I don't get the outrage over a stupid ultrasound but zero outrage or any feeling whatsoever over the life of the innocent baby? seriously, step back 5 feet and think this through.

Anonymous wrote:Roe is such bad law and will be overturned sooner or later regardless. With the age of Kennedy and Gins, I could see the next president nominating the game changer.

And this seems fairly obvious: Obama will nominate and the Senate will confirm staunch pro-choicers.

Anonymous wrote:

Please give an example of another surgical procedure where a state assembly has passed a law that a patient MUST undergo some process as a part of the procedure.

Sure. For something far less medically dangerous, too. When you get your eyes examined any you're forced to have that invasive blast of air into your eye? That's REQUIRED BY LAW. Please don't act like your big government isn't in our space all the time.

In that case, my optometrist and I both need to be locked up. I routinely refuse the glaucoma test because I'm at no risk for it. And he routinely complies, agreeing that it's an uncomfortable waste of time in my case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 9:20, I dont see this mandate as trying to humiliate anyone. I think the purpose is straight forward, to personify the embryo heartbeat. To yes discourage abortions but not make them illegal. Its ironic one would consider this procedure humiliating yet jthe person seeking the abortiorn is perfectly willing to allow a doctor to remove the developing child from the womens body. If one women decides to reconsider their decision to abort its a worthy precident. I have suspicion it will. I was there for my wifes ultrasounds and it was remarkable, anything but humiliating.

Well, hell -- why not require the doctor to read the woman a copy of "Goodnight Moon"? Why not require the doctor to have a 9 month old baby in the room and force the woman to hold it? Why not require the doctor to just punch the woman repeatedly in the vagina before starting the procedure?

Of COURSE it's trying to humiliate the woman. It's trying to shame her into changing her mind. And it's an unconstitutional, offensive, and breathtakingly arrogant intrusion of the government literally into a woman's vagina.

And yet, people disagree. Please vote.

Roe is such bad law and will be overturned sooner or later regardless. With the age of Kennedy and Gins, I could see the next president nominating the game changer.

Anonymous wrote:To 9:20, I dont see this mandate as trying to humiliate anyone. I think the purpose is straight forward, to personify the embryo heartbeat. To yes discourage abortions but not make them illegal. Its ironic one would consider this procedure humiliating yet jthe person seeking the abortiorn is perfectly willing to allow a doctor to remove the developing child from the womens body. If one women decides to reconsider their decision to abort its a worthy precident. I have suspicion it will. I was there for my wifes ultrasounds and it was remarkable, anything but humiliating.

Well, hell -- why not require the doctor to read the woman a copy of "Goodnight Moon"? Why not require the doctor to have a 9 month old baby in the room and force the woman to hold it? Why not require the doctor to just punch the woman repeatedly in the vagina before starting the procedure?

Of COURSE it's trying to humiliate the woman. It's trying to shame her into changing her mind. And it's an unconstitutional, offensive, and breathtakingly arrogant intrusion of the government literally into a woman's vagina.

To 9:20, I dont see this mandate as trying to humiliate anyone. I think the purpose is straight forward, to personify the embryo heartbeat. To yes discourage abortions but not make them illegal. Its ironic one would consider this procedure humiliating yet jthe person seeking the abortiorn is perfectly willing to allow a doctor to remove the developing child from the womens body. If one women decides to reconsider their decision to abort its a worthy precident. I have suspicion it will. I was there for my wifes ultrasounds and it was remarkable, anything but humiliating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Send the governor a note telling him just what you think of this state-sanctioned rape:

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/contact.cfm

I have already sent him two notes today, and I intend to keep it up. There's a chance he may be reconsidering...

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/16/is-virginia-governor-mcdonnell-backing-off-his-intent-to-sign-state-sanctioned-ra

Just sent a thank you and letter of appreciation

PP, whoever you are, you are a sick, degraded human being. This is what you wrote to thank McDonnell for?

In the words of Delegate David Englin: “This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions. This kind of government intrusion shocks the conscience and demonstrates the disturbing lengths Republican legislators will go to prevent women from controlling their own reproductive destiny.”

Englin proposed the failed amendment that would have required women to give their consent before the invasive procedure.

Let me repeat that: there was a proposed amendment to this bill that would have required a woman being forced to undergo this non-medically-indicated procedure to give her consent before having a probe inserted into her vagina, AND IT WAS DEFEATED.

Be as opposed to abortion as you want, but please, for the love of god, THINK THINGS THROUGH before blindly agreeing with them. The fact that people elected into positions of power think that this is okay is fucking terrifying.

If you want to have an intelligent conversation about the bill, amendments, votes, etc., I suggest you start such a thread. This one can't possibly morph into something constructive, particularly in view of the inarticulate original post and the overly wrought and uninformed responses. Or, maybe this is a topic that simply cannot be discussed rationally on an anonymous board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Send the governor a note telling him just what you think of this state-sanctioned rape:

http://www.governor.virginia.gov/contact.cfm

I have already sent him two notes today, and I intend to keep it up. There's a chance he may be reconsidering...

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/16/is-virginia-governor-mcdonnell-backing-off-his-intent-to-sign-state-sanctioned-ra

Just sent a thank you and letter of appreciation

PP, whoever you are, you are a sick, degraded human being. This is what you wrote to thank McDonnell for?

In the words of Delegate David Englin: “This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions. This kind of government intrusion shocks the conscience and demonstrates the disturbing lengths Republican legislators will go to prevent women from controlling their own reproductive destiny.”

Englin proposed the failed amendment that would have required women to give their consent before the invasive procedure.

Let me repeat that: there was a proposed amendment to this bill that would have required a woman being forced to undergo this non-medically-indicated procedure to give her consent before having a probe inserted into her vagina, AND IT WAS DEFEATED.

Be as opposed to abortion as you want, but please, for the love of god, THINK THINGS THROUGH before blindly agreeing with them. The fact that people elected into positions of power think that this is okay is fucking terrifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please give an example of another surgical procedure where a state assembly has passed a law that a patient MUST undergo some process as a part of the procedure.

Sure. For something far less medically dangerous, too. When you get your eyes examined any you're forced to have that invasive blast of air into your eye? That's REQUIRED BY LAW. Please don't act like your big government isn't in our space all the time.

Citation please.

Google is your friend.

I'm not the one making the claim. Put up or shut up.

Anonymous wrote:Ashamed to live in VA.

Me too. Yet another reason to move to greener (or at least bluer) pastures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Please give an example of another surgical procedure where a state assembly has passed a law that a patient MUST undergo some process as a part of the procedure.

Sure. For something far less medically dangerous, too. When you get your eyes examined any you're forced to have that invasive blast of air into your eye? That's REQUIRED BY LAW. Please don't act like your big government isn't in our space all the time.

Citation please.

Google is your friend.

My issue with the VA law is not just the law itself, which in my mind serves no other purpose than to humiliate a woman who is seeking an abortion, but its place in the continued war against women's control over their own bodies. I understand that there are a lot of people who believe that "life" begins at conception and that a lot of those people are angry that most laws agree that it is a woman's right to choose whether she wants to continue a pregnancy, but these tactics are underhanded. They're not going to try to ban abortion outright, because they know they would lose, so instead, they're just going to try to make it as humiliating to get one as possible. You must have a vaginal ultrasound, and you also have to view the image. The ultrasound is not deemed complete until an image has been produced and a heartbeat as been heard and witnessed.

It's not enough that a woman seeking an abortion often has to cross a picket line of protesters who use either guilt or intimidation to try to "let her know she has other options". Once she gets inside, she has NO CHOICE buy to submit to this procedure. They talk about their wonderful family values and opine about how no one is thinking about the child, all while going out of their way to humiliate a woman in a difficult situation. Many posters on this board will say "Oh well, you don't care about compassion when it comes to YOUR UNBORN CHILD" but whether you want to accept it or not, we are both making a choice. You choose to care more about an unborn child than the woman carrying that child. I personally choose the woman.

Oh and PP saying this isn't rape? You're not the only rape victim on this board, and you certainly do not speak for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Please give an example of another surgical procedure where a state assembly has passed a law that a patient MUST undergo some process as a part of the procedure.

Sure. For something far less medically dangerous, too. When you get your eyes examined any you're forced to have that invasive blast of air into your eye? That's REQUIRED BY LAW. Please don't act like your big government isn't in our space all the time.

Citation please.

Please give an example of another surgical procedure where a state assembly has passed a law that a patient MUST undergo some process as a part of the procedure.

Sure. For something far less medically dangerous, too. When you get your eyes examined any you're forced to have that invasive blast of air into your eye? That's REQUIRED BY LAW. Please don't act like your big government isn't in our space all the time.