We can argue about them, but the Supreme Court has decided...

NO mandatory ultrasounds.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justic...ired-ultrasound-Supreme-Court-turns-away-case


A victory for freedom.

 

Mandatory ultrasounds reduce abortion rates. Statistics prove this.

Hey, I know I'm not a mod, but this thread is very redundant. Why not post the link to this article in my thread, to contribute more to the discussion, instead of creating a redundant thread?

 

huge victory for freedom!!!!

women are NOT second class citizens!!!!

 

That is awesome sauce. Thank you Land of Free! Some faith in the US has been restored.

 

WOW pro-choicers really are politically correct.

 

Victory for freedom!!!

 

Mandatory ultrasounds are a good idea because they are a compromise to both sides of the debate.

Also...

http://www.na-businesspress.com/JABE/GiusM_Web12_5_.pdf

 

mandatory internal ultrasounds, are rape.

 

Are you sure it is not a medical procedure?

 

"if you want an abortion, you have to let me stick this thing inside your vagina".

yep, that's rape alright.

 

That's exactly what happens during an abortion.

- - - Updated - - -

Your political beliefs are rooted in politically correct liberalism.

 

Hmm, wonder if I should start a class action lawsuit with this definition you provided. I have a feeling you are a winner Ronny.

 

How is what I just said 'politically correct' if I may ask? Do you even know what it means to be politically correct?

 

What you said was politically correct because you think it's offensive to require women to make an educated decision about an abortion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically correct

 

is accusing everyone's ideas of being "politically correct", your new spiel?

 

Nope. I only use the term "politically correct" in certain situations.

 

First of all what you said makes absolutely no sense at all. Ultrasounds are not 'offensive' but they can be very invasive depending on what kind you are using. If a woman does not want to experience foreign objects penetrating her vaginal canal more than she has to (and transvaginal ultrasounds are definitely MORE THAN SHE HAS TO) then she shouldn't have to be required by law to go through it, let alone PAY for the state to rape her. An ultrasound done on the abdomen should be sufficient if the physician deems it so. Do you not trust physicians to make the right medical choices concerning their patients or to choose the least invasive/painful routes?

Also it has been explained to you repeatedly in your other thread that ultrasounds are already done before and after an abortion. Why do you believe that there should be a law in place making women have an ultrasound when she is already going to have an ultrasound? It's just so redundant. Do you not see that? Do you refuse to see it?

 

Pro-Lifers are now arguing that pregnant women need a sonogram before having an abortion, so they can make an "informed" decision.

so what, they don't know they're pregnant and have a fetus inside of them until they view a sonogram????

lol!!!

 

Best quote from the article;

 

True, except its consensual.

 

1-It's not rape. When a woman has an abortion, objects get shoved into her body, even then. A woman having an abortion isn't a sexual act. So why is a mandatory ultrasound a sexual act?

2-Gorn Captain's article showed that over half of women changed their mind after the ultrasound. Mandatory ultrasound laws could lead to thousands less, if not millions of less, abortions.

- - - Updated - - -

The woman still would have the choice to not get an ultrasound.

If she really wants to decide whether or not to have an abortion, then she would make the choice (consensual) to have an ultrasound.

Also, mandatory ultrasounds would lead to millions of less abortions.

 

Another quote from that same article.

 

Its illegal to mandate an ultrasound in order to get an abortion.

 

Did you miss the part where I specifically noted: " If a woman does not want to experience foreign objects penetrating her vaginal canal more than she has to (and transvaginal ultrasounds are definitely MORE THAN SHE HAS TO)"

If she does not want the object put inside of her it is considered rape. Penetrating a woman's sexual organs, or really any person's sexual organs, with unwanted objects counts as a form of rape. If she consents to have surgical tools solely used to perform the abortion placed inside her then it is not rape.

Physicians and patients are intelligent enough to know that state-sanctioned trans-vaginal ultrasounds are totally and wholly unnecessary since they ALREADY DO ULTRASOUNDS!!!

Yes, it says they changed their minds. But does it specify why? I'd love to see that study and the reasons behind why women did change their minds but unfortunately the article does not link to the study nor does a Google search provide any results for me.

So your idea of stopping women from having abortions is by threatening them with rape of a foreign object if they choose to have one? Lovely.

Did you miss all the parts of the article that clearly stated that the courts found mandatory ultrasound laws Unconstitutional? Does that matter to you at all, whether laws are Constitutional or not?

 

But abdominal ultrasounds will still be done since physicians need to know the age and location of the embryo/fetus. They will also continue to use ultrasounds to properly perform abortions, thankfully though women will not be forced to endure unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasounds.