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.
The author obviously has no concept in the difference between the words "recommended" and "required".
Or: "medical care" and "rape"
Or: 'information" and "intimidation"
The reasoning in this article is full of holes. It's trying to make us believe that black is white. As an apologist for Rick Perry and the Christian Right/GOP she must have spent hours trying to figure out ways to misuse words to justify this misguided law.
It is so disingenuous of this woman to proclaim this initiative is solely about giving "information" to the woman. It is intimidation!! It is about a group of people trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. KEEP ABORTION SAFE AND LEGAL!!!
Disingenuous is such a tactful way to express this. Deceit is more to the point, but much less graceful.
I'm probably not as good a person as you are. I would have just said, "Lie". "Dam*ned lie", as a matter if fact.
My wife and I both would be identified by the religious right as pro-aboration. The reality is that we do not believe that the government, or anyone else has the right to impose their beliefs or morality upon a person who does not share their beliefs. 19 years ago after a mere 2 weeks after we decided that we were going to stop after having a one son, we learned that my wife was pregnant. We did not abort our 2nd son, We changed our plans. Today he is 18 years old, in his senior year in high school and preparing to graduate. What is the point of this? That being pro-choice does not mean that you want to exercise that choice. It does not mean that you want others to exercise that choice. It means that you recognize that people have a right to live their lives their own way own their own terms, even if some of us disagree with how they live their life. It means that you understand that you cannot expect the world to live by your rules, that our society is far too diverse to support such an idealistic view.
I so agree. Both of my children were wanted and cherished from the beginning – but it was MY choice to have them. If every child were wanted, there would be no discussion. Unfortunately I've seen first hand how that support and assistance seemed to fade away in the "fourth" trimester.
How sane. Bravo.
Women who agree with the GOP on this issue remind me of the doctors that the tobacco industry would get to come out and say smoking was not bad for you.
It's worse. In the 40s and 50s, doctors really did think cigaretttes were OK. So tho they were shilling for the tobacco compnaies, at least they weren't lying.
I doubt if Melinda Fredricks would feel so sanguine about the sonogram procedure if she ever found herself in a position where it had to be done to her. It's easy enough for those who aren't faced with that prospect to say that it's ok, that it's necessary to protect a woman's right to know, that it satisfies society's requirement to protect the unborn. Of course none of the male members of the Texas state legislature have to worry about having a sonogram wand inserted into them, and it's likely that most of the female legislators who voted for the law are well beyond their child-bearing years and won't face that prospect either. So it's up to the rest of us to point out the evil in this law. It serves no purpose other than to shame women who have been so unfortunate to find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. The Christian Right/Republican Base feel it's their high calling to impose their will on helpless poor women who can't afford to travel to some other part of the country where this onerous requirement is not the law.
Bullying, pure and simple
And what is so tragic about this, if one abhors abortion (which I happen to personally) is that it will have the OPPOSITE of the intended effect. You don't change hearts and minds by being viscious. And Texas shutting down Planned Parenthood will just result in MORE abortions – that's the really sad part.
This isn;t just cruel, it's stupid.
No! Doonsberry, got it right! Yes, an abortion is terribly invasive, in ands of itself! Why put these women through the double shame, not to mention, abortion is not paid for by insurence, but out of pocket! Also in a state were an unemployed family of 4 gets little more then $200 a month and must have an address to receive these benifits. No wonder there are so many homeless in this state! Now they will be homeless and pregnant! Way to go Texasses!
And, think of the children...
So so sad.
Paul Ryan, representative from Wisconsin, requires his staff to read Ayn Rand, as do many of the Republican congressfolks. Ayn Rand's stance on abortion:
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)."
Maybe Good Christian Belles need some information about the Republican Party.
This isn't about a political philosophy. It's certainly not about Christianity. It's not about a reverence for life – babies are born every day who are right this moment starving neglected, abused, abandoned. There are PLENTY of babies, already born, who are desperate for someone to care about THEIR lives. There is no reason to dig into other women's bodies seeking embryos to save.
It is entirely about bullying people who do not subscribe to your personal views.
It's wholly about shaming and punishing women who seek an abortion.
It is APPALLING, and shreikingly hypocritical to call it something other than what it is.
That silly woman, Melinda Fredricks, arogantly dismisses the dignity of others and LIES about it by equating the shoving of a probe into a person's private parts as "informed consent". A true nitwit. The crime in the matter is that ideally laws protect us from the arrogance of power, but the arrogant Texas lawmakers strip human dignity from the innocent citizen. Remember what Einstein said: “The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance”; unfortunately, the Texas Republican Party is full of both ignorance and arrogance. ( and good Christian graft and crony capitalism ).
I could not agree with you more. This is so shocking...
And every comment that someone posts here in opposition to her views will just be like so much water off a duck's back, She'll be shielded with ignorant self-righteousness and a sense of superiority.
It's an ancient type.
The same type who, in more brutal days, tortured heretics. Just a watered-down version of the same human depravity that has always been.
How deeply sad, for everyone.
If an embryo or a fetus is the same as a baby, why are there no pro-life protests being held in front of fertility clinics?
Thousands of "children" are being disposed of in the trash – MANY more than the number of fetuses aborted at planned parenthood. If that weren't the case, every woman who used in vitro would be an octomom.
Simple – no one wants to criticize a woman who is just trying to "be fruitful and multiply." They'd rather pick on someone they can call a s l u t .
Where do you believe you came from? I am a woman, okay. I know that I was once in that stage of development, prenatally. If my mother had aborted me, I'd be dead. FETUS is simply a word meaning SMALL ONE. EMBRYO, is us, only smaller, the first few months after conception. We use words to dehumanize OUR OWN children! LARGELY out of our convenience! We do what we want and LITERALLY toss our the consequences of our actions. Consider this; one fine day, should you have kids now, YOU will be at an age where your kids will find YOU an INCONVENIENCE. What goes around comes around.
The answer to your question is: Because it's not about the babies. They are not there at the fertility clinics, and they do not care for the children a moment after birth.
It's about enforcing a social code.
This "woman" (to use the term loosly) has been appointed TWICE to different offices by that supreme brain trust, Rick Perry. Calling her out for her BS is an insult to cowpatties.
If the religious people would care about all the unwanted children that are already born as much as they care about these fetuses we wouldn't need foster care homes and orphanages anymore! But then again they are all talk and no action, plus the governement will take care of them, you know, with welfare and such...
#1 There are lines of people waiting to adopt the "unwanted" babies and #2 religion wasn't mentioned or alluded to anywhere in this article. Several facts were mentioned though, such as a woman's ability to decline viewing the sonogram – the law is not forcing her to do anything; it is simply requiring the doctor to offer women the option to view the sonograms that were already being done before this law was even talked about. What is the big deal? The sonogram is considered rape when the mother is allowed to see it, but it's not called rape when the doctors are doing the sonograms but not showing the mother? That makes NO sense.
So religion has nothing to do with it? Ok, if you say so. And yes, there are many people who would want to adopt, but does it happen? NO, it is almost impossible to adopt unless you are filthy rich. Many gay couple would love to adopt some of these unwanted kids, why not let them? Until adoption becomes more available many of these kids will just be forgotten....
Roger1977, you mentioned earlier that religious people are 'all talk, no action' and it sounds like adoption is an important topic for you, so why don't you write a solution-oriented article on needed changes in the industry that will make it more possible for more people? That would be a great, positive action that you can take. Insults don't bring about positive change and they fall into the 'all talk' category that you seem to look down on.
Rape is not about a procedure. It's not only about violence. It's about consent; it's about duress; it's about power; it's about humiliation and helplessness.
And I'd like to know more about the people lining up to adopt all those hundreds of thousands of babies. Are there lot of interracial adoptions in Texas? Substantiate for us, if you would, the fact that the millions of aborted babies would have had homes and people to love them. I'd really like to know.
So Roger I must either support abortion OR support more welfare but cannot support/believe in more personal responsibilty, that an individual should not be held accountable for their their actions and there should be no consequences for irresponsibility. I agree with abortion in medical emergencies, cases of rape/incest, etc and even as an offering but far too many people use it as a form of birth control.
This is America. .)
You're free to believe as you wish. And, by the way, I agree with you ENTIRELY about personal responsibility.
What you do NOT get to do is impose your beliefs on other people.
As I said, this is America. (Or it is, for now anyway. Unless you are in Texas or Virginia and such places.)
"You do not get to impose my beliefs upon others"...yet isn't that exactly what Roe v Wade did? Just saying...
Only if Roe v. Wade is dictating that something be done to YOUR PERSONAL BODY.
Sorry should have said "impose your beliefs".
It's so inconvenient to the "pro-abortion crowd" when someone actually presents the facts! I just love the way that people start calling names instead of trying to counter the facts presented in this article.
As a Texan, and very much a woman, I strongly support requiring that someone see the baby before making their truly informed choice. Thank you, Melinda Fredericks, for presenting the whole truth!
So.... this is not so much a valid medical procedure, but a way of influencing someone into doing things "your way"? Perhaps you are hoping that by undergoing an unwanted, unnecessary procedure the individual will somehow have a religious (= republican) epiphany and decide not to have an abortion?
Please – if you are going to try to impart your particular religious and political views on an individual, fine, you have that right. But when impart turns into impose, you have crossed the line. And those woman who voted for it in the legislature, please don't think we believed it was because of sound medical practice. Party politics, and nothing more.
You're assuming that I'm a Republican and that I'm Religious? Wrong on both.
Welcome to Texas, PBEL. This might suck in the present day, but when the Texas Board of Education gets done with it, the Schoolbooks will make this look like a shining day in the history of America! Right along with creationism and the nice life those lucky human chattels lived!
Yep, a lot of people being manipulated into voting booths to pull levers on their own destruction are going to have a pretty nasty shock, when America starts operating like, for instance, Honduras.
I don't think they're going to much like living in a corporatocracy or an oligarcy, which is budding well in places like Texas.
So, giving someone factual information derived and presented by the medical professional who has a financial interest in you having the abortion (and thus, reason to be more than usually impartial), is attempting to sway someone to an opinion?
If so, then you have given it a grand seal of approval. When facts influence opinion, that creates what we like to call "logic." Making decisions without facts is what we call "ignorance."
If, without ignorance, more mothers choose not to abort – then that decision is logical and good.
Why, after all, would you possibly want more abortions, even if they are legal?
"When facts influence opinion, that creates what we like to call "logic."
Tell me, if you would, about the logic involved in Texas' decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood – which saves women's LIVES, and also REDUCES ABORTIONS.
I love logic.
Oakspar77777, great point! I whole-heartedly agree. Why are people so scared for the mothers to have more information?
No one wants to deny mothers more information. If it were a norm that a person could opt-in for such a procedure in seeking more information, that would be fine.
What everyone is scared of is living in a country that legislates the rape of pregnant women.
RevMum, it's not rape, not by any stretch of logic. As BruceT says so well earlier, Rape is a crime of violence, express or implied. There is no violence, no force, no threat of force involved here. The woman is completely free to get up and walk out at any point she likes. No one is holding her down or putting roofies in her drink to force her to submit. No one can make her have any of it done. She just won't get the abortion. That's not to say it's a good law, but calling it "rape" is just hysterics.
Also, the abortion doctors are already doing the sonograms; the law just requires them to show the mother the images.
I'm sorry my friend, I know it;s a lot more comfortable to regard it as something else than rape, but rape it is.
Rape is associated with violence – you're right about that. But not ONLY violence. Rape is sommitted by means of coercion by intimidation – by unconsciousness, if the victim has been slipped a roofie.
The woman who finds her self in the tragic situation of having to seek an abortion is under duress. This procedure is inflicted under duress. If women were asking for the procedure, or if it was medically necessary as ordered by a doctor, it would NOT need to be ordered by the State. If the woman were offered the procedure as an option of her choice, it would not be rape.
Rape is not just violence. It is penetrating another person's body with a body part or an object against the will of the person. If she's not offered it as an OPTION, it's by definition against her will.
These people in Texas are doing something terribly unAmerican, a horrific assaault by a State upon women. It only compounds it to try to sell it as anything else, just to make themselves feel less dishonorable.
"Presenting". Such a gentle little word. Almost gracious.
Presenting sounds so much better than raping.
But it is what it is, my dear. It's important to be truthful.
And what it is, is horrific. And counter-productive, if the objective is to reduce abortions. That's what is so deeply sad about it.
Clearly it is about information and they can opt our . What are you REALLY afraid of? It's not rape so wha to it?
They can OPT OUT and still get the abortion they seek?
If so, I mistook this for the same thing as the Virginia law, and indeed, it would not qualify as rape. I'd be delighted to be wrong about it.
(You're SURE about that...?)
Unfortunately, too many people try to avoid responsibility for the consequences of their actions. For every choice we make there is a resulting consequence. A woman should have as much information as possible before making a choice that either way, will affect them for the rest of their lives.
When deciding how much information I need before a particular medical procedure, I would prefer to rely on my DOCTOR'S opinion, rather than on my state legislators'. Politicians have no expertise whatsoever in medical practice.
These doctors get paid when they abort your baby. They do not get paid if you choose to keep your baby. That sounds like a biased opinion to me. The legislation doesn't give you an opinion on what you should do; it simply requires that your doctor give you more facts to go along with his opinions, and you're welcome to refuse that extra information, so what's the big deal?
The big deal is that it involving raping a citizen. By order of law.
It's a big deal because people supporting this claim to be Christians, and thus lead the unchurched world to believe that raping is acceptable to followers of Christ.
It's a big deal because this is AMERICA, for heaven's sake, and barbarity is not supposed to be the object of legislation.
So then Ann.. do you believe all FDA warnings should be removed from all packaging of medicines and only listen to what your Doctor tells you about a drug? Do you then also agree that politicians shouldn't be telling the public at large that they must have healthcare or face a fine? Or do you also want it both ways?
This isn't about a medical procedure. It's not about medical care. It's certainly not about the babies. People who care about babies take care of the thousands of negleced, starving, abused and abandoned babies already born and breathing. They do not go digging in womens' wombs to find embryos to save.
It's about punishment – it's part of the larger attempt to frame the society along the lines you believe they should be.
There are lots of other things working towards this end. Look up Dominionists. Look up "Reclaim the 7 Mountains".
THANK YOU!!!! COMMON SENSE. THINKING first! WOW! What a concept in today's society, where we 'buy now/ pay later'. Financially, that's why millions are in debt, with maxxed out credit cards. MORALLY, that is why we either throw babies in the garbage, before or after birth. It makes no difference. If these same women would THINK FIRST, this situation could be prevented, entirely. Abortion is PREVENTABLE. Pregnancies are preventable.
Not in the absence of reliable and affordable access to birth control, it isn't. For married women, anyhow.
This is the same state that wants to ger rid of PP.
But not by being raped by The State.
It would be perfecly possible to show the very moving pictures of fetal development which exist showing every fetal stage, day by day. It is wholly unnecessary to rape pregnant women to make this point.
But this is not about information. It's not about medical procedures. And it's certainly not about the babies.
Thank you Melinda for your on-target commentary. People will seem to use whatever diversion that they can to try and steer the issue away from the evidence that a "fetus" is a child. If this same procedure was to show that it was just a lump of tissue...they'd be all for it. Thank you for your service to the State of Texas.
It would be perfecly possible to show the very moving pictures of fetal development which exist showing every fetal stage, day by day. It is wholly unnecessary to rape pregnant women to make this point.
But this is not about information. It's not about medical procedures. And it's certainly not about the babies.
Melinda Fredricks says that "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." Huh? I may be missing something, but this statement makes absolutely no sense. Are all Texas politicians just plain dumb? This is the state gave us Lyndon Johnson (who got us mired in Viet Nam), George W. Bush (who got use mired in two stupid mideast wars), and now Rick Perry (who made a fool of himself as a presidential hopeful and enthusiastically supported this crazy sonogram bill). The wealthy Texans (i.e. Republicans) don't have to worry about sending their pregnant wives and daughters who want an abortion to a local family planning clinic to be raped. They can fly them anywhere else to get an abortion with no questions asked.
It's not just Texas. Texas is only the poster child for a mind-set.
Look up Dominionists. Look up Reclaim 7 Mountains.
The look up the Inquisition – this sort of thing has been going on for a very long while. We're less brutal these days, but it's the same dynamic in play.
It's fun to see all the "intellectuals" have been talking and worrying about the exact same thing for decades.
Intellectuals. That's a real thigh-slapper.
Be very careful... I have found that when you use logic on here BOTH sides attack you..lol.
Meh... It's all benign 1's and 0's here. Who is which I leave as an exercise to the reader... Enmity from such types is invigorating and uplifting.
Men cry out that its their babies too and they should have a choice. But a good portion of the time, they hear a girl is pregnant, they run like the devil himself is after them. They hardly stick around to be a father much less in their children's lives. And what about the people protesting outside of clinics? They scream that we are murderers and sinners, yet they dont want to take responsibility of a child because its not their problem. And I live in the Eh State of Oklahoma. There are over 2,000 children in foster homes. If God Fearing, Christians decided to heed God's call and actually took it upon themselves to take care of these children... there would be no foster care service because there would be no foster children. They would be in homes with families and taken care of. Even today, there are families disowning pregnant teens because of the shame.
Im not saying Abortion is the only solution, but dammit... No one suffers more than a woman having to make a choice whether to keep her child, give her child up or abort. I sat with a friend for days while she cried and worried herself sick wondering what she was going to do was the right choice. She was young and her child was the product of a rape... and even at her young age, she had to go through the most difficult choice of her life. Her daughter is married now and she is happy with her choice. But it was HER choice. HER decision. Because for better or for worse SHE has to live with it. Not me... Not you... HER.
So until anyone is willing to go to a person and say... "Instead of abortion. I want to adopt your child..." Keep your noses out of it. And really, men shouldnt even be included in this discussion. That's my opinion.
And as for the "Rape Wand"? Until I hear a doctor tell a man... "Well, before we give you this Viagra, we have to shove this yardstick up your bum. No exclusions, you will only feel a pinch..." The "rape wand" will continue to be what can only be described as... RAPE BY INSTRUMENTATION!
Nobody suffers more than the woman? What about the baby?
S- a clump of cells the size of a sesame seed is NOT a baby. And it doesn't suffer.
liz, so says that former "clump of cells" You are a hypocrite, you GOT to live.
Very good post, BRAVO!
So wow, I just learned something. There is no insertion of any item during abortions. What? There is? But the TV Wand is a "rape wand" WTH? So let me get this straight.. a small object inserted in to do testing is "rape" but all the items to perform an abortion is "personal choice"? So, men don't have colonoscopies they are being anally raped? Call the FBI.. call the DA.. call the Coast Guard. Again, another want it both ways hypocrite. I will agree to the "rape wand" if you agree to "rape abortion procedure".. actually, after reading all the items they use in the procedure lets call it "gang rape abortion procedure".That way we can't be hypocites.
Oh – and on the subject of hypocrites:
If you support something heinous, it seems only right that you do not pretty it up by calling it something else. Just say what you are supporting, flat out. Be honest.
Just say you support the legislated rape of pregnant women who seek an abortion.
THEN we can perhaps avoid being hypocrites.
Oh RevMum.. you make this too easy. First show me where I support ANYTHING other then less government intrusion. Second, if you want to talk hypocrites how about the statements on here saying there are no such thing as people being Pro Abortion just Pro choice. Talk about twisting verbiage to pretty something up. So why don't you say, flat out, you support the legislated killing of a viable life by raping a women with a vacuum and other medical instruments. As you say, be honest. Sheesh, this is too easy...
"First show me where I support ANYTHING other then less government intrusion."
Second, if you want to talk hypocrites how about the statements on here saying there are no such thing as people being Pro Abortion just Pro choice. Talk about twisting verbiage to pretty something up. So why don't you say, flat out, you support the legislated killing of a viable life by raping a women with a vacuum and other medical instruments. As you say, be honest. Sheesh, this is too easy...
This is what one has to look forward to if they end up in Texas. Rednecks that vote Republican and love the Dark Ages. And, as a bonus there are women with brains as small as their hair is big.
Let's set aside the specific argument over abortion for a moment.
What I find interesting is that most of you righties probably AGREE to some extent with the state getting involved with THIS procedure, but DISAGREE with ObamaCare (a.k.a. THAT procedure) because of its "offense to personal freedom and choice"; and most of you lefties probably DISAGREE to some extent with the state getting involved with THIS procedure because of its "offense to personal freedom and choice", but AGREE with ObamaCare (THAT procedure).
If that describes you, then you're a hypocrite, and you're merely advocating for one portfolio of state intervention in private medical matters (and against a different one) while paying only lip service to higher principles of "freedom" or "choice". Two sides of the same rotten busybody coin. How about you stay out of an exam room that isn't yours, hmm? Be brave and pick one of the two REAL and logically consistent sides: the one that wants to use government to tell people what [you want them] to do, and the one that doesn't. At least then you can defend for your pick without making a fool of yourself by arguing something and its logical opposite simultaneously.
And while you're at it, try that exercise other places too. Seriously.
See.. you get it. This is what I have been saying also. This whole Republican Democrat thing is a way to keep the masses divided and thereby "conquered" . Notice how, who ever is in power, the politicians keep getting richer and are generally immune to the very laws they pass? Sad
"...to give women considering an abortion the information they deserve.."
Why don't we call if what it is. "Another way to limit abortion by making it more expensive and invasive" or, worse "women are so stupid that they just don't enough about abortion". They really think we are this dumb? Well obviously this woman thinks it's OK to decide for all other women. I don't think anyone should decide, except for the women, her doctor, and her God. Everyone else can shut up since it is non of their business.
Which would be a brilliant argument if the person were paying their own way. But these clinics receive a huge amount of tax dollars, State and Federal, which makes it a debatable issue. If this is about personal choice then personal responsibility has to be a part of the equation also. Otherwise, why not cover all dental costs for everyone who eats sugary candies and drinks soda's.. it is their personal choice to do so also.
"Huge amounts". Don't make me laugh. . Flo, I'm sure you didn't write a letter when George Bush stole our tax money in an illegal war that killed thousands of people. Pro lifers are all hypocrites
Dave... you would be wrong. And you should do research and find out how much in State and Federal monies these groups receive. And where did I state I was pro life? Or a Republican? Didn't like Bush at all, Daddy or son to be honest. But hypocrisy abounds on these issues. And you didn't answer the question? Why do they receive public monies without restrictions when other groups don't? Do not presume to know me or what I think. If you want to know ask otherwise you look like a fool.
So, you have a problem with taxes going for an abortion but you have no problem paying for these unwanted kids? How much more expensive do you think it is going to be supporting these kids for the rest of their lives? Do you think that all of them will find a loving home where they will grow up to be outstanding citizens? Of course not! How many children are abused, torured and killed everyday? How many of them will be criminals and your taxes will have to support him or her in prison? You know, life is not a fairy tale and sadly most of these unwanted kids will suffer, but if the religious folks are happy then who cares about them, right? So if people like you want to stop abortion then stop complaining about welfare and the people with "all those children" and start opening your wallets!
Flo, tax dollars do NOT go to abortion. Never have. They actually charge the individual receiving the procedure for teh procedure. Tax dollars or the like going to planned parenthood or otehr such facilities actually go toward other services they provide–mamograms, examinations, etc. Additionally, and I say this because I'm pretty positive you've never actually been in one of these facilities (I have been to support a friend who was considering this procedure), the doctors there try to present the women with alternatives and discuss the situation with them. They don't push anyone into anything. In fact, my friend decided not to go through with it after speaking with a doctor.
And, no, by friend I do not mean "me." I'm male. Thanks.
Which would be a brilliant argument if the person were paying their own way. But these clinics receive a huge amount of , State and Federal funding, which makes it a debatable issue. Otherwise, why not cover all dental costs for everyone who eats sugary candies and drinks soda's.. it is their personal choice to do so also. Person responsibility has to also be part of the equation. (Note: I had to write this odd because it wouldn't post saying it was duplicate of another post).
and now it posts twice.. sorry everyone.
some of us believe that more American babies should be aborted. Muslims certainly do also.
Well sera.. you would be wrong . A) I have been to a facility. My wife had to have a procedure done because the baby was not developing and the local hospital did have offer the procedure. So please don't presume to know me. And NOT all abortion clinics offer those services you mention. And, even IF I agree with your argument that the money doesn't go directly to abortions it still reduces their overhead to provide them at free/reduced to charges. Nowhere have I stated I am for or against but I do believe people need to be more responsible. And my point is and continues to be, that the vast majority of people on here want things both ways. Hypocrisy.
Reading your posts, one cannot help but notice that you do indeed seem to be in a position to identify hypocrisy. One wonders why you are so eager to declare it in others, whereas you seem not to notice it in yourself.
Please point out my hypocrisy.
Sure seems like Planned Parenthood is doing everything it can to keep women considering an abortion to have ANY data or personal experience that might in some way possibly, potentially indicate that the thing they're wanting to have removed might actually be a living, sentient being. Denial of access to information that can be considered by the woman when making an important personal decision? I think PP is more concerned with a quota or something.
Did is totally not true. PP prevents way more abortions than it performs, with just better access to birth control (you need a medical exam for birth control). If anything they provide way more information than most basic health clinics or those so called "birth crisis centers". They also offer prenatal care, and advice on parenting and adoption. Just read their website before you make statements about quotas.
I bet if you saw how much money PP makes off of abortion you would change your tune, but perhaps not. How the former fetuses who were granted life are so hypocritical. You got the chance to live in this world, but I guess the same benefit is not granted to others.
Don't you trust God at all? Don't you trust women at all, with their own bodies and lives?
I don't understand why this compulsion to interfere with other prople's lives, bodies, and family. Or why anyone thinks a government should.
Sorry- truly spoken like someone who has never been in such a facility. Must be nice just taking other people's rhetoric at face value. I know people who have gone to these facilities only to be talked out of it by a doctor there. The present options. I know, I know, hard to believe when all you've been told by the right is how they are all blood-hungry masochists.
Again, thank you! Common sense is NOT dead. For those who think that RELIGIOUS people want to 'prevent a woman from making a CHOICE', WRONG!!! But there are people, like myself, who would give anything to see some RESPONSIBLE choices made BEFORE the babies get made. Planned Parenthood doesn't care if a woman is single, married, living common law or a lesbian who drew the short straw in the 'who gets to carry the kid' pool. Their bottom line is THE bottom line. $$$$$ So HAVING to show these women that their fetus is moving, and has a heartbeat is COUNTER productive to their agenda, which is bringing in the cash! If having babies made the bucks, these councellors would be touting the prolife message like no preacher could! It's all in motivation. Again, though, what is wrong with thinking before you act! NOT making babies. Adoption is another option. But, in this ME FIRST generation, such messages are lost.
I may be wrong, but I think that PP is a non-profit, which removes the profit incentive from the issue.
"...to give women considering an abortion the information they deserve.."
Say WHAT?? She is either supremely ignorant, insensitively self-righteous, or – as I would bet my last buck on – spinning in a calculated, cynical, and VERY evil manner. ("Spinning" means deliberately LYING to try to make something seem other than what it really is) These ladies DON'T WANT the info she says they "deserve". Unless she's mentally twisted things in her mind and figures they "deserve" some sort of cruel retribution for what I'm sure is already a life-scarring experience. I thought the TP-GOP "repugnantans" were all about getting gov off people's backs – while your at it, get your hands off the public's crotch!
Here's what's gonna really backfire on her ilk – Well over half the women on the pill are....wait for it....MARRIED! I'd bet she took the pill with no qualms all thru the 60's and 70's herself and had herself a good old time. Now she's all menopaused, wrinkly, and resentful of any female of breeding age...
Did I miss something? Did the author make a reference to the pill?
Nope – the 1st paragraph was about the "spin-ticle". I merely digressed to a related issue in the 2nd since my fingers were all fired up to type. Obviously you have no real, rational rebuttal of what I said and therefore, as conservatives usually do when presented with hard facts, you try to change the subject to be all about the teller of the truth... Fox has taught you badness well....
I dare you to point out one "hard fact" in you paragraphs above. It is all opinion. Maybe you don't know the diffeence.
Women deserve access to the info. They are not required to accept it. Prior to this law, some women were not given the info, not even a chance to speak to the doctor prior to the procedure. The info is not being forced on them. Really, the voices against this seem to really be implying that the data will indicate there is a viable beginning of a human being in there, and will either cause a woman to change her mind, or to continue with the abortion only to be potentially traumatized later by the images. This is an important decision, and a woman deserves acess to all pertinent information, in order to make a well-informed decision.
You're absolutely right. The info isn't being forced on them. But then again, if the info isn't being told to them, why on earth do they need the procedure? If they aren't being made to hear what the ultrasound showed, is the ultrasound actually needed for informed consent? Talk about stupidity reigning. "Please come in. We need to provide this totally unnecessary procedure on you and you don't need to hear the information but the great backwards state of Texas makes us do this to you, so that you can sign the informed consent form, knowing that you haven't learned anything that you didn't know before."
My my, how paternalistic and condescending of the Texas legislature to think a woman seeking an abortion hasn't already thought about it.
Please, it's required to feed the rape fantasies of some of the male lawmakers.
So..let me get this straight. By LIBERAL standards this procedure is horrible and invasive but an abortion is not? Or, it is about the RIGHT TO CHOOSE but now I am going to be forced by the Federal government into a health care plan I don't want, I am being told what light bulb I can have, what foods I can have but that is o.k. And if a Conservative calls anyone a name it is racist and hate speech but when Liberals call people names and wish violence on them it is free expression. When Conservatives organize to peacefully protest they are racist and lunatic but when Liberals "occupy" a place and destroy it and use the public area's as restrooms it is a demonstration to be embraced? Dear Pot ..Please meet Kettle.
Can you please explain why the extra, costly procedure is 1) medically necessary and 2) at the cost of the woman, and 3) why they don't enforce a regular ultrasound, that is not invasive?
It is a personal choice to have an abortion, and no one's decision but the woman's. Politicians need to BUTT OUT.
Don't really disagree... but I feel that way about a lot of government intrusion. I am proudly independent. We DO NOT have two parties anymore but one big Party with a Left and Right wing to it. I just don't understand the "arguments" of some people who yell about topics on one hand but defend like issues on the other. At least be consistent.
They *can* have a regular ultrasound, that is not invasive. It just may not be able to get an image.
So here is a question for you now...If it is about "personal choice" (your words) then why isn't it about personal responsibility also? Why do these clinics receive so many tax dollars instead of charging the person wanting the abortion?
In case you hadn't noticed, about half the insults are coming from people who support the quality of the article.
Insults are way of showing a lack of class and maturity regardless of who it comes from. A debate is a wonderful thing. Most comments on any blog/article are not debates but personal attacks. When I read them I refuse to believe anything else that person posts regardless of "sides" or beliefs.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandated more efficient light bulbs was signed into law by ... drum roll ... President Bush.
Doesn't matter who signed it...It is still governmental intrusion.
Flo.... Do efficient light bulbs really bother you? They seem like a good idea.
Chris... you miss the point of my argument. Some of the very people yelling less government (where they disagree) also support government intrusion where they agree. There are conflicting reports/data on the cost benefit and efficiency of these lights. But if abortion is a personal choice then how can anyone really argue that choosing a light bulb isn't?
Baseline I do not like abortion but I do think people should have the right to choose and this bill is wrong but here is my cynical sarcastic statement
"In Texas they like executing retarded people so much they are trying to promote people to have more retarded children."
So, this bill being concerned not with dissuading women from getting abortions, but ensuring that they have access to relevant information about what's going on inside there AND giving the woman to accept or decline to look at this data...you believe people have the right to choose. What do they have the right to choose? Based on what? Because if you're in favor of a right to choose (something), yet you're against providing someone access to information on which they can make an informed decision...you are either a hypocrite, or you believe that the only right choice is the one that can be made without any information to base a rational decision.
i just love the gop (rush)
Obviously this law is meant to deter women from getting abortions by providing more information, making it more difficult, or shaming the women. The fact that this is unwanted by most potential patients and is mandated by the government is bad. But for the law’s supporters, this is a question of saving the life of the baby/fetus so the ends justify the means (not a concept I support).
My question for the pro-abortion crowd is “When does the fetus become a human”? Simply passing through the birth canal can’t be the measure, otherwise my 12 year-old son is still a fetus. Let’s hear some reasoned responses!
Is he still attached to the placenta, half-wit? The he's not a f'ing fetus.
I assume he was just before he was delivered by C-Section. Are you saying he was not a human seconds before his birth. If so, then you are the half-wit!
So in other words, women are too stupid to know what's going on, and are clicking their heels together with glee over their decision? So it's up to all of you to decide what goes on between me and my doctor? Or my daughter, especially if she was raped at 12 and we discovered she was pregnant? That is NOT a politician's call. Period.
Abortion is legal.
Was this a response to my question?
"...my 12 year-old son is still a fetus..."
Well, pard, I reckon you're a fine and dandy product of the Tejas school system – he's a ZYGOTE! Don't you remember anything from junior high???? ;-)
i just love the gop
A disturbing aspect of what is happening is the corrupting of the relationship between the doctor and his/her patient. Medically unnecessary testing, doctors ordered to lie to their patients in other states. Now the abortion issue. Next what, with cancer treatments? With heart problems? Someone's pet agenda from the Right and doctors are mandated to do some procedure that has nothing to do with your treatment, legislated to keep critical facts from you. Fear on the patient's side to speak openly, distrust of the doctor's opinion and judgment. The professionalism of the Physician stymied, politicized.
In simplest terms, the state of Texas is forcing women to receive (and I presume pay for) medical procedures they do not want and perhaps cannot afford in order to receive the medical procedure they do want (and may need to save their lives or to avoid repercussions from rape or incest). Trying to make it sound like it gives women more freedom is the kind of propaganda the Republicans have used ever since 1994. There are some sound arguments against abortion, but this is not one of them. It's just an attempt to arouse a stagnant base turned off by mediocre candidates lest the Republicans lose the House of Representatives again. As so often happens, poor women have to suffer because Republicans need to play politics.
This ultrasound is not medically necessary, so it should be discounted. She has not given a logical reason as to why it's being enforced.
And yes, this object rape is on the woman's dime.
Somehow it keeps working for them politically. Its really quite amazing.
Oh, come on. The writer is delusional to phrase this as a favor by the legislature to women. I haven't been hearing women clamoring to be raped so they could finally get information that's being denied them. Pffff....
Can you BELIEVE it?? This obscenity of raping a pregnant woman by state law is APPALLING.
You would be shocked if this happened in Iran, for pete's sake. Here – in AMERICA? I never thought such a thing possible.
What is only slightly less sickening are the deceitful excuses they are making for this barbarity.
and this is less government
@ski2xs: If you had bothered to read through the posts you would have seen NUMEROUS arguments against the writers weak logic (yes, even several from me). I shouldn't have to keep repeating them.
You are the very definition of weak sauce – mental midgit olympics for you!
If dolts like you would shut up, you wouldn't have to repeat yourself...then again most are not listening to you anyway.
Yet another insult from you (Yes, I've read through some of the garbage you posted below). It seems YOU are lacking in the arguments department. Insults are all you've got. Well done.
It is called rhetoric...in the infamous words of Smokey – "write it down, remember it, take a picture of it, I don't give a f#%".
Most of the pro-choice analysis is laughable hyperbole. At least my hyperbole is intentional – and intentionally laughable.
You are definitely a laughable troll. This has been fun. Thanks.
Here's an idea. Make the sonogram available to the woman if she requests it, but don't force her to undergo one if she doesn't want to. The right talks a big game about personal freedom, but where is the woman's freedom to decide whether or not she wants this sonogram? The bottom line is you are making this decision for her, and you have no right to do that. She is getting a sonogram whether she likes it or not, because the government said so.
Someone, please explain how that jives with the conservative mantra of smaller government.
But if they asked a woman if shw WANTED one, it would no longer qualify as rape. Which is part of the point, of course.
Good point. But wait a few minutes and someone will indignantly post that no one is offering any reasoned arguments; they'll say its all name-calling from liberals. Several people have already done that.
Not all of us on the right agree with this law.
Glad to hear it. I don't even think all anti-abortion people should be agreeing with this law, since it wastes valuable medical care money on an unnecessary procedure.
This article assumes that anything approved by the FDA is safe. This is a list of drugs that were approved by the FDA and then recalled. (http://consumerjusticegroup.com/drug-recalls/recalltimeline/). They have also recalled medicate devices and procedures as well.
So this is not a justification for her point that this procedure should be mandatory.
And here we have yet another shining example of how incredibly stupid and backwards things and people are in the state of Texas.
Are all people who disagree with you stupid or just the ones that live in Texas?
Wonder why then it is growing it's economy and all the "enlightened" Liberal States are broke, have higher then national average unemployment and people leaving by droves???
Oil industry. Artificially inflated prices. Just a thought.
Agreed. From a Texan who does not support these Republicans who have no business messing with our lives.
So much for republican small government and not letting the state get between you and your doctor! Such hypocrites. Think about it, did you ever expect a state legislator require unnecessary medical procedure and then try to say they are just trying to help. Give me a break! I never thought someone would try to sell that we need the state legislature to get tell us what medical procedures we need.
And what percentage of abortions are federally funded? How bout we make a deal...if not another tax dollar ever goes to fund – directly or indirectly – an abortion, I will support repeal of this law. Deal?
No deal because you have not an iota of information to support your position.
How about if not another tax dollar goes to the war would we have a deal?
Yo Sheryl – what information do I need? I said no tax dollars to fund abortion and I will support this as bad law. I did not put forth a position, I put forth a proposition...where I come from there is a difference.
So what is your point? Are you telling me that no tax dollars currently go to fund abortions either directly or indirectly? I hereby request that all tax dollars, period, go to educating people like you in the fine art of reading, comprehension, and – hell – even critical thinking for good measure!
The Hyde amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or in cases in which the mother's life is in danger. When it was originally passed in 1976, it outlawed ALL federal funding of abortion.
Eric, I'm pretty sure that Obamacare amended that.
Collin: I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Actually, I'm 100% positive.
"Indeed, prior to this law, doctors often performed abortions without ever meeting the patient or even speaking with her."
Wow, you must have some pretty amazing doctors in Texas if they can do an abortion without being in the same room.
What a useless, useless hack you are.
I think she is saying that the patients were already prepped and under anesthesia when the doctor came in to do the procedure without having done any kind of personal consultation.
Melinda Fredricks LinkedIn:
Melinda Fredricks's Overview
Current Vice Chairman at Republican Party of Texas
Commissioner at Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Past Board Member at Texas Medical Board
Education University of North Texas
*** ‘By the authority invested in me by the GOP base, I thee rape.’” I got to wondering which “procedure” is Ms. Simpson referring to – the sonogram or the abortion? ***
Well, you pathetic hack, I'm going to go with THE ONE THE WOMAN DIDN'T ASK FOR BUT IS BEING FORCED BY YOU TO GET. As for raising the "standard of care," the standards of care are for the MEDICAL PROFESSION to decide, not a bunch of hack politicians like yourself.
I do not believe in abortions, but I wish Mr Trudeau's mom and half the posters' moms would have had one!
Reading all of the insults, instead of counter-arguments, makes me realize why the country is in such bad shape. Most of you are Bill Maher wannabes. You are halfway there – you are already losers, maybe someday you will be rich losers!
Another useless imbecile heard from.
By the way, useless imbecile, I see quite a few good arguments from the pro-choice crowd. And death wishes from garbage like you
Awwww poor baby offended?! Or you didn't get the point of the joke? Wisdom is for those who realize they still have much to learn. Self-righteous jack wagons, such as yourself, just won't ever get it.
Imbecile, you don't have the intelligence to make a joke. You should stop trying, half-wit, because there is nothing going on in your head and no joke to "get."
The only joke, by the way, you gaseous half-wit, is the guy who expresses death wishes then calls someone else self-righteous and spouts off some flatulence about "wisdom."
I don't believe in suicide, but you really should do the gene pool a big favor and blow the dog sh1t that passes for your brains out now. And if you have any children, don't forget to strangle the little imbeciles in their sleep first.
Struck a nerve, eh?! I would make a "waaaaaaah" sound but I done aborted that baby after informed consent.
Goofs like you make me laugh – you are so smart and I am so inferior with my half-wit.
There have been plenty of counterarguments; try to scroll down and read them. And you just added to the number of insults on this page. Nice.
So what you are saying is that after reading all of these vile personal attacks, you have decided to indulge in vile personal attacks. Way to elevate the discourse...
Yes! You see I am responding to you idiots....whereas you idiots are responding to her. See how that works?!
It is quite an ironic position that I should oppose abortion. On the off chance you chumps can even reproduce, you would think I would want it to be easier for such contamination of the gene pool to be halted.
Oh, gee, look, another ugly big hair texas bimbo pretending to think anyone in Texas has any right to decide what women deserve. LOL!
This mouthpiece can spin all she likes, but the bill had (and has) only one purpose – to attempt to shame / coerce women, via what amounts to state mandated emotional abuse, into foregoing abortion.
I think I would have more respect for these neandrathal throwbacks to Leave It to Beaver paternalism if they'd just come out and admit that simple fact.
Very well written, indeed!
Love it! Thank you!
Many see it as: an attempt to shame / coerce women, via what amounts to state mandated "intervention", into foregoing murder. Gee, I wonder what side of the argument God falls on?
You mean the old guy with the white hair and beard in the sky god?
Apparently none, since I have yet to hear of God preventing an abortion.
You give Harvard a bad name, my friend. All the "pro-choice" folks posting here who can't acknowledge the absurdity of calling a sonogram that ALL COMPETENT DOCTORS WERE ALREADY PERFORMING as part of the abortion process a form of rape are just too ignorant for words. Yes, now doctors in Texas have to do the procedure before the abortion, and again during the abortion, but the woman who has chosen to have an abortion has also chosen to have this very procedure you rail against. The Texas legislature just insists that abortion mills don't deny information to women in their efforts to promote abortion as a reasonable choice. Sometimes perhaps it is. But often, very often, it isn't. This law still lets the women decide, but makes sure they have all the data, instead of just one perspective.
Now I attended medical school and not law school, but I'm fairly certain Casey v. Planned Parenthood permits the states to pass laws, even before viability, to express their legitimate concern in potential human life, so long as the law doesn't place an undue burden on the right to have an abortion.
I know five or so OB-GYN's, and not one would ever perform an abortion without first performing an ultrasound anyway; it's almost malpractice not to because of its indispensability for discovering any abnormalities that may cause a serious complication. The National Abortion Federation recommends these ultrasounds as the standard of care; Planned Parenthood assures that they're harmless.
In light of the fact that basically every non-negligent doctor performs such an ultrasound anyway prior to the procedure, how could this law be considered as placing an "undue burden" on the right to have an abortion? In practice it doesn't even place any *additional* burden, much less an "undue burden."
According to a clinic spokeswoman, not one single woman has opted NOT to go through with the abortion. Get ready to watch the Christian Taliban flail around to find some other way of trying to stop it.
And that lady is Jenni Beaver of the Southwestern Woman's Surgery Center, but I have been outside the clinic and have spoken with women that have changed their mind after seeing the sonogram. She'll also deny that women have had to go to the hospital for cervical lacerations and excessive bleeding 3 time in the last 4 months, but I have the audio files from an open records request to prove it. The truth is that it is killing business for them :)
A first I thought you said "The truth is that it is a killing business for them :)"...
So, if the woman can sign a waiver to not view the information gleaned from the sonogram, what's the point in giving it?
To drag women back to the 50s. The 1850s that is.
This lady doesn't realize what a comic strip is? What a dunce. She probably thought Tina Fey's skit on Sarah Palin was meant as a literal portrayal as well.
Comic Strip. "The Family Circus" is a comic strip. Doonesbury is an editorial masquerading as a comic strip.
Even YOU think its to be taken literally. Good one Braintrust.
Exactly... a smart, hilarious comic strip at that. She probably thinks the "Daily Show" is the news, too.
Instead of making personal insults against the author, why not presenting counter arguments? Are personal attacks and personal opinion masquerading as fact all you have?
Because she is disingenuous, maybe? If she doesn't insult your intelligence, it's likely because yours is too short to insult.
Thank you for proving my point!
The writer is a Republican Teaba$$er tool who is trying to equate unwanted government forced va$inal penetration with a probe to a requested medical exam/procedure. Unwanted va$inal penetration by force is the definition of rape. She must think we are all as simple-minded as she is.
"why not presenting counter arguments? "
That article is so lacking in merit and honesty that it doesn't deserve that kind of respect. Its like dealing with some bozo insisting the sky is red. Its better to to caulk them up as such that to try to reason with them or fools that decide to agree with them.
A resonable counter argument! Good job.
Comment below was for Bert in UT
Ok, here's an argument against the author. How about letting the woman decide how much information she needs and how to get it instead of forcing her to have a 10" probe shoved inside her to satisfy the legislature? I thought Republicans were all about personal freedom and individual responsibility and keeping the government out of our lives, especially our health care.
I think Trudeau already made the point for us...
If her argument had been honest sure. But it wasn't honest. Intelligent people can look this information up for themselves, the stupid ones won't bother and you just can't argue with stupid.
There have been NUMEROUS counterarguments posted below. Read them. (But, yeah, there are a lot of insults also).
The writer is not being honest. This is not about making sure the woman has an informed choice. The script the doctors are forced to read are full of false medical information–out and out lies. (No, abortions do not cause breast cancer, do not increase infertility. Pregnancy and birth is considerably more damaging to a woman's health.)
Here is the law in practice:
Even if you agree with giving women the u/s, why the 24-hour waiting period? And if it's law, why should the woman have to pay for it? With real clinics far and few between, that 24 hours is unreasonable (especially as in the linked case, where the need for an abortion was medical and heart-breaking).
Republican-Teaba$$ers want a government so small it will fit in a woman's va$ina.
Its recommended only in "certain procedures" because you are dealing with radiation which can damage organs meaning that people should only be exposed to it when it is medically necessary, not when mandated by the state. Women should have the right to sue this woman personally, for risking their health... and sue her for child support if this law should make it too difficult to have an abortion.
Sandz, I'm against this law too...but just FYI, an ultrasound doesn't expose you to radiation. It's an acoustic device that relies on reflected sound waves. No radiation involved.
A sonogram doesn't produce radiation. The wand uses sound waves to produce a picture, kinda of like a ship's sonar. There is no increased radtion dosage to the women receiving a sonogram.
This woman is an embarrassment to the Republican Party.
Wrong. She's an embarrassment to all women.
Who are you to decide what's embarassing to women, John? Chauvinist pig...
Who are you to decide who's a chauvinist pig, you sanctimonious young man.
Complete embarrassment to every woman who is smart enough to make her own choices. Especially when she's been raped, is a victim of incest, or a victim of domestic violence.
She's an embarrassment to those with a functioning cerebral cortex.
The decision to have an abortion is seldom taken lightly, and most women know exactly what it entails. This is nothing but a crass effort to play politics with a private choice - exactly what you'd expect from the politicians of Texas.
I don't see the problem.. Marriage isn't sacred anymore.. gays getting married, lesbians, the bachelor, the bachelorette, who wants to marry a millionaire, the Kardasians, the state of marriage vs people living together vs people getting divorced.. marriage is almost but destroyed in this country.. (yeah call it hate speech, just because something is "popular" "politically correct" doesn't make it right) .. in this up is down, down is up, right is wrong, wrong is right society... we'll just see the results of all of this "political correctness" in generations to come.. I mean there's enough problems with marriage today as it is.. and the effects it has on children. it can only get worse, and it's coming.. Glad i'm single w/no kids.. I wouldn't want to bring a child into, or up into, a society where political correctness and popularity rules over morality and natural law.. where peoples moral thermometer is only good for taking a rectal temperature .. which so many enjoy
why not negate all that to abortion.. I mean I believe NO ONE should tell a woman what to do with her body.. but by the same token, the INNOCENT LIFE is being lost.. and people say "well its her choice" what choice did the baby have? it's between her and God (or whom/whatever she beleives) for extinguishing a life just because "i didnt want it" .. Seen an interesting political cartoon years ago.. it was right after columbine murders.. "it was a woman holding her dead child, asking God at His throne; 'why why did you let this happen', and God replied "didnt you kick me out of schools"? and this is probaly going to be the way marriage goes..and child upbringing too.. what a shame..
Were you aware that most abortions occur before the fetus even has a nervous system? It doesn't think, it doesn't feel. It doesn't suffer. However, unwanted children are fully capable of suffering.
Did you know that there are a half million children in the foster care system, and most of them will never be adopted? Did you know that many of those children will be responsible for unwanted children of their own, and that many will end up in prison? Perhaps you could spare some compassion for those children already living in misery instead of trying to increase their numbers.
Unless you are voting for accessible and affordable birth control and health care, unless you are voting to financially assist families who can't afford to take care of those children you insist must be born, you are nothing more than an accessory to the abortions you claim to hate.
Well if those foster care children are so miserable why not eliminate them now? After all clearly the parents made a grave error in not aborting and since God All Mighty Statistics say they'll be nothing but dregs they were better off never existing at all, right? So let's just terminate them now since they lives were ruined before they even started. What difference does it make, tallulah13?
God forbid we improve the quality of foster care. They're will always be foster children whether there are abortions or not, so shouldn't we improve the quality of foster care to avoid those things you mentioned? What, you think that abortions will one day eliminate the need for foster care?
"Glad i'm single w/no kids."
We're all very glad of that.
What on earth does this have to do with marriage? Or gays (who have, amazingly, a very low incidence of unintended pregnancy)?
What is the sense of spending money on unwanted sonograms? I'm starting to think that most Republicans are mentally ill.
Republicans are the ones that want "less government and less spending" but not here.
Republicans are the "family values, moral majority" party that has Newt Gingrich as a presidential candidate.
Republicans are the "law and order" party that had Haley Barbour.
The GOP seems to want MORE government regulation of my personal life (which hurts NO ONE else) and LESS regulation of corporations (which have the capacity to cause enormous harm to millions).
It sure would be refreshing to see some well reasoned arguments here. Most of the posts I see make the arguments that: Texans are stupid, republicans are stupid, men should have no say in the argument, it’s legal so shut up, and the author has no right to talk. I think the author makes some well reasoned arguments. Why not refute her points one by one?
What most pro-abortion people don’t seem to understand is that anti-abortion people don’t care about the abortion procedure, they care about the fetus that is aborted. They see it as a human life. Therefore the argument that it is about women’s right to control here body is trumped by the argument that you are ending a human life. This brings us back to the question: Is it an unborn human being killed or something else? At what point does it go from being inhuman to human? I don’t know. How do we decide? What measure do we use?
EVERYONE is pro-abortion if things get really bad enough.
The sides are "pro-choice" and "anti-choice". We know which side is yours.
And what "choice" are you refering to?
The "choice" is to allow each pregnant woman to decide whether she wants an abortion depending on her own physical and mental health.
Forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy is FORCING her to endanger her own health without an option. The woman must take priority over the fetus.
So you basically admit that being pro choice is pro abortion and anti choice is anti abortion.
If the fetus is a human being, then aborting it is killing it. The only way it would not be is if a fetus is not a human. So the question: When does a fetus turn into a human? How do YOU make this distinction?
Observer, I agree with you! My response showed up under "Bill", whom I completely disagree with. Just wanted to reset the record here.
We can make this easy. No one has the right to impose themselves into another human being's body. If some guy shoved another man into your backside and the only way to remove him would be to kill him, I doubt you'd want someone else to make that decision for you.
I agree. Rationality would be helpful. I believe that we should try to concern ourselves with the presence of consciousness in the fetus and not concerned with the notion that a soul is imbued at the moment of conception. If this is indeed the right way to proceed, I still run into problems: when does consciousness begin in a fetus? There is also the, perhaps unsolvable, problem that many people are religious and believe in souls while many others believe the idea of souls to be ridiculous. I don't begin to think that I could convince such a person they are wrong and also admit that I am not certain myself.
Regarding the article, however, I disagree. The arguments are not logically strong.
For instance, the author basically says: Because some doctors refused to show the test results to women who asked for the test, then ALL women must be forced to take the medically unnecessary test (even if they don't want it). This doesn't actually fix the issue she was addressing. The two ideas are not logically connected. Just an example. This article is poorly written.
Bill, you're right, a little fact and common sense would be welcome. People try to argue that life begins at conception. The argument based on "life" at this point is ridiculous. Pregnancy does not begin until implantation. At conception, a fertilized egg is just that, and can pass right out of a woman's system without her even being aware of it. Now, on to the fetus. A fetus is not a baby. Modern medical technology can save a premature infant, usually (but not always) without crippling lifelong effects, at around 24 weeks. Prior to that, it is, in a very real sense, an extension of the womb in which it resides. It is not an independent person. It cannot live on its own. After it can live on its own with reasonable medical measures taken, then yes, it should be illegal to terminate, just like it is illegal to kill a full-term baby.
For most, abortion is an act of desperation. Using state mandated emotional torture and forced penetration on a full-fledged human being is wrong. Using it against someone who is already at the end of her rope is appalling.
What you say makes sense. Good post. People on each end of the political spectrum will vilify you for it, though.
Wow, Danielle...that's a lot of qualifications. A fertilized egg isn't a person and a fetus isn't a person unless the fetus is 24 weeks old and then suddenly it's a baby. It wouldn't be my best-case scenario, but I'll start with banning abortions after 24 weeks. Think the pro-abortion crowd will go along?
oh, and just to clarify...after 24 weeks, you'd consider an abortion to be murder, right?
Love all of the straw-man arguments from the pro-abortion crowd. "But what about the health of the mother?" Less than 1% of all abortions have anything to do with medical risk to the mother. It is simply another form of birth control for them. For the pro-abortion folks out there, I'd like to get an answer to the following question: "is an unborn child (what you would call a fetus) a) alive and b) human?". Where I come from, there is a word that describes the intentional killing of a living human.
You can call me a right-wing nut if you want, but my belief is simple...that a fetus is a person with the right to live. Even most pro-abortion folks concede that it is wrong to terminate a fetus at 37 weeks. Why? What is magical about 37 weeks? What about at 36 weeks? Or a week before that? I don't know where that magical point is where an unborn child suddenly becomes a person, do you? I err on the side of caution.
As for the mother's choice, the question is why shouldn't a woman have control over her body? I say that she does, except that now there are two bodies, hers and someone else's. She shouldn't be able to terminate another person's life for her convenience.
This article discusses only first trimester abortions (up to 12 weeks). Therefore, the answers to your questions would be no and no. Anything else?
An acorn is qualitatively different than an oak tree. Given the right conditions, it will develop into an oak tree, but it is not yet one.
An embryo is not a person.
I read the open letter from the politician from Texas, she is wrong almost everywhere. The gall of the government of Texas to interfere with a private medical procedure is quite disgusting. But that’s is what the republican creed is all about now ,less freedom, less personal choice, and more government intervention in our private lives. In campaigns they all say the opposite but when elected they do the opposite of what they run on (spend like there is no tomorrow, try to take our freedoms away and try to oppress minorities groups that their religion dislikes). I do not know this women so I will not call her names or impute her intelligence but she is wrong and anti american in her views
Yea, because we all know women are too stupid to make decisions without pictures. That's why catalogs were invented.
There is a huge difference between medical procedures a patient consents to and those thrust upon (and into) her by legislatures. It matters not at all whether the actual abortion is more or less invasive than the sonogram, because the patient wants the abortion and would be forced to have the sonogram. I don't know why Republicans have this problem with understanding the importance of patients' consent over all aspects of their personal health care when they claim to be against "big government", but they do.
Exactly! Well said.
it's an idiotic assumption that a women going to an abortion clinic doesn't know what she's about to do. People really need to leave their religion and their politics out of other people's bodies.
"give women the information they deserve" my backside. This is nothing but an act of intimidation by a bunch of redneck control freaks. Republican party used to be the party of freedom; now it is the party of 'my way or no way'.
TAKE BACK AMERICA!!!
It's a state measure, where experiments like this belong. It can be corrected much more easlily at the state level.
This lady is what we call a "phony Texan"..upper class ..only looks at things in our state if some bubba tells her what to think or say. She is the type who married into money so she truly has no experience of working her way up or struggling to pay bills,thus she has no clear vision on women's issues in Texas. Rick Perry must have her on a short leash.
It seems that no one can discuss this without name calling. I am not religions but I am pro life. The rape argument is quite popular but the vast majority of abortions were not because of rape. Life is the most valuable thing we have and once created it should not be ended. The potential contributions these aborted people could have made to society will not be realized. If a woman does not want to keep the baby put it up for adoption.
It will be interesting to see what the response to this post is. I am not a Democrat as they are trying to control ALL aspects of our life (Govt knows best), I am not a Republican as they have become heartless and cruel. I am for Gay rights, I am for Gun rights, I am for Civil rights. I am against religious extremism, for complete separation of Church and State and a huge believer in the freedom of speech! But I do believe that abortion is a murder of the most innocent and helpless of us all. If this life is all there is then lets not be selfish in sharing it due to an "inconvenience".
Lastly, lets be civil and respectful in our debate, otherwise you are act in the manner you are accusing others of!
It is interesting that you say "put the child up for adoption." While I am not condoning the act (abortion), the same people that state this are the same that want to cut all spending to any program AFTER the birth of these children. There are so many children that would like to be adopted yet they are stuck being ward of the states because these same people that don't want to adopt them. So please explain how to solve the general care and education of all these children. Further, why is it so hard to get a straight answer on reproductive education? Abstinence is not a viable choice because teens are curious and telling them not to do it without any information is a plan for them to do just it.
I know this is not a debate about population control, but please consider your pro-life views in the light of world population growth, dwindling resources, and worsening environmental conditions. If we do not begin to seriously control population growth, the lives of a few fetuses will be rounding errors on on a very large number. If you want to protect life, you need to work towards radically changing human behavior.
I acknowledge your concerns. Perhaps one of these aborted people might have been able to come up with a solution. I just can not consider the lives of a few fetuses to be rounding errors. You know we could completely stop having children in this country but it would not make the slightest difference in the world population growth. Education and options can help, but life is still the most precious thing there is.
jack, get pregnant
Unfortunately biology won't allow that. However I shared the process as close as possible with my wife and birth of our two daughters. It was the most amazing and wonderful thing I have ever experienced.
"Melinda Fredricks is Vice Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas and a member of the Texas Federation of Republican Women. "
Stopped reading right there
"...she was appointed by Gov. Rick Perry to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Prior to that, in 2003, Gov. Perry appointed her to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines physicians." I should have stopped after this. What more do you need to know.
Thank you Republicans for rejecting Rick Perry and his ideas. Thank you for making him quit the primaries in utter disgrace.
Republicans – Stop trying to control other peoples BODIES. Must be because you HATE FREEDOM!
100% of all abortion rights activists were not aborted.
If it's not a baby, you're not pregnant.
All sperm and eggs are half a human life.
Every time a sperm is wasted or an egg goes unused, it's 50% murder.
wet dreams are mass murder!!
then vasectomies must be genocie
OMG ban menstrual cycles!!!!!
too much monty python
100% of abortion rights advocates were not aborted.
True, but because of prior abortions in conjunction with planned parenthood, they might be alive today because they were planned for.
fatuous twaddle; one-third of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted in the first few weeks of gestations; seen any funerals for zygotes lately?
Looks like the author has never got her head around the fact that abortion is legal in the US and she will stop at nothing to force her views on others. No one is forcing her to terminate her pregnency. And she ONLY has a say in HER pregnency.
So she is saying that because women helped make the law it's not rape? I don't see how law makers get off telling someone what is medically necessary. These options should be discussed between doctor and patient. It's none of the politicians business.
The GOP apologist just can't resist condescension towards her opponents. No madam, Gary Trudeau is not ignorant or misinformed. He is presenting the facts in a way that demonstrates the bigotry and misogyny of the Republican Party. That some of the members of that party happen to be women is irrelevant to his argument.
The majority are the middle aged men that Trudeau refers to and when the GOP House committee decided to have a hearing on contraception recently, the GOP chair decided to call only men to pontificate on the topic and when he realized the disastrous optics of the only woman on the panel being the witness called by the Democrats decided on no women at all.
Answering a truthful point with an obvious lie is not a way to persuade people. It is obvious to anyone but the most blind GOP supporter that the intention of these bills is to shame and discourage women rather than 'inform them' as claimed.
Since all the tea-party states are enacting the same ridiculous abortion agenda at the same time it must all be coordinated (ALEC);
I'm sure that the extreme nature of the laws is meant to cause appeals to the Supreme Court;
the Supreme Court is unbalanced with Opus Dei types who might overturn the privacy ruling upon which legal abortion exists...The tea-party people are what used to be called The John Birch Society back in the 1960s. The Koch Brothers' dad was a menber.
The policy is enforced by the governor who thinks 3 things about his own policy are too many to remember.
The fact that this discussion is taking place indicates that Trudeau hit the nail on the head. In addition, Trudeau is a comic artist, known to employ satire, where things are exaggerated in order to make a point. Some people don't seem to understand this.
I guess you could make the same point about the comments Linbaugh made last week. People were upset because he hit the nail on the head.
Rush is so pathetic... Lost his advertisers. What a loser.
Limbaugh just hit himself on the head.
@Bill Jesus Bill I know that girl. Did not hit the nail on the head. Not even close. Quit being a jerk. Like Limbaugh
Limbaugh never hits the nail on the head. He only keeps one hand on the volume and the other on the receiver so that he can silence any real debate on his show. He only gives half truths and was the spokesman that helped encourage millions of murders in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is a human piece of garbage.
So Limbaugh's a comedian? Makes sense. Most of his dribble makes me laugh. As he sits there fat, addicted to pills, and chain-smoking his cigars his whole show...
Woah, woah, woah! What's wrong with this picture?
"...in 2003, Gov. Perry appointed her to the Texas Medical Board, which licenses and disciplines physicians." - But yet she makes no claim to having any medical credentials.
There are a WHOLE LOT of really great and wonderful Texans. They can be the nicest and friendliest people around. But what kind of CIRCUS do you have running that state?
A community organizer got elected President.
And he doubled the S&P and grew my 401K. Thank you Mr. community organizer.
Ouch! You sir, win!
Oh, so you're the one percent. Got it. Give me your money, you stole it.
S&P doubled in spite of him
It always amazes me when I think we actually fought a war to make Texas a part of the USA!
Keith. Your observation alone discredits the author–and her opinions. I think Perry should think about what he does. Oh......"oops...Sorry."
Texan's love to appoint unqualified people to important posts. Remember "Good Boy, Brownie." That worked well didn't it. I'm sure the medical professionals of Texas are thrilled to have this person overseeing their profession. Republicans say they are in favor of meritocracy, but based on the quality of their candidates and appointments I think they have confused the words meritocracy and mediocrity.
Not middle-aged GOP men.
Just garden-variety morons. In general.
Is it something in the water there?
Is this lady for real!!??? How did she get political power!? What conceivable information does a woman gain from a sonogram? Besides that, why should she be FORCED to get one??!! Does this lady have brain damage?
Abortion providers already perform this sonagram before proceeding with an abortion. They don't just stick things up a woman willy nilly without first verifying they are indeed pregnant, and see what they are doing. It's just that currenty the patient is not informed of the results of the sonogram. All this law does is require the provider give the patient the opportunity to recieve or not recieve the results, as the patient wishes.
Careful with that rational thought, it may cause someone elses' head to implode.
The less informed people are, the less likely they are to change their mind.
That is not true; the woman is given the option. This is a law FORCING it on them.
I understand that Limbaugh wants video of the procedure posted on the Internet so he can watch the rape himself. He says its only because he wants proof the procedure is being done.
Seriously are people today totally without any brain cells?
FACT 1 EVERYONE is prochoice AND prolife, its abortion you are for or against and using the "pro" words is dishonest at best and deceptive at worst.
FACT 2 If you are not a female you need to keep out of abortion regulations, because you have NO CLUE what kind of pain and suffering a perfectly healthy pregnancy can bring about nor the harm that a fetus DOES inflict on the mothers body and for the record very very few pregnancies are "text book perfect".
FACT 3 many women (my wife included) have serious medical issues concerning their ovaries and fallopian tubes, should they get pregnant (despite using contraceptives) the longer they carry the zygote/fetus/baby and the further it progresses the greater the danger the mother will die a horrific and painful death along with the child, an abortion would have at least saved one of them.
FACT 3 the only other group (aside from women) that has a right to speak on the subject of abortions are those like myself that came VERY close to being aborted (my mother was actually on the table and prepped when she opted to have me, and yes in some ways I wish she had not second guessed herself, the medical conditions I was born with have made my life a living hell and has also shorted my lifespan by at least 50% and yes of course if she had aborted me i would not have experienced the joys of my life however i also would not have had to deal with the pain, discomfort, disabilities, and eventual heartbreak of my wife when i pass away so much earlier than her.)
FACT 4 If a fetus can not survive outside the womb on its own it is not yet a independent person. At minimum a fetus needs to have at least a FULLY developed brain (i.e. it is fully functional and is regulating the fetus' functions) before the fetus can have any hope of having a consciousness.
FACT 5 the texas law (by international and federal legal definition) is rape regardless of how you slice it and any one approached by a doctor attempting to "probe" them can call both the police and FBI and press federal rape charges (remember federal laws always trump state laws) against the doctor as well as following up with medical malpractice charges for attempting a non-medically needed highly invasive procedure for which the patient is left holding the bill and the torment of being forcibly penetrated.
FACT 6: None of the previous five facts were in fact facts. They were all opinion.
Make your own choices and live life as best you see fit. There shouldn't even be a debate over this. Any good Christian knows to turn the other cheek. It's a metaphor for taking on things you don't agree with, but you sit silent in your protest. Being Christian doesn't make you a savior of those around you. It's a personal choice and you live by your decisions. Why get involved with something like this?
I agree. Burn the Jews, starve the hungry and keep the slaves captive.
while I do sympathize with your wife and her medical condition, I can't help but wonder why she doesn't get her tubes tied if the risk of a pregnancy is life threatening.
YOUR answer is to get her woman parts surgically taken from her? Women who have their reproductive organs removed can suffer side effects that require lifelong medication, therapy, not to mention deal with depression (it's the equivalent of cutting off a man's parts because "he's suffering from X".
Um, Not-So-SmartPotato, getting your tubes tied does not involve the surgical removal of any organs. It's just getting the tubes tied. Get it?
Look down in your pants (I'm assuming you're male). We're talking about the equivalent of a vasectomy, not complete castration. Your parts – and hers – are perfectly safe.
Hi Ann, many women do not know that pregnancy is life-threatening to them until they are already pregnant. Blood pressure, diabetes, etc...
I refuse to support men telling women how to manage personal health issues, to include reproductive rights. However, I would love to see "Joe the Plumber" stick a borescope up Rick Perry's backside, for a routine colorectal exam. Lights, Camera, Action!
you are a sick piece of work
How about mandatory endoscopic exams of men's organs when they request a prescription for Viagra to confirm they have ED and don't just want it for lifestyle choice s3x. Nobody wants to encourage s3x for anything other than procreation, right? Certainly no employer who doesn't believe in paying for medical coverage of prescriptions for lifestyle choice s3x enhancing drugs should have to pay anything towards a plan that covers them. Since we can't trust the word of the men or their doctor's about whether the Viagra is for ED and not just for lifestyle choice s3x, we need to see the results of a mandatory endoscopic exam.
"Melinda is a former middle school math teacher and former stay at home mom. Her previous experience includes working at a national political consulting firm." and what, exactly, makes her qualified to be on the texas medical board?
Texas has a long, proud history of government officials completely lacking in ability to do the job for which they were hired or elected. Witness Rick Perry and W.
Absolutely not a damn thing. Don't know about Texas, but there is no reason a politician should be on a medical board. Medical Boards make medical decisions in the best interest of patient care without regard to politics, and they license and discipline doctors.
I can think of a few ways she qualified for the job though (insert Monica Lewinsky joke here)
I agree with your comments. Here is what she lists in her linkedin profile.
Apparently in Texas it doesnt take much to be in an official role. Her path
from teacher to medical board to alcohol commission to republic party
leader in texas doesnt pass the baloney meter. Neither does her article.
Republican Party of Texas
Nonprofit; 11-50 employees; Political Organization industry
June 2010 – Present (1 year 10 months) Austin, Texas Area
Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission
Government Agency; 501-1000 employees; Wine and Spirits industry
November 2008 – Present (3 years 5 months) Austin, Texas Area
Texas Medical Board
August 2003 – November 2008 (5 years 4 months) Austin, Texas
Licensing and Accountability for Doctors in the State of Texas
Melinda Fredricks' Organizations
Texas Federation of Republican Women
Melinda Fredricks' Education
University of North Texas
University of North Texas
Bachelors, Elementary Education
Activities and Societies: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship
Ah yes....stupidity IS very hard to hide.
mmm... she's a christian taliban. No other qualification is necessary
It's such a backwards state...
I just don't get why anyone would live in texas anyway...
"However, Trudeau’s misinformation crossed over into just plain nasty when he characterized the Texas Sonogram Law as rape." - WRONG. Mr. Trudeau's INFORMATION crossed over into just plain TRUTH. YOUR self-righteous bill meets the international definition of rape.
"...many Texans would just laugh at Trudeau’s ignorance." - Well... certainly those who voted for this rape bill in the TX legislature.
"Texas law simply increases the standard of care" - Really? You seem to have left "Dr." off the front of your name. Do you have any major medical research association specifying that the procedure will increase the standard of care compared to not having the procedure? Ya... we thought not.
Awww... go ahead. We're all friends here. You can confess to us. You were just being self-righteous when you wrote this bill, weren't you? Go on. Tell the truth now. We understand.
Wow, you total refuted her argument without even having to have any anoying things like facts. You rule!
the difference of course, Ms Fredricks... is that some medical procedures are the legal and private choice of the patient and some are being forced on her by lawmakers who are seeking to shame and humiliate that patient for a very personal and private decision.
Exactly. I think men should have a tube inserted into their urethra opening, just before their yearly rectal exam. Just to be fair.
I am so sad. Abortion stops a beating heart. Better to find this out before making the choice, then to get one only to regret it later when you discover just how amazingly fully developed a baby is in the 8th week of pregnancy. I am so sad so many think this is even about religion... it's about life. LIFE. And the amazing gift we have to create life within. So sad.
...and so then we can assume you fully support the Affordable Care Act because it'll make it more likely that the mother will be able to get continuing health care after the child is born?
Are we to assume you would force your mother, daughter, or sister to carry the fetus of a rapist to full term?
Are we to assume you would force a girl raped by her father to carry the fetus to full term?
Why is it when abortion is discussed, the first thing is what about rape? The facts show that less than 5% of abortions are performed because of rape, incest or the health of the mother. Over 95% of abortions are performed as a method of birth control. These facts come directly from the Planned Parenthood annual report of procedures. In this day and age, when we know so much about the prevention of pregnancy, the tragedy of abortion is not the 5%, but the other 95%. Perhaps we wouldn't keep having this arguement if the other 95% of abortions were not being performed.
The point of all of this is not to argue whether abortion is an awful thing. That is a distraction. The point is the question of whether the state is overreaching. Demanding that a non-necessary, invasive medical procedure be performed, and then insisting that the patient sit and view the results and listen to the heartbeat is not simply "informed consent". It is rather a form of propaganda, intended to promulgate a political point of view and force it on the patient. This is Orwellian in the extreme.
That is the point that we should be discussing, not whether it's ok to have an abortion. It is ok to have an abortion. That's already settled.
I think it's worse that people discount that "5%" like they don't matter. ONE victim of rape being forced to have yet another item forced into her without her consent due to some religious paper pushing, is too many. You people have issues.
I agree so much. I don't even know if I believe in "God," but I do know that there is a living being inside the womb and it didn't ask to be created. I just believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions. If one chooses willingly to have intercourse, then one should bear any consequence as a result of that.
JD, you are so right. People need to take responsibility for their actions. What you seem to not understand is that people who are anti-abortion are shoving themselves into other's lives, invading their privacy, affecting personal choices of those who they don't know, and calling themselves righteous. Go back to your own home, close the door and the blinds, start caring about yourself, and get out of other people's lives.
It is about you forcing your particular biased archaic religion into other people's medical decisions. In the first trimester abortion ON DEMAND is leagl and should not require any other informred consent other than I wish to do this.
A FETUS is not a person or a child or a baby. It is a FETUS.
No, it's not about religion, sorry. It's about responsibility. And just because YOU say its not a "person," doesn't make it true. When does real life begin? I mean, a newborn cannot survive on its own. It must be cared for by someone. Why would it be considered murder if someone takes a newborn into the woods and drops it off. If it can't provide for its own, then it shouldn't be considered alive, right? It's just a parasite, that depends on others for survival.
@JD. You are a complete a$$. Just because YOU say a fetus is a person doesn't make it one. There are cancer clones living out their lives in vats in medical hospitals that have as much "personhood" as a 1st trimester fetus. Best scientific evidence and rational discourse suggests that 1st trimester fetus is unaware that it has interests and that those interests can be affected by others. This makes it not a person (philosophy again). A normal baby, even at birth, is aware that it has interests that can be affected by others; it almost immediately tries to communicate with its mother for example.
I appreciate your sentiments, and when the decision is yours you have the right to carry the baby to full term. You don't have the right to tell another woman what she "must" do, anymore than I have the right to tell you to terminate yours.
You can't seriously base your political belief on the fates of hypothetical people.
Life is not that precious. I can squirt out a new one every day.
Murderer! Bwah ha ha ha ha...
I've had a few medical procedures done, and i had to sign 'informed consent' forms, but I NEVER had to undergo ANOTHER medical procedure to satisfy the 'informed consent' provisions. Is there many OTHER medical procedures that require this?
Its a shame there is no informed consent required before voting republican.
Are these the same people who constantly preach getting gubmit off the backs of people. Are these the same people who don't want to provide healthcare and education, once the child is born. So much protection for the unborn, but once you're here, you become despensable for their wars against those other religious zealots. Give me a break....
Is it medically necessary in order to have an abortion?
Does the woman want it to be done?
Does it involve penetration?
Technically it fits the federal definition of rape.
Game, set, and match. Those are the facts; anything else is spin-speak.
Does a potentially viable fetus die: yes
Is this a serious decision: yes
Should the woman think really really really hard before she does it and have all the facts: yes
These are also the facts of abortion...
Sometimes abortion is the right choice but don't pretend it is a decision without consequences and so only fully informed people should make it
do you somehow think that women who undergo this procedure have not thought long and hard about what they are doing, or that they somehow make this decision frivolously? i guarantee you that the vast majority know exactly what they are doing; they don't need a state-mandated (and expensive) invasive procedure to tell them.
Viability comes into the equation after 16-20 weeks. A first trimester termination is the mother's decision ONLY. You and your fellow zealots have no right to be a part of it.
Your assumption is she hasn't been informed, or isn't informed. Truly, there is no more of a right to demand that a woman undergo this procedure to become "informed" than there is to force a woman to watch a video of a pregnancy being terminated so that she can be informed about the option to terminate.
For my part, I just don't feel right if I don't have an abortion every few months or so–keeps the pipes flushed, don't you know? [mindless giggle]
And this may be hard for your to accept, but these decisions are none of your business, unless you're the doctor or the woman choosing to have an abortion. So butt the heck out.
Part of the problem here is not only how pointless the procedure is but that they want to require it for ALL abortions even in cases of rape incest and when the womans life is in danger, how would it be ok in those cases? Can you imagine how horrible this would be for someone who was raped?
What do you need to have shoved up your organ so you can make a serious decision about life?
Is a pap smear necessary to prescribe a woman birth control?
No, it's just a way of coercing women into getting checked for cervical cancer.
Not the ones that I know.
Does it involve penetration?
Looks like a lot of women are getting "raped" these days.
*low rumbling sound of rape straw man burning to the ground
There is actually no state law that requires a pap smear to get birth control but nice try.
Dan- That's like saying that looking in your mouth isn't necessary prior to a root canal.
No it's not. It is like saying that an ultrasound of ones head isn't necessary before a root canal...which it isn't.
What? By your logic no medical tests are necessary before any operation. Is that really what you think?
Why would you need an ultrasound of your head before a root canal?
Completely irrelevant. You do understand female anatomy, correct?
If your analogy is irrelevant why did you bring it up?
Obviously I was talking about your analogy. Why would I call my own analogy irrelevant?
Actually, no, it doesn't. Rape is a crime of violence, express or implied. There is no violence, no force, no threat of force involved here. The woman is completely free to get up and walk out at any point she likes. No one is holding her down or putting roofies in her drink to force her to submit. No one can make her have any of it done. She just won't get the abortion.
That's not to say it's a good law, but calling it "rape" is just hysterics. Trudeau is a funny guy, but he's always been better at ratcheting up the screaming, frothing, and name-calling than at actually furthering anyone's understanding of anything.
Thank you for expressing what I have been thinking, but less eloquently.
Still a worthy debate, even in the 21st, why all the fuss, this is not a big deal to most women. It's building rhetoric to support abortion rights. But I see fear in abortion rights people that a change may occur if this info is used as one of a woman's overall data points.
@memyself Your wrote "A fetus does not feel pain in the way a person feels pain, does not suffer in the way a person suffers, is not conscious or aware or sentient in the way a person is." Who determined this and how?
Scientists. Before the third trimester, or at least well into the second, a fetus simply doesn't have the level of neurological development necessary to perceive pain. There are rudiments of pain signaling earlier than that, but they do not cause the type of brain activation to cause what we call the discriminative and affective aspects of pain. These are the things that tell you where pain is, how bad it is, and give you an emotional response to it. Without these, there is no pain.
@bimston Come on, you know that science and it's "acolytes," the so-called "scientists" aren't reliable! The only thing that's proven fact comes from a 200-year old book of fables and that invisible guy in the sky! Science has never proven anything, didn't you know?
But a sleeping person also has a decreased ability to sense the outside world, to be conscious, to even feel pain. Is it less wrong to kill a sleeping person than an awake person? Are modern "ethicists" going to tell us that a sleeping person has not achieved "personhood?"
... just to add to what @bimston said, 1st trimester fetus is also incapable of intent, awareness, consciousness... it just doesn't have the neural organization to support such things...
It's a shame this women believes that Texas Women aren't smart enough to realize what an abortion is, but looking at the school system and dropout rates, she MAY have a point.
What Ms. Fredericks repeatedly and willfully fails to acknowledge is the fact that there is no medical need for these sonograms, and that the notion of 'informed consent' in this case is simply a smokescreen for the real goals of this legislature, which is to make the choice to seek an abortion so burdensome and humilitating that it would discourage a woman from exercising her established right to have a first trimester abortion, These utterly false claims about "information" and "consent' should be taken for what they are, Orwellian nonsense designed to, yet again, make women second class citizens. It's fascinating how Republicans believe that liberty is somethiing only men should enjoy.
This is appalling.
If you look at Ms. Frederick's facebook thing, she identifes herself as a Christian. This is particularly painful for those of us who really seek to follow the teachings of Jesus.
For those of you who think this represents Christianity:
Christians to not rape pregnant women. Or anyone. Or support it.
Christians certainly don't rape pregnant women, or anyone, or support it – and call it something else.
This is not a "war on women", its a war between religious fundamentalism and free thought.
It's also a war on women.
I can't tell if the author is deluded or simply a disingenuous politico. The party line that this law enforces increased medical care and is concerned with the health of the mother is an argument that reeks of the worst sophistry. This law is intended to make it more difficult to get an abortion, and seems designed to specifically target women who are poor, constrained, or traumatized to disincentivise abortions. As per Roe v. Wade, it is not the government's place to either promote or discourage abortion and the Texas legislature should mind their own damn business.
Sadly, I think she really believes what see is saying.
look up her bio online – she's a misinformed, deluded politico.
I'm a former Texas republican and was a delegate at a Republican state convention. I can tell you, these people are nut cases. They are fanatics beyond what the general public realizes. They do not in any way understand the realities of real life for people who are struggling or are not all of the above (white, protestant, well-off financially). There are a lot of great people in Texas, but politics there have been overrun by the ultra, ultra religious fanatics. There is no place for reason.
Does anyone understand why so many right wing Christians in Texas are against abortion, but cheer every time a person is executed in a Texas prison? How can you be pro-life and pro-execution at the same time? Are all Texans as dumb as this?
You know what's REALLY dumb? Presenting an argument that presents the exact level of extreme to the OTHER side, and being completely ignorant of that. So why are left wing radical nuts so high on the "life is sacred" side when it comes to executing a criminal, but totally ok with tossing a baby's life aside, for what may be as simple a reason as "it would be inconvenient for me to take care of this LIFE right now." Let's see. One is a convicted criminal who has seen the world and made a deliberate choice to be a criminal, and the other is a CHILD who hasn't even left the womb. Sorry buddy. A criminal who goes into someone's home, rapes a mother and two daughters, makes the father watch, then burns them alive (real story), is going to get my vote to die EVERY time. But your vote is with the baby. THAT is where death is called for, right? YEAH, you're right, I am in awe of your logic...dumb is correct.
I dont know anyone that is "pro-abortion". I know many that are pro-choice. If the legal system were not so sporadic and incompetent in its application of the death penalty then perhaps the argument would hold water. The truth is that abortion is not taking life by legal definition. End of story. Execution of a "criminal" based on our current justice system is wrong. The number of people that have been set free from death row post conviction should send chills down your spine. I guess you fall into the group that thinks its okay to break a few eggs when making a death omlette. Good look with your lack of reason.
No. You don't get the distinction. It's not about killing an unborn child. It's about the woman's right to make that choice. You don't have anymore right to tell her that she can't, than I do to tell her that she must.
Why won't this let me reply to "JW". Oh well, I'll put it here.
I like the way you debate. Apparently, anyone can feign victory by declaring "end of story". Sorry buddy, that's not recognized as a legitimate debate tactic. So, despite what you say, NOT end of story.
The legal system is spotty, yes. But in cases, such as the one I described, there is not doubt left. This was a couple of guys that went into a household, did it, and admitted it. Dare I say "End of story"?? No...that'd be a cheap trick, I'll continue instead.
So...really? You changed the wording from "pro-abortion" to the nice PC, softer sounding "pro-choice", and that's your argument? Who do you think you're dealing with? Sorry, I'm going to pin you to the wall on that stupid lawyer tactic. You can change the words, but, its still the same thing. Lol.
My argument holds plenty of water, sorry. In the case of the criminal, spotty or not though the legal system might be, there is at LEAST a percentage of chance, that they deserve to die. In the case of the baby, who has yet to even enter the world, there is ZERO % chance, they haven't even had the CHANCE to do anything wrong yet.
This has been fun, I hope you reply. ...you know, now that you mention it, changing the word "abortion" with "choice" DOES make it sound so much more positive! Man, how awesome to be on the side that fights for "choice", rather than "abortion"...because it's TOTALLY different, you know?? ;)
And wow. As i'm writing that reply, FOE pops in with the exact same "redefinition of the same thing, to muddy what's really happening" move. Ok, so it's NOT "killing an unborn child", it's "a mother's right to choose". Ok, we'll go with how you defined it. So this must been the unborn child wasn't killed then right? Because, you said it WASN'T that. Got it.
If you fellas reply, I'll get back to you tomorrow. I'm going to bed. :)
I don't necessarrily agree with it and I see your point, but I thinks it's because those who face the death penalty have "earned" it. There are problems with that line of thinking to be sure, but the flipside is that a fetus has not "earned" their death. In the end...nobody should take sides. Do what you want. If ou're comfortable in your own beliefs then keep your mouth shut and be the best person you can be. Absolute, right answers don't exist. Be the best person you can be and live with your actions. Case closed.
Not all Texans just the ones that call attention to themselves
Another Conservative offering up SPIN tactics to save face for a fellow nut job. Oh, CNN how you've changed.
That's so funny. All the poor fools who watch Fox are always citing CNN as 100% liberal!
(It's not their fault. It's what they've been told. People only know what they are told, unless they really go out of their way to look into things theselves, or unless life has broader horizons for them. Doesn't make them dumb.)
Wow, I feel sorry for the people of Texas who have Perry as governor and this twit on the state Medical Board.
The author of this article hit the nail right on the head. Abortions need to be transparent as possible. Once you abort, there's no going back, and some one that gets an abortion better have knowledge of what they're doing. Then again, people shouldn't be having abortions in the first place, it's murder.
Yea... pretty sure people know what an abortion is when they get one... that's why they get one in the first place.
Is it murder if a person has a tumor removed? These are living cells, right? So this must be murder, right? And fertile women shed unfertilized eggs each month – so that must be murder too. And it must be murder when a man's sperm cells are absorbed back into his body.
But it apparently isn't murder to let oil companies pollute our drinking water, to send yound men and women into war, to execute a criminal, or to let children starve to death. No these are good, solid values from the Christian Taliban who want to impose their version of sharia law on this country. If Texans are dumb enough to elect nut jobs, then they deserve what they get. But the Christian Taliban has no place in civil society and certainly no standing for telling everyone else how to live.
You aren't really that ignorant are you? One of those things has a heartbeat. A tumor is not on the path to becoming a PERSON. Tell you what. Go up to a living person who's parents had been considering an abortion, and tell them "Hey, you ACTUALLY shouldn't be here, your parents decided life was going to suck for you. So, here's a gun. End it." If you're right, then their life is forfeit, and they outta be absolutely ECSTATIC to finish what their parents started. How many do you think that got a chance to live, would actually take you up on that. ZERO.
If your parents had decided you'd be inconvenient, and YOU had been aborted, I'm sure you wouldn't feel the way you do about it. Well...you would have never felt much....of anything actually...what a sad paradox that is...
Not in this country, a FETUS is not a a person, it is a FETUS and woman has the right to decide if she wants to carry it or not.
That is the law, period.
It's also illegal to carry an ice cream cone in your back pocket on Sundays in certain parts of Colorado too. . . .
That is the LAW! Period! ROFLMAO!
Abortion is legal in this country, folks. Live with it. If you don't like it, don't get one.
Laws can be wrong. It is the duty of good people to fight against immoral laws. Abortion destroys life. Life with different DNA than the mother. I invite all pro-choice people to seriously think over this issue with an open mind. You may change it.
What a repugnant Republican opinion piece. So invading a woman's body is giving her "the information she deserves about this medical procedure?" In whose eyes does she "deserve" such treatment? This lady is proud of Texas for inflicting its warped religious view on women. Is she similarly proud of being from the state that leads all others in capital punishments by a whopping margin? Know what? I am somehow absolutely sure she is. Pro-lifers are almost invariably pro-deathers.
Based on your comment, you admit that abortion is murder. I assume you didn't mean it that way, but then again, most progressives are by definition narrow minded bigots (their way or the highway, no room for differing opinions.) Also, as the article explains, this procedure is the LEAST invasive of what comes after.
Next time, argue the facts, not the emotion. Think… and then talk. Don't feel… and then talk – invariably you look bad.
And for the record, although I think abortion is a bad choice, woman have the right to make the choice (even if aborting a healthy child is always the wrong choice).
Just needed to read the author's bio to know that this opinion piece would be filled with logical fallacies, lies, and BS ... and yup, sure enough, that's what it was.
Just curious. Could you point out a few? Any references to factual sources would be appreciated.
Being a radical Christian Republican seems to be enough.
@Chris432, So obviously, you couldn't point any out either. :)
It would be refreshing if these nut jobs would at least be honest. Trying to convince people that the Texas forced-rape requirement is good for women is not going to work. She would be better off just telling everyone she is part of the Christian Taliban who believe their god is against medical procedures, the world is 6000 years old, and humans played frisbee with dinosaurs. Amusing how the Christian Taliban is so afraid of Sharia Law but seem to have no qualms when imposing their Christian equivalent.
How is it that close minded nimrods always equate ANYTHING with abortions. . .that doesn't fit their narrowminded perspective. . .as religious? Seriously, is that ALL you have to fight with. Pretty weak.
It's painful to agree – but even tho the Taliban thing is over the top – I do.I
How do idiots like this get to write for CNN? I want her friends.
Calling her an idiot doesn't make you smarter.
Reading this drivel could lower your IQ though.
Calling her an idiot doesn't make him smarter. Recognizing the idiocy of the story written, makes many of us smarter than anyone who would support this stupidity. Including the writer of the idiotic story. Does that help?
Your reply doesn't make helomoto12354's statement wrong.
That's funny...I feel smarter...
Calling her an idiot is completely fair, because she is talking like she thinks everybody else is an idiot.
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 email@example.com.
Send Feedback | Subscribe