New Black Panther Shockers: Not Hanging ‘Crackers’…‘Yet’…A Secret Meeting Detailing Alliance With Ahmadinejad…‘The Ballot or the Bullet’

The BlogRSS Feed

Government If state-required ultrasound is ‘invasive’, what do women expect of the actual abortion procedure?

Abortions Are Invasive

Ultrasound at 12 weeks.

Virginia’s recently passed “personhood” bill that requires some women seeking abortions to have a transvaginal ultrasound has received strong opposition for being “invasive” and has even been called “state-sanctioned rape”.

(Related: Joy Behar decries VA abortion law requiring ultrasound: ‘Is this the Taliban? Are we in Afghanistan?’)

Not all women would be subject to this type of ultrasound, which uses a probe inserted into the vagina to obtain the image of the fetus. Transvaginal ultrasounds are often the only way to obtain a picture in the early stages pregnancy. Women further along would have a more traditional ultrasound, in accordance with the law.

Many are taking issue with this proposed law because it requires women to have an ultrasound — of any kind — which may not be wanted by the patient. But opposition is focusing on the invasiveness of this specific type of ultrasound.

Here’s a newsflash: abortions are invasive.

The majority of abortion procedures taking place after seven weeks, at least in Virginia, are performed surgically — either through suction-aspiration or vacuum. Northern Virginia Women’s Healthcare states on its website that women at seven weeks or less would be recommended a non-surgical form of abortion — methotrexate, a chemotherapy agent used to kill cancer. The women’s health information site states that surgical procedures are the most common for women who are seeking abortions within the first 12 weeks.

So let’s stop trying to raise hell about invasive nature of these ultrasounds and just get to the heart of the issue. Opponents don‘t want patients to be required to have an ultrasound if they wouldn’t otherwise want them. They don’t want ultrasounds to be forced upon patients for what they see is no medical reason.

Why? One can only surmise that they’re worried patients will become conflicted in their conviction to have an abortion if they see the human-like image on the screen and perhaps even see the heartbeat. But if this isn’t really a “person” what do they have to worry about?

Doctors are and should be required to give a patient all the facts for a medical procedure. Doctors most likely wouldn’t be telling patients that they were now seeing the growing human life inside their wombs. They would most likely let the patient look at the image, let the facts speak for themselves and let the woman make her own decision.

Comments (62)

  • istasko
    Posted on February 19, 2012 at 4:48pm

    Knowing many women who have had abortions, very close personal friends in VA, they have said that if that was the law back then, about 4 out of 5 of these women would not have done it or would have had very serious doubts about doing it. I say congratulations for making the full gravity of the situation a REALITY…what is told to women about what is going to happen is pretty vague, considering what the truth really is. Considering the fact that when a pregnancy is confirmed, one of the first things that happens is a trans-******* ultrasound, this makes a whole lot of sense. It can help prevent a procedure that can be a physically and mentally scarring event, some never recover.

    Report Post »  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on February 21, 2012 at 6:31am

      Their claims of “invasive” don’t pass the smell test.

      If this is invasive, where is their outrage at airport scanners, then?

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
  • The Gooch
    Posted on February 19, 2012 at 1:02pm

    I see your newsflash & raise you a civics lesson: We are supposed to be a nation of laws & freedoms with the general intent being we know what govt. cannot do to us in the pursuit of life, liberty & happiness. Oh, & two wrongs do not make a right. It appears, however, ideologues are intent on this grand experiment devolving to nothing more than a p!ssing contest in seeing which group of busybodies gets to impose their will upon the unwashed masses. Thanks but no thanks. That’s where I part ways with many a so-called conservative. Take your “I know best!” activism & go hang out with like-minded folks… the leftist nihilists.
    Listen, I don’t support abortion & I take issue with the cowardly, legalistic way it was made into a quasi-right in the U.S. Like other posters note, if it’s a “choice”, then I should never have to pay for it. Just as rhinoplasty is a choice, your nose job & your abortion should both be your private expense. Unless some busybody wants to cough up his or her dough for the cause, it should never be the taxpayers’ expense. The language used painted abortion proponents & the legal system into this corner: A ‘choice’ or privilege may be legal, but it is not a right to which one must be entitled at the expense of others. I also find the continued creep to open infanticide repulsive.
    Using folks’ body as your chosen, direct battleground is just creepy. So if you can‘t beat ’em, join ‘em? Wow. Enjoy your p!ssing contest.

    Report Post »  
    • not a liberal
      Posted on February 19, 2012 at 10:41pm

      The Gooch makes a valid point. The issue at hand should not be the invasive nature of a transvaginal ultrasound but of the state sanctioned nature of either procedure. If abortion continues to be state sanctioned, i.e. planned parenthood than so should the ultrasound, however if the states would be inclined to get out of both decisions it would be the best solution.

      Report Post »  
  • kevinj319
    Posted on February 19, 2012 at 2:24am

    First, let me say I do not believe there is a right to abortion.

    However, what is WRONG with you so-called conservatives? You argue one minute that the government is too big and they should stay out of healthcare, and then applaud this? Absolutely disgraceful, as usual, Blaze commenters.

    Report Post »  
  • jcvillar
    Posted on February 19, 2012 at 12:56am

    NEWSFLASH: Abortions are not mandated, fool.

    Report Post »  
    • not a liberal
      Posted on February 19, 2012 at 10:41pm

      state sanctioned, is ignorance bliss?

      Report Post »  
    • meerkie
      Posted on February 20, 2012 at 5:40pm

      Abortion is mandated. And every court in the nation has been in favor of abortion.

      Report Post » meerkie  
  • Psychosis
    Posted on February 19, 2012 at 12:03am

    i say let em have all the abortions they want, as long as THEY pay for it

    do we actually want to force these morons to procreate and burden US with their offspring??? i say let them end their prodigy and save us the trouble of having to deal with more liberals in the future

    oh wait, isnt that the ideology of margy sanger???? the founder of pp??? little did she know that her ideas would help cull the herd of liberal idiots

    Report Post » Psychosis  
    • not a liberal
      Posted on February 19, 2012 at 10:43pm

      thank you for bringing marg sanger into this. why dont liberals actually say why she started pp?

      Report Post »  
    • meerkie
      Posted on February 20, 2012 at 5:48pm

      Why did Marg Sanger start planned parenthood? She did it to promote contraception because her mother had 18 pregnancies in 22 years, then died at the age of 50 from cervical cancer and tuberculosis. She did it to stop the suffering she witnessed from back-alley and self-induced abortions. While she was a racist, and pushed contraception to prevent the feeble-minded from procreating, she did not discriminate treatment based on race and she heralded vast support in the black community.

      Report Post » meerkie  
  • paintbrushbright
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 7:10pm

    What would you think about a time regeneration artist rendering pictures to show to mothers before they abort their sons and daughters? Will the proven fathers of the baby carried by the mother ever have a choice to save his son or daughter? If this method of termination of life is taken for granite will it carry over to the same view on the elderly that will have children that will have the choice to end the lives of their parents before their natural time of departure?

    Report Post » paintbrushbright  
  • KAdams
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:00pm

    Omigosh… to the author of this article:

    NEWSFLASH: SEX IS INTRUSIVE!

    Report Post »  
  • KAdams
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:59pm

    @ George: First of all, they have to sign CONSENT FORMS for the procedure. So what you’re saying is false, it‘s not ’unwanted’. Secondly, HOW INTRUSIVE WAS THE INTERCOURSE THAT CAUSED THIS SITUATION IN THE BEGINNING??? Surely a scope couldn’t be as INTRUSIVE as an erect penis? But you tell me, since you’re the man? Oh, I guess you wouldn’t know about penetration with an erect penis. Or… maybe you would.

    Report Post »  
    • sealwifenyc
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 10:14pm

      Have you ever had sex? It’s fun, not intrusive. If you think that, you are doing it the wrong way or with the wrong person.

      Report Post »  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 19, 2012 at 12:54am

      I am speaking from a physiological standpoint, not an emotional/mental point of view. My apologies you were unable to discern that. As is this ‘intrusion’ you are claiming from the scope. The scope certainly shouldn’t be a point of emotional/mental anguish, considering what’s planned on happening after the ultrasound.

      Report Post »  
  • The Jewish Avenger
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:23pm

    How ironic that Planned Parenthood fights for their financial lives hoping you’ll get pregnant and have an abortion collect tax money for it then you vote Democratic. Then on the other hand, While you are in the checkout buying your tuna and wraps for the month. Some woman is in line who hasn’t worked in over 12 years with 5 unruly kids with 3 full shopping carts of crap and then pays with an EBT card, guess what? They vote Democratic too.

    So what are you? The impoverished woman who is struggling with children that cant get out of welfare or the woman who insists on independent living by getting abortions and now federal mandated contraception through insurance? Either way, all women are the Donkey’s Biatches.Sadly they dont put it in perspective, their just glad its FREE.

    Kids are controlled by MSM and Public run schools.

    If you are a White God Fearing Caucasian, you may be the majority, but the laws place you as a minority.

    And you wonder why people are pissed?

    Report Post » The Jewish Avenger  
  • svan71
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:08am

    I think before taking innocent human life one should be made to feel uncomfortable. Whether it is the doctor committing the act or the mother who otherwise might be told its a mass of cells being removed. These people who keep trying to give rational arguments for a totally irrational act make me laugh.

    Report Post »  
    • georgewh
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:17am

      “I think before taking innocent human life one should be made to feel uncomfortable.”

      Innocent implies guilt, and suggests that abortion is the punishment.
      Abortion is a legally protected medical procedure, guaranteed by a woman’s right to privacy.
      There is no legal basis for a fetus eligible for the procedure to have rights or be viewed as innocent. It is an entirely rational procedure. Just because you (in the minority) feel it is irrational, based on superstitious religious doctrine(how is that *not* irrational), doesn’t mean the government should force your views onto women. The majority of women, and Americans, do not agree with you. It is not the governments job to shame women based on stone aged morality. Please keep your Christian Sharia law out of my government.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:00pm

      George, I love it when a man speaks for what women want. Let me be the first to tell you SHUT UP.

      You know nothing about women and what women want. As a woman who has two children and 7 grandchildren; one dying at birth, I can assure you it is not a woman’s right to KILL HER UNBORN CHILD. I don’t care how well you white-wash the issue, it is MURDER. If it is not, then why did Scott Peterson get charged for a DOUBLE MURDER. If it is murder for the father to kill his wife, who is caring his unborn baby, then it is wrong for the mother to kill her unborn baby also.

      As far as the ultrasound, if she is going in for an abortion, which in itself is intrusive, she can’t complain that an Ultrasound is intrusive. Sorry that does not fly on so many levels.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • The Jewish Avenger
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:04pm

      @georgewh

      “Just because you (in the minority) feel it is irrational”

      I strongly suggest you check your data because its tainted.

      Report Post » The Jewish Avenger  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:08pm

      Actually George, innocent means without sin. So as the child has not yet been born into the sinful world, has not yet committed any sinful acts against God, yes, it is INNOCENT. Your argument is nothing less than expected, coming from such an elevated life form as yourself. “Professing to be wise, they become as fools.”

      Report Post »  
    • paintbrushbright
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 8:07pm

      cofemale has put George outside of the human race with her statement about women. Isn’t it nice to have a liberal excuse to end human life without ever feeling guilt? Why do these women have that superior feeling that gives them the rights to not only kill their own future son or daughter but the future child of a father? Every man has a right to object to the end of life. We are not the super race that the Nazis envisioned and we should not have the power to end life unless it’s in self defense.

      Report Post » paintbrushbright  
  • georgewh
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 10:03am

    “One can only surmise that they’re worried patients will become conflicted in their conviction to have an abortion…”
    Thats the only concern you can think of with the government mandating an invasive medically unnecessary procedure against her will? There seems to be a century of case law regarding the right to privacy that you are overlooking, including Roe. This is settled law. $500 is also a lot to spend on an unnecessary procedure.

    Obviously forcing a probe into a ****** is invasive. The issue is whether or not there is a medical reason for the procedure. The fact that it would be a government mandate, and specifically for reasons other than medical purposes, and likely against the will of the women leaves this policy nothing short of sexual assault.

    For men. Consider a prostate exam where a doctor inserts their finger into the rectum. A private procedure performed at the advice of a medical professional. Compare that to a doctor inserting their fingers into your rectum just because the government said they have to, and if you don’t let them, they cannot by law perform some other medically valid procedure.

    One can only surmise that they’re trying to force their religious convictions on women and dissuade them through the use of shame, embarrassment, and invasion (as there’s no medical or economic justification for the mandate.) This is a privacy issue. This Christian Sharia law will never really stand in America. This is legislative proselytism at it’

    Report Post »  
    • svan71
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:10am

      I fail to draw the connection between an abortion and a rectal exam.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:02pm

      Tell me George have you had an ABORTION – Didn’t think so, so SHUT UP. You know nothing.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • sealwifenyc
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 10:27pm

      George-Absolutely right! The people who agree with this law are failing to see the point. We aren’t arguing for reproductive rights, we already won that argument. We are opposed to an intrusive procedure that serves no medical purpose. We are opposed to violating privacy rights, in the name of the religious right. This law will be named unconstitutional as it was in Texas, the lawmakers know this, and lawmakers who create laws knowing they are unconstitutional should be kicked out of office, they are doing nothing but wasting resources.

      Report Post »  
    • Kimwed
      Posted on February 20, 2012 at 3:02am

      Pre-abortion ultrasounds are part of the medical protocol. Abby Johnson, who used to manage several Planned Parenthood clinics has already publicly stated that almost all abortionists perform ultrasounds in order to have an accurate pre-natal age. Before this law virtually all abortionists refused to allow the pregnant woman to view the ultrasound. Obviously because they know that if a women saw with her own eyes what she was about to allow the abortionist to destroy she might back out thereby causing the abortionist to lose money. This law is not forcing procedures it is simply changing the rights in favor of the patient. Also you mentioned in an earlier comment that pro-lifers were in the minority. Again you are wrong. The latest Gallup poll reveals that more than half of the United States is against abortion and in favor of illegalizing it. Also more women are against abortion than for it for the first time since Roe v. Wade. It is believed that because of medical advances such as ultrasound people are now realizing that there is a baby in the womb and not a “clump of cells”. As far as religion Again you are wrong. There are groups of secular and atheists against abortion. So all the usual arguments in favor of abortion are rapidly being dispelled. Not that that stops the typical pro-abort from trying to conjure up new ones.

      Report Post »  
    • sealwifenyc
      Posted on February 20, 2012 at 5:07pm

      @kimwed-Yes, you are right, ultrasounds are performed before an abortion, but there is a huge difference, it is because a Physician has deemed it necessary, and not because lawmakers are interested in shaming women. I am not concerned about abortion, I am concerned about the privacy that is sacred between a Physician and a patient, it is of supreme importance. When gov’t starts legislating, it doesn’t stop. I have a colleague that was sued from a pro life group because he upheld the patient’s choice to not seek cancer treatment, they believed the patient should be required to receive. That will not be the only time it happens. I respect people who are prolife, but this legislation has serious consequences for Physicians and the care they give their patients, if this precedent is set, other laws will no doubt piggy back on it. I spent 15 years training to practice, I know how to treat my patients, the government does not.

      Report Post »  
    • meerkie
      Posted on February 20, 2012 at 6:10pm

      The transvaginal ultrasound probe is no more invasive, and far less painful, than the speculum used in a routine pelvic exam. Further, the ultrasound probe is a very useful diagnostic tool that is medically necessary in abortion procedures. Transvaginal ultrasound is the only way to diagnose abnormal pregnancy. If an abortion is performed but the fetus is outside of the uterus or in the fallopian tube, then the procedure poses unnecessary risk to a womans reproductive health. Doctors use the instrument to determine the position and size of the fetus, and to ensure that all pregnancy tissue was removed by the abortion. In fact, transvaginal ultrasounds should be added to every routine annual reproductive exam, for early diagnosis of uterine and ovarian conditions.
      This legislation insures that women are going to get the best possible medical care available. That is positive progress. But what do I know? I’m just a woman who has endured the procedure. By the way, I was never asked to view the fetus in ultrasound ,so one should not assume that the ultrasound will be used to force women to question their decision to abort. There is a counseling mandate in effect to help women decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy. Long live abortion!!

      Report Post » meerkie  
  • fatsomann
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 7:49am

    Maybe if an abortion seeking woman (or couple) could see the new life that‘s forming in the woman’s uterus they would recognize the fetus as human rather than a blob of cells ruining their lives. Naw, that would make the decision too real to live with.

    Report Post » fatsomann  
    • georgewh
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 10:35am

      Thats between them and their doctors. It is not the job of government to mandate medically unnecessary ******* penetration.

      Report Post »  
    • svan71
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:12am

      The abortion is what is unnecessary you really got this backwards…

      Report Post »  
    • The Jewish Avenger
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 2:12pm

      Although I oppose, despise, hate and deplore the thought let alone the act of abortion, the problem is this.

      You paid for everything up to the point of getting pregnant, now they want someone else to pay for it.
      And yes that is actions as well as financial use your imagination…

      You ask me to stay out of their womb, I ask that you first STAY OUT OF MY WALLET!

      Until I no longer am financially responsible for their MISTAKES. I refuse to let them escape their well deserved “PUNISHMENT” (‘Punishment’… how stupid is that?… “I’m being punished…” No, you are reaping what you sow)

      LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME

      Got pregnant? Cant afford it? Name it after me then…

      And after that, yes it should be banned except for REAL MEDICAL exceptions not what Joe HomLibero feels that I should accept. OH Boo hoo but she’ll have to find a babysitter and she works at a really HARD job BOO HOO. Hold that aspirin baby.

      Report Post » The Jewish Avenger  
  • brickmoon
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 5:34am

    I would like to commend Liz for this thoughtful, well written post.

    It’s interesting, how a rational opinion can elicit the most shrill dissent over what some argue is the equivalent of a tumor.

    Also interesting is how few comments there are from those same factions on other topics, opposing the blatant brutality, oppression, and violations of personal freedoms that are endemic to certain sects and political systems — and whose proponents openly aim to spread throughout the world.

    It seems that the outrage is focused on those committed to balancing the defense of the innocent with the preservation of liberty.

    What greater presumption can there be than for one to declare one’s own body sacrosanct, while a viable, apparently sentient body developing within it is considered no more human or deserving of sustenance than a cancerous growth.

    Report Post » brickmoon  
    • georgewh
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 10:13am

      There is no legal basis entitling fetus’s to this defense. It is purely a philosophical consideration and as such should remain outside of the legislative arena. After-all, most Americans are pro choice and have been for decades. There is however a century of case law regarding privacy protecting women. Also, the connections in the brain required for “sentience” aren’t made until long after abortion is prohibited.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:07pm

      George, you keep telling yourself those lies. Most of American is not pro-choice. That is a Liberal hoax. Even Obama said he is Pro-life, but sometimes his stances say otherwise. So in essence he lies all the time.

      PRO-CHOICE – the right to kill a baby without any legal consequences. I should never have the right to kill an unborn fetus. NEVER

      Report Post » COFemale  
  • The Third Archon
    Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:31am

    “IF STATE-REQUIRED ULTRASOUND IS ‘INVASIVE’, WHAT DO WOMEN EXPECT OF THE ACTUAL ABORTION PROCEDURE?”
    Except abortions aren’t state-mandated. Also, if being invasive is bad, why would it be GOOD to make that which is “invasive” MORE invasive?

    Report Post » The Third Archon  
    • svan71
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 11:13am

      Now they are state sanctioned therefore the state can make the laws required to go through with them.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:13pm

      Are you sure about that? Planned Parenthood – state and federal sanctioned by the Obama Administration are always suggesting women go through abortions all the time. It is their biggest money maker. Now in VA, they will have to show the women having an abortion their baby. Then after seeing this, they are making an informed decision. Who knows what Planned Parenthood tells them, they might misrepresent the development of the fetus to the woman. I do not trust Planned Parenthood for distributing factual information.

      This cry it is invasive is hogwash. Please cry me a river.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • The Third Archon
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 6:30pm

      “Now they are state sanctioned therefore the state can make the laws required to go through with them.”
      Well they CAN–does that mean it’s a good idea or serves a useful purpose? No. Not necessarily–laws for their own sakes is generally a stupid idea.

      “Are you sure about that? Planned Parenthood – state and federal sanctioned by the Obama Administration are always suggesting women go through abortions all the time.”
      I don’t know where you get this information, but regardless a woman who has got to the point where she needs/wants an abortion shouldn’t be made to go through more trouble than is really necessary. Women AREN’T required to get an abortion by any law of which I am aware, on the other hand, women ARE required to get an ultrasound, to which they DID NOT consent by choosing to get an abortion, if they want an abortion.

      Report Post » The Third Archon  
  • dogdr
    Posted on February 17, 2012 at 8:15pm

    What happened to all the conservative screams about keeping the government out of healthcare? I thought the objection to “Obamacare” was that they didn’t want the government involved in making decisions (they would prefer the insurance companies to make those decisions apparently).
    Now suddenly they are all for the government mandating unnecessary tests and making decisions for the patients. Maybe it is just me, but this seems a bit hypocritical

    Report Post »  
    • karen162
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 8:05am

      Unfortunately, I agree. If a woman wants to kill her unborn child, that is her decision and she will have to live with the consequences. I do not like abortion and I do not understand the Left and their drooling obsession with killing children. Having the Government mandating an ultrasound is intrusive and its not their place. But, abortion is immoral and just wrong.

      Report Post » karen162  
    • georgewh
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 10:25am

      Karen, it is refreshing that you acknowledge the privacy issue. I just think it is important to note that nobody is obsessed with “killing children” as many a rightwing talk show host will assert. What the Left is obsessed with is defending this right to privacy and the assault on women’s access to healthcare. Nobody likes abortion. I believe everybody would rather see better choices made before it gets to that point. But we are human and particularly when it comes to sexuality we often act without thinking. Unfortunately there are a bunch of influential white virgin male church leaders who would rather see birth control and abortions banned, turning women into baby making machines. This isn’t exactly a reach if you consider the Biblical understanding of the role of women and their place in society, established throughout the book. Unfortunately the natural consequence of this belief system, and ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ is what we are seeing now, Christian Sharia law.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:21pm

      But I thought all you on the left require women to have ALL THE FACTS, not just some of the facts?
      This is all about an INFORMED DECISION. We are only mandating when they chose to have an abortion that they see what they are aborting. If you are not aborting a child, then nothing is mandated.

      Your argument about hypocrisy is touching, but flawed. When you go to a doctor there are certain procedures you might have to have during the examination that are mandated to see what is going on with you. Sometimes they may be invasive. What is the difference here? The doctor is performing an Ultrasound for two reasons, to see the age of the fetus and the woman has not lied and to show the woman what the child looks like to see if the abortion is what she really wants.

      How would you feel if a boyfriend was forcing his girlfriend to have an abortion? Would you be against a forced abortion?

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:30pm

      George – Bullpucky

      This is about killing unwanted, inferior children they think do not deserve life. Look who founded Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger who felt genocide was okay. Here are some of her quotes. http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

      On the right of married couples to bear children:
      Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

      On the purpose of birth control:
      The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

      On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
      “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

      On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
      “…human weeds,‘ ’reckless breeders,‘ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

      On sterilization & racial purification:
      Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech. ”

      Maybe you should read about her before you support abortion.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:11pm

      George, you’re a moron. Nobody wants to see birth control banned. Stop trying to twist the argument into some leftist propaganda. You’re just stupid.

      Report Post »  
  • sealwifenyc
    Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:25pm

    It is a completely unnecessary medical procedure, and it is invasive, and serves no purpose. The bigger issue is religious factions decrying freedom while trying to take the freedom of women, and their Doctors away. As a physician, I find requiring MDs to perform procedures that serve no purpose and requiring us to engage in a set conversation a violation of free speech, violation of privacy, and a violation of the trust between a physician and their patients. I guess freedom is only freedom to follow Catholic ideals? Pathetic invasion of privacy from the people who claim to LOVE the constitution. PATHETIC

    Report Post »  
    • MRSBoJangles
      Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:40pm

      “First do no harm.” In the interest of this oath and full disclosure I feel this is more than reasonalbe.

      Report Post »  
    • sealwifenyc
      Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:50pm

      Exactly, requiring women to have an medically unnecessary invasive procedure is HARM.

      Report Post »  
    • hi
      Posted on February 17, 2012 at 6:21pm

      It’s called “informed consent.”

      Report Post » hi  
    • sealwifenyc
      Posted on February 17, 2012 at 7:07pm

      YES, INFORMED CONSENT-TOLD, NOT SHOWN. You are not using informed consent in the correct manner. Physicians are required to explain, NOT SHOW. Women know they are pregnant, they know if they have an abortion they will not be pregnant anymore, they are informed of the medical risks and benefits of the abortion. The law assumes women are stupid and don’t understand abortion, and the consequences of it. Women, know this on a level men will never know. When a patient refuses cancer treatment, I am not legally required to show them what will happen using medical treatments that provide no benefit and are invasive. I am required to explain to them the risks/benefits. If a women asks for an ultra scan they will receive it. This law assumes women are too stupid to make their own medical decisions.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:36pm

      And I doubt you are a doctor.

      Please explain to me why an Ultrasound isn’t necessary? Do you not perform them on women who are keeping their babies to check for complications and/or to show the parents? What is the difference here. This should be good. Patiently waiting for a sound logical explanation why it is not the same?

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:41pm

      So Seal you are telling us you never use props to show the reproductive system to women or what happens when they get pregnant? You only tell them what happens?

      I just can’t wrap my head around the fact you object to giving a woman who is seeking an abortion an Ultrasound on the basis it is unnecessary and/or invasive. Tell me during an abortion isn’t a vacuum used to suck the fetus out? What if the woman lied about how far along she was and she made you perform an abortion after the legal amount of weeks or does that not make any difference to you?

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • KAdams
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 3:03pm

      They have to sign CONSENT FORMS for the procedure. For ANY medical procedure, there are CONSENT FORMS to be filled out and signed. If the PATIENT REFUSES the ultrasound, then I guess she has to go to another state to kill her child.

      Report Post »  
    • sealwifenyc
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 7:09pm

      Yes, honey I am a physician. Sticking a scope up a woman’s ****** is NOT a prop. A prop is a piece of rubber made to look like a brain I use to show my patients where their cancer is. To consider sticking a speculum in a ****** as a “prop” is completely ridiculous. The purpose of the ******* ultrasound is to shame women, it serves no medical purpose, zero. Physicians are not in the business of performing unnecessary procedures to make the pro-lifers feel a little better. It goes against everything I believe in. Yes, of course pregnant women get ultrasounds, that is to make sure the fetus is developing properly, and if it is not, then medical steps can be taken. I am not a gynecologist, I am a neurologist so no I am not in the business of “explaining” pregnancy, but I do know a gynecologist does not need to stick a scope in a woman’s ******, to “explain” pregnancy.

      Report Post »  
    • meerkie
      Posted on February 20, 2012 at 6:42pm

      SEALWIFENYC,
      If you are a physician, then why are inclined to use ****** instead of proper clinical terminology?
      ******

      Report Post » meerkie  
  • TOMSERVO
    Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:25pm

    People are, understandably, upset that the government would be forcing them to endure a procedure that they should not have to.

    Yes, abortions are invasive. But the patient is CHOOSING to do it.

    Report Post »  
    • HumbleCitizen
      Posted on February 17, 2012 at 5:43pm

      What choice does the baby have?

      Report Post » HumbleCitizen  
    • georgewh
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 10:30am

      humblecitizen, there is no legal basis for the ‘baby’ to have a choice, or any rights. Thats purely a philosophical consideration, which varies from person to person. A woman’s right to privacy on the other hand is very well established in decades of case law. It‘s not the government’s job to force religious convictions onto women, or anyone. The fact that theyre trying to mandate sexual assault in this instance really reinforces the comparison between the American Religious Right and the Taliban.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on February 18, 2012 at 1:47pm

      Since when George is not killing someone just a religious conviction? Isn’t killing someone wrong regardless of your religious convictions. See this is where you err. You see killing an unborn fetus as right of the woman. Logic, regardless of my religious convictions, tell me killing an unborn fetus is murder.

      So a child who asked not to be conceived because the mother and father conducted themselves in a irresponsible manner has no rights? Hell you all treat animals more decent than this. Damn us if we hurt a dog or cat, but it is okay to kill a human developing.

      Report Post » COFemale  
  • TOMSERVO
    Posted on February 17, 2012 at 4:24pm

    “One can only surmise…”

    “Doctors most likely wouldn’t be telling patients…”

    “They would most likely let the patient…”

    Hard-hitting stuff.

    Report Post »  

Comments are closed.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now