Texas Passes Bill to Require Sonograms Before Abortions

[The Dude 206]

-Why do you keep using the term "women" when you know hundreds of thousands a year are

girls"... some in middle school. The law cannot assume these young people have all the facts, this law goes toward providing some.

-Why are you always against people having information?

Nice try Danno, but every state requires parental consent for abortions of minors. So, the parent of a child who is pregnant, should know the facts. I would hope that by the age of 18, an they would know what an abortion is. Perhaps you should take your own advice Danno, and educate yourself.

[^_^ 5,021]

... every state requires parental consent for abortions of minors.

I don't think that's true.

http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws.htm

[eekee 182]

-Why do you keep using the term "women" when you know hundreds of thousands a year are

girls"... some in middle school. The law cannot assume these young people have all the facts, this law goes toward providing some.

-Why are you always against people having information?

You don't trust girls to make decisions about whether or not to have an abortion... yet allowing them to carry a baby to term and then make a decision about whether to put the baby up for adoption or to raise it themselves is something you can trust them with?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Surely having more information is a good thing, I mean we have all type of laws which insure people know what they are getting into when they get a loan, buy a car or house or even down load an app.

Many of these expectant mothers are so young they could not even sign a contract or vote.

Why would anyone not insist she have all the information before such a decision is acted upon?

You seem to have missed - as you typically do - the fact that no additional information is provided. That is, unless the woman decides to consume additional information. Which she could, of course, already do without stupid laws like this all the same. What's being done here is forcing a medically unnecessary procedure to be undertaken the results of which would be consumed only if the woman decides to consume it. Then again, if the woman want to consume it, she can have the procedure and do that without these stupid laws that do nothing but give some sick sense of satisfaction to the morality legislating crowd (you and yours) and, of course, drive up the cost of health care.

-Why do you keep using the term "women" when you know hundreds of thousands a year are girls"... some in middle school. The law cannot assume these young people have all the facts, this law goes toward providing some.

No, it doesn't.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[The Dude 206]

I don't think that's true.

http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws.htm

I stand corrected. The last time I actually researched california abortion consent, It was well over a decade ago.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post containing personal attack has been removed. Please remember, you can disagree with the contents of a post, but do so without attacking the poster.

[Danno 1,228]

The Republicans of this country get all upset and on barricades whenever there is a threat of "the government invading the privacy of an individual person's life and/or home" - because, after all, what goes on in one's home is none of the state's business.

However, apparently it is perfectly fine for the state to interfere with a woman's uterus and actually with the rest of her living life, since having a child is a commitment for a life time. It is perfectly fine for the state to order the woman to have a sonogram before being able to get an abortion, it os perfectly OK for the state to pressure women out of their personal decisions, it is perfectly OK to suddenly mix religion with politics when it comes to this particular matter, even though there supposedly is such a thing as "separation of church and state" in this country. It is perfectly fine for the state to tell women that abortion is not acceptable, while at the same time the state is not willing to offer any kind of support, financial or social, to expecting mothers in terms of maternity leave, maternity benefits, or job security.

Yep. Sounds progressive to me.

1. What goes on in the home is most definitely the Governments business. Try to hire someone to work in your home.. and pay them less than minimum wage and see how many on the Left are willing to look the other way.

2. No one is *making a woman have a baby* , "She" took that power in her hands, the Gov is simply regulating the procedure by which her offspring is disposed of.

3. This has nothing to do with religion... unless you consider:religion to be the.....slowing down the ease at which human life is destroyed.

4. The state actually does offer a pretty good benefits package to single women who get knocked up.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

1. What goes on in the home is most definitely the Governments business.

Okay, Danno is officially a big government, big brother type guy. May government grow into every corner of everyone's life. Danno would be happy.

[eekee 182]

Screw your benefits package. That's still the rest of my life that's going to be affected. Men do not bear the burden of raising children. There are plenty of men that can and do step up, but for them, it's optional. Ultimately the burden of care is on the woman. Sure, there are child support laws... but if you just don't go into that state you're home free.

[Danno 1,228]

Screw your benefits package. That's still the rest of my life that's going to be affected. Men do not bear the burden of raising children. There are plenty of men that can and do step up, but for them, it's optional. Ultimately the burden of care is on the woman. Sure, there are child support laws... but if you just don't go into that state you're home free.

Seems your argument is with mother nature not society.

If you don't want kids.... do those things to prevent getting pregnant.

[eekee 182]

Seems your argument is with mother nature not society.

If you don't want kids.... do those things to prevent getting pregnant.

which is... not have sex ever?

Excellent solution. Not. And if schools did a better job of educating kids about educating kids how to have safer sex than the abstinence-only programs that the same people who try to limit access to abortion advocate, and if we had better access to things like birth control and plan b (although I do think we should emphasize condom use for STI prevention purposes and too many girls get put on the pill automatically IMO), there would be less need for abortion. But no method of birth control is 100% infallible.

[Little_My 464]

1. What goes on in the home is most definitely the Governments business. Try to hire someone to work in your home.. and pay them less than minimum wage and see how many on the Left are willing to look the other way.

2. No one is *making a woman have a baby* , "She" took that power in her hands, the Gov is simply regulating the procedure by which her offspring is disposed of.

3. This has nothing to do with religion... unless you consider:religion to be the.....slowing down the ease at which human life is destroyed.

4. The state actually does offer a pretty good benefits package to single women who get knocked up.

"What goes on in the home is none of the governments business" is not my personal opinion at all, quite the contrary. This statement was meant to show the absolutely ridiculous contradiction in the way republicans view the role of the state in terms of dictating what individual citizens should or should not do. It is not OK for the state to order all citizens to have access to health care - something that most high income developed nations have reached decades ago - but it is OK for the state to order a woman to have a sonogram in connection to a private procedure that has absolutely nothing to do with the state. If I am not entirely mistaken, it is not the left that argues for a smaller role of the state in terms of regulating issues such as health care or social benefits. The recently proposed "Path to Prosperity" budget, by the House Republicans, is cutting down state's role and spending in everything but the defense sector.

The state here offers the bare minimum to pregnant women - unless these pregnant women live below the poverty line when they become pregnant, in which case the support of the state does little good to actually provide them with a chance of decent income and quality of life, with or without the baby. Also, as there is absolutely no maternity leave regulated by the law, most women are afraid of losing their jobs because of pregnancy, and cannot afford to hire a baby sitter when they return to work within a few weeks of giving birth. There are five countries in the world that have absolutely no paid maternity leave guaranteed in the law - Lesotho, Liberia, Swaziland, Papua New Guinea - and the United States of America. I'd hardly call that support. Sure, for people who work for successful private companies, or who make high incomes, there are plenty of options available - but these are also not the women who make up the majority of those having abortions. I am convinced that if better support was offered to women during pregnancy and within the first year of the baby's life, abortion rates would go down - but of course, that is not considered as a possible solution. Forcing women to have sonograms makes much more sense.

No one forced the woman to make a baby - though, in many cases, someone actually did. And the new abortion bill proposed by GOP would actually limit women's access to abortion, even when they were raped. No one has the right to force a woman to have that baby either. I do not believe that abortion should ever be used as a method of birth control, under any circumstances - but it is not the state's job or right to tell an individual citizen what she can or cannot do in a situation that is entirely in the realm of her personal life, and will affect her life forever - and, trust me, an abortion will bare it's long term effects too.

Forcing women to have sonograms before being able to access abortion services does nothing to address the underlying causes of the problem. And I really do not believe you actually think this has nothing to do with religion.

Sadly, right now the nation-wide abortion debate has actually nothing to do with the health of women, or the babies, either. It is about politics - and women have become the bargaining tool for 2012 elections. Again.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Little_My

[Ban Hammer 13,353]

Men do not bear the burden of raising children.

strange, about every guy i've known that is divorced pays child support. and the one upcoming in the office is looking at $900+ a month for 2 kids (and he's in his early 20's). yeah, over 170k for the next 16 years. that's not a burden......

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

strange, about every guy i've known that is divorced pays child support. and the one upcoming in the office is looking at $900+ a month for 2 kids (and he's in his early 20's). yeah, over 170k for the next 16 years. that's not a burden......

That will teach him to keep his pecker in his pants, or at least get "fixed" the next time he sees his urologist.

[eekee 182]

strange, about every guy i've known that is divorced pays child support. and the one upcoming in the office is looking at $900+ a month for 2 kids (and he's in his early 20's). yeah, over 170k for the next 16 years. that's not a burden......

They could be like my two uncles and just never set foot in the state of New Jersey again. Not honorable, by any means, but so it goes.

Men can split the moment after conception. Women are stuck.