Quote:

---

a lump of tissue ? OMG ! Who could think that ?

---

I think that is the point opponents are making. Nobody would think that. Women KNOW it's a fetus... they obviously don't need trans-vaginal ultrasound to know what is in there. The law serves another purpose, and its guilt tripping women out of abortions. If stopping abortions is the goal here (and it is), then the legal right to seek an abortion needs to be changed instead of throwing stumbling blocks in the way of a completely legal choice.

Funny thing is that the only time I've heard it described that way was by pro-abortion advocates . Is that how Planned Parenthood councils ?

I don't like this law. My point is that once you gave the state that power... watch out . This isn't much different than the whole mandates on what children can eat in school ;or dare I say... telling religious institutions they must provide contraception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

telling religious institutions they must provide contraception.

---

Are there insurance companies sympathetic to the Catholic Church and don't cover contraceptives or abortions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Is that how Planned Parenthood councils ?

---

Not to my knowledge. It's what some females (and males -- esp. future fathers) say so that the pregnant one will have the abortion.

Quote:

---

If stopping abortions is the goal here (and it is), then the legal right to seek an abortion needs to be changed instead of throwing stumbling blocks in the way of a completely legal choice.

---

I'm full in agreement with the reasoning behind this and the other law that is being considered, (which I do support) ,regarding abortion and protection of life in Va .But I don't like this law for other reasons.

Here is why changing the abortion laws are not so easy. Back in the day ;if a state like NY wanted to have legal abortions they would have that law. If Virginia didn't want one they would have a law outlawing it.
That's the way it worked until 1973 ;when the Supreme Court decided that the Texas law outlawing it was unconstitutional ;and imposed that on the whole nation.

Well here we are now ,some 50 million dead babies later , and the state of Virginia no longer has the power it had to make it's own law. And yet they would like their laws to limit the number of legal abortions .
I am instintively opposed to this because I oppose ALL unnecessary medical procedures ;especially ones that are done for other reasons than the best interest of the patient ( that would be the many CYA diagnostics done that are not needed ) . But I am very sympathetic to the reason behind it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Are there insurance companies sympathetic to the Catholic Church and don't cover contraceptives or abortions?

---

Certainly... the self insured . Now they don't have that option anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I know what a sonogram is.. This ISN'T that. It's INTRAVAGINAL.

---

Dude, that's not how WaPo reported it. You mean WaPo isn't a reliable source? Shock.

I found nothing in the bill referring to an intravaginal ultrasound. Maybe you can point it out for me. It does say this:

Quote:

---

Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community...

---

Oooh, "pursuant to standard medical practice in the community". That sounds fairly spooky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You mean WaPo isn't a reliable source? Shock. "pursuant to standard medical practice in the community". That sounds fairly spooky

---

Hello again, Steve:

Transvaginal ultrasound is ANYTHING but standard...

excon

From the bill:

The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat.

It sounds like she can refuse. Then no abortion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Transvaginal ultrasound is ANYTHING but standard...

excon

---

I agree. What I asked was for you to show me in the bill where a transvaginal ultrasound is required. Otherwise your complaint is utterly invalid.

Hello Steve:

I read the law.. I didn't see the word "transvaginal". Nonetheless, people smarter than me DO see it somewhere, and that includes the Associated Press, Ms. Magazine and a few more outlets..

I don't think they're making it up...

excon

Well now I'm convinced, al-AP, Ms Magazine and Mother Jones are reporting a requirement that you admit isn't found in the bill. Yep, you have a solid case there, buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

So then you must be for any kind of contraception that will prevent that lump of tissue from being created.

Then men can have sex with their women any time of day or night and not have to worry about what time of the month it is and is she fertile or not. Or maybe men don't worry about stuff like that....

I'd push for abstinence until age 21, but horny teen boys would dispatch me in the nearest alley.

When I was in college, the rumor was that the cafeteria cooks added saltpeter to the desserts. Maybe that should be a food additive now.

---

I don't agree with the premise that a fetus is a "lump of tissue" .

Well speechless, I think the fact that the governor said that he would not support the trans-vaginal ultrasound requirement coupled with the senate bills' sponsor striking the bill due to backlash over the requirement says that it did in fact exist.

Hello again, righty's:

By the way, double greenie for you, K.

It's true. NOBODY is talking about outlawing birth control. There's nothing going on here, folks. Look over there. THAT is the excuse you use to poo poo that kind of talk. It's Santorum's deeply held religious views, but he'd NEVER impose them on the country, you say...

I say BS! You're trying to LULL us to sleep so you can remake this country into a theocracy!! YES you are.

Let me ask you this.. It IS true - nobody is talking about banning birth control NOW.. But, let's say that Santorum wins and you acquire a filibuster proof Senate, and some winger like Joe Walsh or Allen West submits a bill to DO that very thing...

What's going to happen with that bill?

excon

No doubt that is the party line for the progressives if Santorum is the nominee . David Gregory tried to corner Santorum with that line of reasoning too today on Meet the Press. It didn't work.

Are you now arguing that having deeply held religious views is a disqualifier for the Presidency ? I think you are . This is the same line of anit-Catholic propaganda that went on in the contests that had Al Smith ,and JFK as nominees . Kennedy got away with it because he never actually professed his faith .

Yes I fully expect the anti-Catholicism if he is the nominee just as I expect the anti-Mormon left to rear it's head if Romney is the nominee

As for a President Santorum . He was a two term Senator and in the House before that . Show me one piece of legislation he authored that says he wanted birth control outlawed.

Just one more observation. I note that the left initiated this recent fight about cultural issues and, today I learned that Daily Kos is spending big bucks to try to get Dems to vote in open primaries for Santorum .They call it Operation Hilarity .

They are trying to frame the election debate on cultural issues because the President's overall record as the leader of this country is indefensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Are you now arguing that having deeply held religious views is a disqualifier for the Presidency ? I think you are .

---

Hello again, tom:

HAVING those views is fine. ACTING on them isn't. I think he's going to ACT. I think with a right wing congress, it'll PASS. That's what I think.

I'm asking what YOU think, and you're dodging because you know I'm RIGHT.

excon

What I think ? Of course I think that he would not attempt to outlaw birth control. Again ,you find nothing in his legislative history to suggest it.

But what I did find in 2008 is that as a legislator in Illinois ,the President voted for a law to wack babies who survived abortion attempts .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

What I think ? Of course I think that he would not attempt to outlaw birth control.

---

Hello again, tom:

You're dancing around pretty good.. But, I want a specific answer from you IF that's possible.. Let's say Santorum is the man and you have CONTROL of congress. Now, imagine that some right wing congressman writes a bill to ban contraceptives...

I'm not asking about some STUPID outcome that would NEVER happen.. I'm asking about something that has a real good chance of coming true..

In MY view, a right wing congress WOULD pass the bill and Santorum, not wanting to go against his principles AGAIN, would sign it.

You KNOW that to be true. You just don't want to admit it, and I don't blame you.

excon

I can only go by his legislative record . As a Senator he voted FOR contraception funding at the national level. When he was asked specifically by NBC 's Savannah Guthrie if he would outlaw it; he said no . This is a non-issue... move on .