So forcing religious institutions to provide birth control is an atrocity, but...

...you can force a woman to have an intervaginal ultrasound prior to having an abortion? How is that any different? You are forcing someone to be violated on a personal level for a constitutionally legal, whether you agree with it or not, procedure. Would we be OK with a law that required a prostate exame prior to any man getting a prescription for viagra? How about those same people so concerned about pat downs at the airport who are OK with this?

 

OK with it?

"OK" is hardly the word to use!!

The old male religious nuts who formulated that rule, and the male religious nuts who support it, probably have erections while thinking about some sobbing woman or teenage girl being forced to have the almost foot-long instrument rammed into her.

 

Oppose both. Wasn't that simple?

 

Oppose which both?

 

Oppose forcing a woman to have an intervaginal ultrasound and forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control. The common denominator is the imposition of some imperative regardless of the victim and what is required of him.

 

Possibly so.

 

I don't know where to start. That is a stupid question that has no relation to the First Amendment. Who is dying when a man takes Viagra? I forgot - it is a nothing/nobody that is dying in the abortions so the two are the same.

Abortions are not mentioned in the Constitution but the Constitution does grant such decisions to the states as should be the case.

If a woman doesn't want to go through whatever she has to go through to get an abortion then she might think ahead and not get pregnant. If this requirement causes a few women to use pregnancy prevention methods it will be well worth the embarrassment to the sluts that get knocked up over and over. Let's remember that an ultrasound is less invasive than what got them pregnant.

Are you talking about the instrument that got her pregnant or the one rammed into the baby's head after the ultrasound??