge dildo to be shoved up somebody’s hooha, except in extraordinary cases. Hell, I managed to get through a problem pregnancy with no ultrasound at all.
I’m sorry, but referring to “the Virginia Mullahs” is grossly insulting. Muslims generally allow abortion within the first four months, have always allowed exceptions in the case of rape, and I’ve never, ever heard of any Muslim cleric claiming that women needed to get a sonogram before getting an abortion.
I’d recommend rethinking that post.
LOL
Excuse me. That’s a fairly insulting response.
Perhaps you can clarify.
You made a rather ignorant post that bordered on bigotry, and after it being revealed how ignorant your first post is your response is “LOL”.
Why?
Because he or she thought you were being glib. So did I for that matter. But no, you were just being snippy I suppose.
Why, his post was extremely insulting considering the way Muslims view abortion.
Had this been a law making it difficult for battered women to divorce their husbands I somehow doubt he’d have referred to “the Rabbis of Virginia” though that would have been vastly more justifiable.
Oh my.
You obviously have trouble with the humor here, so I’ll explain it clearly:
BAB makes a joke about the Mullahs of Virginia. This is because Mullahs are religious leader-types. And in our secular society we shouldn’t have rule by a religious groups.
This is additionally funny because by Western standards ruling Islamic clergy seems over-the-top strict and controlling.
So BAB makes this joke about how the Virginia Republicans are the Mullahs of Virginia. In that they are running the state like a theocracy.
Then you post with several points about how Islam is actually less strict than the Virginia politicos BAB was criticizing with his or her original joke.
It seemed like you were playing around. Essentially BAB said, “Hey these guys are as strict as Mullahs!” You said, “Mullahs are actually much less strict than the Virginia Republicans on this issue.”
So BAB said, “lol.”
And I don’t agree that BAB was borderline bigoted. A similar claim could be made about Bishops (Who are currently embroiled in the national issue about health care) or Orthodox Rabbis. All of the Abrahamic religions are nonsense of course, so Islam isn’t being singled out here. It’s just there aren’t a lot of theocratic Christian countries any more to draw a comparison to.
No, I don’t.
Except he specifically chose the phrase “Mullahs” instead of either “Ministers” or “Cardinals” which considering we’re in the West would have made vastly more sense.
And please don’t pretend he chose the term “Mullahs” because they are “religious leader-types”. He chose them because they’re Muslim.
You’re correct, most westerners are stunningly ignorant of Muslims and Islam.
I didn’t say he was. I said he made an ignorant post that bordered on bigotry. It’s very easy and quite common for non-bigots to make comments that border on, and possibly cross over into bigotry.
That statement is utterly moronic. He specifically singled out Islam by using the term “Mullahs”.
And please, if Virginia had passed a law making it impossible for battered women to get divorced from their husbands and he’d declared “I didn’t know Virginia was run by Jews” or “The Rabbis of Virginia have spoken” I suspect quite a lot of people would have been incredibly upset even though anti-Semitism is far less tolerated in the US than Islamophobia and Muslim Americans are far more vulnerable than Jewish Americans, and, of course, such statement would have been vastly easier to justify.
He’s comparing these people to the Taliban. Ignorant or overblown as it may be, it’s been common practice for at least a decade to compare very conservative Christian politicians to Taliban leaders. It’s not a general putdown of Islam.
He didn’t say “Taliban” he said “Mullahs”.
Moreover, it’s hardly clear he was thinking of the Taliban and you’ll notice his defender Lobohan doesn’t refer to them either. In fact, Lobohan says “This is additionally funny because by Western standards ruling Islamic clergy seems over-the-top strict and controlling.”
Or, to put it another way, “Sorry dude, we westerners are ignorant about Muslims and like to make jokes about them, deal with it.”
Similarly, to many gentiles, it seems obvious and common for Jews to have big noses and be money grubbers and many don’t think twice about making jokes like that and not recognizing why many Jews don’t find it so amusing.
Admittedly this analogy isn’t perfect since anti-Semitism is vastly less acceptable than Islamophobia, Jews aren’t seen as remotely alien as Muslims, and Jews are in a much more secure position in this country than Muslims.
And like I said, do you think for two seconds if in response the State of Virginia passing a law making it impossible for battered women to get divorced from their husbands without their permission I’d declared “I didn’t realize that Virginia was run by Jews” or “the Rabbis of Virginia have spoken” that several posters wouldn’t have been extremely upset.
Once again, such a joke would have been vastly more defensible.
I think this needs to get out there," Muslims generally allow abortions up to the first four months", no extra rape required.
This means that the Virginia freaking Popes are way backwards and evil.
I have a question, and it may be a hijack, but here goes:
How on earth are they going to enforce this?
Let’s say you’re a gynecologist who provides abortions. There is paperwork to fill out. There is equipment which must be purchased. There is accreditation for your medical facility.
What there isn’t is any form of state supervision during the procedure.
So, what’s to keep you, the medical doctor providing a necessary service, from telling your patient: “the state requires that I perform a vaginal ultrasound prior to beginning the abortion. There’s the ultrasound machine. Here’s the wand. There’s your vagina. Are we good? Great. Let’s move on to the important stuff.”?
It’s not as if a patient is going to complain that her doctor didn’t make her suffer through an unnecessary, invasive examination. The doctor may have a nurse assisting during the ultrasound or may not. Even if a nurse is present, I can’t see the nurse filing a complaint either.
Is the state going to audit records of these intravaginal ultrasounds? Because otherwise, there’s no way to enforce this law.
I’m sure it was done to draw a comparison to the particularly backwards punishments done in some Islamic Theocratic countries. Stoning, limb severing, and so on.
As Marley said above, the Taliban and their excesses are politically charged in America.
Which isn’t to say that the majority of Islam is any sillier than its other two Abrahamic cousins. But if you’re looking to draw an analogy for senseless cruel punishments in this century, where else you gonna go?
Well, there’s ethics. Doctors are not supposed to claim to have done procedures that they have not, in fact, done. If they claim to do procedures and then bill someone (insurance, the state, the patient) for those undone procedures, that’s fraud, you know. And even if they don’t bill anyone, it’s still considered unethical.
Other than ethics, there would be the risk of being caught, and the impact on service delivery that might result.
In places where only a few willing providers are available, they probably wouldnt want to take the risk unless they wanted to force a court case on the issue.
Otara
Anti-choice group sometimes send young women into clinics posed as patients to see if they can catch the clinic doing anything illegal or unethical. If this happened and you had an undercover anti choice secret agent sitting on your table, not only would you have the medical boards to deal with, but the local and national news.
I realize that. Nonetheless, it’s a derisive comparison of hardline conservatives to the Taliban. Maybe you haven’t seen this kind of comment before, but I have.
Wait… so it is required?
It’s a coercive requirement. I mean, if the state required a person to give the doctor a hand-job before they could get a colonoscopy, would you consider that coercive? What if you had to recite the Lord’s Prayer for a blood transfusion? Register with the Party to get blood pressure meds?
A TSA search is at least arguably relevant–it is to ensure the safety of all passengers. This does nothing of the kind. You seem to be taking the stance that no government requirement can be coercive.