Editor's note: Melinda Fredricks is vice chairwoman of the Republican Party of Texas and a member of the Texas Federation of Republican Women. In 2008, she was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. In 2003, Perry appointed her to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines physicians.
For an opposing view, please click here.
By Melinda Fredricks, Special to CNN
(CNN) – Despite opponents’ claims to the contrary, the real controversy concerning the newly enacted Texas Sonogram Law is that it took an act of the legislature to give women considering an abortion the information they deserve about this medical procedure.
Nonetheless, Garry Trudeau decided to make some ugly mischaracterizations of the law in his “Doonesbury” comic strip.
If it weren’t for the damage his misinformation could create, many Texans would just laugh at Trudeau’s ignorance. For one thing, he seems to think our legislature is made up of only middle-aged GOP men. The 21 women legislators who voted for the bill take issue with that, I’m certain. And while the bill was passed overwhelmingly by Republicans, without bi-partisanship the bill could not have passed the Texas Senate.
However, Trudeau’s misinformation crossed over into just plain nasty when he characterized the Texas Sonogram Law as rape. Disappointingly, a brilliant and talented woman such as former ABC news anchor Carole Simpson defended him in her recent article on this site.
Simpson’s argument is based on a statement that a vaginal sonogram is necessary in order to obtain the information required by the law to be given to the patient, and she alleges it “may even damage the reproductive organs of women who dare to seek an abortion.” This begs the questions, if a vaginal ultrasound is so dangerous, then why in the world did the FDA approve it, and why does the National Abortion Federation recommend it as a standard of care for some first-trimester medically induced abortions?
Moreover, in her article Simpson describes Trudeau’s work: “Another strip shows a doctor about to perform the procedure (emphasis mine), and the bubble of words coming from his mouth says, ‘By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.’” I got to wondering which “procedure” is Simpson referring to – the sonogram or the abortion? Because on Planned Parenthood’s website, I found that an abortion requires several things to be put into a woman’s vagina and I quote:
During an aspiration abortion:
o A speculum will be inserted into your vagina.
o Your health care provider may inject a numbing medication into or near your cervix.
o The opening of your cervix may be stretched with dilators — a series of increasingly thick rods.
o A tube is inserted through the cervix into the uterus.
And Simpson is outraged over a vaginal sonogram being given before an abortion? (By the way, Planned Parenthood assures women that a vaginal ultrasound is not painful.)
The fact is, the Texas law simply increases the standard of care for informed consent for abortion to the same level that is common for other medical procedures. The principle of “informed consent” is well-entrenched in state law for other medical procedures. But the abortion industry opposes attempts to provide their patients the same amount of information patients might routinely be given for much less invasive procedures. In its clinical guidelines, the National Abortion Federation states that “The findings of all ultrasound exams and the interpretation of those findings must be documented in the medical record.” Before the Texas Sonogram Law was enacted, abortion providers weren’t sharing those results of the sonogram with the patient.
Sonograms were already routinely conducted by abortion providers before the Texas Sonogram law and the National Abortion Federation recommends vaginal sonograms as standard of care in many first trimester abortions. The Texas Sonogram law simply requires that the doctor provide the patient the opportunity to view that sonogram and to hear the baby’s heartbeat, as well as provide state specified printed materials, and a verbal explanation of the sonogram results.
Moreover, contrary to Simpson’s claims, women who do not wish to see the sonogram image or hear the fetal heartbeat may simply sign a waiver stating they declined to view the information. In the event of a medical emergency, the doctors’ requirements can be bypassed with proper documentation.
Indeed, prior to this law, doctors often performed abortions without ever meeting the patient or even speaking with her. The law requires that a physician who is to perform the abortion meet with the patient at least 24 hours before the abortion is to take place. The doctor must provide basic information to the patient, including medical risks associated with the type of abortion to be performed, probable development age of the unborn child, as well as the medical risks to carrying the child full term.
Simpson says Trudeau believes there is a war on women, and maybe Trudeau is right. But we have differing opinions on who the enemies might be. During the testimony in support of this legislation, several women testified they had been denied an opportunity to view their sonograms at Texas abortion facilities, an egregious violation of their rights as patients. The Texas Sonogram Law simply ensures that physicians offer women undergoing abortion a similar level of informed consent already being provided for other medical procedures in Texas. I’m proud that Texas believes women are strong and smart enough to know the full truth before making such a critical decision. The only thing disappointing about the law is that it was even necessary at all.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Melinda Fredricks.
I'm suppose to believe that doctors everywhere are conspiring to hide information from women, and that republican lawmakers are here to the rescue? Please. Stop telling doctors how to do medicine, scientists how to do science, and teachers how to teach.
Now that's "hands off government"!
If it's such a helpful law, then why does it need guns to enforce it?
It's the Republican way. Guns make EVERYTHING better! You didn't know that when Republicans die and go to heaven they get an AR-25, all the ammo they can shoot and bacon... lots of bacon.
Mistyped. AR 25 should have been AR-15.
There was a time that Texans believed in people living their own lives free from government interference. And when it comes to owning guns they apparently still do. But apparently they no longer think women are deserving of the same freedom they accord shotguns.
As a born and true Texas that served in the U.S. Navy and was highly decorated (which I am proud of) I am embarrassed for what our state has become in the last 30 years. I am ashamed we are the laughing stock of the nation with hypocrisy oozing from every orifice.
I am embarrassed about ego's that have gone from amusing, entertaining and innocent (A Once Proud Texas Branding & Tradition) to narcissism on a psychologically, medically and clinically dangerous level.
We have allowed evangelistic extremism to permeate throughout our once proud national presence. To see this once great state becoming shadows and shades or a type of religious extremism that destroyed thousands of lives in our country just a decade ago, I'm so, so saddened by what I have watched.
Yes, there was a time that Texan's we're some of the nicest, most hospitable, and friendly people you'd ever know. There were also savvy, well educated, a knew what was their business, and what wasn't. We were different then.
This type of law would have been laughed out of the State Legislature long before it arrived. Texan's we smarter than hat. They never disguised or try to swindle or deceive, they'd tell you straight out. Whether it resonated with you or not, you'd still get the truth, and done kindly.
My God we have so changed for the worse. For those who did not know Texas, or Texan's 30 years ago, you missed one of the truly great people of this country that used to live here. I miss that Texas.
Wow, thanks for that perspective. It's powerful for it's sincerety. It is also sad in a way, there is a sense of loss in what you shared. Thanks again for this powerful perspective.
My beloved grandparents were from Texas, too, and they would be aghast.
Women are less important there than the right to carry any type of weaponry.
If so called 'informed consent' is ALL the Republicans are looking to do, why not just give a form to the women explaining what will happen specifically in an abortion and have her Initial and sign it?
I believe she knows that already and doesn't need to have her face rubbed in it like a dog that has pooped on the floor.
Nobody reads those. They just sign them. (but I am against the law. They should stick to ultrasounds, or at least let the woman waive the procedure. But I hate the idea of abortion and hope that women would choose a different option).
This lady's article is weak and lacks logic.
Thought I'd post a question. I'm pro-choice, but have an issue I haven't resolved. Please don't chew me apart, this is a real question.
At some point late in fetal development, the mind/consciousness of an unborn fetus is not significantly different from that of a new born baby. Once a fetus reaches this state (I admit I have no idea when this might happen), does a woman's right to choose start to give way to the right that a new conscious human has to not be destroyed?
Of course thats a question no one can answer. However, I think every medical expert would agree that the state you refer to doesnt happen at 12 weeks, which is considered the "limit" of elective abortion.
Yes, I have assumed it is fairly late in pregnancy.
Laws vary from state to state regarding late term abortions. Generally speaking, it is illegal to abort a fetus once it is considered to be viable (can live outside the womb) at around 24 weeks.
I was unaware of this; I had thought late term abortions were legal in many, if not all, states.
That is an interesting question. Which of course I can't answer. But, it brings to mind aspects of law. There is precedent in many areas of law that when you wait too long to enforce your rights, it becomes too late...statue of limitations or adverse possession for example. At what point has the fetus been in the woman long enough for it's legal rights to potentially supercede the right to an abortion? Is the ever difficult to define point of personhood the measure? Is it a period of time determined where a reasonable woman should have exercised her right to abortion...and once passing that point the right is effectively waived in favor of the fetus/baby? Or since it is happening to the woman's body should her rights never be superceded by the fetus/baby? I know I am kind of babbling, but it is an interesting perspective to consider. FYI, I am against abortion, but I am also against attacks like this texas law on individual rights. As you can guess, I have a lot of intellectual battles in my head.
Reasonable reply; thank you.
I have a very liberal friend who became quite irate when I tried to address this question concerning a possible loss of a woman's right to choose in certain instances.
Read Roe v Wade. The SCOTUS thought about this and decided that in the 1st trimester the woman's right to privacy trumped the states rights to protect the fertilized egg/ zygote/ fetus. In the second trimester the state started to get some rights, as the fetus is starting to develop the cognitive capability of a person. In the third trimester the states interests in defending the life of a nascent person trumps (the fetus) the rights of the mother. Somewhere in that third trimester, pretty close to the time of birth, the fetus has enough cognitive organization to become potentially self-aware, i.e., a person.
Roe v. wade was actually superceded by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Viability is the new standard because everyone knows that viability never changes with new science. (sarcasm). And an unviable baby has no right to life just because it needs help to live. (sarcasm again).
...nobody expects the Texas inquisition ! Growing up in Austin I heard this a lot : "That's a nunya question , nunya business".
It's especially true regarding decisions made by a woman regarding this issue. Regarding the 21 women in the Texas legislature , I submit to you that the only difference between them and their male counterparts is purely anatomical . Frightening times indeed. I would suggest a better use of your time ( and our money) would be funding legislation for research into rectal cranial corrective surgery you so desperately need...Doonesbury is spot on , which is why so many papers have either moved it to the editorials or refused to run it altogether...you simply can't see in print how foolish and pathetically backward thinking you are.
*raises the question
Under international law it is considered rape. Then again, since when does Texas care about law or decency?
It is nothing like rape. It is such an easy and painless procedure that comparing it to rape belittles the pain of women who have suffered rape.
Only people in Texass that have any true grit, toughness or guts are in El Paso, not to mention morals. The rest of the state are overweight, over ego'd, overly racist, lowly educated, trigger happy good ole boys and girls that couldn't spell their name right unless a Mexican immigrant showed them how.
And you're worried about these people? They are a declining population, in 10 years they will be replaced by the new comers from Mexico.
Please don't feed the troll (s)
has anyone here read the republican party of texas' platform?
here's a link, in case you want to: http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2010RPTFinalPlatform.pdf
texas – it's the lone star hate.
I believe this quote by C.S. Lewis sums up the abortion law in Texas:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
Before one side hates me or likes me too much, I have to state that I believe this quote also applies to Obamacare.
Good point. Good quote. ANd thanks!
But it fails to apply to the ACA. The ACA was about American self-interest and economic survival – it is untenable to continue letting the country sink, inexorably and inevitably – under the weight of ever increasing costs for ever diminishing care to fewer and fewer people.
The collateral benefit of more people having health coverage simply moved the problem to an orderly and cheaper form of care than the top-dollar, lowest effect emergency room care we have all been paying for for years anyway – framing it as being good for people is more for the selling of it than anything else.
It appeals to morality that way, but let us not fool ourselves. It's about money.
Wonder how she would like it if someone that she didn't want too straped her down, and did a medical procedure on her. This is the same as someone shoving something up a womans body (raping her ) against her will. Next they will start forcing invetro fertizilation on women.
Actually, it is a gentle and painless procedure, I know from experience. Comparing it to rape is insulting to the REAL pain of women who have suffered rape.
Did you agree to have the procedure or were you forced to against your will by your local government? Also was this after experiencing an ACTUAL rape that resulted in a child you didn't want?
Elizabeth, I know you did not intend that comment to be obscene, but it was.
Rape is rape. It's gentle and painless when someone is unconscious from a roofie, too. But it;'s still RAPE.
Do it if you will and legally can, Elizabeth – but don't do it and call it something other than it is.
The least the women can surely ask is to be victimized by honest rapists.
Right wing spin and drivel designed to distract fronm theinaked intent to harrass women who are making a decision that ultra right wing theocratists don't approve of. Rational republicans (and yes We know your still out there shuddering in your countyr clubs) you need to get on this quick berfore whats left of your credibility.
Thank Buddha I don't live in Texas.
Question: Are you legislating a medical procedure that is not medically necessary?
If the answer to this question is yes, then I cannot listen to any so called logic that you may use to try to back it up.
So I hear her say that "Hey, the procedure is already very bad, so why should women mind if we make it just a bit worse and spread it out over two days?" She is happy if her views are pressed on the public; I'd be happy if a certain amount of education were a prerequisite to hold a public office. I think it would disqualify many current office holders.
Not just education; IQ tests are sorely needed. Its OK if she disagrees with me, but the lack of logic in this article shows a serious lack of intelligence
"Want an abortion? Then I'm going to jam this wand up your hoo-haa for no medically necessary reason." No, that's nothing like rape.
Can you just imagine the hew and cry if, say, democrats passed a law requiring everyone in Texas to get a colonoscopy? It's a mental health issue– only way to find their brains.
These women showed up to get an abortion of their own volition, to kill their own child, and you think it's like forcing someone to get a colonoscopy? get real.
JustData again I challenge you to provide a well thought out, principled rationale for your position. Thus far all you have shown is your ability to parrot RNC talking points. If you want to engage in discourse then use your brain: think and communicate original thoughts, not RNC talking points. Parroting is not discourse. Your intellectual cowardism is shining through.
JustData again I challenge you to provide a principled rationale for your position. Thus far all you have shown is your ability to parrot RNC talking points. If you want to engage in discourse then use your brain: think and communicate original thoughts, not RNC talking points. Parroting is not discourse. Your intellectual cowardism is shining through.
He can't. You could put that to him 20 times, and he still would not be able to. Some people are only capable of parroting. Let him go in peace...there is nothing you can say that would outlast the next Fox newscast anyhow
I am against abortion. But I would never tell another woman she could not access her health care unless my personal political agenda was fulfilled.
I am against the death penalty. But I would never tell a family of the victim of the person that suffered a crime they don't have a right to health care unless they went through some medical procedure that demonstrates how the person being put to death feels.
I am against sending our men and women to war to die for a cause based on oil. But I wouldn't tell the family of a soldier that passed away they couldn't receive health care if they didn't go through a video of what it's like to die as a soldier.
This poor, poor, misguided woman.
Great post, right on point!
Texas is a twisted state. Just a mess. This is just another issue why the independents will come out by the trainload to vote against the GOP. I'd like to sue both the democrats and republicans for gross failure to provide candidates who are legitimate and intelligent enough to move the country forward in a bipartisan way. SMDH.
It is not the GOVERNMENT'S place to dictate medical procedures. EVER.
I second that!!!!
Or pay for them. If I have to right checks to the government it will not include paying for abortions. . . .
...but presumably your check will include money for wars, capital punishment, subsidies for oil companies, and a thousand other things that destroy lives and livelihoods.
....or pay for ability to learn how to spell.
Snowyowl: I would gladly pay for a case of bullets for capital punishment. We currently pay 90,000 dollars a year to maintain each of over 3000 inmates on death row. We average three appeals and 20 years of incarceration after conviction. The millions wasted maintaining murderers could do a lot of good for the rest of society.
I hear what your saying about not forcing an average Joe to pay for something like abortion that he doesn't believe in or is even counter to their religious beliefs. Now if I could just get a refund on the pro-death agenda pursued in the Iraq War that is against my Catholic religion I would gladly use that money to defend a woman's right to chose.
JustDad: "you would gladly pay for a case of bullets" to support the death penalty. So you validated what I said in our previous exchange (That you didn't have the courage to respond to). You support the death penalty. Do you support our wars, or our healthcare system that kills people by rationing lifesaving treatments in the name of corporate profite? Here is the problem: the definition of murder is "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". In other words it is only murder if the law says it is murder. Quite the contrary, Killing in war, the dealth penalty and ABORTION are sanctioned by law. There is legal precedence that the taking of a human life CAN BE SANCTIONED BY LAW and unfortunately for you abortion is legally sanctioned. Again I will challenge you to walk away from the RNC soundbites and challenge you to respond with a principled, well thought out rationale for your position.
JustData, then I don't want to pay for the war in Afghanistan! Can I get a refund on my portion? In all seriousness, that isn't how it work and I think that you know that. Everyone is paying for something that they don't like or agree with with their tax dollars. Hell, I disagree with the IRS. Can I get a refund of my taxes that pay for the operation of the IRS? Of course not! Can I demand that the government eliminate the IRS because little 'ol me thinks that our tax system is flat out wrong? No way! Grow up, put on your big boy undies. The world doesn't revolve around you and your fragile ideology.
Very smart. Good for you.
JustDad, are you illiterate? "right checks"? Do you mean "write checks"?
Ms. Fredrick's logic is serious flawed. She likes to ignore the fact that the procedure she notes from the Planned Parenthood describes what is involved from the service the women are seeking. The procedure by law in Texas now is unwanted and unwelcome by the women seeking an abortion.
For a party that talks so much about getting the government out of your life, they sure want to get right in the middle of your business, literally. Trudeau's strips on this topic have been right to the point.
And i remember a statement I read years ago. I don't recall the author, but it stuck with me for years: If a man could get pregnant, then abortion would be a sacrament.
Its funny, the GOP seems to want MORE government regulation of my private life (which hurts no one else) and LESS regulation of corporations (which can cause tremendous harm to millions of people). I don't see how they can overlook this insanity.
your eloquence is much appreciated.
Clipping this from a post I made earlier in this thread. The Republican agenda is nothing more than an attempt by the party of "smaller, less intrusive government" to prove that they don't mind more government intrusion in our lives so long as it is a government that supports and advances their agenda. The Republican party is all about controlling how we live and the choices available to us in our lives and I am not just talking abortion. Education, religion, helathcare, you name it the Republicans are all about controlling it and you.
Nope.... Trudeau is EXACTLY right!!! Sorry you freaky nutcase lady... I don't know what your problem is or how it is you submit to the stupidity of the men in your life that tell you to things against your own interests... but this IS RAPE. Why do you want to drag women back into the dark ages? why do you hate children so much that you enjoy watching them live in poverty? Why do you get your kicks out of watching a disabled child live in hell? YOU are the sick one!!!
Well, so you are advocating the murder of children after they are born, if they are disabled?
Yes, we're headed for a conflict. We're really two separate countries, now.
Did you support the wars in Iraq? Do you support the war in Afghanistan? Do you support the death penalty? Do you want to preserve our current healthcare system? A system that kills people by rationing access to lifesaving treatments in order to preserve insurance provider profits.
The definition of MURDER is: "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". So since war, the dealth penalty, healthcare rationing and ABORTION are all allowed by law, they are NOT MURDER. If you want to make your own definitions then should we define any taking of human life as murder? If not why does it only apply to abortion? Again I challenge you to provide rationale and a comprehensive thought process that supports your position rather than simply spouting the RNC party line.
Not to worry Jack, you and your type will be replaced by the Mexican immigrants in less than 10 years in Texas and you'll have virtually no political power. But you can always move, the Mexican's will help you.
The whole abortion issue has nothing to do with the lives of the unborn. The Christian Right would sooner cut all public health care to young women, not giving a rip whether they and their children, even their unborn fetuses perished. It is all a cover for a moral crusade against women acting "immoral" out of wedlock. They are fighting against the "moral decay" of society. There may even be some kernel of truth to their position, but they are as much a part of the moral fragmentation, as exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, as anyone else, maybe even more so.
It's mostly about power.
Divide and Conquer. True.
Watch out – that old white bogeyman will get you. What a load of crap. Defending the unborn is a war against women, where potentially half of those unborn are female? Please...
It is truly said that a rigid ideology does indeed make a fool of the ideologue. in this case, Ms. Fredricks has put her loyalty to Republican ideology ahead of both her femininity and her good sense.
How ideological of you.
As long as Texas fights against abortion–and at the same time executes people by the truckload–it will always be the most hypocritical of ANY state.
Oh, I get it. It's okay to kill a helpless baby, but for a convicted murderer/rapist/kidnapper, that's immoral.... Do I have that right?
There is no hypocrisy to defending the life of an innocent baby, but I see a big pile of it trying to reason that an innocent child can be slaughtered willy nilly while the rights of a vicious predator must be safeguarded at all costs.
The criminal is a person, and he may be innocent. There is no "baby" in question. But a zygote, embryo, fetus etc.
So yes, you are all hypocrites, not to mention you previous governor/president is responsible for over 200,000 deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan and none of you give a damn.
Zygote, embryo, fetus, whatever you wanna call it, it's still alive.
What you advocate is not about the babies.
Clearly, if it were, you would give a thought to them five minutes after they are born. You would take equal exception to fertility clinics wherein lie countless frozen fertilized eggs.
This does not fool anyone beyond the borders of your social circle, my dear. It would be a good thing if you could get to the point where you are no longer fooling yourself.
Can't wait till the Mexican's take over Texas and vote out these poor misguided people. 12 years and that should do it.
Women had slowly been returning to the Republican party over the last 20 years. Note the past tense. Welcome back ladies!
And Texas does not even care if they are guilty. Texas is suspected of executing at least one innocent man and probably more.
I didn't even know Trudeau and his cartoon were still around, but then I haven't read a newspaper in quite a while. The right may be hypocritical to infringe on a woman's right to choose, but the left is just as hypocritical for being okay with our abortion culture. This is a complex issue, and both sides could search for better answers than the tired old rants or cheap shots like Trudeau's.
'...our abortion culture.'
Far more births than abortions happen.
We're fifty million short, dude. One out of three.
42 million abortions since Roe V. Wade. Current U.S. Population: 250 million. Roughly 1 in five babies killed. .. .
The numbers are quite misleading since you have no idea how many people are alive today because previous unwanted babies were aborted and they were planned for.
@JustDad ... not to mention if you are going to count all the abortions since 1973 and compare it to the current population of the United Sates (300 million, BTW), you are comparing apples to oranges. You need to compare the number of abortions in that time period to the number of births in that time period. Lots of people born during that period are not now alive. Of course, it beats me all to hell why you think this statistic has some kind of deep meaning...
The WAR ON WOMEN sealed the fate of the GOP...
they already dug themselves a hole and now the sides are falling in with us looking down laughing....
knowing when the sand covers their heads, their last breath is coming.
Get religion out of politics... the only Modern country that this is in politics is the USA.... pathetic. fantasies have no place in politics
Blah blah blah WAR ON WOMEN blah blah RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS.
You have a way with received notions.
Your grandmother's generation would consider your beliefs illiogical, perverse, possibly insane.
But that's okay, because you're such a "progressive" and "evolved" bundle of... received notions.
My Grandmother's generation was significantly less educated than mine. Believed in religious nonsense to larger degree due to the lack of science and fact. I sure as hell hope I have a more advanced and informed view than her and that my grandchildren will have a more advanced knowledgeable and less religious life than mine. Over time since and fact displace religion and other fairy tales.
War on women? I dunno, considering many female children are being aborted, abortion sounds like a war on women too. Actually, it sounds like a war on babies.
Sorry lady. Go look up the international definition of rape. Your law requries that doctors rape women.
Geez... another post from someone who obviously didn't carefully read the article. How unique.
The World Health Organization defines rape as ‘physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration— even if slight– of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts, or an object.
Sounds to me like he read it just fine.
Where does it say a woman has a right to say "no" to the unnecessary procedure? It also doesn't point out that in most cases an aspiration abortion is unnecessary – a woman can CHOOSE to take a medication that induces an abortion.
You know NOTHING about medical procedure, do you Cinchy?? There is absolutely no need for an internal sonogram. External ones work just fine. There is NO purpose for this except to shame and rape women with a foreign object. NONE.
these type of people will never answer logic. It's their belief that ONLY they know the meaning of life, since ONLY their God is relevant in the world. And ONLY their interpretation of the God is relevant. They are lost, we can ONLY pray for them.
You know NOTHING about the law, do you, Julie? The required sonagram method is dependent on gestational age of the baby. Hey, IT'S A BABY, JULIE! Just LIKE YOU ONCE WERE!
The issue is consent. A penetration is rape if the woman doesn't consent to it. The same penetration is not rape if done with consent. What the Texas law does is force women to consent to a penetration they may not otherwise want in order to obtain a lawful medical procedure that they do want, without regard to whether the woman's physician believes the ultrasound is medically necessary to safely perform the abortion. If the Texas law only required the physician to offer the patient the opportunity for the ultrasound, there would be no issue. By mandating that a woman have a test she may not want, the Texas law goes too far. Trudeau may be a bit over the top, but his point is absolutely 100% valid.
The irony of the Right is the same people who are obsessed with wombs and the unborn are fighting to cut health care for impoverished women and place Medicare of the elderly under private insurance – vouchers. If they had their will how many young children and mothers would perish without the most basic health care and how many elderly would experience a social euthanasia, for what private insurance would actually cover the fragile aged.
That's a straw man. Just because the government starts running health care doesn't mean that automagically all health care issues are taken care of. It's taken forever for us to get WIC assistance from our state. Making more people dependant on the state is only going to make things worse, because eventually the state is going to run out of money.
Speaking of irony, isn't Melinda's law forcing people to rely on state-mandated procedures that really should only exist between the doctor and the patient? Might Texas run out of money as a result of this?
Without health care, public health care, people simply suffer and die. There is no straw man. That is a simple truth and reality, and if you don't believe it, go to places in the world, like impoverished areas of Africa, and see for yourself. We are all "dependent" on the government to protect us from many things, from terrorists to environmental pollutants. Public health care is just another cog in a well run society.
"The information they deserve"?!?! Seriously? The Republican agenda is nothing more than an attempt by the party of "smaller, less intrusive government" to prove that they don't mind more government intrusion in our lives so long as it is a government that supports and advances their agenda. The Republican party is all about controlling how we live and the choices available to us in our lives and I am not just talking abortion. Education, religion, helathcare, you name it the Republicans are all about controlling it and you. What a joke for CNN to bring in a Republican shill to do an "Op Ed" piece. This is not an op-ed, it is propaganda pure and simple.
If you want to murder someone, that's no one's business but yours.
Do we mind when we send our troops to murder our foes? Do we mind when our government puts our citizens to death with the death penalty? Do we mind when HMO's and PPO's murder their customers by with holding necessary treatments in the name of profit (i.e. GREED)? We should be very careful with the term 'murder', taken to it's logical conclusion, the notion that the very people who support laws such as this Texas law are the very same people who started and continue to advocate for our wars, believe in the death penalty and want to preserve our current healthcare system is baffling.
Well, Brian, we get to vote for our leaders, and they (rather imperfectly) represent our wishes. But abortion was decided by the black-robed liberal masters of the early 1970s
Jack, your response is so typical. You don't argue the merit of your point, instead you use fear and evoke the "boogey man". But you are incorrect. The Supreme Court became involved after religious conservatives decided to fight abortion through litigation. But let's assume for a moment that it was a "liberal leaning" Supremem Court, why then would the religious right decide to fight their case in a legal system that gives a "liberal leaning" Supreme Court the final say? The answer is logical and easy. Because the the court was not liberal and did not have a political agenda. Activist jurists are much more modern evolution and were simply not around during the abortion movement that lead to Roe v Wade. The leaders of the "pro-life" movement were not stupid, they would not have picked a fight that they knew they would lose. The reality is that the abortion movement was part of the establishment of a facet of our "social contract". It was driven by large social movements on both sides of the issue. The court merely ruled that a religious group could not force people to live by their morality. You spout the RNC line sir.
Brian, you're dividing everyone as either Republican or Democrat with no variation in belief. Not everyone agrees with one side or the other completely.
Its so refreshing to hear a comment that indicates someone is capacity capable of things likeyou nuanced thought and the ability to differentiate...good going!
Shortround, you are incorrect nowhere in this post did I say this. What has been present in my posts is the very real fact that the abortion issue has been driven by party politics with the Democratic and Republican party (At least since Roe v Wade). I challenge you to find one statement from me that states or implies that all persons in the U.S. are Republican or Democrat. I have flatly stated that Republicans and Democrats have very obious and predictable biases that run strongly down party lines. The two are not the same thing. Sorry but Independents and non-voters aren't in play when you talk the politics of abortion.
Shortround, after reviewing my posts please connect the dots. Where did I even say the word "Democrat"? I did not. I spoke of the Republican agenda, in response to an op-ed by an author who was identified as a REPUBLICAN FREAKING OPERATIVE by the editors!!!! Are you daft man? That is called "topical"... look it up.
Thank you Brian, it could not have been better said. This woman is the definition of "Tool".
In addition as the Republicans fight to maintain the status quo on healthcare, they play a double game (Presumably for the healthcare lobbyist who help fund their campaigns). While on the one hand they talk about fiscal responsbility, cutting budgets and securing the future of our country for our children; on the flip side they promote a healthcare system that will be the ruin of this country. The most expensive healthcare available is emergency room services. Our current system drives the uninsured to use the E.R. as their primary care physicians. Why do the rest of us pay so much for medical services? Because we have to cover the loses the hospitals incur from treatment of the uninsured. If we all had insurance, everyone would have access to much cheaper services through primary care physicians. The Republicans are playing a boondoggle on the country and too many of the undereducated sheeple simply cannot comprehend what is happening in front of their very eyes. It's all about the $$$$ people, get wise.
We need to quit forcing hospitals to treat the uninsured. . . obviously it is government that is driving up the cost by forcing doctors to treat people who cant pay to the tune of millions.
Since "JustDad" for some reason does not have a "reply" button on his post, I'll respond here. So should we just leave people to die in the streets. To rot and waste away. Is that what the "greatest nation in the world" aspires to be? Do you think that they "have nots" will simply lie down to die so you can have more of your precious money? People survive, it's what we are wired to do. The meek outnumber the priviledged significantly. You can pay willingly and have a voice in the discourse or they will take it from you... by force if necessary. In a civil society we take care of our weak, our poor, our downtrodden. To do less is to be no better than the enemies that seek to harm us and tear us down. Also, let's not forget that the Republican party has wrapped itself in the Chrisitian flag and I must say that I have to believe that your and Republican sentiments would likely evoke the same ire and derision from Jesus that he showed for the money changers in the temple. For shame sir! You have lost your way. You are blinded by your own pride, selfishness and greed. You are an embarrassment to decent human beings.
Brian: we are the nation with the greatest debt, because we somehow think someone else will always pay our bills. It's not heartless, it's math. Our system will collapse and a massive death toll will happen because people like you are easily convinced to vote for things like Obama care that cost multiple times what politicians say they will and the country goes deeper in debt.
We are a notion of great debt. That debt is primarily fueled by three factors: Social Security, Madicare and the wars. The cost of the wars is a fraction of the cost of Social Security and Medicare. But the cost of healthcare to the insured has NOTHING to do with government debt. It is passed on to insurance companies and through them to us in the form of higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles. It is pushed to employers throught the cost of employer healthcare benefits. By ensuring that every American has healthcare insurance we would REDUCE the cost of healthcare to levels below what we have today. By driving people away from E.R.s and into PCP offices, we eliminate the losses that hosptials are incuring that are drving the insanely high cost of hospitilization. It also gives people access to early and preventative care, which again is much cheaper than treatement of a disease once it has become so bad that someone seeks treatment at an E.R. Finally abortions, as distasteful as it is; is more cost effective than the lifetime cost for healthcare for a child who is wanted and will be taking services from the State for their lifetime. Finally, you make a large assumption when you say that I have voted or will vote for Obama. Did I ever say that? Just because someone disagrees with you they are a tree hugging liberal? Typical. JustDad you are one of the sheeple that April spoke of. You offer sound bytes as solutions with no rationale or reason to support them. For those of us on the inside of the political "game" this is a clear signal that your "opinion" is nothing more than RNC talking points.
Regarding JustDad's bogus assertion that we are the nation of "greatest" debt, this is misinformation and plain wrong. China is the nation of greatest debt. They manipulate the numbers by hiding the majority of their debt through how the STATE CONTROLLED banks report their assets and holdings. If you take ALL of China's debt, their Debt to GDP ratio is more than 150%. By contrast, the last numbers that I saw for America's Debt to GDP ratio was somewhere in the 75% range. Half of Chinas debt ratio. My lord JustDad, go do some actual research and stop reprinting what you read from Fox News or RNC mailers. I suppose you also believe that China is the largest holder of American debt. They are not. They hold less than 5% of our debt notes. The Social Security Trust Fund and State Pension Funds hold over 60% over America's debt notes. So why is Social Security in trouble? Because Congress continues to dip into the funds that were set aside to fund Social Security. Think about that. More than 60% of our national debt was paid by AMERICAN TAX PAYERS! We have already paid it! JustDad, it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people assume you are an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Trust, this misinformation artist knows exactly that she is spreading cow chips on the pasture. That's how they do it down in Texass.
My question is who pays for the extra doctor visits and ultrasounds?
And who pays for the coerced pregnancy? If something goes wrong and the woman dies from the coerced pregnancy, can her family sue? If something goes wrong during this coerced pregnancy and the woman can no longer have children can she sue on behalf of her future unborns that will never be born because the state of Texas coerced her into having this pregnancy. Are you forming a DNA database for all men 14 years and older, so that the father of the unborn pays for his share of this coerced pregnancy? For as long as Texas is forcing tests on women they might as well take the DNA of the unborn, so we force the father to pay his fair share.
Actually we should get the DNA of all male babies at birth (when they take a blood sample for medical testing). Whenever any new baby is born the baby's DNA will be compared to all the male DNA on file. The male DNA that matches the newborn's is now financially responsible for that newborn until it has reached legal age. That should make the Tea Party happy that the financial aspects of raising a child won't be a burden on the government.
There is no getting out of it. If the mother is harmed, the matching male DNA to the baby will be hauled in as a suspect. That should make the liberals happy because the mother is protected.
I'm a guy, and yet still this all seems very simple to me...
If I were a woman, and wanted an abortion, right frikken now then these conditions are what I want:
* I don't want to wait 24 hours, I want to walk in that clinic IMMEDIATELY, talk with the doctor, and get the procedure done...
* I want the doctor, without using any invasive procedure, to warn me about any and all complication TO MY BODY that may result from either having, or not having, the fetus removed.
* I want to be told that there is a procedure that lets me see the fetus IF I WANT TO, otherwise, the only thing I want stuck in there is what will be used to remove the fetus (and all that entails), and that is ALL...
* I DON'T want an ethics lesson pertaining to a LEGAL procedure...(it's no one's business except my own)
* Ande, I DON'T want ANY extra laws passed that MANDATE an absolutely unnecessary invasive procedure that allows my consent, concerning my body (and specifically my s.e.x organs), to be over-ruled.
That's it! Nothing else is valid, in my mind...as long as what's inside on me is merely a non-autonomous extension of my own flesh... Ms. Fredricks needs to mind her own business... And if she feels so strongly that she needs to control a v.a.g.i.n.a other than her own, then she needs to get busy cloning one that she can rule over any way she pleases....
If men could get pregnant they would have had all of that centuries ago.
I love it when people bring up the fact that abortion is legal. That's great, but you know what? Slavery was legal. The holocaust was legal. The inquisition was legal. The gulags were legal. Legal doesn't mean right.
The Holocaust was legal??? Are you @$@ing kidding me? What planet are you from?
Well thank you Scott for saying....absolutely NOTHING. We are a nation based on the rule of law. Why don't you grow a pair and just say what is really on your mind...though I'm sure I already know what that is. I'll be waiting Scott.
I'm from earth. Yes the holocaust was legal. It was sanctioned by the nazi government, bright one. Slavery was sanctioned by the US government for a long time (and the same premise used to defend it as to defend abortion on demand, I might add). The inquisition was sanctioned by the Spanish government. Paul, I find your posturing ironic – if what I said was nothing, they what you said was a black hole. I'm not sure I can make it any simpler. Many things have been legal – that doesn't make them right.
But legal does mean legal and abortion (on demand) is allowed in the US. IF you wish to work for changes in the law then by all mean do so but not buy end run around the law to enforce your luddite views. You may feel it is not what you would do and you have the right not to have the procedure.
I am trying to change the law. Abortion should be illegal except in cases where the mother is going to die unless the baby is removed (eg. ectopic pregnancy).
Do the men withe the long coats know you are on the computer. . . .back away. . .
Wow "Just Dad"!!! What an informed and thoughtfl reply to my simple, point-by-point comment.... Your reply was SO convincing to me that I've TOTALLY changed my mind about the whole subject! I can't wait until your first book comes out... Oh,...wait a minute....that's right,...you're a M O R O N...
Nevermind,...you can crawl back in you own b.u.t.t.h.o.l.e and disappear now...
Is there state sponsored requirements for other legal medical procedures? Like breast enhancement or liposuction? Does Texas require that a man gets a prostate exam before he embarks on viagra or cialis? What if you dye your hair like Melinda. Does Texas demand that she gets a rundown on the carcinogens in hair dye? How about the air pollution in Houston. When you buy a house there, does Texas demand that the owners list all the lung disease associated with Texas air? Does Rick Perry stop you at the border and warn you how bad the Texas school system is?
The point missed by most is that pregnancy is not an illness and references to obligations doctors have when treating illnesses do not apply. Same as when a person goes to a doctor for a face lift. The doctor's obligation is to provide a service, elected by the customer, to the best of his or her ability. The election to have the face lift or the abortion is the customer's option. As the madam at the Lagrange Chicken Ranch told Marvin Zindler when he asked what she was doing, said 'the answer to that question did not fall into the category of things which were any of his business'.
So an abortion is analogous to a face lift? Seriously? This lack of wisdom and maturity is why motorcycle helmet and seat belt laws are needed. Some people, unfortunately, are unable to make sound judgments. You're one of them.
Yes it is in that it is my business and prerogative, not yours.
Ad hom, nothing more. Zero content post.
Yes, an abortion is analogous to a facelift in the sense that they are both elective procedures. The analogy breaks down when an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother or in the case of rape or incest. We require seat belts, etc., not because people are immature but because the use of them saves society huge costs. Who is immature and not very thoughtful?
Murder is none of your business.
So a woman's body becomes is no longer hers once she's pregnant? Hypocrites. Get out of women's bodies. Get out from between women and God. Get out of women's homes and bedrooms. Go back to your own home, and look to your own salvation.
Straw man. I don't care what a woman does with her body. I do care if she wants to kill an innocent person, no matter their stage of development.
Not a person. Saying it doesn't make it magically happen. That's like saying I abort my fingernails when I trim them.
"Oh, but mr. liberal, the zygote is geneticaly unique"
tell that to all the identical twins out there (fingernails)
Did you support sending young men to their deaths in the illegal and unnecessary Iraq war? It's usually the case that anti-abortion types screaming bloody murder for the "unborn" but pull out their pom poms to cheer the death penalty or war. Just sayin'.
Michael, if saying so doesn't make it so, then why do you insist on saying not a person? Does that make it so? What does trimming your fingernails have to do with this? Your fingernails will always be fingernails – with our current genetic makeup, they will never develop into a person. A zygote is a developing human being. You're trying to squirm around the fact that a zygote is a developing human being.
So are all the embryos in a transplant lab that get tossed in the garbage. So is every teratogen (look it up). A "developing human" is not a person. A 1st trimester fetus has no intention, feels no pain, is unaware that it has interests and that those interests can be effected by others, and never has had these capabilities. One out of every five 1st trimester fetuses is spontaneously aborted. Should we have funerals for all of these "people"?
even identical twins have different genetics due to mutations during development.
Wow! Thank you so much for providing such excellent healthcare to abortion seekers, Melinda Fredericks! You are truly a pro-choice activist!
Trudeau is right and Melinda Fredricks is the one who is wrong.
why shouldn't people get the same pre-surgery information they would get from any other surgical procedure?! the only reason you would be against this is because you'd like to forget that "part of your own body" that you are getting rid of is actually someone else's body!
You hit the nail on the head.
Abortion wrong execution good? What is the difference?
One is innocent, the other has deliberately taken innocent human life. I don't see why that was so difficult.
There is a HUGE difference between "being allowed to get" a procedure that provides information, and "being forced to take" a procedure that provides information... The moment any law forces you to undergo a very intimate, invasive medical procedure to your genitals there is a GIGANTIC problem...
If you guys can't see that, then either you are willfully being obtuse, or you are incredibly s t u p i d.
Which is why Fredricks is a lying POS when she tries to claim the whole point is merely to provide information where no information exists before. Thats nonsense, and we all know it, including her. The whole point is to try to use emoition to stop a woman from making her choice, pure and simple, to claim otherwise is an outright lie.
You're a liar if you say its not a shaming rod.
YOU SOUND LIKE AN 8 YEAR OLD. INFORMATION ABOUT THE BABY YOU WILL KILL BEFORE YOU DO IT SOUNDS IMPORTANT TO ME.
Hey, JustDad,...grow a v.a.g.i.n.a and in internal incubation chamber, then maybe you'll be able to grow a REAL opinion that you'll be able to convey without all-caps,....m o r o n...
so is an attempt at shaming then justdad? glad we cleared that up
"...that it took an act of the legislature to give women considering an abortion the information they deserve about this medical procedure."
Pardon me, Ms. Fredricks, but what planet do you live on? Name me ONE woman today that doesn't know what a pregnancy is, what an embryo is, and what a fetus is. It's shameful that you choose to become an apologist for the most anti-sense legislation aimed at women. May I remind you, Ms. Fredricks, that Governor Perry himself has been quoted as saying that this legislation serves ONE purpose only, and that purpose is NOT "information: it is to dissuade women from having an abortion. Shame on you!
Do people like you really exist, or are you imaginary? Whew. You are seriously trying to claim that most pregnant women are well educated about what it means to be pregnant, and what it means to have an abortion? What color is the sky in your fanciful world of make believe?
Maybe if Texas didn't push abstinence programs. They cause the problem they are trying to invasively fix. It's a merry-go-round of retardation.
What does "well-educated" mean in your fantasy world...that a woman knows every possible piece of medical information? A woman has already considered the various options before going to a doctor to obtain an abortion. This legislation does nothing about the "health" of the woman; instead, its only purpose is to delay that procedure as long as possible. It is intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
So you vote Republican to make gov't smaller, to get it out of your life except that it needs to be in the uterus of every woman who seeks a procedure allowed by law? Typical.
MY GOD YOU CANT POSSIBLE THINK THE MAJORITY OF THESE WOMEN GETTING ABORTIONS ARE WELL EDUCATED UPPER MIDDLE CLASS CAN YOU? MOST ARE POOR AND IN DENIAL , OR BELIEVE THE LIBERAL LINES THAT A EMBYO IS "LIKE A TUMOR" GROWING INSIDE YOU UNTIL IT SPRING FROM YOUR BODY SUDDENLY AN INDEPENDENT LIFE FORM. . . .
Sir or madam: you have so many cliches and generalizations in one caps-locked paragraph...
I'll take one: "poor and in denial"...how do you know this? You have data? Of course you don't.
"Just Dad" is an all-caps ignoramus...
Sam, I did a study of Planned parenthood's annual reports for two of the major cities. Have you? Also if you cross reference the list of services provided and what is paid for you quickly come to the conclusion BY PP's own numbers, that the majority of women who go there have already had a home pregnancy test, know they are pregnant, and go there seeking an abortion. Almost none are referred for adoption. Please get an education before you claim my statements are "cliche". sometimes "cliche" is right on the money.
Jadugara: Nice name. Sorry caps lock was on and I did not notice. Anything to contribute Einstein?
Where do you get your information about what economic class of women get abortions. The facts are that women of all economic levels seek abortions. You only get the count of the poor women because they are on Medicaid. How come most of the people who talk about no abortion are men? Are you willing to take a child that the parent(s) didn't want and raise them or just put them in the system. No one should be allowed to tell anyone (male or female) what they can do with their bodies. So much judgement from people who don't know what it means to a woman to have an abortion; it is a heart wrenching decision.
you can provide us with the citations for these reports that suggest the majority of the 3 million people served by PP each year go for abortions right?
Hey, "JustDad", you say that the women who show up at Planned Parenthood have already had a home test and already know they are pregnant and just come for the abortion?? So, what? She knows what she needs and knows what she wants. Why should Planned Parenthood be referring her to adoption agencies in this case?
Rita: It should be a gut wrenching decision to end your pregnancy, it is life. I have known several young people whose lives were changed forever because of the feelings of guilt after they matured and realized that they could have had a beautiful child to love and love them. It's a traumatic event. I bought into the lines of the abortion clinics when I was in college 25 years ago, and knew two women specifically that lost their "spark" of life after their abortions. One could no longer have kids and became terribly depressed, another had planned to continue her career after her "problem was solved" but was changed by what she did . It's not worth it. One day, you will look at a child and realize what you did.
@JustDad As long as we are trading anecdotes. I have known dozens of women who have had abortions and were just fine. Went on to have productive, fulfilling lives. Some had children later, some didn't. I have also know many women who have decided not to have abortions and regretted it. Some of their stories are quite tragic: children born with horrible deformities who only lived a brief few months, or, to my mind, worse, children born with, for example, CF, who suffered all their lives only to discover in their teens that they would never make it to their 21 birthday. Anecdotes are just anecdotes.
republicans have constantly misinformed the public that the federal health care bill had the government interfering in the relationship between doctor and patient. that is precisely what this texas law does.
Take 30 seconds a write a post that refutes anything Frederick's mentions in her article. Are you simply a troll?
No, but you're a sheep following the masses of misinformation.
The Bill itself refutes her.
Well for starters, she claims that because something is approved by the FDA it is appropriate for use in every case. We all know this isn't true (I hope). Morphine, Fentanyl, Methamphetamine, and Cocaine are all approved by the FDA for one reason or another. However, every time someone is in pain, they don't receive morphine or fentanyl, every time a child is diagnosed with ADD, he doesn't receive methamphetamine, and every time your eye hurts, you don't get cocaine. Just because something is approved by the FDA in some cases, it is not appropriate, and often times detrimental if used in every case. This is just some of the misinformation the author has used in her article.
The bill itself refutes her. Also, Perry's own words recently to a group of ministers, wherein he stated that the bill's only purpose was to dissuade women from having an abortion. That's TWO for you, and in under 30 seconds.
That's right David... hurl a taunt with no facts to make your point. Based on facts, logic, and analysis Fredericks wins this argument. Unless, of course, you actually have something substantive to say? I thought not.
LJ, abortion is not a trivial procedure. Mandating an examination, full of opt-out clauses, is hardly heavy-handed. In fact, not offering this procedure is irresponsible. Getting an abortion is not exactly analogous to prescription drug medication issues.
By the way, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that cost of Obamacare is going to double from original estimates – http://cbo.gov/publication/43076
I don't get why god fearing Christians aren't for healthcare, yet you're for regulating how Woman get abortions...even in cases of rape and incest. Republicans are hypocrites who use the very system they deplore. Obama or Romney Care – either way you're stuck with it....and I'm glad.
It's amazing how many Christians are against "feed the hungry, clothe the sick, and minister to the poor." You'd think that wasn't in the Bible as a charge given to Christians everywhere. It's no small wonder my Atheist acquaintances have indignation towards Texas Christians. My father had a word for the lot of you: Sunday Christians.
Jesus never said feed the poor with other people's money. He said do it yourself. I don't normally talk about my giving, but since no one here knows me personally, I will say it includes things like a water purification system for a village in Haiti and funding for a local battered women's shelter.
Thank you for this well-written piece. And thank you for speaking up for the unborn. Peace.
Nice deflection, since you don't live in Texas and won't have to suffer the consequences of this legislation.
Sorry – not intended to be a deflection. I believe that if women here in Illinois or anywhere else saw what was actually living in their wombs more abortions could be prevented. Thank you again, Melinda, for speaking up for the unborn. Peace.
well written ... perhaps. factually accurate ... ummmmmmm, no. not quite.
Meanwhile W. from Texas is responsible for over 200,000 of BORN people in the middle east. YEEHAAWW
Staying with the misinformation tactic she has so many times used in the past, Melinda Fredricks fails to note in her cleverly disguised tirade that provisions in the law have been deemed not legal by Judge Sam Sparks. He struck down provisions requiring doctors to describe the ultrasound fetus images to patients and that women should hear those descriptions. He determined this would violate free speech rights of both doctors and patients.
He also noted that " this provision compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen".
Sparks also struck down a requirement meaning women could only get around the provision if they signed a statement that they became pregnant because of s e x u a l a s s a u l t or i n c e s t.
He wrote that this would require women to disclose "extremely personal, medically irrelevant facts" that will be "memorialized in records that are, at best, semi-private". Medically irrelevant facts being the key phrase.
"[It] is difficult to avoid the troubling conclusion the Texas legislature either wants to permanently brand women who choose to get abortions, or views these certifications as potential evidence to be used against physicians and women," Judge Sparks wrote.]
Doctors found breaking the law could face a $10,000 fine and an automatic loss of their medical licenses.
All this and not to mention trying to legislate when a women can access or cannot access her medical heath care provider and it is totally unneeded for the procedure.
Melinda Fredricks, for those of us who know you, we know you're a talented misinformation artist and political game show host. But to do this, and attempt to portray it as something it isn't all the while knowing the facts. Well little Texas lady, it's time for you to retire to the pasture with the rest of the old Texas Cows that seek to advance a religious agenda while trying to disguise it as a legit medical procedure.
You have written a very well conceived reply to this divisive issue. I think anyone here that is "pro-life" will avoid responding to your post because they understand there is really no flaw in your argument. But with this people, they think a cluster of cells entirely dependent on a hosts body is somehow the same as a fully sentient human being. So, unfortunately there is no reasoning with them. We must reason with the rest of the population, those that actually use their minds instead of obeying orders from their clergy.
Though they aren't human, bacteria and many other cells and animals require hosts to live. Does that make them not alive? Biologically, they are. So what makes a human have less of a right to life than bacteria? Because it's more convenient for the mother? Adoption is always an option. Even in cases of rape or incest.
...that provisions in the law have been deemed not legal by Judge Sam Sparks..
With all the ranting about privacy rights, I'm surprised that no one seems to think about the rights of the unborn child. Yes, it's an unborn human being. It's not going to be a dog, a computer or a sammich. It just happens to be in the mother.
So the Pill is murder?
do explain medically how the pill is anything like an abortion?
The establishment of the notion of rights of a fetus is where you loose. It is not an independent living human and is part of the female host. Therefore the female host's rights take precedent over your rights to impose in favor of a fetus living off the female host. Until it crosses past the skin layer, the host/mother is GOD.
Wow your are one sick mother. A baby is not a baby until it comes out? You just stupid..... I have a masters and your statement is so stupid I cannot think of any better word for it......
My grandfather has advanced dementia. He is unable to care for himself in the most basic of tasks. My mother and uncle spend most of their time caring for him. He is in effect a pararsite. I suppose your solution would be to put him down since he is preventing my mother and uncle from being productive members of society. It's tragic that someone is so calloused (sic) about human life.
Scott: that argument is specious and intellectually dishonest, as it is a position NO ONE has taken at any time in this debate. But, beat that strawman all you want...
I had this thought while reading some of the nonsense on here. Prolifers are contending that life begins at conception because you, at that moment, have a unique genetic being, neither the mother, nor father.
So, that being their contention, everytime you see dust floating around your house, that's mostly composed of dead skin cells, if I scrape skin off my arm, no one would contend that this is abortion. Because, i'm still me, those are just cells. Now, everyone would also agree that if I killed my identical twin this would be murder...but, I'm still me. It's the same genetic material, not unique in a genetic sense as we came from the same egg/sperm. So what pray tell is the difference between scraping live cells off my arm, and killing my twin?
Is a chicken egg the same as a chicken?
If it's an "unborn human being" (by the way, an oxymoron if there ever was one!), then how can it be an "it"?
If you're going to argue about the validity of human life based on semantics, please don't go into the medical field.
I often abort my fingernails when the need trimming.
...Melinda Fredricks fails to note in her cleverly disguised tirade...
A state-mandated health procedure, authored by Republicans and voted on by religious fanatics. Welcome to Texas.
...tactic she has so many times used in the past,...
Staying with the misinformation...
Whatever your point is, just get it out in one post. You're not clever enough to pull off whatever it is you're aiming for.
regardless of how clever he is or isn't ... he's right.
It got YOUR attention, didn't it?
99.9% of the posts are negative towards Fredericks, and yet they don't incorporate facts or logic or analysis. Fredericks makes several focused points. Apparently they must all be accurate, because none of them were contradicted, or shown to be inaccurate. Instead, the responses are the same tired, exaggerated, general taunts that attempt to ignore the validity of some if not all of her statements. Again, my take is Fredericks wins this argument.
Totally agree. When libs cannot counter argue, they call names and mock. Whatever helps them sleep at night knowing they are responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent babies.
Yes. Nothing promotes a good night's sleep better than mocking and name-calling.
you mean: like calling those who disagree with you "libs," when you know nothing about them? Mr. Pot, meet Ms. Kettle.
Yeah, Rush and Bill O'Reilly sure do a lot of name calling..... wait a minute.
It's interesting that the texas legislature is forcing a medical procedure that is NOT necessarily needed. Sure, for some cases it may be needed, but shouldn't the doctors make that decision on a case by case basis. Forcing a person to get an invasive procedure where it adds risk (all procedures add some risk) is bad policy.
One word at a time again...UGH!
As late as the 18th century cultures took human life without any rational reason. Torture and the death penalty were the norm for anyone you didn't agree with. Today, we call that uncivilized behavior. We call it inhuman. Fortunately, the West only does this to babies and not adults. Islam does it to adults. The world is still barely civilized. Then we hear that there are Australian Academics who are suggesting that post birth kids can be eliminated. Now that is really scary – are we really becoming less civilized and inhuman?
Yes, because the left justifies the treating of human life as second rate in this case, just as the plantation owners justified the treating of human life as second rate in the 1800's.
Yup, plantation owners could quote the Bible to justify slavery. Maybe that's where America went wrong, being so un-Biblical as to outlaw slavery.
And yet Bible tells the story of God freeing slaves from Egypt. Not sure how it justifies slavery.
Someone offended by a Doonesbury comic, amazing CNN. What's your next hard hitting opinion piece? "Someone Actually Reads Family Circus...and Laughs".
Seriously? You can't recognize that this comic strip is a venue for a liberal pundit, and that it's understandable if a conservative pundit chooses to respond? What are you, a moron?
Ah the anonymity of the internet... freedom to be nasty to strangers, it's a beautiful thing.
...and Mallard Fillmore is anything more than a daily, thinly-vieled attack piece on Democrats and President Obama? Please, save your faux-outrage for Fox news and the Limbuagh "me-too" hour.
bet you would be offended if it made fun of the current president – oh wait – then you would be offended AND it would be racist!
The current president is much better than the last president.
Personally, I'll leave it to the doctors to ensure that a patient has all the necessary information for a given procedure. Politicians don't know squat about medicine, and shouldn't be allowed to prescribe. This is SPIN...and nothing else. In other words, it's the GOP telling lies again instead of confronting the FACTS! Get the government out of the bedroom and out of the Uterus. It belongs to another human...not the government!
Worst blog I've ever been on. I can't write anything that gets posted unless I chop it up so bad no one can understand it.
What are you talking about? Your 58 posts about some stupid judge are all over the place. Calm down.
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves. – Ronald Reagan
All this and not to mention trying to legislate when a women can access or cannot access her medical heath care provider.
Doonesbury did get it right. Trudeau was pointing out the absolutely idiocy of the law in Texas. Yeah sure Texas passed it, but I wonder if all the women in Texas really appreciate such a measure, and frankly if a woman wants to have an abortion it is HER CHOICE without manipulating her, against her will I might add, into going through all of these dumb procedures to sway her from having an abortion.
Here is an idea for you Ms. Frederick's, if you are against abortions, great grand that is your choice, DON'T ever have an abortion, but you do not have the right to manipulate and prevent other women from having an abortion it is their choice. You do NOT have the right to take away someone's choice in such a manipulative manner.
But you have the "right" to take away a life? Sad.
It's sad that your personal belief holds that a zygote, 20-week old fetus, or anything in between is just as alive as a person already born. You have nothing to back this up save the Bible (whoops: there's nothing in there about abortion!) and your own personal value system....that leaves your own personal beliefs, which are a poor foundation upon which to make laws about when a woman can and cannot have children.
I do not see it as a life. It is not living until it is born and taking its first breath OUTSIDE the mother. I see it as me being able to decide what I do with myself, not letting you or anything else make the decision for me. Would you prefer I tell you would to do with your body?
Let me put it to you this way, since the pro-birthers, because let's really be honest once the fetus is born you all do not care one iota what then happens to it post birth just as long as it is born, love to use the bible as their background and basis for being against abortion, let me remind you, the bible does say it is not life until God gives it breath. A fetus does not breath until it is outside the mother.
It's not about the babies.
If people want to save babies, there are thousand upons thousands of them, born and breathing on their own, who are desperate for love and care – who are starving, being neglected, beaten, abandoned. No one has to go digging into women's wombs to find babies to save.
It's about a lot of things, but not about the babies.
Somehow you seem brainwashed into the opinion that more information and 24 hours to think about the life inside you that you are ending is depriving someone of their rights. I suppose the 42 million unborn who have been murdered since Roe V. Wade deserved a moment or two of consideration, what rights did they have?
To answer your question, legally, NONE... Sorry "JustDad", but those fetuses are not "people" yet, and are not, as such, protected by the Bill of Rights...
They are a conglomeration of non-sentient, functional cells, just like any other organ in the woman's body, until they grow a brain capable of individual sentience, and a spinal cord capable of granting them autonomy over their own individual bodily functions...
Sorry dude... But, hey,...if I could magically transplant every aborted fetus into your body sothat you could endure the joys of unwanted pregnancy, I'd gladly do so... Hopefully that would relieve your i.d.i.o.t.i.c angst, and help you feel like you are doing your part to protect innocent lives...
"Doctor, I want my brain removed."
"I want to inform you that such a procedure will have a decidedly negative impact on your quality of life."
"Hey, I didn't come here for your information or opinion. It's my body; I have the right to do what I want with it."
"Sorry. I can't help you. You have no brain to remove."
Yet another strawman argument that has NOTHING to do with this discussion. Troll away...
I don't know what's funnier, your post or the pro-abortionists imploding...
Patient: I have a destructive disease that is actually killing me and I am in an extreme amount of pain and no medication will help me at all.
You as Doctor: Oh that is all right, the pain is part of it all, just let it happen, you are slowly dying, it is God's way.
Me in thinking: Let me be humane and end your pain. Euthanasia as long as it is a clear case of absolutes. 2-3 Doctors all agree, what is happening to you is terminal, your pain will never end, if it is your choice to let go, so shall it be done.
You: BAH let the person suffer with their terminal illness and pains. Jesus suffered for them, they can suffer for Jesus. Humanity, shamanity.
Nah, you are funnier. No one is imploding.
I am truly just curious, are you a Reopublican/Tea Partier person?
I am truly just curious, are you a Republican/Tea Partier person?
((sorry for double post, correcting spelling))
In the case of brain removal (did anyone ever see the movie "Soapdish" with Kevin Kline and Sally Fields, btw? Very funny):
The DOCTOR would decide to very explicitly describe the procedure and the consequences, as part of his/her duty as a physocian. And then they would have the patient committed. :)
But in any event, the State has no place dictating what goes on between doc and patient.
Liberals: "Our freedoms are being taken away!"
Aborted Baby: "Um.... what about my freedoms? Like my freedom to LIVE?!?!"
You do NOT get to speak for those fetuses. IF a woman wants an abortion it is HER choice not yours.
I am curious, are you a hunter, do you hunt or fish at all, eat meat?
Sharky, I hate to admit it, but you got my attention with the question about hunting or eating meat. I assume you are implying that Hansel is a hypocrite (or at least disingenuous) if he engages in those activities. I am curious, what is the reasoning behind that assertion?
You are not seriously trying to equate abortion with hunting and fishing, are you?
Yup I did. Did an animal choose to be killed, and in cases go extinct to service humans? We've become the most destructive species on the planet and to the planet. We have caused animals to go extinct. We have a serious human population problem on this planet.
Yes I did. I want you to tell me WHY you want to really think a human is more important than a non-human animal. Why are you that arrogant to believe we (humans) are more important than everything else on this planet? Good luck explaining that one.
Uh, Hansel, a clump of cells can't talk. It can't wave, can't kick, can't pull it's hair, can't do anything. Remove it from the womb and it dies. Sorry, Hansel, you don't get to make the decision for Gretel.
Really? Then you haven't looked at any of those sonograms. Yes, that "lump of cells" can wave, can kick, can suck its thumb. It amazes me that "pro-choice" gives NO choice to the child within the womb. Why the huge fear of women being given informed consent? If this "lump of cells" cannot do anything, seeing a picture of it will not alter the course of action.
Sounds as if you are advocating the extermination of all paraplegics. Kill 'em all, they're not going to have a good life and just be a drain on everyone else anyway.
Ok, you're a clump of cells that can talk. So what?
Tell us about how you remember having a monologue when you were in the womb.
Sharky: I'm actually a vegetarian. Nice try though.
Mom: Go google Gianna Jensen. Then tell me again how an aborted fetus is "just a clump of cells". More leftist ignorance.
Absolutely ridiculous. Try again. Get serious.
This is a great example of how liberals respond when they have no counter argument. Thanks for proving my point from earlier.
Hansel, I've noticed that quite frequently as of late when debating the feminazis (feminists who want as many abortions as possible). Oh, and don't ask them if they are glad their mother decided not to kill them. They get all kinds of upset and say it's none of your business. I guess that means they wish their mother had killed them instead.
a million spilled sperm: "what about us? We want a chance at life, where is OUR law?"
single ovum: "Ditto."
Since a tremendous number of people don't believe that fetal tissue at that stage IS a life, your argument is based solely upon an opinion, admittedly shared by many. So...this is a matter of opinion, and not medical fact. Fetal development in the early stages does not ensure a live birth, and if you believe in what the Bible says...way back in the beginning, it refers to Adam coming to life when God made him breath (the breath of life is the term used I think). So...using that as a reference...which is, to my knowledge the only specific reference to when life begins, the fetal tissue isn't alive.
We can debate or discuss religious dogma, and the opinions of people who knew absolutely nothing about medical science many many centuries ago, but let us not assume their lack of knowledge created Facts! At best, they created opinions, based largely upon their ignorance. In fact, on that basis, for a lot of people not much has changed in those intervening centuries.
Medicine has determined when life ends; how is it illogical for life to have a beginning?
You CLAIM that a fetus understands language, can speak, and can contemplate what an abortion is and then criticize me for "not having a counter argument" to such inane nonsense?
You certainly didn't do a lot of thinking on that one.
Why is it you assume that anyone who believes that a woman should make her own decisions about when to have children is a "liberal"?
I don't care (that is, putting legal authority behind it) when a woman has kids. I do care if she wants to kill them.
Those fetuses are not "people" yet, and are not, as such, protected by the Bill of Rights...
Jadugara: Talk about inhuman, YOU sound more inhuman than a fetus.
Oh look, a talking blob of cells.
Do you advocate putting down Stephen Hawing since his nervous system no longer functions normally?
Someday, when we are all finally free of religious oppression, evolved people will look back at this offensive and indefensible law with the same disdain we now see such actions as State sanctioned sterilization. And those same people will see Ms, Fredericks' comments as misguided dogma from an arcane portion of scoiety that condones the subjugation and objectification of more than 50% of out population. Wake up, Texas. Send these slavers a message and vote Nineteenth Century thinking out of Austin and back to Hell where it truly belongs.
LOL at your self righteousness.
It's hilarious that you compare this law to slavery when it is abortion that is actually closer to slavery. Think about this- slavery and abortion are both justified for more or less the same reasons; its my right to do what I want when I want and you can't stop me. If I want to own a slave, it's ok because they're not really a person. If I want to kill a fetus/baby, it's none of your business because they're not really a person. If you can dehumanize the baby growing inside the mother, then anything goes.
@Scott Twaddle. A person is a human being who is aware that he (she) has interests and that those interests can be effected by their surroundings (i.e., other people). A brain-dead human is not a person. A fetal-human is not a person. Do we have funerals every time someone miscarries?
My grandfather has advanced alzheimers. He isn't aware of what's going on around him most of the time. My uncle and mother spend most of their time caring for him. Are you advocating that my mother be allowed to put him down?
All these tests are going to be provided absolutely free by the doctors, right? Republicans certainly wouldn't increase taxes to pay for them.
you know, if a doctor tells a woman that it's medically necessary to do an ultrasound/sonogram, i don't have a problem with it cause, you know, it's a freaking doctor, and they probably know their stuff. i do however, have a problem with legislators, of either gender, telling a doctor what to do- because last i checked, legislators weren't required to go to med school. heck, this woman is complaining about doctors not meeting their patients until it's time for their appointment, but apparently it's totally cool for lawmakers to get a say without meeting the women at all. like, ever.
bonus points for why this is a terrible law? insurance won't cover an ultrasound that isn't medically necessary, which wasn't a problem when it was a doctor prescribing it. but unsurprisingly, insurance is a little more than hesitant to pay up when it's a lawmaker calling the shots.
combine all the the above with the fact that several states are working on laws that make it LEGAL for a doctor to lie to a pregnant woman about her fetus, and this whole "informed consent" faux argument just completely falls apart.
i feel so sorry for texas women.
Well, this Texas woman thinks you are super awesome! What a great comment. Trust me, there are sooo many Texans angry about this idiotic law. The larger Texas cities tend to run more liberal. It's only in the smaller towns and among the pseudo-Christian politicos that this law has a lot of support.
"this woman is complaining about doctors not meeting their patients until it's time for their appointment, but apparently it's totally cool for lawmakers to get a say without meeting the women at all. like, ever."
Spot on. +1
Sparks also struck down a requirement meaning women could only get around the provision if they signed a statement that they became pregnant because of s e x u a l a s s a u l t or i n c e s t.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the author seems to be misrepresenting the issue. I thought the new law requires the procedure to be performed whereas before the law, the procedure was optional. The author is saying that this will correct the problem that some women on some occasions were denied the right to see the results of such a test.
A better fix would be to still allow the test to be optional, but require the doctor to show the woman the results if she requests the test. Maybe I am misinformed, but this seems obvious.
I also do not understand the requirement that the woman wait 24 hours after the initial meeting with the doctor before undergoing the procedure.
Someone please respond; I truly don't get it.
Of course she's misrepresenting the issue. She'll go on and on about "informed consent" when it suits her, but when it doesn't it's mandatory testing and waiting periods.
Can't they find someone smarter who has a better argument? That was so weak.
Forcing a woman to do the ultrasound or to partake in invasive exams isn't "giving the women information they deserve." they are forcing a woman to do something that she wishes not to do. this is a stunt to force the female populace to subscribe to the religious views of the ruling. you can't mandate religious ideology.
Big difference. Like intercourse, the key is consent. All of the things she mentions from the Planned Parenthood website are done so with the consent of the woman. The Texas law inserts things that the woman does not consent to. What you consider informing might differ from what the HEALTH CARE PROVIDER does. Also, there are a lot of medical procedures that are risky and should only be done if absolutely necessary. Maybe you should mandate C-sections too. They are reasonably safe, so why not open the woman up so she really see what's going on.
If the woman does not consent to being forcibly examined, then its rape. No matter how painless or how much information can be collected from the procedure, if she doesn't consent, then Texas crosses the line. I hope there is a very, very expensive lawsuit soon that demonstrates this. Maybe it will bankrupt TX, we can hope.
maybe they should be teaching abortion in school. Seems like that would do away with confused women who don't know what an abortion is before they get one, needless government involvement into our private lives.
i would like to see ONE example of where a patient was DENIED the right to a medical procedure like a sonogram before an abortion.
i'm sure doctors hate taking people's money for an easy to perform procedure, right?
why make it mandatory?
What a load of horse crap. The entire point is to shame women and to put in a 24 hour waiting period that they KNOW will cause thousands of women to be unable to get an abortion. Texas is a HUGE state and women from all over have to travel to the cities where the clinics are. Poor women, the most likely to need an abortion cannot stay overnight or vanish for over a day or afford hotel, gas and food THAT is the whole point of the law, to deny women access to the facilties and torture them.
i'm hoping that it's more of a concerned party's attempt to do what they think is the best thing for young women, even if it is misguided.
but, sadly, you're probably right.
Staying with the misinformation tactic she has so many times used in the past, Melinda Fredricks fails to note in her cleverly disguised tirade that provisions in the law have been deemed u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l by Judge Sam Sparks. He struck down provisions requiring doctors to describe the ultrasound fetus images to patients and that women should hear those descriptions. He determined this would violate free speech rights of both doctors and patients.
Glad to hear Sam Sparks is the final authority on everything. Also sad that you are concerned about "freedoms" while saying it is ok to take away a human life and thus the basic "freedom" to live.
this coming from texas!
where they get standing ovations for the death penalty!
ahh, hypocrisy at it's finest : )
Rights are for BORN persons. An embryo doesn't have any. The BORN WOMAN does.
WOW the word ( u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ) isn't allowed on this post, is that crazy?
Yep. The automatic censor is protecting us from a nasty 3-letter word combo in the middle. Shocking!
Staying with the misinformation tactic she has so many times used in the past, Melinda Fredricks fails to note in her cleverly disguised tirade that provisions in the law have been deemed u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l by Judge Sam Sparks.
Republicans know darn well the procedure is intended to shame a woman into not getting an abortion but they turn it into a euphemism by saying they are just "providing the woman information she needs". LIARS.
you would have to do this and more for any other procedure! if it's just a procedure than make it an even playing field!
Amazing, They will argue with a comic strip..........what's next?
Doonsebury writing comicstrips about abortion. Wow. Not thats not funny. Just sad.
What a brainwashed republican woman. Why is the govt interfering with this. I thought republicans were against Obama inserting the govt in health care, yet they have no problem inserting the govt in it here. Hypocrits!
republican party went bat sh!t crazy as soon as terry shiavo made the scene.
the party against government involvement became the party FOR government involvement.
I'm curious, as it hasn't been discussed in any of the articles i've read yet, but who exactly pays for this procedure to be done in the first place? is it the tax payer?!
The patient pays, that is the whole point, to put up roadblocks to make it almost impossible for women to choose abortion.
Melinda, you aren't very bright my dear. As much as you try and spin you bulls**t, one truth remains: all of the other things you mention are VOLUNTARY things that women CHOOSE to go through as part of an abortion. The crap you are FORCING on women through this legislation is INVOLUNTARY, and so yes, on about the level of rape.
If you can't understand this simple distinction, you can go play in the sandbox with the other five-year-olds.
An abortion procedure is pretty much the most barbaric act humans commit, but it's barbarity is dismissed and simplified as being simply a matter of 'personal choice'.
really? try being raped.
Abortion is between a woman and her God, not about you or me....the repulsive republicans are the liars in this case. A man has nothing to say about a woman's pregnancy, unless you are the father and willing to pay for the baby once it's born, otherwise just keep taking your viagra (paid for by insurance companies) or keep taking the same pills that Newt and Rush are addicted to (paid for by insurance companies) and hope that you don't have the same brain fog that they do.
If it wasn't murder I wouldn't care at all. Since it is the taking of an innocent human life (just not fully developed), it is murder except in the rare case of saving the mother, such as an ectopic pregnancy.
Scott, then YOU carry it for 10 months and have your parts ripped to shreds and run up tens of thousands of dollars in doctor bills. Oh wait, you NEVER have to do that, so you have NO say. Go be abstinent, dont make any babies and you can be safe in the knowledge that you have caused no abortions, but get OUT of other people's internal organs.
E, your hysteria is touching, but I have to disagree with you. It is my business to speak up about protecting unborn, concieved human beings from those who wish to kill them, just as I speak up about protecting born innocent human beings. I helped my wife through every stage of her pregnancy, and we were blessed with a beautiful clump of cel...I mean daughter. A few weeks later and my wife isn't having any plumbing trouble. We're paying off the bills, and anytime I get frustrated with those I just look at my daughter and forget it all. Once we are able to get on our feet, I would love to adopt. Did I miss anything?
@Scott. Yes, you missed the part where the fetus is not the same as a child. Willful ignorance.
I refuse to define away an innocent human life to justify killing it. If you want to call that ignorance thats up to you, but you can't deny that "clump of cells" is alive.
Exactly. I don't have a problem with abortion if it's going to save the life of the mother and the baby is likely to die anyway, but I have a huge problem with abortion on demand or aborting because of birth defects like Down Syndrome. If you were to kill a Down Syndrome adult, it would be murder. Why is it no different in the womb?
welcome to the real world. It is not fluffy clouds made of cotton candy and unicorns dancing on bubbles.
women microwave their babies.
women drown their babies in the bathtub.
women kill their babies, and sometimes themselves, with coat hangers in the alley.
have you ever heard of a dumpster baby? there's a freakin word for it!
abortion is a tragedy, but it can sometimes be the lesser of two evils. Welcome to the real world.
Lets gas all the Down Syndrome kids since it will be just like falling asleep and they'll have a crappy life anyway.
Agreed that abortions are barbaric. But NOT the most barbaric. Drone attacks, The Oklahoma bombing, Right wing Iraq invasions, fracking the environment away, rape, The BP Gulf Oil Spill, the crucifixion of Jesus, Left wing whale over population, and deep sea trawling are much more barbaric than an abortion! But abortion is a pretty barbaric action nonetheless. But at least right wing drone attacks kill dangerous people most of the time.
Nah,...Josh, I'd say someone breaking into your home, cutting off your head, and r.a.p.i.n.g your throat-hole sounds MUCH more barbaric than performing an abortion...
What the heck are you taking about?
What kind of mind conjures up such a sick image, one wonders....
Staying with the misinformation tactic she has so many times used in the past
Thank the forces of the universe for Trudeau. He has told the hard truth for a long time. The Republicans simply do not like to be confused with the facts. This woman is clearly a miscarriage of evolution, and, as a result, her natural home is with the Republicans. If Texas secedes (maybe not bad idea) make sure she goes with Bushie and Perry. They will not be missed.
It is pretty ironic that the party of "small government" wants to hire extra people to peer into your bedroom, your anus and your cootchie-cootchie (gotta pass the censors on here). Also ironic is that mostly pasty middle-aged white *men* are coming up with these laws.
And yet you ignore the piece in the article in which 21 women voted for this?
Republican women. I guess their daddies/husbands allowed them to vote. Maybe they can pre-approve their wardrobes
Shhhh.... liberals are allergic to facts.
Voted for and writing it are two different things. The vote mostly along party lines says quite a bit too. Sure you can opt out in theis version, but then what's next? Consent forms for stopping life from blossoming when you purchase condoms? Quotas for the number you can buy? A bit far-fetched for sure, but it's easier to head down the road once you start rolling.
We liberals are perfectly aware that there are women out there who work very hard to take away the rights of other women. We see them calling girls horrible names when they go to planned parenthood for annual exams, we see them holding posters at their rallies. women are people, some are going to be ignorant nut cases.
(Firstly, almost everyone has jumped on the obvious fact about the difference between a procedure with consent and one without....)
But in terms of 21 women voting for it – I know enough about what happens at State Houses to know this means nothing – it could be true, it could not be true. How many times have we heard stories of other legislators being told to "play ball" if they wanted to get anything done from their own agenda, i.e. how many of them really wanted to vote for it?
But this is minor compared to the fact that she obviously cannot understand the importance of consent.
Trudeau is a lib hack. Of course he got it wrong.
Paul – so this is bedroom intrusion, but we should be obligated to pay for subsidized birth control for actions IN the bedroom?
You are not paying for CRAP, women pay for insurance too. We are already paying for your prostates, so get over it.
Prostate exams are to check for cancer, not to make sure you're able to engage in recreational s3x. Birth Control to treat conditions should be treated like other meds with a co-pay or what not, but BC just to get it on with a bunch of people is on your own dime. If you can't afford to pay, you can't afford to play.
And we're paying for their Viagra, also.
The point is the gender specific issue, men have no conditions that are denied insurance coverage nor are they judged moral or immoral from ANY medicine they deal with, but apparently that went right over your tiny head. Birth control is standard preventative medicine already required to be covered in 28 states. It treats dozens of health problems and prevents a "condition" that is EXTREMELY invasive, violent, and difficult and for many women, fatal, that condition is PREGNANCY. Millions of us 58% of users, have to use it for medical conditions in addition to being a contraceptive. Access to affordable contraception saves insurance and government billions of dollars. If you think women are so worhtless that they do not deserve to have birth control, then how can you want them to be parents? If you really wanted to stop abortion you would fight to make all forms of contraception FREE.
and PLEASE get over this fantasy ALL men have of trashy little college girls sleeping around. Pill users are far more likely to be in their 30's, with kids already, married, and have nothing to do with your little dreams of girls gone wild...
Have to go through this word for word then.
Why questions ((never my actual post) showing up on page 2 all the time? HELLO, anyone there?
Because people are posting faster than you so it's 2nd page by the time you submit. You hit a couple of words of the sensors or including weblinks which are sending your comments to the internet black hole of automation.
What in the world is wrong with this blog? Only thing that shows up are my question why nothing will post. HELLO????
wow a national news organizations publishes the rant of a republican against a comicwho has spoken truth to power. imagine that.
Hello, test, test, test???
ONLY the repu-pu-publican pary would feel threatened by a comic strip. It is time to do to republicans what they've been doing to women.
An Dims to the truth
What is wrong with trying to post something, it never shows up?
So are you claiming that it is NOT a "shaming rod"? Seriously?
No, it is not. It is a simple medical procedure that is NOT painful. Comparing it to rape belittles the suffering of any woman who has felt the absolute pain and misery caused by rape.
Being raped by a man may be painful and more traumatizing, but rape isn't decided based on the amount of pain or degree of trauma. Penetrating a woman, including with a object, without consent is rape.
If the woman must submit to the ultrasound, then the man who impregnated her should submit to a colonoscopy. It's just as necessary to the abortion as the ultrasound is.
This is not about an ultrasound. Ultrasounds are okay imho because they can be done outside the body.
If the guy gets a colonoscopy maybe he should get a say in whether or not his future child gets aborted. I would go through with it to stop an abortion.
Trudeau is the ignorant one here? Hardly. This is more government in the bedroom stuff republicans other than Ron Paul can't get enough of. She clearly thinks Texas women are too stupid to request such a procedure if they want it. Somehow I bet this is one medical procedure taxpayers are stuck with covering in Texas.
You have a higher opinion of people than I do. I think most people are not very well informed about medical topics. I am against this law though, don't get me wrong. But I don't think that most women would know about the procedure or why it could be helpful.
What defines you? Maybe it’s the shade of your skin, the place you grew up, the accent in your words, the make up of your family, the gender you were born with, the intimate relationships you chose to have or your generation? As the American identity changes we will be there to report it. In America is a venue for creative and timely sharing of news that explores who we are. Reach us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Send Feedback | Subscribe