RTD: Virginia House Passes " Personhood " bill ( Bill sent back to Committee ) Revised Ultrasound Bill Passes Senate

[greenspandan]

Duckus...how comparably invasive is a abortion?....you know the procedure to follow and the reason for the ultrasound.

the difference is one procedure is a fundamental right as recognized by the supreme court and the other is a forced procedure designed to discourage and scare women away from excercizing that right.

it'd be like passing a law requiring a full body cavity search before voting.

[Spearfeather]

it'd be like passing a law requiring a full body cavity search before voting.

No, it wouldn't. It would be like having to know the three branches of government, before voting.

[twa]

the difference is one procedure is a fundamental right as recognized by the supreme court and the other is a forced procedure designed to discourage and scare women away from excercizing that right.

it'd be like passing a law requiring a full body cavity search before voting.

except it was already standard practice...not just before,but also at the follow up visit(at least at PP and any other reputable clinic)
it is not some torture dreamed up by the fundies,but rather sound medical practice.

I don't see the 24 hr waiting period any more onerous than a waiting period for purchasing guns....even though we know a life will be taken in this case

[DCSaints_fan]

Claiming that personhood begins at conception has a pretty flimsy philosophical basis. I don't see how you can claim personhood before tissue differentiation, at the very least.

[Jumbo]

it'd be like passing a law requiring a full body cavity search before voting.

I would too, as long as it was restricted to "pro-life" conservative males. And I think they should use a plunger. The results might support my theory about many of them seeming to have "**** for brains."

[LadySkinsFan]

I don't want to confuse the Texas law with the Virginia. In the Virginia bill, the woman is not required to view the ultrasound. I haven't read anything yet that specifies what type of ultrasound is being referred to in the Virginia Bill.

Here is a picture of a pregnant woman having an ultrasound, also. Compare this with your diagram.

Would this be considered invasive?

I consider any medical procedure that I haven't consented to an invasion of my personal space, my body etc. That includes any of these stupid laws whose sole purpose is to harass women who want to obtain a legal procedure.

[mistertim]

I find it pretty amazing that the Republicans who sponsored and supported this bill are actually, with a straight face, trying to claim it has nothing to do with abortion. This is especially true when you consider who was the main sponsor of the bill, Bob Marshall. The guy is an absolute zealot. He is against abortion in any circumstance, no matter what...and seems to just shrug off things like incest and rape:

When asked about abortion in the case of incest, Marshall replied that sometimes incest is voluntary. In response to abortions in the case of rape, Marshall said, "Your origins should not be held against you [referring to the victim's unborn child]. The woman becomes a sin-bearer of the crime, because the right of a child predominates over the embarrassment of the woman."

Eh, rape is just a bit embarrassing. Deal with it. Eh, incest can be voluntary. Oh, and apparently abortion is a big player in why children are born deformed or with disabilities:

The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children... In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest.

For him or any of them to try and pretend like this isn't about abortion is so incredibly disingenuous that, were it not such a serious subject matter, I would almost have a grudging respect for how ballsy it is.

[Teller]

I would too, as long as it was restricted to "pro-life" conservative males.

Proving once again that you're in favor of discrimination, and I'm not.

[GibbsFactor]

Don't want kids? Don't have the initial "invasive procedure."

Cause that's effective.

[LadySkinsFan]

except it was already standard practice...not just before,but also at the follow up visit(at least at PP and any other reputable clinic)
it is not some torture dreamed up by the fundies,but rather sound medical practice.

I don't see the 24 hr waiting period any more onerous than a waiting period for purchasing guns....even though we know a life will be taken in this case

They've only made is standard procedure recently. When I had my abortion, I didn't have to have any tests except a pregnancy test.

As I wrote, these laws are designed to interfere with a woman's right to a legal procedure. They are the "chip away" laws.

---------- Post added February-14th-2012 at 09:07 PM ----------

Claiming that personhood begins at conception has a pretty flimsy philosophical basis. I don't see how you can claim personhood before tissue differentiation, at the very least.

They want to accord a bunch of cells the same status and rights as a living, breathing woman. It's ridiculous.

[GibbsFactor]

Claiming that personhood begins at conception has a pretty flimsy philosophical basis. I don't see how you can claim personhood before tissue differentiation, at the very least.

To me, it says life. The initial reaction between sperm and egg creates life. A person? Debatable.

[Teller]

Cause that's effective.

Seriously. If you "accidentally" get pregnant these days, I don't want you having kids anyway. You've really gotta work to be that.....nevermind. But you do.

[Spearfeather]

I consider any medical procedure that I haven't consented to an invasion of my personal space, my body etc.

The article uses the term " invasive procedure ", and that's what I was reffering to.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Here's my question: Republicans see no problem in adding restrictions and hurdles for women who are seeking abortions which is a right under Roe v Wade, and yet they scream bloody murder if someone suggests that there be extra restrictions on gun ownership. I hate when people's logic isn't consistent from one issue to the next.

[greenspandan]

No, it wouldn't. It would be like having to know the three branches of government, before voting.

not coincidentally, such restrictions are also completely unconstitutional.