I think Oklahoma did something similar to this a while back, apparently Texas thinks that this is something we should be focusing on while we sink into a 27 billion dollar deficit? Regardless of how you feel about abortion, you have to acknowledge that this is intrusion into not only our personal lives (big gubbermint!) but also the doctor-patient relationship. I don't buy for a minute that this legislation is about "empowering women with information they didn't have access to before". There are better ways to stop abortion than this. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7420588.html
I'm sure this government intrusion into women's lives will be soundly challenged by the TX Tea Party. AMIRITE?
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g04aCp3ej-I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I hate this sort of legislation. This is insanely intrusive and indefensible. I love how this sort of jaw-dropping legislation consistently comes from the aprty of "small government". ****ers. Previous Oklahoma thread on similar legislation.
I'll make the same argument I made before. If you are getting an abortion, why is a sonogram/ultrasound intrusive? My issues with these type of laws is that I don't believe they work and I therefore don't support them. But I don't see how it is intrusive personally.
Please note that I don't support the law which you didn't get past in the last thread. I am only discussing the idea of whether the procedure itself is invasive, which it is not. It's no more invasive then the required counseling session I had to take in order to take specific medication as a child.
It depends on what you consider "invasive." As Rhad and other posters will note they consider the TSA body scanners to be invasive, a sonogram isn't something that just looks under your clothes but looks inside your body. Now do you think that it should be a legal, not medical, requirement that you have the inside of your body scanned for a procedure not requiring it?
The counseling was required to make sure I understood what the medicine could potentially do, what it could mean for me long term, etc. Why can't that apply to a woman having an abortion being ordered to have a test followed up by a counseling session so she understands exactly what it is being done, what the consequences are, etc?
I do if you start from the premise that there is another who has rights that could be protected as well. It seems minimally invasive when I consider how ultimately invasive the following procedure is to what, at the very least, could be human life. still not sure where i shake out on this particular law, though.
It is invasive in my mind if they said they wanted to take a look at your uterus to board an airplane. But these are apples and oranges in comparison. In this case, you are having a procedure to take something out of your uterus and destroyed. Being shown your uterus before the procedure is hardly comparable to being scanned to board an airplane. If we took the emotion of abortion out of it for a moment... Would you consider it invasive if you were required to have an xray before a hip replacement?
It's disappointing that you're even considering this acceptable. The government mandating a medical/screening procedure to pre-empt another procedure? Really? What purpose does this serve other than to try to either 1) punish the abortioner financially or 2) put additional emotional/mental stress onto an already weighty decision. Telling women their options is one thing, but this is not about education. Like I said before, the ends doesn't justify the means, there are better ways to prevent abortions than this.
Donny, I know you are passionate about this issue so I want to have a conversation with you beyond whether the law should be legal or not. Let's get past that for a moment. I am genuinely interested to know why you oppose this beyond the question of legality. What is the consequence of this law that you oppose? Is it merely the financial aspect of forcing them to pay for an additional procedure? Is your concern potential psychological trauma from seeing their fetus before an abortion? Please help me understand. In my mind I just can't seem to figure out why it is considered such an invasion and such so potentially damaging.
