I get it.

Women should not know what is inside them prior to an abortion. Too much knowledge is apparently a bad thing.

Having an ultrasound is somehow more 'invasive' than having an abortion.

Yep, sure makes sense to me!

Where does one go for a non-invasive abortion these days? Candyland or the Magical kingdom?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is there still a clause against this somewhere in the constitution? I mean, I realize it has been totally erased for those who are not born here, but-- it seems this is a law that should be easily overturned on several civil rights breeches. Privacy of my vagina should be protected under privacy rights, if we can prove we have any of those left. Search and seizure of my vagina should be protected under the bill of rights. I certainly do not want to think of my body parts as property, but they do "belong" to me. And doesn't the 4th amendment count as protection against search and seizure of personhood as well as property? Where are our constitutional scholars? This is insane.

Of course, if we can figure out a way to hack the machines, there is some interesting CONCEPTUAL ART potential here. Make the technicians see Charles Manson smiling back at them from within the womb, or that scary shot of jack Nicholson from "The Shining"...or maybe themselves. Turn the mirror on them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and I can assure you that this WILL pass... although I assume a constitutional challenge will be mounted, and then... hold on to your hats, the "christans" will be all over it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

“I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue,” observed pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher, in the Tallahassee Democrat. "It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction."

The only frustration I have with the Left, therefore, is its failure to see abortion as a secular human rights issue…especially those who claim to espouse nonviolence, e.g., are antinuclear or antiwar, or support nonviolent civil disobedience.

During the spring of 1989, for example, a huge pro-choice rally in Washington, DC was endorsed by the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Studies in Atlanta. I found this incredibly Orwellian! It’s like many on the Left have trouble seeing abortion as a human rights issue; seeing it as an act of violence against the unborn.

Similarly, in the mid-‘90s, a group of various recording artists released an album benefiting the abortion rights movement, entitled Born to Choose. The title also struck me as Orwellian: We are “born to choose” whether or not someone else may be “born” to choose.

And recently I saw a car with two bumper stickers: one of them read “Create Peace” and the other read “Pro-Choice.” The owner of the car apparently saw no contradiction between the two slogans.

Most Americans are neither pro-life nor pro-choice. American public opinion falls somewhere in the middle. We see those on the pro-choice side opposing even reasonable restrictions on abortion.

For example: our laws require parental notification or consent if minors want tattoos or pierced ears; why should abortion be exempt?

The decision to take a life is very grave, so why is it unreasonable to require a 24 hour waiting period, to give a new mother time to think things through, rather than make a decision in haste?

The pro-choice rhetoric that women are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not to carry a child to term means they ought to be able to make informed choices. The informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws advocated by pro-lifers are consistent with pro-choice rhetoric.

Even many on the pro-choice side are uncomfortable with abortion during the later stages of pregnancy, yet they are often reluctant to support a ban on partial-birth abortion: a procedure which is never medically “necessary,” and which former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan likened to infanticide.

In Guerilla Apologetics for Life Issues, Paul Nowak points out that Planned Parenthood opposes even reasonable restrictions upon abortion, such as 24 hour waiting periods, parental notification, informed consent or “women’s right to know” laws, etc. Nowak writes: “Planned Parenthood opposes clinic regulations, despite the fact that in many states there are more restrictions on veterinary clinics than self-regulated abortion facilities.”

Since the goal of the pro-choice movement is to “keep abortion safe and legal,” why does Planned Parenthood oppose clinic regulations?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If this viral shitheadedness spreads, it's off to CuNAYda.

Can't these rich fundie asshats mind their own damned bidness?! Will progressives finally recognize that they're not dealing with human beings when we're dealing with fundie Xtians and their apologists? We're dealing with delusional cult members, with lethal power.

Time to take out the trash...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is a fare and absolutely non-invasive yet balancing solution to the problem:
Each ardent anti-choice legislator has to have a lapel with “I have sex for procreation only” and has to promise that his spouse and children 1. did not and do not use contraceptive; 2. will never use any contraceptive. Let us start counting how many children the most vocal anti-choice advocates do have and whether these zealots have ever prevented a pregnancy (by any means) and why, and whether they allow their grown children the prevention. We should ask each of them, loudly, about their sexual practices that limit the number of their offspring. - They asked for that! This is not invasive.
And, by the way, is not this is a ripe time to give all pregnant mothers and the infants a free and comprehensive health care?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does an ultrasound cost? Who will pay for these mandatory ultrasounds? One more way to restrict the privilege of abortion to only the wealthy -- including, of course, the daughters of the buttholes who came up with this legislation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the State and Federal Government begins to tell men what they can and cannot do with their penis, will there be an uproar then about whose body it is. Every other medical procedure is the decision of the patient. Forced medical procedures are an abridgment of human rights. Abortions have always been and will always continue to be. Choice allows for safe sterile
medical procedures instead of your daughter in the hands of a back alley non professional quack. Many will die from infections or bleeding to death. It is cruel to force women and girls to have babies when they have been raped often by a family member and or gang raped. Many of the women in the military have been raped some four or more times. That is a "hush, hush, don't talk about it" subject. Just like all the real number of suicides going on in the military are hushed up. Even some of the women contractors in Iraq have been raped without any prosecution. If you follow news stories closely enough you will find many of these so called family values pastors and legislators and priests in the Catholic church are guilty of the very transgressions they are criticising others for. Why force a doctor to notify the parent of an underage pregnant teen who has been molested by her own parent, uncle, brother??? My body is my body and the State should not be telling me what to do with it or my daughter what she can or cannot do with hers. If it offends your religion then don't do it. We will face our God, you won't have to do it for us. Feed and cloth and provide medical care for the hungry desperate children already here. What does "thou shalt not kill" actually mean. We are killing people every day in war and through greed and selfishness and neglect. Stop trying to run other people's lives and try to live your life in a kind, humane way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]