From the Texas Observer...
Excerpt from the story...
http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-s...w-sonogram-law“I am so sorry,” the young woman said with compassion, and nudged the tissues closer. Then, after a moment’s pause, she told me reluctantly about the new Texas sonogram law that had just come into effect. I’d already heard about it. The law passed last spring but had been suppressed by legal injunction until two weeks earlier.
My counselor said that the law required me to have another ultrasound that day, and that I was legally obligated to hear a doctor describe my baby. I’d then have to wait 24 hours before coming back for the procedure. She said that I could either see the sonogram or listen to the baby’s heartbeat, adding weakly that this choice was mine.
“I don’t want to have to do this at all,” I told her. “I’m doing this to prevent my baby’s suffering. I don’t want another sonogram when I’ve already had two today. I don’t want to hear a description of the life I’m about to end. Please,” I said, “I can’t take any more pain.” I confess that I don’t know why I said that. I knew it was fait accompli. The counselor could no more change the government requirement than I could. Yet here was a superfluous layer of torment piled upon an already horrific day, and I wanted this woman to know it.
“We have no choice but to comply with the law,” she said, adding that these requirements were not what Planned Parenthood would choose. Then, with a warmth that belied the materials in her hand, she took me through the rules. First, she told me about my rights regarding child support and adoption. Then she gave me information about the state inspection of the clinic. She offered me a pamphlet called A Woman’s Right to Know, saying that it described my baby’s development as well as how the abortion procedure works. She gave me a list of agencies that offer free sonograms, and which, by law, have no affiliation with abortion providers. Finally, after having me sign reams of paper, she led me to the doctor who’d perform the sonography, and later the termination.
Add another notch in wingnuts war on women..
personally I come down on abortion being a necessary evil, but am sympathetic to moral arguments against.
The zygote or fetus, even if not fully a person, is something precious, with human faculties (perhaps) and features == a potential human being. Where angels fear to tread, so goes the train of man . . .
women were legally chattels in Texas until the early '70s. this is totally in line with that . . .
I think an abortion past somewhere around 12 weeks is absolutely evil. Hard to determine where any line should be, but once there is a beating heart...
my ancient Germanic forbears didn't consider newborns to be fully human until they were fed for the first time. before that, it was socially acceptable to leave them exposed an a hill or the equivalent.
Too bad they produced Hitler with their so enlightened culture.
I've got significant Irish in my background too, so figure that into your sums. Plus some Jewish on the mother's side, sort of. Their customs are way more humane . . .
After meeting so many woman who got pregnant and did not realize how quickly their baby grows, I can see what they were trying to do. Alot of men and women do not find anything wrong with a 1st trimester abortion because they ignorantly do not know that the baby is alive yet.
There was a time when the Roman Catholic church said a baby had it's soul once the mother felt a kick.
I guess if you make this about the "right" of an abortion being the woman's and the womans' only but most pro-life are thinking of it as protecting a child. So how is this a war on woman?
Also looking at the provacative nature of that picture on the front page, you can pretty much tell this isn't fair and accurate news reporting.
I can go along with a decision for an abortion before the first trimester is over. And in this day and age in America, a woman surely ought to know by then.
I can go along with it for sure in the case of rape or incest.
I feel for any woman who has to make that decision. It cannot be an easy decision to make. I don't think anyone but the woman involved can actually make it. Surely not politicians, and surely not male clerics.
lebomb would suck them toes.
agreed
Republicans need to get the over it and get out of peoples personal lives.
It's a non-starter, no brainer, no winner.
I'm not a journalist.
you sound like an unbiased impartial 'observer' yourself
Why is it funny?
It's their one issue. Well, two, with gay marriage prevention. Without those issues, the GOP would hold about 40% of the House and 34-35 Senate seats. The ridiculous thing is that abortion's NEVER going to be outlawed. If it didn't happen from 2000-2006 when they had the House, Senate, POTUS and stacked SCOTUS, it never will. The GOP only drafts bills on this when there is a Dem POTUS that they know will veto it. If they ever did pass such a bill, every Fundy religiot would stop voting over night, and they'd lose their base.
at the state level there is robust activity to restrict it right now...
some dozens of laws if I recall aright...
trying to put credentialled health care providers (like Planned Parenthood) out of business in Texas, is the same (expletive) fight, enacted bureaucratically.
as are all the state mandated ultrasounds and counseling.
Dan, you are a wingnut. Time to come to terms with the facts.
that's what Americans really go for "compelling surrogates" for the rominee...
I think that Romney will likely close the gender gap after the primaries. There is no doubt that Santorum's take on contraception has hurt Romney and republicans in general. That was the whole point of the Obama administration pushing the "War on Women". Gets people to stop thinking about gas and the economy.
Willard Gecko has endorsed the Ryan's VRWC budget plan, which is a fraud, a lie, 100% bd faith.
There Will Be Backlash (and it has started)
GOP Members Face Backlash From Cons uents Over Support For House Budget
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...dget-backlash/
Pink Slime Economics
To be sure, we've had irresponsible and/or deceptive budgets in the past. Ronald Reagan's budgets relied on voodoo, on the claim that cutting taxes on the rich would somehow lead to an explosion of economic growth. George W. Bush's budget officials liked to play bait and switch, low-balling the cost of tax cuts by pretending that they were only temporary, then demanding that they be made permanent. But has any major political figure ever premised his entire fiscal platform not just on totally implausible spending projections but on claims that he has a secret plan to raise trillions of dollars in revenue, a plan that he refuses to share with the public?
What's going on here? The answer, presumably, is that this is what happens when extremists gain complete control of a party's discourse: all the rules get thrown out the window. Indeed, the hard right's grip on the G.O.P. is now so strong that the party is sticking with Mr. Ryan even though it's paying a significant political price for his assault on Medicare.
Now, the House Republican budget isn't about to become law as long as President Obama is sitting in the White House. But it has been endorsed by Mr. Romney. And even if Mr. Obama is reelected, the fraudulence of this budget has important implications for future political negotiations.
Bear in mind that the Obama administration spent much of 2011 trying to negotiate a so-called Grand Bargain with Republicans, a bipartisan plan for deficit reduction over the long term. Those negotiations ended up breaking down, and a minor journalistic industry has emerged as reporters try to figure out how the breakdown occurred and who was responsible.
But what we learn from the latest Republican budget is that the whole pursuit of a Grand Bargain was a waste of time and political capital. For a lasting budget deal can only work if both parties can be counted on to be both responsible and honest - and House Republicans have just demonstrated, as clearly as anyone could wish, that they are neither.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=...&sub=Columnist
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
