Federal judge blocks new WI abortion limit law

posted at 12:01 pm on July 9, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

On Saturday, I noted that Gov. Scott Walker quietly signed into law a new measure that required ultrasounds prior to abortions and abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles in case of emergency.  Last night, a federal judge blocked the law on the basis of the latter:

A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Monday evening to block enforcement of a new Wisconsin law that bans doctors who lack admitting privileges at nearby hospitals from performing abortions.

U.S. District Judge William Conley granted the order following a hearing in a lawsuit filed Friday by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin and Affiliated Medical Services. It alleged the requirement would unconstitutionally restrict the availability of abortions in the state, violates the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantee and unconstitutionally treats doctors who perform abortions differently from those who perform other procedures.

The restraining order will remain in place pending a fuller hearing July 17. In his ruling, Conley said “there is a troubling lack of justification for the hospital admitting privileges requirement.” He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must prove that restrictions on abortion rights must be reasonably aimed at preserving the mother’s health.

“Moreover, the record to date strongly supports a finding that no medical purpose is served by this requirement,” he said.

On the bright side, this temporary injunction will not have a long shelf life, at least not until Walker’s administration has a chance to argue for the bill in court.  That will take place a week from tomorrow, where the hearing will have to address any disparities that may exist in laws regulating ambulatory surgical centers. On the other hand, the remarks of the judge and the imposition of the injunction suggests that the government will have an uphill fight in getting a positive ruling at the district court.

In Texas, the admitting privileges requirement exists for the entire class of providers, which is why the application of this requirement for abortions should be a no-brainer.  After all, that requirement protects patients by ensuring that the attending physician can transfer the patient to the hospital with continuity of treatment in case complications ensue, as well as speaks to the quality of the provider in the first place.  If such a requirement exists in Wisconsin, the plaintiffs will have to explain why patients in an abortion mill have a lower expectation of safety and expertise than botox clients, for example, and why such a requirement is overly burdensome for the entire class of ambulatory surgical centers.

For a group purportedly concerned with the health of women, it’s a little mystifying why they want to avoid common-sense safeguards on care, especially those routinely applied by states in all other areas of ambulatory-surgical care.

For some perspective on what’s at stake in Texas, if not Wisconsin, we have a CBO report showing that more than 30 babies a day are aborted past the 20-week gestation point:

Unborn babies who have reached at least 20 weeks of age in utero are aborted at a rate of about 30 per day in the United States, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The CBO has also concluded that aborting babies at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy saves money for the government-run federal-state Medicaid system.

The CBO made these determinations when doing its official “Cost Estimate” of a federal bill that would prohibit abortions at 20 weeks or later into pregnancy (except in cases of reported rape, incest against a minor or to save the life of the mother).

“Based on data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), CBO estimates that, each year, about 11,000 abortions take place 20 weeks or more after fertilization,” said the CBO’s analysis of H.R. 1797, the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

That’s 11,000 late term abortions a year that would be prevented by the bill.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Yea. Before you know it, you won’t be calling people names…
 
verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 4:46 PM

 
Are you talking about a different verbaluce, verbaluce?
 
rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 6:05 PM

 
Yep.
What happened, verby?
Not quite the legend in your mind, you are, huh?
 
22044 on July 9, 2013 at 6:10 PM

 
Yeah, I thought it was this longtime poster, but maybe this new guy puts a space at the end of his login or something.
 
(Pretty funny that my handle was used as the “calling people names” ad hominem in the link, btw.)

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Armin Tamzarian on July 9, 2013

An abortion thread? Again? You’re a simpleton.

CW on July 9, 2013 at 7:51 PM

It’s my way of saying “you ain’t got nuthin’ to “shiver” over, like you think you do.”

listens2glenn on July 9, 2013 at 5:05 PM

.
Man…when did Church start?

verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM

.
A looooooooooong time after the killing of unborn babies was determined to be immoral.

Or isn’t that what you meant?
.

Not a surprise that you have a similar threat over imposing your religious beliefs (eternal damnation) – as you do for this issue at hand here (civil war).

verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM

.
You’re the one who brought up “shivering”, implying ‘in fear’.
I used the best analogy I coud think of, to show how utterly rediculous that was.
.

Anyway…God bless ya.

verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM

.
Alright, I’ll take that ….. and God bless you.

listens2glenn on July 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM

The reason for abortion is simple; promiscuous individuals like Armin and verbaluce want to have sex without condoms or responsibility, especially for child support.

Their obsession with rape is because abortion destroys the evidence of their raping and makes their choice to rape tangible and real.

One has to remember that children are by nature selfish, cruel, and manipulative, without moral or conscience.. We see that with abortion supporters, all of whom are emotional and intellectual children, incapable of empathizing with the defenseless.

Realize when you are talking to abortionists that Gosnell’s behavior was perfectly normal, accepted, and encouraged. He killed children without care for health or safety or morality, and that is all abortion and those who support it are about.

northdallasthirty on July 9, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Anyway…God bless ya.
verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM
.
Alright, I’ll take that ….. and God bless you.
listens2glenn on July 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Thank you.
A decent note to end (this one) on.

verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 8:38 PM

Just ignore U.S. District Judge William Conley, Wisconsin. Just ignore his ruling as unconstitutional, like the Ø regime ignores laws and rulings it dislikes every phreaquing day.

ExpressoBold on July 9, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Sticking a tube into a baby’s head and sucking his brains out is very invasive and should only be done if the baby agrees to it.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 6:56 PM

The last I checked Oldnuke, “Sticking a tube into a baby’s head and sucking his brains out”, as you so graphically describe it, is still considered to be a legal medical procedure. Regardless of our political or social views on abortion, women and their families seeking an abortion are given the right to dictate their own childbearing decisions. The same should be true of state mandated tests. Ultrasound or not, the vast majority of women understand exactly what they are doing, why they are doing it and they have already agonized and made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. A government-mandated vaginal probe won’t change her mind.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM

I mean forcing an instrument into a woman’s body as a requirement for her receiving a legal procedure? This is “small government?” How?
 
libfreeordie on July 9, 2013 at 12:28 PM

 

Do you protest against women taking and being shown xrays at their dentist office before a “legal procedure”?
 
Why not?
 
What would the woman see in one “legal procedure” that she wouldn’t see in the other?
 
Go ahead, tell us why she’d see something objectionable.
 
Name it.
 
What would she see?
 
rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

 
This never got answered.
 
Weird. Must’ve just been overlooked. Good thing the thread is still open…

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 9:21 PM

because you want to be sure these women are getting the oh so best possible care…and who wouldn’t want that, right?
 
verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 2:03 PM

 
Why should orthodontists be held to a higher standard than abortion providers?
 
Why should veterinarians be held to a higher standard than abortion providers?
 
Why should out-patient clinics be held to a higher standard than abortion facilities?…
 
Resist We Much on July 9, 2013 at 2:09 PM

 
This never got answered.
 
Weird. Must’ve just been overlooked. Good thing the thread is still open…

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 9:22 PM

Anyway…God bless ya.

verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 5:20 PM
.

Alright, I’ll take that ….. and God bless you.

listens2glenn on July 9, 2013 at 8:10 PM

.
Thank you.
A decent note to end (this one) on.

verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 8:38 PM

.
Doesn’t have to end here …….. while we’re both invoking the blessings of God, you could accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord.

listens2glenn on July 9, 2013 at 9:32 PM

Do you protest against women taking and being shown xrays at their dentist office before a “legal procedure”?

Why not?

What would the woman see in one “legal procedure” that she wouldn’t see in the other?

Go ahead, tell us why she’d see something objectionable.

Name it.

What would she see?

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

This never got answered.

Weird. Must’ve just been overlooked. Good thing the thread is still open…

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 9:21 PM

As long as the abortionists is free to say what he wants about the ultrasound, I have no objection to the woman being shown the ultrasound. In fact, as opposed to the orthodox wing of the pro-choice movement, I support it. The more informed are about their choice, the more they will own their choice.

thuja on July 9, 2013 at 9:35 PM

The CBO has also concluded that aborting babies at 20 weeks or later in pregnancy saves money for the government-run federal-state Medicaid system.

LOL. Well that settles it then! Hey, you know what would save the government even more money? Killing all newborns! But we can do even better than that: Let’s kill every kid up to the age of adulthood . . . what is that now under Obamacare . . . age 26? We can save Medicaid a $hitload of money that way!

This is the same massively corrupt and inefficient government that illegally pays billions of dollars in food stamps and other welfare benefits, and billions more dollars in fraudulent “tax credits,” to illegal aliens every year. If they’re so friggin’ desperate to save taxpayers’ money, why not stop doing stuff like that?

AZCoyote on July 9, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Ultrasound or not, the vast majority of women understand exactly what they are doing, why they are doing it and they have already agonized and made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. A government-mandated vaginal probe won’t change her mind.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Absolutely untrue. Some studies show no change, but some studies show that up to 80 percent of women changed their mind.

If women REALLY did understand their choice then there shouldn’t be a generation of women who have had abortion who are pro-life. THere should be no organizations like Rachel’s Vineyard.

THe fact is that there is an unspoken truth out there. Women who have had abortions many who regret it only learn they have been sold a bill of goods AFTER they hear the heartbeat and see the ultrasound of their first WANTED baby. I wonder why that is?

melle1228 on July 9, 2013 at 9:52 PM

Resist We Much on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

I was just reading back through the thread and I saw your post. I am truly sorry for your loss. God bless you.

And thank you for your great and informative posts. There’s never a time where I don’t learn something from your discussions and in-depth research. You are a real treasure here.

PatriotGal2257 on July 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

The last I checked Oldnuke, “Sticking a tube into a baby’s head and sucking his brains out”, as you so graphically describe it, is still considered to be a legal medical procedure. selling humans as slaves was still considered property rights and is perfectly legal (circa 1835)

FIFY

Regardless of our political or social views on abortion, women and their families seeking an abortion are given the right to dictate their own childbearing decisionskilling their children without due process.

FIFY again…

melle1228 on July 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Coerced invasive procedures have no place in a civilized society. A vaginal ultrasound is a standard procedure, when it is consensual. When it is non-consensual, however, then it is very, very wrong. A physician should not be forced to become the arm of the state that must conduct a procedure on a patient that may not be medically necessary or that violates a patient’s right to independence.
We need to be pro-active in protecting the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients should be able to feel comfortable enough to trust their doctor with their most private concerns, not feel like they are being compelled and controlled by an agent for the state.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 6:23 PM

First off, it isn’t coerced since abortion require a doctor to date the pregnancy anyways. Many doctors require that certain procedures be followed to have a procedure. If the patient disagrees, then the patient has a choice NOT to get the procedure. The ultrasound is not coerced. It is part of the procedure already.

Second, the government regulates treatment ALL THE TIME on individuals. Never had to actually deal with Medicare etc. and the government in relations to a patient, have you? Government regulation of patient treatment is ALL over the industry. People like you only seem to bi+ch when if may effect a woman’s ability to kill their child without conscience or education.

melle1228 on July 9, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Resist We Much on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

 
I was just reading back through the thread and I saw your post. I am truly sorry for your loss. God bless you…
 
PatriotGal2257 on July 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

 
Same here, RWM. I’m off to read and didn’t want the sun to come back up without having given you a quiet word as well. We love you and you’re in our prayers.

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM

Thuja do you realize what swilling ***** can do?

CW on July 9, 2013 at 10:15 PM

FIFY again…

melle1228 on July 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Limitations on abortion we can agree on. At this time, a majority, I do believe will also support restrictions on late term abortions…as they should. Talking about forced probes is another matter. I’m glad Walker backed off a bit. IMO, it puts us back into nutsy-cuckoo Akin territory.

Incremental steps.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 10:37 PM

The last I checked Oldnuke, “Sticking a tube into a baby’s head and sucking his brains out”, as you so graphically describe it, is still considered to be a legal medical procedure. Regardless of our political or social views on abortion, women and their families seeking an abortion are given the right to dictate their own childbearing decisions. The same should be true of state mandated tests. Ultrasound or not, the vast majority of women understand exactly what they are doing, why they are doing it and they have already agonized and made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. A government-mandated vaginal probe won’t change her mind.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM

I did not mention legality. I just phrased it like it is without trying to hide what is happening behind clinical terms. If an abortion is performed a baby dies. You talk of rights. What about the rights of the baby that’s going to die. Why do pro-abortionists feel that it’s ok to deny the right to life to an innocent baby? So you say the vast majority of women understand exactly what they’re doing. If that’s so why do they cringe when you ask if they’re Ok with killing a baby. Cause it makes them uncomfortable? Heavens forbid we make the poor little dears uncomfortable. Oh and for the record I don’t give a crap if it’s legal or not it’s still KILLING A BABY you got that KILLING A BABY. Are you Ok with that?

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 10:54 PM

FIFY again…

melle1228 on July 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

I just responded to her post but it got stuck somewhere out in limbo. Don’t know what I said that got it moderated but there you go. Maybe it’ll show up later.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 10:56 PM

I mean forcing an instrument into a woman’s body as a requirement for her receiving a legal procedure? This is “small government?” How?

libfreeordie on July 9, 2013 at 12:28 PM

Wait, isn’t that “legal procedure” ALSO “forcing an instrument into a woman’s body”? Why is that okay and a diagnostic procedure not okay?

See what I did there?

You guys with the euphemisms, you can’t get away from them. It’s almost as if you’re afraid people might think and talk clearly about the subject. Why is that?

Jeff Weimer on July 9, 2013 at 10:58 PM

Maybe it’ll show up later.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Probably. My response @ 9:01 took forever to get out of moderation. Must be the v word.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 11:01 PM

The last I checked Oldnuke, “Sticking a tube into a baby’s head and sucking his brains out”, as you so graphically describe it, is still considered to be a legal medical procedure. Regardless of our political or social views on abortion, women and their families seeking an abortion are given the right to dictate their own childbearing decisions. The same should be true of state mandated tests. Ultrasound or not, the vast majority of women understand exactly what they are doing, why they are doing it and they have already agonized and made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy. A government-mandated vaginal probe won’t change her mind.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Yep it’s pretty graphic and very accurate. Just for the record I don’t care if it’s legal it’s killing a baby. When a butcher slaughters a hog for market he doesn’t say he’s preparing some pork. He says he’s going to kill a pig. Why do pro abortion people feel the need to phrase what they support in clinical terms? Does killing offend them? Does it make them uncomfortable? Why? It’s what they’re doing.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 11:05 PM

Probably. My response @ 9:01 took forever to get out of moderation. Must be the v word.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 11:01 PM

Just posted another response to you. Went straight into limbo. There are two responses out there somewhere. Just so you know legality is not the question and has nothing to do with what I said. Terminology is the subject. Not right not wrong just wording. Call it anything care to but it all boils down to what it really is and what’s really happening.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Do you protest against women taking and being shown xrays at their dentist office before a “legal procedure”?

Why not?

What would the woman see in one “legal procedure” that she wouldn’t see in the other?

Go ahead, tell us why she’d see something objectionable.

Name it.

What would she see?

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Roger,

The reason pro choice advocates do not protest “women taking and being shown xrays at the dentist office” is likely because:

I) an x ray at the dentist’s office is not a imposed by force of law for no apparent medical reason as a precondition to undergoing an otherwise lawful medical procedure;

ii) choosing to have an abortion prior to fetal viability (unlike getting a cavity filled) is a constitutional right; and/or

iii) an x ray at the dentist’s office (unlike many ultrasounds) does not require that an object be inserted in a woman’s vagina against her will. And so it is not (at least as gross) an intrusion on a woman’s personal autonomy and dignity.

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s off the top of my head. Hope it answers your questions.

righty45 on July 9, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Do you protest against women taking and being shown xrays at their dentist office before a “legal procedure”?

Why not?

What would the woman see in one “legal procedure” that she wouldn’t see in the other?

Go ahead, tell us why she’d see something objectionable.

Name it.

What would she see?

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Roger,

The reason pro choice advocates do not protest “women taking and being shown xrays at the dentist office” is likely because:

I) an x ray at the dentist’s office is not a imposed by force of law for no apparent medical reason as a precondition to undergoing an otherwise lawful medical procedure;

ii) choosing to have an abortion prior to fetal viability (unlike getting a cavity filled) is a constitutional right; and/or

iii) an x ray at the dentist’s office (unlike many ultrasounds) does not require that an object be inserted in a woman against her will. And so it is not (at least as gross) an intrusion on a woman’s personal autonomy and dignity.

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s off the top of my head. Hope it answers your questions.

righty45 on July 9, 2013 at 11:22 PM

The last I checked Oldnuke, “Sticking a tube into a baby’s head and sucking his brains out”, as you so graphically describe it, is still considered to be a legal medical procedure.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM

OBTW lynn, your argument doesn’t hold water. After this law is enacted then inserting the ultra-sound probe will be, as you describe it, a perfectly legal procedure. It may not be right, it may not be a good law but it will be legal.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 11:38 PM

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 11:38 PM

But mandating a diagnostic procedure is a bridge too far. As righty45 says, it might impact their dignity.

Jeff Weimer on July 9, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Call it anything care to but it all boils down to what it really is and what’s really happening.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 11:10 PM

I understand. Personally speaking I find abortion to be pretty sickening. I think if you knew my own story you would see why. But that doesn’t mean I think that a ban on all abortions makes for good public policy. I think some sort of compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? That concept is repugnant as well. It seems to violate all of our traditional ideas of individual rights and freedoms. IMO, of course.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 11:43 PM

After this law is enacted then inserting the ultra-sound probe will be, as you describe it, a perfectly legal procedure. It may not be right, it may not be a good law but it will be legal.

Oldnuke on July 9, 2013 at 11:38 PM

The bill was originally represented as requiring that a transv*ginal ultrasound probe be used but it is my understanding that the law now states that the patient can select the manner of the procedure: transabdominal or transv*ginal.
Much better that way I think.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 11:49 PM

There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? That concept is repugnant as well. It seems to violate all of our traditional ideas of individual rights and freedoms. IMO, of course.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 11:43 PM

C’mon now let’s be realistic. Why is the woman pregnant? Did she make a rational decision to have sex in a manner that could result in pregnancy. I don’t see it as the government compelling her to do anything other than take responsibility for her own actions. They did not compel her to become pregnant she did that all on her own with the help of the child’s father. You could make an argument that she was forced into pregnancy but then that would be rape and non-consensual sex.

Oldnuke on July 10, 2013 at 12:11 AM

Why is the woman pregnant? Did she make a rational decision to have sex in a manner that could result in pregnancy. I don’t see it as the government compelling her to do anything other than take responsibility for her own actions. They did not compel her to become pregnant she did that all on her own with the help of the child’s father.
Oldnuke on July 10, 2013 at 12:11 AM

14-year-old girls get pregnant. Should the consequences for lack of knowledge or even for a moment’s carelessness be enforced pregnancy and childrearing? Should we demand a young teenager “take responsibility” for her own actions and then further demand that her life be complicated by extreme hardship as an unwed child with a child ? If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the result is unwanted children.
Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can push people below the line of economic survival.
All options must be open.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM

A government-mandated vaginal probe won’t change her mind.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Please see my earlier post about what the REAL vaginal probes look like. These are used in every single suction abortion, but strangely, you seem to have no problem with THOSE vaginal probes.

The bill was originally represented as requiring that a transv*ginal ultrasound probe be used but it is my understanding that the law now states that the patient can select the manner of the procedure: transabdominal or transv*ginal.
Much better that way I think.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 11:49 PM

Uhh, no. The “selection” is based on what the facility has available, not one-potato, two-potato. Both machines are expensive, and it is rare that a facility has one of each.

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 12:43 AM

14-year-old girls get pregnant….If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the result is unwanted children.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Unwanted by whom? Plenty of people out there looking to adopt. And I’m very troubled that your main concern about a pregnant 14-year-old is that she be able to abort in her sixth month of pregnancy and beyond, rather than, oh, I dunno, AN EIGHTH-GRADER IS HAVING SEX.

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 12:48 AM

14-year-old girls get pregnant. Should the consequences for lack of knowledge or even for a moment’s carelessness be enforced pregnancy and childrearing?

If she waits past 20 weeks, which is the midpoint of pregnancy, then yes.

A 14 year-old often has greater access to contraception and abortion than many adult women because of the availability of both through schools.

Should we demand a young teenager “take responsibility” for her own actions and then further demand that her life be complicated by extreme hardship as an unwed child with a child ?

Again, if she waits past 20 weeks in Texas or 24 weeks in states like Pennsylvania, then yes. Young teenagers are held responsible for their actions every day in both the juvenile and criminal justice systems.

As for the ‘extreme hardship as an unwed child with a child,’ there is no law that mandates that she keep it. In fact, in states like Texas, a woman can drop off her child at a police department, fire station, hospital or other facility at any time without criminal sanctions.

Resist We Much on July 10, 2013 at 1:00 AM

All options must be open.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM

Including murdering the child should it have the audacity to survive an abortion no doubt.

After all, she wanted a dead ‘foetus,’ so by golly, she’s going to get one!

Resist We Much on July 10, 2013 at 1:01 AM

Unwanted by whom? Plenty of people out there looking to adopt.

That would be the ideal solution that should be encouraged. Not legislated.

And I’m very troubled that your main concern about a pregnant 14-year-old is that she be able to abort in her sixth month of pregnancy and beyond,

No, no, no. I am not an advocate for late term abortion. As a matter of fact, I think the 20 week limit that some states are pursuing is generous. I’d rather see 16.

AN EIGHTH-GRADER IS HAVING SEX.

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 12:48 AM

How many parents are aware that their child has become sexually active? Even concerned and involved parents most times do not have a clue.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Including murdering the child should it have the audacity to survive an abortion no doubt.

Resist We Much on July 10, 2013 at 1:01 AM

No. See my 1:02 post.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 1:05 AM

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM

14-year-old girls get pregnant. Should the consequences for lack of knowledge or even for a moment’s carelessness be enforced pregnancy and childrearing?

In a word, Yes. However if a 14 year old is pregnant who is the father? Is it an adult or is it another child. If children misbehave then it’s is the parents responsibility and duty to correct the behavior and to accept the responsibility. If your child runs wild in the street and throws a rock through a store window don’t you think you will be held responsible?

Should we demand a young teenager “take responsibility” for her own actions and then further demand that her life be complicated by extreme hardship as an unwed child with a child ? If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the result is unwanted children.

Absolutely! A young teenager should have been raised responsibly enough to realize that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can push people below the line of economic survival.

Yep accidents happen. If a teenager causes a car accident while driving do we further complicate their lives by holding them responsible. OF course we do. They get tickets and if the accident is serious enough they can even go to jail. Why should a pregnancy be any different. If an unwanted pregnancy will cause a family to drop below the line of economic survival then that family ought to damn well insure that it doesn’t happen or they ought not survive. Besides which that line is total BS. If they can’t afford the pregnancy then they can’t afford the abortion.

All options must be open.

So the option to kill a baby because it’s inconvenient should be open? How about a six year old that I decide is just too much hassle. Can I kill it? Would that be all right? If not then what is the difference in killing a six year old and killing a baby in the womb other than age? They’re both just unwanted children.

Oldnuke on July 10, 2013 at 2:04 AM

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM

.
The option of abortion should be on the table ONLY if there is a serious physical health risk to the female in carrying the baby to full term … period.
.
Poverty doesn’t justify aborting a pregnancy, nor does the youth and/or immaturity of the female involved.

listens2glenn on July 10, 2013 at 2:33 AM

I mean forcing an instrument into a woman’s body as a requirement for her receiving a legal procedure?
 
libfreeordie on July 9, 2013 at 12:28 PM

 

Do you protest against women taking and being shown xrays at their dentist office before a “legal procedure”?…
 
Go ahead, tell us why she’d see something objectionable
 
Name it.
 
What would she see?
 
rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

 
Roger,

The reason pro choice advocates do not protest “women taking and being shown xrays at the dentist office” is likely because:
 
I) an x ray at the dentist’s office is not a imposed by force of law for no apparent medical reason as a precondition to undergoing an otherwise lawful medical procedure;

 
Medical reason and medical procedure. Thanks for using those specific words. You expanded the scope of the question, though:
 

I mean forcing an instrument into a woman’s body as a requirement for her receiving a legal procedure?

 
Regardless,
 
Do you really think xrays aren’t required by force of law (or liability)?
 
Say, do you think xrays are required for a dentist to ease problems with a specific tooth?
 

Hey, look! It’s Dr. Kim’s fun facts!
 

-For decades, the scientific community has known that x-rays cause a variety of mutations.

-X-rays are known to cause instability in our genetic material, which is usually the central characteristic of most aggressive cancers.

-There is no risk-free dose of x-rays. Even the weakest doses of x-rays can cause cellular damage that cannot be repaired.

-There is strong epidemiological evidence to support the contention that x-rays can contribute to the development of every type of human cancer.

-There is strong evidence to support the contention that x-rays are a significant cause of ischemic heart disease.
 
http://drbenkim.com/articles-xrays.html

 
Thanks Dr. Kim!
 
So you were saying you had no problem with women getting xrays, right?
 
Come to think of it, I wonder how many more women are exposed to xrays instead of abortion…

 

ii) choosing to have an abortion prior to fetal viability (unlike getting a cavity filled) is a constitutional right; and/or

 
Wait, I thought it was a medical procedure? Regardless, let’s run with that. Could you cite it specifically in the Constitution for us, please?
 
Here, I’ll do it for firearms:
 

AMENDMENT II- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 
Interestingly, states like Illinois constantly limit the above medical procedure Constitutional right with regional legislation when people choose to buy guns.
 
Out of curiosity, do you object to states having the ability to pass firearm-specific legislation within their borders?
 

iii) an x ray at the dentist’s office (unlike many ultrasounds) does not require that an object be inserted in a woman against her will. And so it is not (at least as gross) an intrusion on a woman’s personal autonomy and dignity.

 
I believe they’re called “bitewings”. The molars are especially uncomfortable and I’ve never known anyone who looks forward to it. I’d imagine that most women tolerate them because it’s an expected (and legally required per state laws and/or liability) part of their visit.
 
(BTW, I’m really interested in your answer to the Illinois question above.)
 
And have you seen those lead aprons they drape over you? OMG! Imagine if someone were to see me in one of those AND with the bitewings in my jaw as the machine circled my head just after that hygienist had her fingers all up in my mouth!
 
Wait, did you mean dignity and intrusion into personal autonomy in some other way?
 
Speaking of “object be inserted”, how does the actual abortion occur? Is she excited about that part? Do they put some Barry White on and light some candles, or, after a doctor explains the intrusion into her autonomy and dignity, does she understand that it’s part of the procedure?
 

an x ray at the dentist’s office (unlike many ultrasounds) does not require that an object be inserted…

 
I can hardly believe you’d admit there are ultrasounds that don’t require object insertion. Remember why you responded in the first place?
 

I mean forcing an instrument into a woman’s body as a requirement for her receiving a legal procedure?

 
Thanks for negating both libfree’s and your own argument. I certainly wasn’t expecting that.
 

I’m sure there’s more, but that’s off the top of my head. Hope it answers your questions.
 
righty45 on July 9, 2013 at 11:22 PM

 
Yes, thanks, and I look forward to your response, and especially on Constitutional rights and Illinois.
 
Oh, I noticed this part was overlooked again, btw:
 

What would the woman see in one “legal procedure” that she wouldn’t see in the other?
 
Go ahead, tell us why she’d see something objectionable.
 
Name it.
 
What would she see?
 
rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

 
Here, I’ll do it for xrays:
 
She’d see a cavity.
 
Interestingly, you used the same word above in our discussion on xrays.
 
Care to try for the non-intrusive (thanks again for that) ultrasound you’d mentioned?

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

A majority, perhaps as many as 75 percent, of abortion clinics are in areas with high minority populations. Abortion apologists will say this is because they want to serve the poor. You don’t serve the poor, however, by taking their money to terminate their children.

- Alveda King My take.

kingsjester on July 10, 2013 at 6:47 AM

We need to be pro-active in protecting the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship. Patients should be able to feel comfortable enough to trust their doctor with their most private concerns, not feel like they are being compelled and controlled by an agent for the state.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 6:23 PM

that’s idiotic. Doctors are already required by the state / fed gov’t to do many things, ask certain questions and report certain things to the state. Medicine is already heavily regulated.

this claim that doctors are free-wheeling guys doing whatever they want and the doctor-patient relationship is completely unfettered by any gov’t regulation but-for this “intrusive” abortion requirement is beyond stupid.

Just as an example of the silliness and dishonesty of the left – the left has for years been pushing to require doctors to ask patients – particularly children – if there are guns in the home.

Now we have obamacare, which is going to end with the gov’t deciding what procedures/care a doctor can give and to whom (in the words of Obama – some people should just be given a pill, not a surgery). Yet the left wants to pretend it cares about the freedom of doctors to do/not do what things as they wish?

Please.

And, of course, the left forgets, it is not just patient/doctor at issue. There is another human being involved who is not being consulted by the mother or the doctor. What of his/her rights? I know the answer of course – it is not a “human being” until the mother decides it is.

Monkeytoe on July 10, 2013 at 7:53 AM

an x ray at the dentist’s office (unlike many ultrasounds) does not require that an object be inserted…

Really? Your dentist takes x-rays without using bite wings? How interesting.

Monkeytoe on July 10, 2013 at 7:54 AM

How many parents are aware that their child has become sexually active? Even concerned and involved parents most times do not have a clue.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 1:02 AM

The fact that their eighth-grader now needs freakin’ maternity clothes shold clue them in.

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM

So the option to kill a baby because it’s inconvenient should be open? How about a six year old that I decide is just too much hassle. Can I kill it? Would that be all right? If not then what is the difference in killing a six year old and killing a baby in the womb other than age? They’re both just unwanted children.

Oldnuke on July 10, 2013 at 2:04 AM

You know, Oldnuke, never mind the six-year-old. It occurs to me that if a family would be “push(ed)…below the line of economic survival,” maybe the family should just kill the six-months’ pregnant 14-year-old. Just a timing difference, right? And think of all the Sweet Financial Resources that would free up!

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 9:32 AM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

Rogerb, every time I see these EPIC takedowns of yours, I fall more and more in love with you! And my marriage proposal still stands! :-)

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM

You know, Oldnuke, never mind the six-year-old. It occurs to me that if a family would be “push(ed)…below the line of economic survival,” maybe the family should just kill the six-months’ pregnant 14-year-old. Just a timing difference, right? And think of all the Sweet Financial Resources that would free up!

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 9:32 AM

You got a point. Late term abortion to eliminate an inconvenient lump of cells that’s causing a huge increase in the stress of the family. All options should be open.

Oldnuke on July 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

All options must be open.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 12:34 AM

You got a point. Late term abortion to eliminate an inconvenient lump of cells that’s causing a huge increase in the stress of the family. All options should be open.

Oldnuke on July 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Lynncgb, guess what? I think we’ve all finally come to an agreement!

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

Now that’s dedication.
(And from the length of it, the 6:14am post looks like it got started way before.)

verbaluce on July 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Medicine is already heavily regulated.

Yes it is. Regulating medicine is part of the state’s police power. The purpose of licensing healthcare providers and facilities and providing oversight through regulations and state medical boards ensures that patients—as consumers—are receiving quality medical care.

this claim that doctors are free-wheeling guys doing whatever they want and the doctor-patient relationship is completely unfettered by any gov’t regulation but-for this “intrusive” abortion requirement is beyond stupid.

I don’t believe there is any sort of consensus in the medical community that a v*aginal probe (when seeking an abortion) is an absolute must in order to ensure quality of care. Every patient is different and in some cases an ultrasound may be advised and encouraged. It is not the role of government to force private citizens to undergo medical probing that -as of now- the medical community has said is not always necessary.

Now we have obamacare, which is going to end with the gov’t deciding what procedures/care a doctor can give and to whom

Exactly. The left is saying it’s just fine and dandy if the IPAB winds up coming between doctors and patients. But it seems to me that the right is also saying that government interference is just honky-dory as long as it’s when they say so. I say no to a third party in the doctors office on both counts.

What of his/her rights? I know the answer of course – it is not a “human being” until the mother decides it is.

Of course it’s a human being. To deny that would seem intellectually dishonest.
But the moral theory for prohibiting abortion would also demand then that abortion is clearly first-degree, premeditated murder and should be subject to whatever penalties that category of crime warrants. Women and doctors would be liable to punishment up to, and perhaps including, the death penalty? If we’re going to say “there ought to be a law”, what exactly would this law look like?
Does the pro-life position deprive a pregnant woman of some percentage of her rights? Or does it deny the right of self-ownership altogether? It seems to me to be the latter.

Monkeytoe on July 10, 2013 at 7:53 AM

The vast majority of the time we’re politically aligned Monkeytoe, but on this issue we will have to part.
I’m not saying that the Republican party should be pro-choice. But I would like future Republican candidates to feel free to leave the closet.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Oldnuke on July 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Always enjoy the company and the comments here at Hot Gas.

The variety of perspectives always gives me something new to consider.

Can’t hang now. See you soon guys.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

Now that’s dedication.
(And from the length of it, the 6:14am post looks like it got started way before.)
 
verbaluce on July 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

 
Oops. You told on yourself a bit there, didn’t you?
 
You’re only familiar with your own capability, and you assume it must require similar effort from everyone else, right?
 
Hint: Just because something is difficult for you doesn’t mean it’s actually difficult. It may just be difficult for you.
 
(FWIW, it’s even easier when you have a moral compass and actual position to guide you.)
 

Now that’s dedication.

 
I guess I could’ve been watching The Daily Show or Colbert or something instead, but I’ve never cared much for TV. I have no problem with people who do like sitting in front of a TV being regular watchers of certain programs, though. Dedicated, even?
 
TV’s just not for me, though.
 
Wait, did you mean actually answering questions?
 
Yeah, I’m bad about doing that. You should try it sometimes, verbaluce.

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 11:55 AM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 11:55 AM

So defensive.
Be proud of your dedication…and the time your spend all your work and efforts.
(Just, you know, take a breather now and then.)

verbaluce on July 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I don’t believe there is any sort of consensus in the medical community that a v*aginal probe (when seeking an abortion) is an absolute must in order to ensure quality of care.

lynncgb on July 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Did you miss the VA PP voice mail that told patients they needed TWO appointments, one for the ultrasound and one for the abortion itself? Assuming there is some standardization among PP offices, there’s a likelihood that this is ALREADY a PP requirement, so what’s the biggie if TX codifies it?

Also, you seem to have missed my earlier comment:

Uhh, no. The “selection” is based on what the facility has available, not one-potato, two-potato. Both machines are expensive, and it is rare that a facility has one of each.

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 12:43 AM

Stop being so fixated on the vaginal probe, already.

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

Now that’s dedication.
(And from the length of it, the 6:14am post looks like it got started way before.)

verbaluce on July 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 11:55 AM

 
So defensive.
Be proud of your dedication…and the time your spend all your work and efforts.
(Just, you know, take a breather now and then.)
 
verbaluce on July 10, 2013 at 12:01 PM

 
Wow, you were here right when I posted.
 
Hey, how was the Daily Show last night?

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Still typing, verbaluce?
 
Hey, remember what this guy said yesterday?
 

Yea. Before you know it, you won’t be calling people names…or saying they are the spawn of Satan and stuff.
 
verbaluce on July 9, 2013 at 4:46 PM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Listening to the howls of protestation from the death culters one would believe that what Texas is proposing is unheard of in the United States and positively draconian. Au contraire!

6 weeks:

North Dakota
.
.
12 weeks:

Arkansas
.
.
18 weeks:

Arizona (stayed)
.
.
20 weeks:

Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia (stayed)
Idaho (stayed)
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Nebraska
North Carolina
Oklahoma
.
.
22 weeks:

Florida
Massachusetts
New York
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
.
.
Post-viability defined as 24 weeks:

Arizona
Georgia
South Dakota
Washington
.
.
Post-viability defined as 24-26 weeks:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Idaho (current, more restrictive law is stayed at present)
Illinois
Kentucky
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee
Utah
Wyoming
.
.
Post-viability defined as 26 weeks:

Nevada
.
.
Third trimester / 28 weeks:

Iowa
Texas
Virginia
.
.
No ban:

Alaska
Colorado
Mississippi
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
Washington, DC
West Virginia

Look closely at the list. It kind of blows up that whole ‘blue states are progressive and red states are regressive; blue states believe in abortion on-demand and red states want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen’ thingy, doesn’t it?

Even in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts, people have recognised late-term abortion to be a gruesome, barbaric practise that it is…and which most of the social democracies in Europe, which American Progressives seek to emulate in all other areas, acknowledged long ago.

Resist We Much on July 10, 2013 at 12:56 PM

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

 
Now that’s dedication.
(And from the length of it, the 6:14am post looks like it got started way before.)
 
verbaluce on July 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

 
Come to think of it:
 
Tell us why you’re concerned about what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, verbaluce.

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Yes it is. Regulating medicine is part of the state’s police power. The purpose of licensing healthcare providers and facilities and providing oversight through regulations and state medical boards ensures that patients—as consumers—are receiving quality medical care.

Sure, that is the stated purpose. So what? It does not refute my point whatsoever. And, not all the regulations are agreed to by all, or even a majority, of medical professionals. So – what is your point here?

I don’t believe there is any sort of consensus in the medical community that a v*aginal probe (when seeking an abortion) is an absolute must in order to ensure quality of care. Every patient is different and in some cases an ultrasound may be advised and encouraged. It is not the role of government to force private citizens to undergo medical probing that -as of now- the medical community has said is not always necessary.

Missing the point. My point wasn’t that it is or isn’t necessary, but the claim that this is somehow unprecedented or not done with other kinds of medical procedures is silly. Medicine is heavily regulated – so claiming that this particular regulation is “beyond the pale” is humorous at best. Do I want less regulation? Yes. I’m pointing out that this argument people are throwing around is ridiculous. Also, “consensus”? See my point above. There are plenty of requirements and regulations that medical professionals disagree with in every other avenue of medicine too.

Exactly. The left is saying it’s just fine and dandy if the IPAB winds up coming between doctors and patients. But it seems to me that the right is also saying that government interference is just honky-dory as long as it’s when they say so. I say no to a third party in the doctors office on both counts.

This is the two wrongs don’t make a right argument. Obviously, the difference is that in the abortion case, there is an unrepresented third party whose very life hangs in the balance. I see some reason why a conservative can support a law to protect, to some extent, an innocent and defenseless third party by requiring – the horrors – an ultrasound so that the mother have some limited knowledge about what she is going to do. But, if one supports abortion, they already don’t care about that third party, so wouldn’t see the distinction.

But, I’ll agree to this – if the left repeals obamacare and other terrible regulations, I’ll agree that this law be nullified as well.

But the moral theory for prohibiting abortion would also demand then that abortion is clearly first-degree, premeditated murder and should be subject to whatever penalties that category of crime warrants. Women and doctors would be liable to punishment up to, and perhaps including, the death penalty? If we’re going to say “there ought to be a law”, what exactly would this law look like?
Does the pro-life position deprive a pregnant woman of some percentage of her rights? Or does it deny the right of self-ownership altogether? It seems to me to be the latter.

Monkeytoe on July 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM

But the moral theory for prohibiting abortion would also demand then that abortion is clearly first-degree, premeditated murder and should be subject to whatever penalties that category of crime warrants. Women and doctors would be liable to punishment up to, and perhaps including, the death penalty? If we’re going to say “there ought to be a law”, what exactly would this law look like?
Does the pro-life position deprive a pregnant woman of some percentage of her rights? Or does it deny the right of self-ownership altogether? It seems to me to be the latter.

What would the law look like? I think it would look like the law we are discussing, no?

It is possible to have gradations of things. It is possible to want to make abortion incredibly rare but not want to criminalize it in the way you are saying.

Denies the right of self owner ship altogether? Lack of abortion means that a person is a slave? That is your position?

That’s absurd. Did you mean to write that?

Monkeytoe on July 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Partial-birth abortions are rarely performed for the mother’s physical health and they are even more rarely performed for that reason outside of hospitals.

Resist We Much on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

I have yet to hear of a case in which a partial birth abortion has ever been performed for any reason other than to assure that the child is dead upon removal from the womb.

I expect that Dr. Gosnell’s version of partial birth abortion (in which the baby is completely born and then “euthanized”) is frequently used. Once the head crowns, there is no reason not to let the birth proceed to conclusion except to satisfy some fetal homicide law, like California’s, which goes to great lengths to carve out an exception for the abortionist and the “mother”:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician’s and surgeon’s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus. (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

I love how artfully the liberals use the phrase “human being, or a fetus” and then talk about “mother of the fetus” as if it is possible that a human being might have, as a fetus, a non-human being.

And, now that I read the above law fully and completely, and given that it’s not obvious that they are talking about a human fetus, I think I’m going down to the local animal kill shelter and telling them that they are violating state law by killing pregnant cats and dogs — for in the act, they are killing a fetus.

unclesmrgol on July 10, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Why 20 weeks? A: Because that the point of human development where the doctors have determined that a fetus can feel pain.

So those against such a law are in favor of painful death, to put it bluntly — or, to put it another way, cruel and unusual punishment to an innocent human being.

unclesmrgol on July 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM

All done, verbaluce?
 
Don’t you want to justify your concern over what other adults do in the privacy of their homes?

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Dead thread, righty45?

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Dead thread, libfreeordie?
 
Ha, just kidding. We already knew that.

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Don’t we have any (D) voters that can address questions, counter arguments, and discuss their position without simply running away?
 
verbaluce,
righty45,
libfreeordie,
bayam,
segasagez,
hondaV65…
Who am I forgetting? And can they actually debate a topic?
 
Ed/AP, can we have an open registration soon, please?

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 8:04 PM

The sound of silence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Guess it’s just me and you, rodger’.

listens2glenn on July 10, 2013 at 8:32 PM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Roger,

Apologies for my tardiness in replying. Just read your post. I have a job that I need to go to every day. And I need to do things (lately, many things) at that job, which precludes me from answering as quickly as you’d like.

As you are likely aware, much of your reply is non responsive, off-topic, and/or childish in both tone and substance. But to the extent you make any actual points, I’ll do my best to reply in the next day or so. Have a good night.

righty45 on July 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 8:04 PM

I think you are also missing UpperEastSide and Armin TazmanianDevil.

Maddie on July 11, 2013 at 12:04 AM

As you are likely aware, much of your reply is non responsive, off-topic, and/or childish in both tone and substance. But to the extent you make any actual points, I’ll do my best to reply in the next day or so. Have a good night.
righty45 on July 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM

Hint: just because something was “non-responsive” for you, doesn’t mean it’s non-responsive. And it really doesn’t take 48 hours to answer:

Interestingly, states like Illinois constantly limit the above medical procedure Constitutional right with regional legislation when people choose to buy guns.

Out of curiosity, do you object to states having the ability to pass firearm-specific legislation within their borders?

Hint: The answer you want to give is, “Yes, I do object, because important issues like these shouldn’t be decided at the Federal or State level, but rather by our Intellectual Betters on the USSC.” And:

What would the woman see in one “legal procedure” that she wouldn’t see in the other?

Hint: The answer you want to give is, “She’d see her own child, 50% of which is hers, no matter who the father is, moving and kicking and maybe even doing rolls!”

Maddie on July 11, 2013 at 12:18 AM

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 10:11 PM
rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

 
Now that’s dedication.
(And from the length of it, the 6:14am post looks like it got started way before.)
 
verbaluce on July 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

 
Tell us why you’re concerned about what adults do in the privacy of their own homes, verbaluce.
 
rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 1:25 PM

 
verbaluce, don’t you want to concern yourself with why I’m awake so early?

rogerb on July 11, 2013 at 4:18 AM

As you are likely aware, much of your reply is non responsive, off-topic, and/or childish in both tone and substance. But to the extent you make any actual points, I’ll do my best to reply in the next day or so. Have a good night.
 
righty45 on July 10, 2013 at 11:36 PM

 
There’s really very little to respond to after you admitted ultrasounds don’t have to be invasive. Sorry about that last part, btw. I can see why typing “her baby” or “her fetus” would be difficult.
 
Tell you what, just answer this part and we’ll call it even. It will take hardly any time to type “yes” or “no” and it addresses the core of the matter:
 

Out of curiosity, do you object to states having the ability to pass firearm-specific legislation within their borders?
 
rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

rogerb on July 11, 2013 at 4:23 AM

BTW, verbaluce, see the time stamps? It took about five minutes for me to manage ~150 words and formatting, so I’d imagine ~400 would take about 12 to 15.
 

(And from the length of it, the 6:14am post looks like it got started way before.)
 
verbaluce on July 10, 2013 at 10:52 AM

 
So you figure 400 words would take take you much longer than 15 minutes even with your lack of formatting?

rogerb on July 11, 2013 at 4:29 AM

Monkeytoe on July 10, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I’m going to post this here even though it looks like a dead thread. Was busy yesterday and couldn’t back to this sooner.

First off, my apologies for missing some points you were making. I was not being intentionally obtuse. I’m just thick sometimes. :-)
For the most part I stay off the abortion threads but I jumped in on this one because these forced sonogram laws are maddening to me. I’m not sure if those that are pro-life really understand how they sound when discussing the matter. No big deal some say. Women need to be better informed. Really? I believe these *ultrasound laws* are very condescending and are seen as demeaning to many women.
I would encourage anyone to go home this evening and gather together all the female members of your family… your mother, wife, sisters, daughters, aunts and nieces…what have you… and say to them all the following:
I love you all very much and I want to share my feelings with you. It is my heartfelt belief that as females, you lack the capacity for reason and wise decision making. Your gender isn’t quite up-to-snuff and therefore you are not able to successfully face the challenges and choices of life without proper guidance. The state is wiser and politicians have decided you can not be depended upon to educate yourself. Your doctor can not be depended upon to come to the best decision in every individual case and any disagreement you may have with this viewpoint is clear evidence that you truly are incapable of rational thought or action.
Look all these women in the eye and tell them that you don’t believe they deserve the right to make their own choices. Tell them you know their mind, their body and their heart better than they ever will.
And wear a helmet.
We all agree that abortion is not a good thing and that ways of decreasing the number of abortions that are felt to be necessary are very helpful, but this type of legislation only places more regulations between the patient and the physician. If the goal is to decrease the number of abortions, it seems that efforts to provide family planning and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies would be much more effective than attempting to regulate the patient-physician relationship. This is a laudable goal, but a bad implementation.
This government invasion into healthcare must be stopped, no matter where it’s coming from.

I always enjoy reading your comments Monkeytoe, and believe you are wise…much more so than I. But IMHO, if I may speak frankly, the pro-life argument at times sounds more about control of women than about the belief in the sanctity of life. The pro-life position at other times sounds even harsh, cruel and dismissive of the concerns of women. There needs to be a more eloquent way to educate and persuade.

lynncgb on July 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM

I would encourage anyone to go home this evening and gather together all the female members of your family… your mother, wife, sisters, daughters, aunts and nieces…what have you… and say to them all the following:
I love you all very much and I want to share my feelings with you. It is my heartfelt belief that as females, you lack the capacity for reason and wise decision making. Your gender isn’t quite up-to-snuff and therefore you are not able to successfully face the challenges and choices of life without proper guidance.

The women in my family are pretty damned smart. They know to keep their legs shut or use BC if they don’t want to get pregnant. I guess the women in your family are….not. And nice try on the “efforts to provide family planning” meme. You are aware, are you not, of how much of our tax dollars goes to support PP? Are you aware that condoms are cheap and BC can cost as little as $9/month? Maybe you didn’t know that, according to Guttmacher, 1/2 of all abortion clients ADMITTED to using NOTHING in the way of BC in the month they got pregnant. And that doesn’t count the people who lied. And of COURSE you are aware that HALF of PP’s abortion clients are there for their second-fifth abortion. Slow learning curve, huh?

And you never corrected yourself on your “invasive” nonsense which I’ve previously addressed. Apparently, we DO need to do a better job of educating people, and I think seeing the NON-invasive ultrasound is just the way to do it.

Maddie on July 11, 2013 at 12:45 PM

The women in my family are pretty damned smart. They know to keep their legs shut or use BC if they don’t want to get pregnant. I guess the women in your family are….not.

Maddie on July 11, 2013 at 12:45 PM

You’re going to insult my family now? How silly. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that pro-life voices don’t always realize how they sound.
Want to change hearts and minds? Find a better approach. This one will never work.

lynncgb on July 11, 2013 at 3:00 PM

You also talked about vaginal probes, which was also silly, and sillier still, you never walked it back. My comment stands. I am here to point out pro-abortion fallacies and hypocrisy, not soothe the hurt feelings of the uninformed.

Maddie on July 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM

My comment stands.
Maddie on July 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Suit yourself. And my feelings can hardly be hurt by someone who makes wild judgmental guesses about me or people they never met. As someone on the other side of the issue I thought your cause might benefit from some feedback about how your message and “concern” for women comes across.
Another helpful hint: you might want to think about eliminating the word “pro-abortion” from your vocabulary. No one is pro-abortion.

I’m also truly confused as to what exactly it is that I stated that needs to be “walked back”.
This looks like my comment that you might be referring to:

The bill was originally represented as requiring that a transv*ginal ultrasound probe be used but it is my understanding that the law now states that the patient can select the manner of the procedure: transabdominal or transv*ginal.
Much better that way I think.

lynncgb on July 9, 2013 at 11:49 PM

And this was your response:

Uhh, no. The “selection” is based on what the facility has available, not one-potato, two-potato. Both machines are expensive, and it is rare that a facility has one of each.

Maddie on July 10, 2013 at 12:43 AM

Now here is the actual wording in the law:

1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses after the options have been explained to her. A facility that offers ultrasounds at no cost to satisfy the requirements of this subsection shall have available transducers to perform both transabdominal and transv*ginal ultrasounds.

I have no problem apologizing for any statements I make that may be inaccurate. Just show me where I went wrong.

lynncgb on July 11, 2013 at 7:08 PM

Medical reason and medical procedure. Thanks for using those specific words. You expanded the scope of the question, though:

I mean forcing an instrument into a woman’s body as a requirement for her receiving a legal procedure?

Regardless,

Do you really think xrays aren’t required by force of law (or liability)?

No, I don’t think a woman is required by law to undergo an x ray prior to undergoing a dental procedure such as having a cavity filled. I certainly have not heard of such a law. Have you? If so, can you please point to one? Thanks in advance.

And I’m not quite sure what you mean by “required by liability.” Surely a dentist would not be subject to tort liability simply for failing to perform an x ray prior to treating a cavity. And even if they were, that would be distinct from a law forcing the woman to undergo an x ray prior to receiving otherwise lawful medical treatment. If you don’t understand, I’m happy to explain in further detail as would be helpful.

Say, do you think xrays are required for a dentist to ease problems with a specific tooth?

….no.

Hey, look! It’s Dr. Kim’s fun facts!

-For decades, the scientific community has known that x-rays cause a variety of mutations.

-X-rays are known to cause instability in our genetic material, which is usually the central characteristic of most aggressive cancers.

-There is no risk-free dose of x-rays. Even the weakest doses of x-rays can cause cellular damage that cannot be repaired.

-There is strong epidemiological evidence to support the contention that x-rays can contribute to the development of every type of human cancer.

-There is strong evidence to support the contention that x-rays are a significant cause of ischemic heart disease.

http://drbenkim.com/articles-xrays.html

Thanks Dr. Kim!

This looks like a complete non sequitur to me. Could you please elaborate as to what your point is? Thanks.

So you were saying you had no problem with women getting xrays, right?

As a general matter, yes.

Come to think of it, I wonder how many more women are exposed to xrays instead of abortion…

Again, I’m not sure what you’re getting at. It looks like you’re just free-associating rather than attempting to assert an affirmative, logical argument. And when your ramblings are not swiftly responded to, you claim victory. I know this is the internet and that sort of behavior is common. But it is still annoying. Surely you realize that?

ii) choosing to have an abortion prior to fetal viability (unlike getting a cavity filled) is a constitutional right; and/or

Wait, I thought it was a medical procedure?

An abortion is a medical procedure. A woman choosing to undergo an abortion prior to fetal viability is a constitutional right. Those two concepts are not difficult to understand, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Regardless, let’s run with that. Could you cite it specifically in the Constitution for us, please?

Sure. A woman’s right to perform an abortion prior to fetal viability is constitutionally protected by the substantive components of the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments of the federal constitution. See U.S Const. amend. V, XIV, § 1. That right was first recognized by the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Here, I’ll do it for firearms:

AMENDMENT II- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Yep, that’s right Roger. Nice job. Today an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes is protected by the 2nd amendment of the federal constitution. That individual right was first recognized by the US Supreme Court 35 years after Roe v. Wade, in District of Columbia et al. v Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

Interestingly, states like Illinois constantly limit the above medical procedure Constitutional right with regional legislation when people choose to buy guns.

States like Illinois cannot limit the federal constitutional right to bear arms. They lack the power to do that, Roger.

Out of curiosity, do you object to states having the ability to pass firearm-specific legislation within their borders?

As a general matter, no. So long as they do not violate the Second Amendment. But I’m not sure what this has to do with our initial discussion. It appears as if you’re trying to shift the subject. Why is that, Roger?

iii) an x ray at the dentist’s office (unlike many ultrasounds) does not require that an object be inserted in a woman against her will. And so it is not (at least as gross) an intrusion on a woman’s personal autonomy and dignity.

I believe they’re called “bitewings”. The molars are especially uncomfortable and I’ve never known anyone who looks forward to it. I’d imagine that most women tolerate them because it’s an expected (and legally required per state laws and/or liability) part of their visit.

And have you seen those lead aprons they drape over you? OMG! Imagine if someone were to see me in one of those AND with the bitewings in my jaw as the machine circled my head just after that hygienist had her fingers all up in my mouth!

Wait, did you mean dignity and intrusion into personal autonomy in some other way?

I don’t believe that asking a woman to don bitewings and a lead apron is as significant an intrusion on a woman’s personal autonomy and dignity as inserting an object into her v***ina against her will by force of law. If you disagree, well, I guess that is illustrative of your general lack of understanding/empathy towards women. And it also explains why you hold the idiosyncratic, illogical views that you do.

(BTW, I’m really interested in your answer to the Illinois question above.)

Great! Happy to have answered it, even though I don’t see its relevance to the topic at hand.

Speaking of “object be inserted”, how does the actual abortion occur? Is she excited about that part? Do they put some Barry White on and light some candles, or, after a doctor explains the intrusion into her autonomy and dignity, does she understand that it’s part of the procedure?

I think you probably know how the abortion occurs. And yes, the attendant physical intrusion is a medically necessary part of the procedure, which the woman consents to. Unlike a transvaginal ultrasound imposed by force of law.

an x ray at the dentist’s office (unlike many ultrasounds) does not require that an object be inserted…

I can hardly believe you’d admit there are ultrasounds that don’t require object insertion. Remember why you responded in the first place?

I mean forcing an instrument into a woman’s body as a requirement for her receiving a legal procedure?

Thanks for negating both libfree’s and your own argument. I certainly wasn’t expecting that.

I don’t see how that negates my argument, Roger. Early on in a pregnancy, the most accurate ultrasound does require forcible insertion of an object.

Oh, I noticed this part was overlooked again, btw:

What would the woman see in one “legal procedure” that she wouldn’t see in the other?

Go ahead, tell us why she’d see something objectionable.

Name it.

What would she see?

rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Here, I’ll do it for xrays:

She’d see a cavity.

Erm, well she might see a cavity. But let’s hope not!

Interestingly, you used the same word above in our discussion on xrays.

Care to try for the non-intrusive (thanks again for that) ultrasound you’d mentioned?

rogerb on July 10, 2013 at 6:14 AM

Sure. Precisely what a woman would see depends on when the ultrasound is performed. But regardless, a pregnant woman would see a fetus. Were you not aware of that?

Yes, thanks, and I look forward to your response, and especially on Constitutional rights and Illinois.

Great. Happy to have helped you clear up your confusion on these subjects. If you do respond, please try to stay on point. I was generous enough to take the time to address each line this time. But frankly a lot (most?) of what you wrote was stupid. So please stop doing that.

Thanks.

righty45 on July 11, 2013 at 11:42 PM

But frankly a lot (most?) of what you wrote was stupid. So please stop doing that.
 
righty45 on July 11, 2013 at 11:42 PM

 
I appreciate you actually responding, but I’m sorry you resorted to ad hominems. Oh well. You’re not alone. Well, you are on actually responding, I guess (Hey verbaluce! Hey LFOD! Hey bayam!). Ad hominems or not, that counts for something and thanks, righty45.
 
Sorry you couldn’t follow, btw. I do appreciate that you thought I was posting only for you and to only to enhance your understanding. Regardless, I apologize and I’ll leave out any obvious analogies and wit and be more direct in this post.
 
I’ll reply in full if you’re really interested, but the entire debate
 

Do you protest against women taking and being shown xrays at their dentist office before a “legal procedure”?…
 
rogerb on July 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM

 
The reason pro choice advocates do not protest “women taking and being shown xrays at the dentist office” is likely because…
 
ii) choosing to have an abortion prior to fetal viability (unlike getting a cavity filled) is a constitutional right; and/or
 
righty45 on July 9, 2013 at 11:10 PM

 
is easily summed up by pointing out your intellectual inconsistency regarding states and Constitutional rights.
 

Out of curiosity, do you object to states having the ability to pass firearm-specific legislation within their borders?

 
As a general matter, no. So long as they do not violate the Second Amendment. But I’m not sure what this has to do with our initial discussion. It appears as if you’re trying to shift the subject. Why is that, Roger?

 
You did realize what the initial discussion/subject was, right righty45? You introduced it in your first (initial) post, after all:
 

choosing to have an abortion prior to fetal viability (unlike getting a cavity filled) is a constitutional right
 
righty45 on July 9, 2013 at 11:10 PM

 
And that’s where we are in the discussion. Please keep up.
 
Let’s continue, shall we?
 

Out of curiosity, do you object to states having the ability to pass firearm-specific legislation within their borders?

 
As a general matter, no. So long as they do not violate the Second Amendment.

 
1) You are not opposed to individual states enacting local legislation to limit, while not violating, Constitutional rights “as a general matter”, and
 
2) you oppose individual states enacting legislation to limit, while not violating, Constitutional rights you specifically support.
 
Your positions contradict themselves at best, and actively subvert the sanctity of “rights” at worst.
 
Is that direct enough?

rogerb on July 12, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Dead thread, verbaluce?

rogerb on July 16, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Roger,

2) is incorrect. I don’t support individual states enacting legislation to limit any federal Constitutional rights. In my 11:42 post I said States lack the power to “limit” the Second Amendment. They lack the power to limit any Constitutional right. And limiting a right would violate that right and/or the Supremacy clause. I have no idea how a state could “limit, while not violating” a federal Constitutional right.

Put more succinctly: what you’re saying does not make any sense. I suspect that is because you do no know what you are talking about.

Looks like we’re done here. Have a good one.

righty45 on July 27, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Apologies, I meant to say 1) is incorrect, not 2).

righty45 on July 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM

rogerb on July 12, 2013 at 4:16 PM

 
Looks like we’re done here.
 
righty45 on July 27, 2013 at 10:40 AM

 
An astute observation.

rogerb on August 12, 2013 at 1:16 PM

An astute observation.

rogerb on August 12, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Dude, maybe get a life? Who revisits threads dead for days?
That’s just creepy like necrophilia

Foxhound on August 12, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5