Anti-choice forces are relentless. Like it or not, so must their foes be

Feb 27, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Daily Kos

Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell wanted to amend a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound bill by requiring rectal exams and cardiac stress tests before allowing prescriptions for erectile dysfunction medication.

Comments
1 - 20 of 1,146 Comments Last updated Apr 17, 2014
First Prev
of 58
Next Last
Anti-choice forces

Mumbai, India

#1 Feb 28, 2012
I do thank you for your supreme dedication in wanting to help people with this problem, and appreciate your efforts in giving information on this illness.
heh

Charlottesville, VA

#3 Feb 28, 2012
Seems reasonable.
JTM

Charlottesville, VA

#4 Feb 29, 2012
Its a guess on my part, but I'd imagine that a doctor prescribing these medicines would already order the necessary tests. If there is a medical necessity for an ultrasound, why not require it? One of the more legitimate claims about abortion clinics is that they perform major medical procedures without the usual oversite required of other medical providers. Senator Howell is just trying to be outrageous to garner attention. Seems to me that both sides are so caught up in their rhetoric that they seem to over look the obvious.
pbfa

United States

#5 Feb 29, 2012
JTM wrote:
Its a guess on my part, but I'd imagine that a doctor prescribing these medicines would already order the necessary tests. If there is a medical necessity for an ultrasound, why not require it? One of the more legitimate claims about abortion clinics is that they perform major medical procedures without the usual oversite required of other medical providers. Senator Howell is just trying to be outrageous to garner attention. Seems to me that both sides are so caught up in their rhetoric that they seem to over look the obvious.
What nonsense. If an ultrasound is medically required, of course the doctor will provide it/ There is no justification for ordering it (& making a woman pay for it) if it is not, in fact, medically necessary.

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#6 Feb 29, 2012
here is where "choice" ultimately ends up:

"[an article]published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

ha! a liberal society...
Jorja

Nellysford, VA

#7 May 7, 2012
Pro-choice is the only way to be. Where is the logic in taking away a person's right to make a choice? Not necessary to agree with the choices made by others but that shouldn't mean you take away their right to choose.

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#8 May 7, 2012
Jorja wrote:
Pro-choice is the only way to be. Where is the logic in taking away a person's right to make a choice? Not necessary to agree with the choices made by others but that shouldn't mean you take away their right to choose.
generally speaking i am for less government in our lives. but what if people's choices involve killing people. molesting children. having sex with animals. we take away many choice for people in society, and rightly so.
Jorja

Nellysford, VA

#9 May 7, 2012
GoodNewz wrote:
<quoted text>
generally speaking i am for less government in our lives. but what if people's choices involve killing people. molesting children. having sex with animals. we take away many choice for people in society, and rightly so.
The article doesn't address your list - nor do I. Your list possibly involves "behavior issues" and not necessarily pro choice.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#10 May 7, 2012
JTM wrote:
Its a guess on my part, but I'd imagine that a doctor prescribing these medicines would already order the necessary tests. If there is a medical necessity for an ultrasound, why not require it?
There ISN'T any medical necessity. That's the entire reason people are against this nonsense.

The only purpose of requiring the procedure is to make women who want an abortion extremely uncomfortable.

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#11 May 7, 2012
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
There ISN'T any medical necessity. That's the entire reason people are against this nonsense.
The only purpose of requiring the procedure is to make women who want an abortion extremely uncomfortable.
or perhaps to force them to think about the life they are flushing down the toilet...

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#12 May 7, 2012
GoodNewz wrote:
<quoted text>
or perhaps to force them to think about the life they are flushing down the toilet...
Pro-life lawmakers have already added things like "Woman must watch a prolife video and read prolife reading materials, then wait 24 hours".

You can pretend THAT has something to do with information (though it really doesn't).

You can't pretend that forcing a woman to get an extremely invasive and totally unnecessary procedure is anything but trying to punish the woman for her choice.

Imagine if a man wanted a prescription for Viagra and a new law was added that said once he goes to the doctor, he must take a trial dose and then have sex with a painfully rough robotic hand to test if he's "sure he really wants it". Would that be reasonable?
Jorja

Nellysford, VA

#13 May 7, 2012
GoodNewz wrote:
<quoted text>
or perhaps to force them to think about the life they are flushing down the toilet...
There already is thought process - it doesn't need to be forced.
Don't think for a moment it's a snap decision - it isn't!
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#14 May 7, 2012
pbfa wrote:
<quoted text>
What nonsense. If an ultrasound is medically required, of course the doctor will provide it/ There is no justification for ordering it (& making a woman pay for it) if it is not, in fact, medically necessary.
Ultra sounds are done all the time for non medical reasons like to find the sex of the child.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#15 May 7, 2012
GoodNewz wrote:
<quoted text>
or perhaps to force them to think about the life they are flushing down the toilet...
That is the reason and many choose not to destroy their child when they see it. Many young women who have not had a child don't realize that it is a real person and they can't do it. Not everyone who has an abortion has thought it out carefully.
Jorja

Nellysford, VA

#16 May 7, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Ultra sounds are done all the time for non medical reasons like to find the sex of the child.
That is a "choice" by the woman/parents - it is NOT mandated or forced.
Jorja

Nellysford, VA

#17 May 7, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the reason and many choose not to destroy their child when they see it. Many young women who have not had a child don't realize that it is a real person and they can't do it. Not everyone who has an abortion has thought it out carefully.
Fetus - not child.
You are mistaken - an abortion IS thought out carefully by everyone involved, the mother, the father and the doctor.
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#18 May 7, 2012
Jorja wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetus - not child.
You are mistaken - an abortion IS thought out carefully by everyone involved, the mother, the father and the doctor.
Then why do so many women suffer with remorse and guilt after the abortion and for years later?
Ink

Bensalem, PA

#19 May 7, 2012

Since: Jul 07

Newport News, VA

#20 May 7, 2012
Jorja wrote:
<quoted text>
Fetus - not child.
You are mistaken - an abortion IS thought out carefully by everyone involved, the mother, the father and the doctor.
carefully thought out by everyone involved. wow. that is interesting, considering half of the fathers are already out of the picture.
Jorja

Waynesboro, VA

#21 May 8, 2012
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do so many women suffer with remorse and guilt after the abortion and for years later?
It is a difficult decision to make - and of course emotions are involved. Sometimes tough decisions need to be made and women deserve the right to make their own choices..period. We don't need anyone telling us what we can or can not do regarding our own health care issues.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 58
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Virginia Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bob McDonnell: Mitt Romney will win Virginia (Apr '12) 2 hr Swedenforever 7
The Cosi's Poem (to accompany the Manassas Poem) Aug 14 Patricia Louise M... 1
Stay sought in ruling on Va. gay-marriage ban Aug 8 Dubya 31
Ex-Va. Gov. McDonnell and wife charged with fed... (Jan '14) Aug 2 swedenforever 26
Virginia governor ends with scandal-stained year (Dec '13) Aug 1 No Surprise 20
GOP can regain control of Senate in 2014, says ... Jul '14 swedenforever 13
Redskins Hire Liberal Blogger to Fight Name-Cha... Jun '14 indian welfares 1
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Virginia Government People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••