B
BroomWagon
Guest
Ultra Sounds are part of abortions, maybe there is a small fraction that are not.
- Status
M
markeverett49
Guest
The pro-abortion lobby wants to isolate Gosnell and act as if he is no reflection upon them. “Hey, we kill 'em before they look like children!”
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Why?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Exactly.
PP is against regulating abortion clinics. They are even requesting that non MD’s should be allowed to do abortions.
S
SamH
Guest
B
bellasbane
Guest
Because it’s the right thing to do, women would be more likely to go along with it, and the pro-choice argument would be neutralized.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I don’t think the pro-choice argument will be neutralized by free ultrasounds. There cry of “humiliation” is phony. They set up a strawman, humiliation, and then ask the pro-life people to refute it.
Pregnant women get ultrasounds all the time.
B
bellasbane
Guest
Are you suggesting that women who decide to terminate their pregnancies are not entitled to feel humiliated? That’s not far from saying they deserve to be humiliated.
The pro-choice argument is that placing additional financial burdens on women by forcing them to have ultrasounds or multiple trips to clinics is why these laws are punitive by design.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
I didn’t say that. YOU said that the reason ultrasounds are FORCED on women is to purposely humiliate them. I disagree. See Abbey Johnson’s testimony re viewing ultrasound of a baby about to be aborted.
It is what it is. Society places many rules and restrictions on people about to undergo procedures all the time. It’s for the safety of the patient (that includes the unborn baby).
One of the purposes of ultrasound is to determine the age of the baby and thereby administer the appropriate procedure to use.
I don’t see why you are so offended about that.
L
LisaA
Guest
For some reason you have fixated on the proposed vaginal probe ultrasound requirement which was never put in practice, was related to one state only while simultaneously ignoring the ferocious effort to block any sort of required inspections, restrictions such as parentel notification, waiting periods, or even requirements that women be given ALL options, and the same level of information regarding the procedure that ANY medical procedure requires.
I work in a medical clinic and our patients must be told of the options, risks and benefits of each option and they must SIGN that they received this informaiton. Further I had surgery last year and saw first hand how much information, how many options, and how many diagnostic tests (results given to me prior to surgery) for a routine appendectomy. Yet we know, not just from the Gosnell case, but from many former abortion clinic workers as well as patients that these clinics push abortion, do not provide information on the risks of the procedure, that they offer to circumvent the law regarding stage of pregnancy or underage patients who are allowed to avoid notification laws in certain states.
As I said, do the math, follow the money. Planned Parenthood does not receive money from adoption referrals do they? Gosh it must be a COINCIDENCE that they only refer a few thousand women to adoption agencies but HUNDREDS of thousands receive abortions and thus Planned Parenthood receives millions in revenue.
And yes after much public shaming even by their own constituants, the MSM is providing some coverage for the Gosnell case. But your post with all of the excuses why they were not would have won a creative writing class. Even if there are no cameras and attorneys have a gag order (as in MOST CASES…duh???) this does not stop reporters from attending the trial and reporting on the witness statements. I have listened to a number of reporters as well as reading multiple articles. The information is there if reporters were interested in actually exposing this horror. Why not admit, just as many in the MSM have done, that they do NOT want to cover the story because it puts abortion in a negative light. The “babies born alive” claims that were called right wing myths are proven to be true.
Oh and please tell me why women would find a trans vaginal ultrasound “humiliation” but don’t seem to suffer humiliation when the instruments and laminaria are inserted into their cervixes THROUGH THEIR VAGINAS. How do you think the dead babies are expelled? Through the woman’s belly button? So it’s humiliating to have an ultrasound probe inserted but not a curette? Same pathway bellasbane. But the ultrasound is there to provide medical information and that was one of the ways that Gosnell was able to do abortions after the time limit in Pennsylvania…by NOT getting confirmation of the actual age of the unborn baby.
Oh and NARAL stands for National ABORTION RIGHTS ACTION League. Claiming they want to support all choices is laughable at best.
ILisa
B
bellasbane
Guest
Yes, it is a good one - unless you counter it with free ultrasounds & travel expenses for women who are willing to take some additional time to reconsider their decision.Boy,that’s a good one!
It makes sense if the purpose of ultrasounds and waiting periods is to change a woman’s mind about having an abortion as opposed to punishing a woman for deciding to have an abortion.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
nytimes.com/2010/05/28/health/policy/28ultrasound.html
A woman’s chose of an abortion affects another life, the baby she is carrying, so considering that, the state has a right to step in with reasonable laws to inform women. Is it really such a burden of intrusion that a woman have an ultrasound and be given the option of viewing it or listening to the heartbeat when the end of an abortion is a dead baby? Of course not. What state charges for mandated ultrasounds?
Having a waiting period of time to think about abortion is sensible and many women are pushed into having an abortion by somebody else and having a waiting period mandated by law, can help women have time to find help.
What states mandate vaginal probe?
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Good one, Lisa. How about being penetrated by a partner that is not interested in being a father?
Somehow, people forget what causes pregnancy anyway. It’s not something you “catch.”
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
No it does not make sense.
L
losh14
Guest
I’ve also heard the spin that illegal abortionists like Gosnell are inevitable when there are restrictions on abortion. In one story I recently read (it’s on NPR, from a woman who is now a case worker and had a Gosnell abortion in 2001), she lamented that a poor woman who wants an abortion needs time to find $300 to procure one, but the longer she waits the more expensive it gets. She gave a narrative of a young mother, who moved out of her cocaine-addicted mother’s house, had been homeless, and was relying on TANF, WIC, and other help to pay the rent, buy food for herself and her first child, and finish her degree. When she became pregnant again she sought an abortion to keep her life on-track, fearing that she’d not be able to get back into school again for years.
While my heart goes out to the expectant mother, I wish she would have turned to an agency besides the government and Gosnell. Catholic Charities, despite having a presence in North Philly, was never considered. Is that a social network thing (the woman was raised in the black evangelical churches), or a lack of available resources? I can picture many in her network telling her “you can’t kill your baby!” but few, if any, offering to take her in.
It’s hard for me to realize that people operate that way, showing a problem but not offering to help. Can it really be there’s no help available?
I come from a family where forgiveness is the rule and we take care of our own, as well as others who come for help. It was a rule, for example, in my grandfather’s house that anyone who came over three times was family - if you were over at suppertime, a place would be set for you. If you needed a place to sleep, a bed would be made for you. That’s on top of raising 5 kids, there was always an attitude of giving a hand. That continued with my father and his siblings - my Dad was told by kids in the youth group (who met once a week in his living room) that one of the high school boys was sleeping under the bleachers at night, thrown out by his stepfather. Dad went to find him, took him in, fed him, gave him a room. That boy, Tony, stayed with my dad for almost two years to finish high school. He visited often, and when he was out of work during a downturn Dad again offered him a bed for the few months he needed it. Tony’s now married and probably calls my Dad every day just to talk - he’s like another son to him. I realize not everyone can be that generous, but it’s an ideal that has stayed with me when witnessing to someone who needs help.
The heartbreak here - and the reality - is that, even if we were all so very generous. Even if we were able to provide - whether its families and parishes, or agencies and governments - everything that a struggling expectant mother would need in terms of food, clothing, healthcare, housing, child care, transportation and job training, there would still be opposition to ending abortion. When the arguments for abortion as a necessity were met by “we’ll provide what is lacking”, the argument shifted to “it’s my right”. And there will be some expecting women who do not want to be moms, nor even to be pregnant, for reasons from wanting to get away from an abusive boyfriend or husband, to not wanting to interrupt their career, education, or social life.
Should we do all that we can to help an individual mother? I think that’s a Christian imperative. I think it’s different, though, to provide for a person and to set up a policy of endless welfare spending. The difference is one of taking a person in, rather than merely throwing money at them. It is the former that a family, or a congregation, or an intentional community like a maternity home can uniquely do much better than a government can.
L
losh14
Guest
You will know them by their fruit. Obama is with the evil-doers, and he lenses all things through his own fundamentalist notions: that a right to choose is sacred, regardless of outcome; that gun ownership is intrinsically wrong; that wealth inequity must be remedied by the government.
Even with the alternatives that have been pointed out to abortion - the “baby Moses” law, crisis pregnancy centers, many infertile couples desperate to adopt a baby, even of another race or ethnicity or with disabilities - I think the central problem is one of lensing. Within white middle- and upper-class families, the mentality when a girl says “I’m pregnant” is often “Live with us, not with your loser boyfriend, and we’ll help raise our grandbaby and help you finish school to provide a life for your family.” Within broken families where addiction, unemployment, homelessness and violence are more common - especially in very damaged neighborhoods like Gosnell’s North Philly (or even the North City of St. Louis), there’s not that safety net. There’s not even that discussion. It’s “I know a clinic, I’ll call and make an appointment. I’ll ask your uncles for some money.” That perception has to be changed, and that community has to be built.
Let me give one last example. During my first job out of college I was reading “Wrath of Angels” one night, and my co-worker, a black woman maybe 10 years older, asked about the book. I told her it was about the start of the anti-abortion movement. I’ll never forget her response: “The first thing you have to think about when you’re pregnant is whether you want to terminate the pregnancy.” She floored me. She had had two abortions (and had three other kids as well). Her perspective was completely distinct from my own, and I couldn’t fathom being in an environment where a child would not be welcomed. But now I understand that’s where the fight has to start, in a mind that says “I first have to decide if I terminate the pregnancy”.
C
ComputerGeek25
Guest
I was had to get a referral from my PCP and parental permission to get my wisdom teeth pulled in the Oral Surgeons office. My case was routine and he had been doing that sort of procedure for decades. I also had to go to pre and post surgery consultations.
For some reason, we treat abortion as “different.”
L
losh14
Guest
Clarification: 3 of the charges dropped are for infanticide (leaving 4 more infanticide charges). The charge for third-degree murder of the patient also stands.
The other six charges are related to theft for medical billing. These are less impactful.
Least optimistic is that, despite all the evidence, the prosecution did a poor job. I do find that hard to believe - in the first day of defense, Gosnell’s attorney has managed to toss out several of the most serious charges, despite weeks of prosecution.
The other six charges are related to theft for medical billing. These are less impactful.
It’s still discouraging. Most optimistic take I have is that the judge may simply think the jury is going to be too hung up that it’s a trial about abortion, and doesn’t want to lose the drug charges (which themselves are extremely serious).
Least optimistic is that, despite all the evidence, the prosecution did a poor job. I do find that hard to believe - in the first day of defense, Gosnell’s attorney has managed to toss out several of the most serious charges, despite weeks of prosecution.
- Status