Political Suicide....Has The GOP Written Off The Women's Vote?

reply to post by Flatfish

Please Flatfish, the law does not require non-consensual trans-vaginal procedures.

How is Doctor-Patient privelege violated? I'm sure you know that that term means the Doctor is strictly limited in what information he can give out to third parties. There are no third parties here. The Doctor gives test results to the patient and nobody says a word about it. Again where is the privelege violated?

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


You are obviously not a woman. A baby, which is so easy to make by 2, is not carried by 2, nor neccessarily raised by 2. 2 people don't neccessarily have to change their life by a baby, 2 people don't neccessarily get judged by a baby, 2 people don't neccessarily die by having a baby.

The woman carries the burden, ultimately. In a best case scenario, maybe not, but don't invade my body until you have to walk in it yourself.

I fear we are moving backwards with this legislation in Virginia. Women are giving up their rights here, what will come next? They already were not represented in Congress this last week over contraception, all men legislating.articles.cnn.com...OLITICS

It's a slippery slope, and I hold the women of Virginia accountable for this.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Flatfish

 

Please Flatfish, the law does not require non-consensual trans-vaginal procedures.

How is Doctor-Patient privelege violated? I'm sure you know that that term means the Doctor is strictly limited in what information he can give out to third parties. There are no third parties here. The Doctor gives test results to the patient and nobody says a word about it. Again where is the privelege violated?

You could save us both a lot of time by reading some of the articles linked in my post as the answers to many of your questions are contained within. This paragraph immediately follows the one I quoted in my last post.

www.slate.com... eason.html

Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason. I am not the first person to note that under any other set of facts, that would constitute rape under state law.

Pretty much sounds like non-concensual if you ask me. By the way, that vote was split right down party lines, republicans 64, democrats 34.

Edit to add; Well I take that back. For some reason, I can't get the Slate.com link to work properly so I guess it would be kinda hard for you to read the entire article.

Notice that the Virginia bill contains a large hypocritical exemption for "assisted conception*."

What it says is that the eggs fertilized in a fertility lab are not considered persons but all other embryos are. Slippery slope indeed.

Virginia is a 'rich' state, alot of rich people who can afford in vitro and can terminate their extra embroyos but the poor women who don't want to bring a unwanted child cant terminate. Hypocritical much???

 

reply to post by SunnyDee


I'm a man and I'd just bet that if it were men who carried babies, we wouldn't be having this discussion. With the exception of a few lawmakers like Larry Craig and Mark Foley, most men don't even like going in for a colostomy, much less having an ultra-sound device inserted in them against their will.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

You are obviously not a woman. A baby, which is so easy to make by 2, is not carried by 2, nor neccessarily raised by 2. 2 people don't neccessarily have to change their life by a baby, 2 people don't neccessarily get judged by a baby, 2 people don't neccessarily die by having a baby.

The woman carries the burden, ultimately. In a best case scenario, maybe not, but don't invade my body until you have to walk in it yourself.

I fear we are moving backwards with this legislation in Virginia. Women are giving up their rights here, what will come next? They already were not represented in Congress this last week over contraception, all men legislating.articles.cnn.com...

OLITICS

It's a slippery slope, and I hold the women of Virginia accountable for this.

Yes, and the woman goes out on the farm to grow the food to feed the child, make the money to pay the child support (or get jailed and not have any access to their child, or access to work to support their child).

LOL invade your body?! EVER HEARD OF A PENIS? (You obviously have never been a man)

If you are pregnant you already have been 'invaded'

And the fact that you think insurance companies should be responsible for your vagina and contraception is totally absurd . . .

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli

 

You are obviously not a woman. A baby, which is so easy to make by 2, is not carried by 2, nor neccessarily raised by 2. 2 people don't neccessarily have to change their life by a baby, 2 people don't neccessarily get judged by a baby, 2 people don't neccessarily die by having a baby.

The woman carries the burden, ultimately. In a best case scenario, maybe not, but don't invade my body until you have to walk in it yourself.

I fear we are moving backwards with this legislation in Virginia. Women are giving up their rights here, what will come next? They already were not represented in Congress this last week over contraception, all men legislating.articles.cnn.com...

OLITICS

It's a slippery slope, and I hold the women of Virginia accountable for this.

Yes, and the woman goes out on the farm to grow the food to feed the child, make the money to pay the child support (or get jailed and not have any access to their child, or access to work to support their child).

LOL invade your body?! EVER HEARD OF A PENIS? (You obviously have never been a man)

If you are pregnant you already have been 'invaded'

And the fact that you think insurance companies should be responsible for your vagina and contraception is totally absurd . . .

Grow up. Your comment does not even make sense, and is out of line. Not sure where you're even going with the grow the food, comment. Do you not think women work? Sex is a consensual, and most of us have sex for more than just to get pregnant. So shall all us ladies hold out and only give it up when we want a baby? I don't think that is going to go over well. So, we need contraception, and occasionally some need an abortion. The forty something woman, that has already raised kids and is not in a physical condition to bear another child but accidentally gets pregnant, for example. Walk in her shoes and her husband's shoes.

Dear Flatfish,

I see the conversation is moving on, but wanted to try to explain myself.

You are absolutely right that the articles you quote talk about trans-vaginal ultrasound. But some time reporters get things wrong. I thought they were interesting, so I went to the law itself, Virginia House Bill 1. Allow me to quote the law again.

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion.

The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat.

A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. This bill incorporates HB 261. (Pargraph structure inserted)

Forget people just talking about the law, who may have seen it through their own filters. Look at the law itself, the "raw footage,' so to speak. The law doesn't say trans-vaginal, and it specifically says the woman doesn't even have to look at the ultrasound if she doesn't want to.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion.

The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat.

A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman's medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. This bill incorporates HB 261. (Pargraph structure inserted)

Forget people just talking about the law, who may have seen it through their own filters. Look at the law itself, the "raw footage,' so to speak. The law doesn't say trans-vaginal, and it specifically says the woman doesn't even have to look at the ultrasound if she doesn't want to.

With respect,
Charles1952

OK, let's take a closer look at the law you quoted. Actually, we really don't have to look any farther than the first paragraph because the other two are specifically pertaining to record keeping on the part of the physician. The first paragraph states;

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion.

I would pay special attention to the use of the word "Requires" in this paragraph as the "key" word. The sole purpose of this paragraph is to establish that it be a "Requirement" for any woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound procedure capable of producing fetal images suitable for viewing by the mother prior to receiving the abortion. The only thing that is optional is whether or not she chooses to look at the images.

According to everything I've read, including articles that I've linked in my previous posts, the only ultrasound procedure that is capable of producing these images during the 1st trimester of pregnancy, (which is when the vast majority of abortions occur) is the Trans-Vaginal Ultrasound.

I am not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but I did spend over 30yrs. of my life negotiating legally binding labor contracts, more often than not, surrounded by lawyers advising both sides of the table. During that time I learned to pay close attention to wording in legal documents because they are usually designed to sound less restrictive than they actually are, in hopes that those most affected won't notice. I assure you, that is the case here as well.

I hope that helps,
Respectfully
Flatfish

reply to post by SunnyDee


Never said anything about holding out until you want to have a child.

I was pointing out that it is consensual and both parties recognize the potential outcomes.

Your argument sounds irresponsible and a total cop out.

reply to post by Flatfish

Dear Flatfish,

Thank you very much, I'm learning a lot from you as we go further and further into the world of obstetrics. I'm also grateful that you encouraged me to take a deeper look at the articles you posted. One, a dictionary definition of the term, and the other two, enraged opposition opinion pieces.

I think I'm going to have my head handed to me on a platter. After all, speaking with a thirty year labor negotiator, I'll be coming out ahead if I don't have to send you a check for your troubles.

But let me explain why I'm so grateful. It's because of the two opinion pieces you posted. My own opinion was a little fuzzy around the edges over the question of forced transvaginal ultrasound. But you've changed that. One opinion piece included a link to another opinion piece mentioned the fact that abortionists "routinely" use transvaginal.

So, regardless of the law, a woman seeking an abortion is going to get a TV ultrasound anyway. The only effective change brought about by the law is to require the physicain to offer to show it to her. That's not worth even mentioning, let alone complain about.

Secondly, the other opinion piece mentioned that the Texas law, similar to Virginia's, has been tested in District Court and held valid.

Oh, and the word "requires?" yep, it's there. But

capable of producing fetal images suitable for viewing by the mother prior to receiving the abortion.

that's not there, and as you know lawyers, you know they could use that loophole in a flash.

In summary, the law doen't require women to have a procedure they weren't going to have anyway. And it's valid law, as so far declared by the courts.

Thank you Flatfish, you're teaching me a lot.

With respect,
Charles1952

Liberal women need to snap out of the delusion that all women have the same twisted view that they do. YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR ALL WOMEN. In fact, you don't speak for anyone other than yourself. Stop meshing all women together as if they are one big pile of like-minded drones.

Sincerely,
A conservative female.

ETA: Attempting to be the savior of certain demographics after first trying to shove them into a victim role is the way of the Democrats. Republicans pander to demographics as well, just not quite in the same manner.

Originally posted by SunnyDee

So, we need contraception, and occasionally some need an abortion.

There is absolutely NO excuse for aborting a fetus that resulted from consensual sex. When you make the choice to have sex, you are making the choice to possibly reproduce. If you don't want a child, either abstain or get sterilized. You're the one who needs to grow up and stop making BS excuses.

Originally posted by Grumble

And I am not sure what to think about "conservative women" who are not alarmed by this sort of legislation. Stockholm Syndrome, maybe?

The only people who are victimized and denied their rights in the issue of abortion are the unborn. Only gullible, airheaded women would buy into your clownish rhetoric. Nice try.

Has The GOP Written Off The Women's Vote?

If you look at actual statistics, it is a myth that women are somehow more in favor of pro-choice than men. So no, this step will most probably not change GOP support much.

Abortion view by gender

Originally posted by Charmed707

The only people who are victimized and denied their rights in the issue of abortion are the unborn.

Your belief. Keep your hands off my womb.

Only gullible, airheaded women would buy into your clownish rhetoric.

Nice try.

I am not gullible, naive, or airheaded.

And I'm sure - far more experienced in life then you are.

here is a poll from Kansas

In a New York Times/CBS poll last week, 65 percent of those surveyed said they support Obama’s directive that all health-insurance plans should include birth control. Fifty-nine percent of everyone interviewed, as well as 57 percent of Catholics, said contraceptives should also be provided by the medical plans of religiously affiliated employers.

Read more here: www.kansas.com...=cpy

Republicans are clearly siding against the majority on this critical wedge issue.

This is straying from the topic, but I'm starting to read and hear about "routine" use of tvu in abortions, as a way to say, "Well, it's already being clinically done, so what's the big deal?".

I have questions maybe someone knows the answers to. What are the statistics to say this is routine? Is tvu more common in medical abortions than surgical, where in that procedure it might be routine where in surgical it might not be? If this is the case, then patients of surgical abortion would be forced to have a procedure that is not "routine"?

I still see bills of this type as a religious last chance effort to either change a woman's mind (at the very moment before the procedure...Glory Halleluja another saved soul!) or to make sure she understands she will burn in Hell if she proceeds. These bills are not needed, period, and rather are humiliating and insulting to women. Of course, in a post-Dominionist world, where, like Andrea Yates, women will bear "quivers full" of babies and drown their own voices, the GOP would end up with quite a base.

Originally posted by Annee

Your belief. Keep your hands off my womb.

That's not a belief...it's a fact.

When you are pregnant, it's no longer simply your womb in existence. It's your belief that the unborn are unworthy of the right to life. Keep you murderous hands off of them. Your type of mindset comes down to one thing...power. Deciding whether or not another human being will live or die is the ultimate power. Women who claim abortion as their birth-given right are lashing out from a feeling of insecurity and powerlessness.

I am not gullible, naive, or airheaded.

You'd have to be pretty airheaded not to understand the basic biology of pregnancy and reproduction.

Originally posted by Charmed707

Originally posted by Annee

Your belief. Keep your hands off my womb.

That's not a belief...it's a fact.

When you are pregnant, it's no longer simply your womb in existence. It's your belief that the unborn are unworthy of the right to life. Keep you murderous hands off of them. Your type of mindset comes down to one thing...power. Deciding whether or not another human being will live or die is the ultimate power. Women who claim abortion as their birth-given right are lashing out from a feeling of insecurity and powerlessness.

I am not gullible, naive, or airheaded.

You'd have to be pretty airheaded not to understand the basic biology of pregnancy and reproduction.

I am NOT interested in your version of BELIEF.

There is ZERO unselfish reason for having a child.

There are plenty of unselfish reasons for not bringing a child or another child into this world.

I fully 100% support each and every Woman's "Right of Choice". It is NO Politicians Right to involve themselves in the decisions I make about my womb.