Last edited by misterman; 05-05-10 at 08:44 AM.
Roe vs wade, and a couple of other laws. It is going against that law to force the woman to go through a ultra sound..............
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.,
ROBERT P. CASEY, ET AL.
This type of thing is unconstitutional according to the supreme court...
Actually it is different. The woman is not carrying a tumor she is carrying a child. So it is absurd to compare a child to a tumor.
If they so convinced that the child they are carrying is nothing more than just a clump of cells then a ultrasound should not bother them and abortionist should not worry.The lawsuit has teeth because there is clearly a discrimination in the medical practice here. Why are abortions required to have an ultrasound beforehand? In the case of pre-natal ultrasounds, they are conducted to inspect the health of the embryo or fetus. If it's about to be aborted, its health status is irrelevant.
The law is a thinly veiled appeal to emotion to guilt trip the woman into not going through with it.
I disagree.If it saves at least one child then it is not a waste of resources.That, and it's a total waste of medical resources.
Doesn't someone who wants a gun in New york or some other anti-2nd amendment state have to pay for a permit/licenses themself?The ultrasound costs money, and who is supposed to pay for it?
Some of those clinics already did ultra sounds.
The woman? The taxpayers? The clinics? It is little more than an obstruction to try and prevent an abortion from taking place, and it's an attempt to bypass Roe v Wade.
Patients Reacting To New Abortion Law - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com |
Counselor Sue Ames says her clinic already performs ultrasounds, but until now has never forced women to look at the results
It's also definitely a big government attitude, except this time it comes from the side of social conservativism, which you obviously support. You can't be against the health care bill but be in favor of this law. It equally lacks logic and is an intrusive use of power.
So its okay to make someone who wishes to buy a fire arm which is clearly a protested constitutional right to jump though hoops, but abortion which is not even in the constitution so clearly it is not a constitutional right, you abortionist have a problem making people jump through hoops before they can get an abortion.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
I have no issue with a doctor or clinic requiring a woman to have an ultrasound prior to having an abortion. I have no issue at all with a woman *having* an ultrasound prior to having an abortion. I think that ALL medical procedure decisions should be made with as much information as possible.
However, I have a serious issue with the government forcing a woman to undergo a medical procedure. Period. It has nothing to do with what the procedure is, or why they are forcing it. It simply has to do with the forcing of it. That would be overstepping their bounds and no person who values freedom and liberty should be okay with that. No matter WHAT your feeling on abortion is.