Boycott Virginia - new abortion law, new personhood law..... War on woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:pp, how old are you? Eleven? Do you really think this is how it is done? Well, I guess where it is illegal and people don't have access to medicine to make the heart stop beating....One more reason to keep it legal.

Why bother to make the heart stop beating if its not a life?

[Anonymous]

Yeah, cause when I miscarried and had a D&C at 13 weeks, I thought it was moore like sucking the baby out with a vacuum hose not pulling out body parts bit by bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause when I miscarried and had a D&C at 13 weeks, I thought it was moore like sucking the baby out with a vacuum hose not pulling out body parts bit by bit.

Yes true there are different ways and vacuum basically does the same thing, did the doctors perform an ultrasound to confirm the lack of heart beat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause when I miscarried and had a D&C at 13 weeks, I thought it was moore like sucking the baby out with a vacuum hose not pulling out body parts bit by bit.

Yes true there are different ways and vacuum basically does the same thing, did the doctors perform an ultrasound to confirm the lack of heart beat?

You mean before they sucked the baby out of me? Yes, they performed an over-the-belly ultrasound and told me there was no sign of life left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, how old are you? Eleven? Do you really think this is how it is done? Well, I guess where it is illegal and people don't have access to medicine to make the heart stop beating....One more reason to keep it legal.

Why bother to make the heart stop beating if its not a life?[/quote]

Because the tissue softens what makes it easier to pull out one or 2 days later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause when I miscarried and had a D&C at 13 weeks, I thought it was moore like sucking the baby out with a vacuum hose not pulling out body parts bit by bit.

Yes true there are different ways and vacuum basically does the same thing, did the doctors perform an ultrasound to confirm the lack of heart beat?

You mean before they sucked the baby out of me? Yes, they performed an over-the-belly ultrasound and told me there was no sign of life left.

Point exactly there is no where that states you will be forced to be vaginal ultrasounded

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, how old are you? Eleven? Do you really think this is how it is done? Well, I guess where it is illegal and people don't have access to medicine to make the heart stop beating....One more reason to keep it legal.

Why bother to make the heart stop beating if its not a life?[/quote]

Because the tissue softens what makes it easier to pull out one or 2 days later.

is that like putting a pet to sleep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, cause when I miscarried and had a D&C at 13 weeks, I thought it was moore like sucking the baby out with a vacuum hose not pulling out body parts bit by bit.

Yes true there are different ways and vacuum basically does the same thing, did the doctors perform an ultrasound to confirm the lack of heart beat?

You mean before they sucked the baby out of me? Yes, they performed an over-the-belly ultrasound and told me there was no sign of life left.

Point exactly there is no where that states you will be forced to be vaginal ultrasounded

I don't think you know what you are talking about. I wrote to Va Delegate Bob Marshall and complained about the vaginal wanding. And his response was, "well Planned Parenthood does it before the abortion so, there's no reason why you should complain". So if HE is not refuting the wanding claim, I don't think I'll take YOUR word for it. Here is what he said to me in his email:

"Secondly, HB 462, is not my legislation though I did vote in favor of it. It is sponsored by Delegate Kathy Byron.

The issue is one of women's safety. HB 462 will add ultrasound to the informed consent requirements in Virginia. Planned Parenthood requires ultrasound to date pregnancy because it is the standard of care to ensure the correct procedure is done. For example if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy or is further along in her pregnancy that she first thought she cannot be given RU-486 because it would be life threatening. Below is a quote from a Planned Parenthood hotline with regard to their requirements for an abortion procedure. All abortions require an ultrasound and a pill abortion requires two trans vaginal ultrasounds, one before the pill is given and one later. Consent for the ultrasound is required to obtain an abortion. As a result, this legislation would not require anything more invasive that what is already done but would only require that all other clinics meet this same standard of care and that the woman be offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound."

[Anonymous]

"Secondly, HB 462, is not my legislation though I did vote in favor of it. It is sponsored by Delegate Kathy Byron.

The issue is one of women's safety. HB 462 will add ultrasound to the informed consent requirements in Virginia. Planned Parenthood requires ultrasound to date pregnancy because it is the standard of care to ensure the correct procedure is done. For example if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy or is further along in her pregnancy that she first thought she cannot be given RU-486 because it would be life threatening. Below is a quote from a Planned Parenthood hotline with regard to their requirements for an abortion procedure. All abortions require an ultrasound and a pill abortion requires two trans vaginal ultrasounds, one before the pill is given and one later. Consent for the ultrasound is required to obtain an abortion. As a result, this legislation would not require anything more invasive that what is already done but would only require that all other clinics meet this same standard of care and that the woman be offered the opportunity to view the ultrasound.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So clearly, what the bill is REALLY about is women's safety. Rrrrrrriiiiiggghhhttt.....

[Anonymous]

HAHAHAHA. Sorry. Because there's an epidemic of women dying or having health problems after abortions....oh wait, that was before abortions were legal.

[Anonymous]

Furthermore, you can ALWAYS decline an ultrasound before an abortion, it's the doctor's choice whether to proceed or not. The law makes it illegal to perform an abortion without one. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Furthermore, you can ALWAYS decline an ultrasound before an abortion, it's the doctor's choice whether to proceed or not. The law makes it illegal to perform an abortion without one. Big difference.

That's what I told Bob in my reply to him. He doesn't seem to care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, how old are you? Eleven? Do you really think this is how it is done? Well, I guess where it is illegal and people don't have access to medicine to make the heart stop beating....One more reason to keep it legal.

Why bother to make the heart stop beating if its not a life?

I'm not the PP, and I should probably ignore you, but this is NOT like putting a pet down. That heart only beats because it is inside a woman's body. If it were possible to take the "baby" from the mother and incubate it somewhere, you might have an argument. It's not a person. It's not an independent lifeform. It's a fetus. Period. And before you start talking viability yada yada yada, remember, most abortions are performed WELL before viability. Of the tiny fraction of abortions that are performed after "viability" (debatable timeframe, but after 22 weeks is the earliest I've seen), most are abortions of fetuses that would not be viable anyway because of serious defects. The rest, well, those are sad IMO. But it's still not my choice to make.

[Anonymous]

Very strange, the story of what is happening in the VA house of delegats does not seem to appear on the Washington Times page. Can someone correct me if I am wrong?

It is on the cover of the Washington Post page, and the Post VA local page.

Hmm, could it be that these R-Bozos have made a HUGE mistake and are trying to duck and cover from outing themselves as anti-woman, anti-choice, anti-birth control, etc.?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp, how old are you? Eleven? Do you really think this is how it is done? Well, I guess where it is illegal and people don't have access to medicine to make the heart stop beating....One more reason to keep it legal.

Why bother to make the heart stop beating if its not a life?

I'm not the PP, and I should probably ignore you, but this is NOT like putting a pet down. That heart only beats because it is inside a woman's body. If it were possible to take the "baby" from the mother and incubate it somewhere, you might have an argument. It's not a person. It's not an independent lifeform. It's a fetus. Period. And before you start talking viability yada yada yada, remember, most abortions are performed WELL before viability. Of the tiny fraction of abortions that are performed after "viability" (debatable timeframe, but after 22 weeks is the earliest I've seen), most are abortions of fetuses that would not be viable anyway because of serious defects. The rest, well, those are sad IMO. But it's still not my choice to make.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1380282/Earliest-surviving-premature-baby-goes-home-parents.html