It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

After Less Than A Week Of GOP Control, Kentucky Passes 20-Week Abortion Ban

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts



The abortion clinic had my daughter believing that she had an inhuman blob within her uterus.


Kinda of like what you miscarried? How could anyone convince her that her pregnancy was inhuman?

I don't know how old your daughter was, or how far along she was, but she's an example of a lack of much needed education.




posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It was hard to find, but I believe this is it (the 20 weeks bill):

Link

Here is the ultrasound bill:

Link


edit on 8-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: dawnstar

It was hard to find, but I believe this is it (the 20 weeks bill):

Link

Here is the ultrasound bill:

Link



Actually, I think this is it. www.lrc.ky.gov...

And here legiscan.com...
and here: rewire.news...


edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   
This is very good news. The GOP seem to be really working fast and delivering results.
20 weeks matches the research I have read on a fetus' ability to feel pain.
If more research is available as time goes by then I think the time limit could even come down.

If this does lead to Roe vs. Wade being overturned then that will just be the new standard that people live by. I don't suspect that is the aim though.
edit on 8/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Yes, that is the bill (a link is in the first link I provided). The ultrasound bill can be found via the second link I provided (here for anyone confused)
edit on 8-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CynConcepts



The abortion clinic had my daughter believing that she had an inhuman blob within her uterus.


Kinda of like what you miscarried? How could anyone convince her that her pregnancy was inhuman?

I don't know how old your daughter was, or how far along she was, but she's an example of a lack of much needed education.





Inhuman was perhaps a bad choice of word. Foreign object of no consequence? She was young, just turned 18, and as most young women lacked any real facts on stages of fetal development. She began to educate herself more after she discovered she was going to be a mother. When she was set on having an abortion, she really believed there was no reason to know details. Stupid? Most definitely...but reality.

I don't think it was lack of education, but simply it was easier emotionally to choose to abort. Many people globally are educated, but find that it is easier to grasp a simple view that makes a decision more agreeable rather than complicate things by digging deeper. This point can be just as valid for those who choose to have a child simply based on religious beliefs. Basically, shirking responsibility for your own personal decisions. It is a two-way street.

I really can only say that. It is simply my personal opinion. I am not an expert. Abortion is a personal choice but woman should not make a decision within a vacuum of information, which includes, actually seeing what is within their bodies. Doctors will show you the tumor they are going remove...they should show you the baby you are having removed.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You should probably understand how exactly Bevin was elected: Voter turnout was dismal. It's not the fault of GOP voters so much as it is the fault of the DNC for eating their own. They did it again with Bernie voters.

I live in Kentucky and I refuse to vote for Republicans and Democrats. Neither have any appeal to me. I left the DNC eight years ago and I won't be returning. I don't need their abuse.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is what's dangerous in my mind:


WHEREAS, the purpose of this Act is to protect the unborn child from a woman’s uninformed decision to have an abortion

(The State doesn't have any right to "protect" an unborn child from its mother pre-viability, under Roe V Wade.)

Clearly, the state can't trust women to make an informed decisions about their reproductive choices or understand what it is that they're aborting, even though most women seeking abortions have one or more children.




WHEREAS, the purpose of this Act is to reduce the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed


This bill has nothing to do with women's health, except that lawmakers believe women who choose abortion are now, or will become, mentally unhealthy, assuming that they'll be sorry later. And, it has everything to do putting up road blocks, making it harder and more expensive to get an abortion, and with shaming and guilting women who do.
edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Agree & disagree. Clearly a woman would not be informed if she had an ectopic pregnancy unless she was already suffering life threatening complications. So in that way, I think having an ultrasound is wise.

But I think it should probably be the woman's choice to have one or not. But I also believe it should be up to the doctor to decide whether to perform an abortion on a woman who refuses the ultrasound. If a woman can find a doctor who is willing to perform one without an ultrasound confirming a pregnancy, gestational age, and location of the the fetus, then I think that's her choice -- as long as she is informed of the risks.

And, again, if an ultrasound confirms the pregnancy is only eight weeks or less, the ultrasound could spare her from having an invasive surgical abortion and allow her to have a medical one instead.

I'd like to think that some professional medical research is behind the writing of this type legislation.

The argument for the ultrasound is not entirely without merit, IMO.


ETA: You edited after I typed that, and wrote:



This bill has nothing to do with women's health, except that lawmakers believe women who choose abortion are now, or will become, mentally unhealthy, assuming that they'll be sorry later. And, it has everything to do putting up road blocks, making it harder and more expensive to get an abortion, and with shaming and guilting women who do.


I disagree that it has "nothing" to do with women's health. There is some merit to the argument for the ultrasound and you are entirely skipping over it.

I agree though that some of the wording is downright atrocious.
edit on 8-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is what's dangerous in my mind:


WHEREAS, the purpose of this Act is to protect the unborn child from a woman’s uninformed decision to have an abortion

(The State doesn't have any right to "protect" an unborn child from its mother pre-viability, under Roe V Wade.)

Clearly, the state can't trust women to make an informed decisions about their reproductive choices or understand what it is that they're aborting, even though most women seeking abortions have one or more children.




WHEREAS, the purpose of this Act is to reduce the risk that a woman may elect an abortion, only to discover later, with devastating psychological consequences, that her decision was not fully informed


This bill has nothing to do with women's health, except that lawmakers believe women who choose abortion are now, or will become, mentally unhealthy, assuming that they'll be sorry later. And, it has everything to do putting up road blocks, making it harder and more expensive to get an abortion, and with shaming and guilting women who do.


Maybe the wording is specifically designed to trigger a challenge to Roe vs. Wade in preparation for a conservative Supreme Court judge (or two)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



But I think it should probably be the woman's choice to have one or not. But I also believe it should be up to the doctor to decide whether to perform an abortion on a woman who refuses the ultrasound.


I would agree, if the doctor thought it was medically necessary in order to ensure a safe abortion. But this ultrasound is required, not for medical reasons, but because they want the woman to look at and hear a description of the fetus that they're about to abort under the guise of "informed consent".



The argument for the ultrasound is not entirely without merit, IMO.


Again, if the doctor performing the procedures required it for medical instruction to ensure the woman's safety, then I'm all for it!



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I don't see where the wording in the sonogram bill it states it has to be transvaginal...
which still makes it needless but at least not as risky.

it seems that the 20 week ban has no consideration for the condition of the fetus, weather it has the possibility of surviving outside the womb, or even exist inside the womb without severe pain.

thanks for those whoprovided links to the actual wording of the bills.

edit on 8-1-2017 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



Maybe the wording is specifically designed to trigger a challenge to Roe vs. Wade in preparation for a conservative Supreme Court judge (or two)


How so? How would an opinion on fetal pain capability change Roe V Wade?

If, as is asserted, a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, (which is not a medical fact) and the doctor has given the fetus a dire prognosis of encephalitis, how does prolonging the pain the fetus is feeling in the womb from the disease, plus the pain that the fetus must experience during labor and birth, only to die and excruciating painful death shortly after birth, by refusing an abortion to save the fetus from the pain of an abortion make sense?

If lawmakers are so concerned about a fetus feeling pain, like life itself isn't filled with pain, why not require fetal anesthesia to numb the fetus during the abortion?





edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Shaming and guilting women that do? Why would showing them an image shame and guilt trip them? As a parallel, a patient is shown a benign tumor and the risks for /against removal surgery are provided by a doctor. The patient then weighs the facts provided and makes their own decision on whether to remove the benign tumor or not. There is no guilt or shame in making a decision based on being informed, only in assuming everyone is informed.



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I can see it going like this.

"Do hear the heartbeat? That's your baby, that you're about to kill. See the legs and head, and the eye lids, that's your baby, that you're about to kill. Are you still sure you want to kill your baby?"


edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: CynConcepts

I can see it going like this.

"Do hear the heartbeat? That's your baby, that you're about to kill. See the legs and head, and the eye lids, that's your baby, that you're about to kill. Are you still sure you want to kill your baby?"



I believe that people who work in abortion clinics and perform ultrasounds for abortion patients support the right to choose. Otherwise, they wouldn't want the job.

ETA: In fact, I don't think a clinic would have any patients if they did that.
edit on 8-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Why not: As you can see there doesn't seem to be any complications with the fetus and your uterus. Abortion is a viable decision, this image shows that there will be minimal risks. It is, now, your decision on how we proceed.

edit on 1 8 2017 by CynConcepts because: Stupid spell checker



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Ah, except this law says your ultrasound is free if you get it at their one and only abortion clinic in Louisville, forcing women to travel and walk a perp walk full of pro-life protesters, or one of the Pro-Life counseling clinics, aka Crisis Pregnancy Center.


Asked about cost, Wuchner said that women can go to the state's only abortion clinic, in Louisville, to get the ultrasound, or one of the 28 crisis pregnancy centers in the state that offer ultrasounds at no charge. That brought a yell of "Biased!" from the crowd, which was vocal throughout the meeting.
kyhealthnews.blogspot.com...



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: windword

Why not: As you can see there doesn't seem to be any complications with the fetus and your uterus. Abortion is a viable decision, this image shows that there will be minimal risks. It is, now, your decision on how we proceed.


Complications are the doctors concern, informed consent doesn't have anything to do with complications or health issues. This ultrasound is not done for the doctor's benefit. It's strictly to make sure the woman sees and hears the heart beat of the fetus she'll abort.
edit on 8-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I live about six blocks from that clinic and there are, indeed, some nasty protestors outside -- always.

But I know people who work there, and they are great and fully pro-choice.




top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join