Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why because in any other major surgery you don't like to see X-rays, ct scans, etc. of your body to make an informed choice?

You don't need an xray or ultrasound to "inform" you of the fact that you're pregnant. This legislation lacks the key element of medical efficacy.

What it comes down to is this: are you comfortable with lawmakers deciding what medical procedures should be done? Shouldn't that be up to the doctor? Do you REALLY want politics in your medical care?

Is this a serious question or a joke? The last two years have shown that politics IS in our medical care...we are way beyond that.

Really? How many other laws can you name that interfere with or dictate physician-patient procedures. Please. Name one.

Nobody who calls themselves a libertarian could ever support Walker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why because in any other major surgery you don't like to see X-rays, ct scans, etc. of your body to make an informed choice?

You don't need an xray or ultrasound to "inform" you of the fact that you're pregnant. This legislation lacks the key element of medical efficacy.

What it comes down to is this: are you comfortable with lawmakers deciding what medical procedures should be done? Shouldn't that be up to the doctor? Do you REALLY want politics in your medical care?

Is this a serious question or a joke? The last two years have shown that politics IS in our medical care...we are way beyond that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why because in any other major surgery you don't like to see X-rays, ct scans, etc. of your body to make an informed choice?

You don't need an xray or ultrasound to "inform" you of the fact that you're pregnant. This legislation lacks the key element of medical efficacy.

What it comes down to is this: are you comfortable with lawmakers deciding what medical procedures should be done? Shouldn't that be up to the doctor? Do you REALLY want politics in your medical care?

Anonymous wrote:The Wisconsin law only requires an ultrasound--not a transvaginal ultrasound.

What is all this about? An ultrasound is not invasive.
.

A transvaginal ultrasound would be required within 12 weeks of pregnancy, as an external ultrasound is not capable of picking up anything that early in the pregnancy. Most women contemplating termination of their pregnancy due so within the first trimester.

Anonymous wrote:Why because in any other major surgery you don't like to see X-rays, ct scans, etc. of your body to make an informed choice?

You don't need an xray or ultrasound to "inform" you of the fact that you're pregnant. This legislation lacks the key element of medical efficacy.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP who said the purpose of the law is guilt, not healthcare.

I'm actually pro Choice. However, abortion is NOT healthcare--except in very rare cases. And, if you think it is fine, then guilt should not be a problem with your choice.

I didn't equate abortion with healthcare, PP. I said that Walker and Wisconsin Right to Life do so in an attempt to divert from their real agenda. See this piece:

http://www.wpr.org/judge-strikes-down-abortion-law-requiring-hospital-admitting-privileges

The anti-abortion group, Wisconsin Right to Life, also wants an appeal. The group issued a statement after the decision was announced.

"We must do all we can to ensure safety and continuity of care for Wisconsin women,” the statement read.

I'm the PP who said the purpose of the law is guilt, not healthcare.

I'm actually pro Choice. However, abortion is NOT healthcare--except in very rare cases. And, if you think it is fine, then guilt should not be a problem with your choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why because in any other major surgery you don't like to see X-rays, ct scans, etc. of your body to make an informed choice?

No one forces you by law to look at your x-rays or scans. And neither x-rays or scans cause pain. Vaginal ultrasounds are very painful.

No. They are not. I have had at least 50, if not more. Most women who go through IVF do. They are not the least bit painful. As a matter of fact, it is more painful/uncomfortable to have a papsmear.

FWIW - I am pro-choice and don't understand why EITHER side of the fence is making this into a debate. Transvaginal ultrasounds are helpful for dating the embryo. I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that there are different methods based on how far along you are. That being said, it is my uterus/embryo - let me make the best choice for MYSELF medically with assistance from my doctor - without dictating to me based on YOUR political agenda.

Because once the govt begins to dictate that you have to have certain gynecological/obstetric procedures, inserting themselves into the doctor/patient relationship, specifically targeted at women's reproduction, where does the long arm of the vaginal wand stop?

Which is why I said it is my uterus/embryo - let me make the best choice for MYSELF medically with assistance from my doctor - without dictating to me based on YOUR political agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why because in any other major surgery you don't like to see X-rays, ct scans, etc. of your body to make an informed choice?

No one forces you by law to look at your x-rays or scans. And neither x-rays or scans cause pain. Vaginal ultrasounds are very painful.

No. They are not. I have had at least 50, if not more. Most women who go through IVF do. They are not the least bit painful. As a matter of fact, it is more painful/uncomfortable to have a papsmear.

FWIW - I am pro-choice and don't understand why EITHER side of the fence is making this into a debate. Transvaginal ultrasounds are helpful for dating the embryo. I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that there are different methods based on how far along you are. That being said, it is my uterus/embryo - let me make the best choice for MYSELF medically with assistance from my doctor - without dictating to me based on YOUR political agenda.

Because once the govt begins to dictate that you have to have certain gynecological/obstetric procedures, inserting themselves into the doctor/patient relationship, specifically targeted at women's reproduction, where does the long arm of the vaginal wand stop?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why because in any other major surgery you don't like to see X-rays, ct scans, etc. of your body to make an informed choice?

No one forces you by law to look at your x-rays or scans. And neither x-rays or scans cause pain. Vaginal ultrasounds are very painful.

No. They are not. I have had at least 50, if not more. Most women who go through IVF do. They are not the least bit painful. As a matter of fact, it is more painful/uncomfortable to have a papsmear.

FWIW - I am pro-choice and don't understand why EITHER side of the fence is making this into a debate. Transvaginal ultrasounds are helpful for dating the embryo. I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that there are different methods based on how far along you are. That being said, it is my uterus/embryo - let me make the best choice for MYSELF medically with assistance from my doctor - without dictating to me based on YOUR political agenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vaginal wanding didn't hurt me a bit.
I agree that doctors should follow safe practices before conducting an abortion. If my doctor thinks a vaginal wanding is in order, fine.

The govt ordering that I have to submit to a vaginal wanding under any circumstances whatsoever is completely unacceptable. Being penetrated by any object against your will IS rape, as a PP suggested.

I'm the OP and I later found this quote from Walker:

"We just knew if we signed that law, if we provided the information that more people if they saw that unborn child would make a decision to protect and keep the life of that unborn child."

So the purpose of the law is clear. Guilt, not healthcare.

Why feel guilty ? It's not a human life. It's a parasite. A bundle of cells. Right?

You misunderstood PP's post. Walker's motivation is clearly not healthcare but to guilt the woman.

I'm the PP who said the purpose of the law is guilt, not healthcare. Walker and Wisconsin Right to Life have persisted in championing laws to restrict access to abortion under the guise of providing better healthcare and protection to women. Walker's quote is one of the few instances in which the actual agenda is made clear.