Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
To live freely in writing...
Click here to enter Amazon through the Althouse Portal.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
Blog Archive
-
►
2024
(984)
- 04/28 (63)
- 04/21 (57)
- 04/14 (68)
- 04/07 (56)
- 03/31 (55)
- 03/24 (56)
- 03/17 (59)
- 03/10 (52)
- 03/03 (63)
- 02/25 (59)
- 02/18 (45)
- 02/11 (60)
- 02/04 (56)
- 01/28 (50)
- 01/21 (64)
- 01/14 (62)
- 01/07 (59)
-
►
2023
(3115)
- 12/31 (58)
- 12/24 (43)
- 12/17 (55)
- 12/10 (66)
- 12/03 (57)
- 11/26 (56)
- 11/19 (44)
- 11/12 (55)
- 11/05 (69)
- 10/29 (63)
- 10/22 (54)
- 10/15 (62)
- 10/08 (69)
- 10/01 (70)
- 09/24 (55)
- 09/17 (49)
- 09/10 (62)
- 09/03 (54)
- 08/27 (54)
- 08/20 (45)
- 08/13 (50)
- 08/06 (54)
- 07/30 (62)
- 07/23 (50)
- 07/16 (49)
- 07/09 (59)
- 07/02 (61)
- 06/25 (63)
- 06/18 (53)
- 06/11 (63)
- 06/04 (67)
- 05/28 (53)
- 05/21 (60)
- 05/14 (66)
- 05/07 (66)
- 04/30 (67)
- 04/23 (54)
- 04/16 (55)
- 04/09 (64)
- 04/02 (63)
- 03/26 (64)
- 03/19 (76)
- 03/12 (60)
- 03/05 (52)
- 02/26 (63)
- 02/19 (49)
- 02/12 (66)
- 02/05 (63)
- 01/29 (60)
- 01/22 (57)
- 01/15 (60)
- 01/08 (66)
- 01/01 (60)
-
►
2022
(3553)
- 12/25 (55)
- 12/18 (56)
- 12/11 (73)
- 12/04 (71)
- 11/27 (76)
- 11/20 (76)
- 11/13 (80)
- 11/06 (71)
- 10/30 (72)
- 10/23 (60)
- 10/16 (61)
- 10/09 (63)
- 10/02 (70)
- 09/25 (56)
- 09/18 (62)
- 09/11 (64)
- 09/04 (76)
- 08/28 (75)
- 08/21 (63)
- 08/14 (71)
- 08/07 (76)
- 07/31 (74)
- 07/24 (71)
- 07/17 (66)
- 07/10 (67)
- 07/03 (70)
- 06/26 (73)
- 06/19 (79)
- 06/12 (74)
- 06/05 (87)
- 05/29 (54)
- 05/22 (66)
- 05/15 (72)
- 05/08 (76)
- 05/01 (62)
- 04/24 (62)
- 04/17 (70)
- 04/10 (69)
- 04/03 (82)
- 03/27 (67)
- 03/20 (64)
- 03/13 (64)
- 03/06 (79)
- 02/27 (64)
- 02/20 (66)
- 02/13 (68)
- 02/06 (59)
- 01/30 (70)
- 01/23 (58)
- 01/16 (61)
- 01/09 (64)
- 01/02 (68)
-
►
2021
(3054)
- 12/26 (55)
- 12/19 (52)
- 12/12 (53)
- 12/05 (51)
- 11/28 (44)
- 11/21 (62)
- 11/14 (54)
- 11/07 (54)
- 10/31 (65)
- 10/24 (73)
- 10/17 (61)
- 10/10 (62)
- 10/03 (64)
- 09/26 (59)
- 09/19 (48)
- 09/12 (53)
- 09/05 (60)
- 08/29 (76)
- 08/22 (67)
- 08/15 (66)
- 08/08 (53)
- 08/01 (55)
- 07/25 (56)
- 07/18 (58)
- 07/11 (59)
- 07/04 (52)
- 06/27 (57)
- 06/20 (57)
- 06/13 (65)
- 06/06 (64)
- 05/30 (50)
- 05/23 (64)
- 05/16 (56)
- 05/09 (65)
- 05/02 (63)
- 04/25 (62)
- 04/18 (56)
- 04/11 (64)
- 04/04 (71)
- 03/28 (68)
- 03/21 (57)
- 03/14 (66)
- 03/07 (60)
- 02/28 (53)
- 02/21 (56)
- 02/14 (40)
- 02/07 (62)
- 01/31 (53)
- 01/24 (61)
- 01/17 (56)
- 01/10 (58)
- 01/03 (58)
-
►
2020
(3644)
- 12/27 (49)
- 12/20 (40)
- 12/13 (56)
- 12/06 (61)
- 11/29 (57)
- 11/22 (59)
- 11/15 (57)
- 11/08 (71)
- 11/01 (76)
- 10/25 (68)
- 10/18 (69)
- 10/11 (64)
- 10/04 (70)
- 09/27 (71)
- 09/20 (64)
- 09/13 (61)
- 09/06 (70)
- 08/30 (72)
- 08/23 (78)
- 08/16 (71)
- 08/09 (50)
- 08/02 (76)
- 07/26 (62)
- 07/19 (70)
- 07/12 (64)
- 07/05 (74)
- 06/28 (84)
- 06/21 (88)
- 06/14 (73)
- 06/07 (91)
- 05/31 (99)
- 05/24 (82)
- 05/17 (76)
- 05/10 (93)
- 05/03 (78)
- 04/26 (72)
- 04/19 (63)
- 04/12 (71)
- 04/05 (74)
- 03/29 (79)
- 03/22 (64)
- 03/15 (83)
- 03/08 (75)
- 03/01 (78)
- 02/23 (70)
- 02/16 (69)
- 02/09 (67)
- 02/02 (81)
- 01/26 (68)
- 01/19 (61)
- 01/12 (63)
- 01/05 (62)
-
►
2019
(3453)
- 12/29 (81)
- 12/22 (51)
- 12/15 (74)
- 12/08 (73)
- 12/01 (66)
- 11/24 (74)
- 11/17 (77)
- 11/10 (68)
- 11/03 (69)
- 10/27 (83)
- 10/20 (83)
- 10/13 (92)
- 10/06 (65)
- 09/29 (49)
- 09/22 (60)
- 09/15 (68)
- 09/08 (67)
- 09/01 (54)
- 08/25 (64)
- 08/18 (61)
- 08/11 (56)
- 08/04 (57)
- 07/28 (53)
- 07/21 (68)
- 07/14 (61)
- 07/07 (60)
- 06/30 (65)
- 06/23 (67)
- 06/16 (54)
- 06/09 (42)
- 06/02 (64)
- 05/26 (62)
- 05/19 (60)
- 05/12 (64)
- 05/05 (77)
- 04/28 (78)
- 04/21 (43)
- 04/14 (58)
- 04/07 (67)
- 03/31 (75)
- 03/24 (65)
- 03/17 (68)
- 03/10 (70)
- 03/03 (71)
- 02/24 (62)
- 02/17 (88)
- 02/10 (72)
- 02/03 (55)
- 01/27 (68)
- 01/20 (72)
- 01/13 (76)
- 01/06 (76)
-
►
2018
(3410)
- 12/30 (59)
- 12/23 (45)
- 12/16 (76)
- 12/09 (83)
- 12/02 (69)
- 11/25 (68)
- 11/18 (61)
- 11/11 (61)
- 11/04 (68)
- 10/28 (76)
- 10/21 (71)
- 10/14 (53)
- 10/07 (53)
- 09/30 (61)
- 09/23 (61)
- 09/16 (63)
- 09/09 (57)
- 09/02 (55)
- 08/26 (54)
- 08/19 (63)
- 08/12 (59)
- 08/05 (69)
- 07/29 (64)
- 07/22 (60)
- 07/15 (69)
- 07/08 (67)
- 07/01 (67)
- 06/24 (62)
- 06/17 (68)
- 06/10 (65)
- 06/03 (65)
- 05/27 (54)
- 05/20 (63)
- 05/13 (53)
- 05/06 (78)
- 04/29 (74)
- 04/22 (68)
- 04/15 (71)
- 04/08 (53)
- 04/01 (76)
- 03/25 (64)
- 03/18 (78)
- 03/11 (67)
- 03/04 (71)
- 02/25 (66)
- 02/18 (70)
- 02/11 (64)
- 02/04 (68)
- 01/28 (80)
- 01/21 (73)
- 01/14 (65)
- 01/07 (82)
-
►
2017
(3818)
- 12/31 (85)
- 12/24 (66)
- 12/17 (75)
- 12/10 (74)
- 12/03 (77)
- 11/26 (75)
- 11/19 (58)
- 11/12 (70)
- 11/05 (75)
- 10/29 (67)
- 10/22 (76)
- 10/15 (72)
- 10/08 (70)
- 10/01 (63)
- 09/24 (59)
- 09/17 (63)
- 09/10 (65)
- 09/03 (66)
- 08/27 (69)
- 08/20 (59)
- 08/13 (66)
- 08/06 (73)
- 07/30 (89)
- 07/23 (79)
- 07/16 (81)
- 07/09 (75)
- 07/02 (64)
- 06/25 (83)
- 06/18 (70)
- 06/11 (67)
- 06/04 (74)
- 05/28 (75)
- 05/21 (77)
- 05/14 (81)
- 05/07 (89)
- 04/30 (83)
- 04/23 (80)
- 04/16 (71)
- 04/09 (78)
- 04/02 (74)
- 03/26 (83)
- 03/19 (74)
- 03/12 (77)
- 03/05 (60)
- 02/26 (49)
- 02/19 (72)
- 02/12 (74)
- 02/05 (88)
- 01/29 (91)
- 01/22 (82)
- 01/15 (47)
- 01/08 (60)
- 01/01 (48)
-
►
2016
(3557)
- 12/25 (61)
- 12/18 (62)
- 12/11 (59)
- 12/04 (60)
- 11/27 (74)
- 11/20 (68)
- 11/13 (79)
- 11/06 (62)
- 10/30 (88)
- 10/23 (75)
- 10/16 (68)
- 10/09 (58)
- 10/02 (72)
- 09/25 (70)
- 09/18 (70)
- 09/11 (79)
- 09/04 (64)
- 08/28 (53)
- 08/21 (62)
- 08/14 (70)
- 08/07 (67)
- 07/31 (68)
- 07/24 (57)
- 07/17 (71)
- 07/10 (53)
- 07/03 (53)
- 06/26 (80)
- 06/19 (81)
- 06/12 (73)
- 06/05 (65)
- 05/29 (74)
- 05/22 (67)
- 05/15 (70)
- 05/08 (89)
- 05/01 (79)
- 04/24 (67)
- 04/17 (59)
- 04/10 (61)
- 04/03 (52)
- 03/27 (68)
- 03/20 (76)
- 03/13 (68)
- 03/06 (81)
- 02/28 (65)
- 02/21 (69)
- 02/14 (70)
- 02/07 (75)
- 01/31 (68)
- 01/24 (59)
- 01/17 (69)
- 01/10 (80)
- 01/03 (69)
-
►
2015
(3788)
- 12/27 (71)
- 12/20 (68)
- 12/13 (81)
- 12/06 (70)
- 11/29 (78)
- 11/22 (58)
- 11/15 (76)
- 11/08 (84)
- 11/01 (73)
- 10/25 (74)
- 10/18 (65)
- 10/11 (75)
- 10/04 (87)
- 09/27 (59)
- 09/20 (71)
- 09/13 (55)
- 09/06 (63)
- 08/30 (72)
- 08/23 (70)
- 08/16 (70)
- 08/09 (65)
- 08/02 (65)
- 07/26 (55)
- 07/19 (66)
- 07/12 (69)
- 07/05 (62)
- 06/28 (83)
- 06/21 (79)
- 06/14 (69)
- 06/07 (81)
- 05/31 (84)
- 05/24 (78)
- 05/17 (90)
- 05/10 (85)
- 05/03 (86)
- 04/26 (77)
- 04/19 (78)
- 04/12 (63)
- 04/05 (63)
- 03/29 (79)
- 03/22 (73)
- 03/15 (63)
- 03/08 (79)
- 03/01 (66)
- 02/22 (82)
- 02/15 (78)
- 02/08 (67)
- 02/01 (84)
- 01/25 (79)
- 01/18 (63)
- 01/11 (87)
- 01/04 (70)
-
►
2014
(3825)
- 12/28 (62)
- 12/21 (44)
- 12/14 (78)
- 12/07 (97)
- 11/30 (84)
- 11/23 (82)
- 11/16 (70)
- 11/09 (71)
- 11/02 (91)
- 10/26 (79)
- 10/19 (71)
- 10/12 (86)
- 10/05 (61)
- 09/28 (58)
- 09/21 (67)
- 09/14 (56)
- 09/07 (70)
- 08/31 (64)
- 08/24 (63)
- 08/17 (51)
- 08/10 (79)
- 08/03 (71)
- 07/27 (75)
- 07/20 (81)
- 07/13 (75)
- 07/06 (67)
- 06/29 (41)
- 06/22 (80)
- 06/15 (78)
- 06/08 (91)
- 06/01 (59)
- 05/25 (58)
- 05/18 (90)
- 05/11 (73)
- 05/04 (72)
- 04/27 (72)
- 04/20 (73)
- 04/13 (82)
- 04/06 (81)
- 03/30 (77)
- 03/23 (66)
- 03/16 (56)
- 03/09 (77)
- 03/02 (90)
- 02/23 (73)
- 02/16 (91)
- 02/09 (77)
- 02/02 (91)
- 01/26 (86)
- 01/19 (81)
- 01/12 (90)
- 01/05 (67)
-
►
2013
(5117)
- 12/29 (83)
- 12/22 (82)
- 12/15 (51)
- 12/08 (95)
- 12/01 (87)
- 11/24 (79)
- 11/17 (71)
- 11/10 (94)
- 11/03 (86)
- 10/27 (73)
- 10/20 (88)
- 10/13 (79)
- 10/06 (65)
- 09/29 (65)
- 09/22 (78)
- 09/15 (81)
- 09/08 (77)
- 09/01 (79)
- 08/25 (79)
- 08/18 (96)
- 08/11 (64)
- 08/04 (82)
- 07/28 (84)
- 07/21 (110)
- 07/14 (112)
- 07/07 (91)
- 06/30 (101)
- 06/23 (101)
- 06/16 (106)
- 06/09 (133)
- 06/02 (111)
- 05/26 (86)
- 05/19 (126)
- 05/12 (125)
- 05/05 (133)
- 04/28 (103)
- 04/21 (126)
- 04/14 (98)
- 04/07 (100)
- 03/31 (110)
- 03/24 (121)
- 03/17 (120)
- 03/10 (102)
- 03/03 (98)
- 02/24 (129)
- 02/17 (104)
- 02/10 (116)
- 02/03 (135)
- 01/27 (125)
- 01/20 (125)
- 01/13 (123)
- 01/06 (129)
-
►
2012
(4971)
- 12/30 (88)
- 12/23 (103)
- 12/16 (129)
- 12/09 (120)
- 12/02 (126)
- 11/25 (98)
- 11/18 (62)
- 11/11 (87)
- 11/04 (111)
- 10/28 (98)
- 10/21 (105)
- 10/14 (101)
- 10/07 (94)
- 09/30 (90)
- 09/23 (83)
- 09/16 (93)
- 09/09 (114)
- 09/02 (93)
- 08/26 (91)
- 08/19 (103)
- 08/12 (68)
- 08/05 (74)
- 07/29 (108)
- 07/22 (117)
- 07/15 (93)
- 07/08 (88)
- 07/01 (85)
- 06/24 (76)
- 06/17 (92)
- 06/10 (126)
- 06/03 (96)
- 05/27 (100)
- 05/20 (124)
- 05/13 (99)
- 05/06 (110)
- 04/29 (87)
- 04/22 (98)
- 04/15 (82)
- 04/08 (87)
- 04/01 (90)
- 03/25 (85)
- 03/18 (98)
- 03/11 (94)
- 03/04 (96)
- 02/26 (91)
- 02/19 (88)
- 02/12 (74)
- 02/05 (78)
- 01/29 (74)
- 01/22 (80)
- 01/15 (77)
- 01/08 (71)
- 01/01 (76)
-
▼
2011
(4463)
- 12/25 (93)
- 12/18 (87)
- 12/11 (88)
- 12/04 (73)
- 11/27 (84)
- 11/20 (71)
- 11/13 (77)
- 11/06 (78)
- 10/30 (70)
- 10/23 (79)
- 10/16 (95)
- 10/09 (77)
- 10/02 (99)
- 09/25 (82)
- 09/18 (91)
- 09/11 (79)
- 09/04 (83)
- 08/28 (82)
- 08/21 (91)
- 08/14 (80)
- 08/07 (89)
- 07/31 (69)
- 07/24 (102)
- 07/17 (66)
- 07/10 (90)
- 07/03 (89)
- 06/26 (69)
- 06/19 (80)
- 06/12 (93)
- 06/05 (110)
- 05/29 (90)
- 05/22 (88)
- 05/15 (92)
- 05/08 (83)
- 05/01 (95)
- 04/24 (84)
- 04/17 (77)
- 04/10 (90)
- 04/03 (96)
- 03/27 (83)
- 03/20 (96)
- 03/13 (97)
- 03/06 (105)
- 02/27 (91)
- 02/20 (83)
- 02/13 (79)
- 02/06 (75)
- 01/30 (78)
- 01/23 (78)
- 01/16 (104)
- 01/09 (80)
- 01/02 (103)
-
►
2010
(3835)
- 12/26 (73)
- 12/19 (72)
- 12/12 (96)
- 12/05 (76)
- 11/28 (77)
- 11/21 (75)
- 11/14 (92)
- 11/07 (82)
- 10/31 (84)
- 10/24 (64)
- 10/17 (79)
- 10/10 (84)
- 10/03 (88)
- 09/26 (77)
- 09/19 (69)
- 09/12 (73)
- 09/05 (62)
- 08/29 (67)
- 08/22 (65)
- 08/15 (82)
- 08/08 (67)
- 08/01 (83)
- 07/25 (67)
- 07/18 (76)
- 07/11 (73)
- 07/04 (60)
- 06/27 (86)
- 06/20 (66)
- 06/13 (57)
- 06/06 (53)
- 05/30 (79)
- 05/23 (88)
- 05/16 (85)
- 05/09 (81)
- 05/02 (81)
- 04/25 (71)
- 04/18 (61)
- 04/11 (80)
- 04/04 (62)
- 03/28 (64)
- 03/21 (66)
- 03/14 (49)
- 03/07 (71)
- 02/28 (76)
- 02/21 (66)
- 02/14 (82)
- 02/07 (61)
- 01/31 (79)
- 01/24 (87)
- 01/17 (80)
- 01/10 (72)
- 01/03 (69)
-
►
2009
(3716)
- 12/27 (58)
- 12/20 (53)
- 12/13 (84)
- 12/06 (77)
- 11/29 (78)
- 11/22 (50)
- 11/15 (83)
- 11/08 (78)
- 11/01 (74)
- 10/25 (85)
- 10/18 (69)
- 10/11 (63)
- 10/04 (91)
- 09/27 (86)
- 09/20 (82)
- 09/13 (60)
- 09/06 (64)
- 08/30 (81)
- 08/23 (82)
- 08/16 (72)
- 08/09 (70)
- 08/02 (45)
- 07/26 (76)
- 07/19 (71)
- 07/12 (42)
- 07/05 (57)
- 06/28 (105)
- 06/21 (86)
- 06/14 (71)
- 06/07 (83)
- 05/31 (83)
- 05/24 (57)
- 05/17 (74)
- 05/10 (83)
- 05/03 (57)
- 04/26 (70)
- 04/19 (67)
- 04/12 (82)
- 04/05 (63)
- 03/29 (62)
- 03/22 (67)
- 03/15 (68)
- 03/08 (50)
- 03/01 (60)
- 02/22 (53)
- 02/15 (55)
- 02/08 (68)
- 02/01 (89)
- 01/25 (81)
- 01/18 (83)
- 01/11 (91)
- 01/04 (77)
-
►
2008
(3407)
- 12/28 (75)
- 12/21 (44)
- 12/14 (63)
- 12/07 (78)
- 11/30 (87)
- 11/23 (68)
- 11/16 (75)
- 11/09 (85)
- 11/02 (81)
- 10/26 (79)
- 10/19 (86)
- 10/12 (70)
- 10/05 (66)
- 09/28 (76)
- 09/21 (84)
- 09/14 (75)
- 09/07 (73)
- 08/31 (81)
- 08/24 (75)
- 08/17 (73)
- 08/10 (73)
- 08/03 (56)
- 07/27 (57)
- 07/20 (55)
- 07/13 (42)
- 07/06 (47)
- 06/29 (58)
- 06/22 (62)
- 06/15 (53)
- 06/08 (65)
- 06/01 (53)
- 05/25 (45)
- 05/18 (62)
- 05/11 (73)
- 05/04 (69)
- 04/27 (69)
- 04/20 (68)
- 04/13 (64)
- 04/06 (63)
- 03/30 (49)
- 03/23 (54)
- 03/16 (56)
- 03/09 (72)
- 03/02 (70)
- 02/24 (61)
- 02/17 (62)
- 02/10 (68)
- 02/03 (60)
- 01/27 (58)
- 01/20 (51)
- 01/13 (49)
- 01/06 (69)
-
►
2007
(2915)
- 12/30 (67)
- 12/23 (50)
- 12/16 (51)
- 12/09 (51)
- 12/02 (50)
- 11/25 (51)
- 11/18 (57)
- 11/11 (64)
- 11/04 (68)
- 10/28 (57)
- 10/21 (55)
- 10/14 (57)
- 10/07 (52)
- 09/30 (60)
- 09/23 (66)
- 09/16 (39)
- 09/09 (61)
- 09/02 (65)
- 08/26 (54)
- 08/19 (55)
- 08/12 (58)
- 08/05 (59)
- 07/29 (53)
- 07/22 (58)
- 07/15 (51)
- 07/08 (63)
- 07/01 (66)
- 06/24 (54)
- 06/17 (45)
- 06/10 (55)
- 06/03 (69)
- 05/27 (60)
- 05/20 (68)
- 05/13 (72)
- 05/06 (56)
- 04/29 (49)
- 04/22 (52)
- 04/15 (52)
- 04/08 (50)
- 04/01 (41)
- 03/25 (50)
- 03/18 (50)
- 03/11 (62)
- 03/04 (54)
- 02/25 (47)
- 02/18 (53)
- 02/11 (50)
- 02/04 (61)
- 01/28 (65)
- 01/21 (50)
- 01/14 (51)
- 01/07 (61)
-
►
2006
(2745)
- 12/31 (53)
- 12/24 (55)
- 12/17 (54)
- 12/10 (65)
- 12/03 (82)
- 11/26 (50)
- 11/19 (54)
- 11/12 (58)
- 11/05 (65)
- 10/29 (56)
- 10/22 (64)
- 10/15 (63)
- 10/08 (55)
- 10/01 (60)
- 09/24 (59)
- 09/17 (43)
- 09/10 (36)
- 09/03 (56)
- 08/27 (54)
- 08/20 (47)
- 08/13 (54)
- 08/06 (51)
- 07/30 (47)
- 07/23 (45)
- 07/16 (42)
- 07/09 (60)
- 07/02 (46)
- 06/25 (52)
- 06/18 (50)
- 06/11 (55)
- 06/04 (54)
- 05/28 (41)
- 05/21 (54)
- 05/14 (47)
- 05/07 (63)
- 04/30 (52)
- 04/23 (40)
- 04/16 (38)
- 04/09 (54)
- 04/02 (48)
- 03/26 (52)
- 03/19 (45)
- 03/12 (47)
- 03/05 (49)
- 02/26 (46)
- 02/19 (50)
- 02/12 (43)
- 02/05 (47)
- 01/29 (56)
- 01/22 (45)
- 01/15 (44)
- 01/08 (44)
- 01/01 (55)
-
►
2005
(2920)
- 12/25 (56)
- 12/18 (49)
- 12/11 (67)
- 12/04 (73)
- 11/27 (62)
- 11/20 (65)
- 11/13 (67)
- 11/06 (68)
- 10/30 (64)
- 10/23 (64)
- 10/16 (68)
- 10/09 (61)
- 10/02 (75)
- 09/25 (59)
- 09/18 (58)
- 09/11 (54)
- 09/04 (57)
- 08/28 (82)
- 08/21 (58)
- 08/14 (67)
- 08/07 (61)
- 07/31 (54)
- 07/24 (62)
- 07/17 (70)
- 07/10 (59)
- 07/03 (65)
- 06/26 (78)
- 06/19 (53)
- 06/12 (54)
- 06/05 (44)
- 05/29 (51)
- 05/22 (53)
- 05/15 (34)
- 05/08 (38)
- 05/01 (61)
- 04/24 (55)
- 04/17 (55)
- 04/10 (63)
- 04/03 (61)
- 03/27 (51)
- 03/20 (42)
- 03/13 (57)
- 03/06 (45)
- 02/27 (48)
- 02/20 (44)
- 02/13 (36)
- 02/06 (50)
- 01/30 (50)
- 01/23 (37)
- 01/16 (29)
- 01/09 (41)
- 01/02 (45)
-
►
2004
(2035)
- 12/26 (48)
- 12/19 (41)
- 12/12 (46)
- 12/05 (47)
- 11/28 (53)
- 11/21 (45)
- 11/14 (46)
- 11/07 (60)
- 10/31 (48)
- 10/24 (45)
- 10/17 (60)
- 10/10 (37)
- 10/03 (42)
- 09/26 (37)
- 09/19 (46)
- 09/12 (30)
- 09/05 (40)
- 08/29 (43)
- 08/22 (39)
- 08/15 (27)
- 08/08 (36)
- 08/01 (32)
- 07/25 (43)
- 07/18 (28)
- 07/11 (35)
- 07/04 (34)
- 06/27 (31)
- 06/20 (35)
- 06/13 (35)
- 06/06 (21)
- 05/30 (32)
- 05/23 (40)
- 05/16 (35)
- 05/09 (46)
- 05/02 (52)
- 04/25 (52)
- 04/18 (45)
- 04/11 (36)
- 04/04 (37)
- 03/28 (31)
- 03/21 (40)
- 03/14 (33)
- 03/07 (36)
- 02/29 (41)
- 02/22 (31)
- 02/15 (33)
- 02/08 (43)
- 02/01 (33)
- 01/25 (43)
- 01/18 (56)
- 01/11 (30)
180 comments:
Oh, my, God forbid that women who are going to go through a medical procedure (yes, abortion is considered a medical procedure) would be informed about what they are getting ready to go through.
Of course, we all know that doctors NEVER show patients x-rays of their broken bones, or never do cancer patients ever see x-rays of their tumors and we know that doctors NEVER explain to the patient exactly what is going to happen to them when they go under the surgical knife.
We can't have women knowing that the "inconvenience" they are about to abort has a heart beat, legs, arms, a head and looks similarily like a human being.
But hey, we want our children informed, right? So schools show An Inconvenient Truth but how many show The Silent Scream? Just keep the kids stupid about abortion and they will not stop to think about what they are doing. Guess that is why Planned Parenthood put its larges abortion center in the nation in a poor, BLACK Houston district that has Sheila Jackson Lee as their representative.
The Dem amendmend that required the state to pay for the child's college if the mother decided not to go through with the abortion proves that the Democrats are petty and unserious thinkers.
amendmend = amendment. $&#^#%#!!
Who pays for the ultrasound?
Let's see. These women are voluntarily coming in to have a saline solution and a Hoovermatic inserted into their uteruses through the vaginal canal.
And we're trying to protect them from having to endure an invasive procedure?
WV: "sticr." lolololzzzz!!!!
Compelling someone to undergo an unwanted test with a government scripted narration is not informed consent.
Mandating 100% insurance coverage to allow such procedures for every woman who wants them doesn't seem unacceptable, though (but if you want to keep health care costs down . . .)
What's the over/under on this thread (abortion and health care all wrapped up in one)? 300?
Any odds on this surpassing the Palin thread? I'm saying yes.
So am I to understand that early ultrasounds are performed differently than the ones you see on TV, where the woman is lying down and the monitor is passed over her abdomen?
(goes to google)
Transvaginal ultrasound is performed very much like a gynecologic exam and involves the insertion of the transducer into the vagina after the patient empties her bladder. The tip of the transducer is smaller than the standard speculum used when performing a Pap test. A protective cover is placed over the transducer, lubricated with a small amount of gel, and then inserted into the vagina. Only two to three inches of the transducer end are inserted into the vagina. The images are obtained from different orientations to get the best views of the uterus and ovaries. Transvaginal ultrasound is usually performed with the patient lying on her back, possibly with her feet in stirrups similar to a gynecologic exam.
Oh.
I wonder if the bill specifies the type of sonogram that has to be used? If you're two months pregnant, and the embryo is a finger tip sized (or however big it is then), what would a standard sonogram show?
Unfortunately, our guvmint never fixes even a single thing.
It just tinkers and tinkers and like the good lawyers most of them are, they add more and more rules and regulations in the mistaken belief it is the solution.
But not one thing ever gets fixed well and good. That's how I do my home repairs and it is one reason I got divorced. Heh - no lie.
Meanwhile... via gateway Pundit.
Disgusting… Leftists Move to Have Prominent Republican’s Children Expelled From State University
@MadisonMan
Not much to see at 8 weeks.
The government of the United States of America and the state governments all use the force of law to control smoking, a legal activity, and use taxpayer dollars to force people to see messages against tobacco, a product legal in all 50 states.
So what's the pity party about a State government regulating a legal activity regarding someone's health. Democrats and Obama supporters should welcome this - giving a woman/teen/female minor more information rather than allowing constant confusion?
Honestly - are there ANY people that are pro-abortion left that are NOT liars and hypocrites?
Sadly, coming from a Democrat, we aren't sure whether, "This is government intrusion at its best," is being applauded or denounced. It seems denounced. So he's fine with government intruding into all aspects of our lives, from our diets to choice of cars, health care, modes of transportation, etc., etc., etc., but when it comes to actually seeing the creature you're about to terminate, no. That's too far.
@retire05,
Excellent points!
Abortion lovers have the timing of the jelly wrong:
I don't think your ready for this jelly
@Chase
Not even the tobacco companies are using that canard anymore.
OK, the Lefties want abortions paid for by the public.
TX wants sonograms apparently at Mom's expense.
The difference seems to be that The Leftist lie that it isn't human may be realized by some women and they may decide otherwise.
Libertarians will scream, but at least women will understand the import of their actions before they make a decision they may regret later.
Yet more shitty legislation caused by that shitty decision in 1973.
"Another, which also would have applied to cases in which the woman decided not to have the abortion, would have allowed women to get a court order to require the father of the child to get a vasectomy."
Can this possibly be true?
How far we have come from talking about reproductive rights and "hands off my body."
In general I am no fan of unfunded mandates. If Government thinks something is important enough, then Government should pay for it.
My spouse had open heart surgery last June. Prior to surgery, we not only saw the results of the tests that were done, and the visual results, but the surgeon spent 1/2 hour with us explaining every little detail about what procedures he would use, from the sawing of the sturnum to the removal of the heart to the by-pass blood flow that would allow him to repair the damaged arterie. We were shown diagrams of both the heart repair and the process used to take veins from the leg to repair the heart. When the surgeon left, he left a video that lasted about 45 minutes that we watched together. There was NO doubt in our minds what my spouse would be subject to during surgery. Having all the information, including the fact that the thorasic surgeon had trained under Dr. Michael Debakey made us informed, and less stressed. Even post-op information was given to us.
Now, why would anyone want to go through a medical procedure and not want all the details? And abortion is not like removing a wood splinter from your finger, and even so, if the doctor was to remove a splinter from your finger, chances are you would be watching the process.
BTW,Triangle Man, at 8 weeks, a baby has a heartbeat that can be shown on an external sonigram.
Nice try, but I don't think that it is going to work. Maybe if they had limited it to the last trimester, but this goes a lot further than that, likely most, if not all, of the way through the second trimester.
It would increase the cost of the abortion, and thus negatively affect the ability of some women to procure abortions.
Another way to look at this is that the unborn get to have some sonographic/photographic evidence of themselves in utero on file for future reference, should they happen to live.
Bruce Hayden, perhaps Planned Parenthood, who do the most abortions in the nation, could take some of the millions of $$ that they get in federal funding to purchase sonigram equipment.
Nah, then they are going to lose money on abortions when women realize that there really is a "there" there.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the amendment Democrats proposed, that would have forcibly sterilized any man whose partner considered an abortion and then changed her mind.
I guess it is only women's bodies that are sacrosanct.
It would increase the cost of the abortion, and thus negatively affect the ability of some women to procure abortions.
Well, yes. That's pretty much the point.
This is what both parties do to businesses they disapprove of -- heap nonsensical regulations on top of them in an attempt to drive them out of business. Republicans do it to abortion providers and "vice" businesses, Democrats do it to... er, basically everything else.
I think the mandatory ultrasound is okay, but only if it shows the image with crosshairs over the fetus.
That might make a cool first-person shooter video game.
Dr. Kermit Gosnell presents
The Philly Abortion!
FPS, Saline, or Vacuum Levels!
I agree with Revenant. The forced sterilization amendment should be the story.
In a follow-up bill physicians will be required to make a screaming noise while they perform the abortion. In addition a video of the procedure will be made and women will be required to watch it annually.
According to Planned Parenthood Austin, the cost of a sonogram is $75.00 and is included in the cost of an abortion.
I'm surprised nobody has brought up the amendment Democrats proposed, that would have forcibly sterilized any man whose partner considered an abortion and then changed her mind.
Yeah, that’s pretty much insane. Although I think that was the point of the amendment, to add stuff nobody wants to pass…
Triangle Man,
Nice try. No cigar.
I think the mandatory ultrasound is okay, but only if it shows the image with crosshairs over the fetus.
LOL!!!!!
It's the Republican suicidal impulse.
Another: "It would increase the cost of the abortion, and thus negatively affect the ability of some women to procure abortions."
Revenant: "Well, yes. That's pretty much the point.
This is what both parties do to businesses they disapprove of ..."
As if the disposition of life is something that can be taken or done lightly; is this not something the state, an individual state can rightfully do, to at least afford some sort of 'due process' to the termination/the terminated, a 'presumed life' - if not actual - is to at least allow for a fully-informed decision on the part of ... the host (I won't even try an appeal to 'motherhood' instincts at this point)?
.
That trans-vaginal probe should be adopted as the symbol of the Republican party.
Well, that and a helicopter with Ben Bernanke in it, throwing money out the open door... but that's off-topic.
KEEP YOUR DIRTY SLIMY POLITICAL HANDS OFF OUR BODIES!
Yeah, that’s pretty much insane. Although I think that was the point of the amendment, to add stuff nobody wants to pass…
Given the other amendments -- e.g., free college education for the child -- it appears that the goal was to add stuff Republicans wouldn't want to pass, but that Democrats would consider either good or neutral.
Is it actually necessary for a woman to undergo a sonogram in order for her to learn--assuming she doesn't already know--what the developing human being looks like (or even "sounds" like)?
There must already be a gazillion sonogram pictures/videos out there. Hell, even I once posted, as part of a blogpost related to abortion and informed consent/choice, pictures from one of the sonograms performed during my son's gestation.
(There were many, due to my age, the high-risk nature of my pregnancy and the fact that I'd lost another baby within the previous year. I must say that while I was thrilled and moved by most of them, they didn't actually show me anything I hadn't seen before, many many times, over many many years.)
Obviously, this is about more than informed consent/choice. Whether pro-life/antiabortion or pro-choice/pro-abortion, it's intellectually dishonest to say otherwise, IMO.
reader iam, just how many women (and girls) do you think have taken the time to see what a baby looks like during different stages of gestation?
Is it actually necessary for a woman to undergo a sonogram in order for her to learn--assuming she doesn't already know--what the developing human being looks like (or even "sounds" like)?
Isn't this still the primary method used to determine the sex of the child prior to birth? I'll grant that techniques and methods could have changed since the late 90's.
I need to practice my hollow laugh for the next time a conservative criticizes "Obamacare" for forcing government intervention in the doctor-patient relationship.
Doctor, will there be a test?
(i.e., another unenforcable law)
KEEP YOUR DIRTY SLIMY POLITICAL HANDS OFF OUR BODIES!
The plaint of every aborted child.
"my hollow laugh for the next time a conservative criticizes "Obamacare" for forcing government intervention "
What made you think government interventions in Obamacare would arise only from the Democrats?
If you want statism, you'll get it in 31 flavors, and then some.
All sortsa tails gonna try wag that dog. Once you accept politics into personal health care, it ain't never gonna stop.
These women need to certify that they are not paying for their abortion with a pay-day or refund anticipation loan.
Though I'm pro-life,I'm not a big fan of such ultrasound laws. I haven't seen in data that suggests they reduce abortions.
Having said that it is ironic for a core constituency of the Democratic Party voice concerns that such laws will:
1) drive up cost
2) unnecessarily restrict standard business practice
3) hurt "business".
Those seem like such....
Republican arguments.
@fls
"...intervention in the doctor-patient relationship."
To deny that this illegitimate 'law' goes far beyond that would indicate willful ignorance.
wv - hatell
That Robinson guy seems a bit.. fringey.
What made you think government interventions in Obamacare would arise only from the Democrats?
Just so.
I'm always bemused that those on the left seem to think this sort of thing will always break the way they'd prefer. One would think they'd have noticed when, during the passage of the health care bill, the issue of paying for abortion (or not) became a political football.
Before we argue the endless, peripheral issues, can we determine and agree upon the moment when life begins? All arguments hinge on that crucial point.
wv: phead...no comment...
You all arent truly for smaller government are you? No way you could say you were and support this.
I thought you were faking it, and now I know.
"Democrats tried unsuccessfully to add a series of amendments to the bill. One of those said that if the woman decided not to go through with the abortion, the state would have to pay for the college education for the child. Another, which also would have applied to cases in which the woman decided not to have the abortion, would have allowed women to get a court order to require the father of the child to get a vasectomy."
Brilliant! Every single pregnant woman could go to a clinic and then "decide" not to have an abortion, thus granting her unborn child a free college education. Further, I don't see the logic in forcing the father to have a vasectomy only if the abortion is declined. Why not if the abortion was performed? Also, wouldn't the same "logic" apply to forced tubal ligation? Why not?
@Windbag
"Before we argue the endless, peripheral issues, can we determine and agree upon the moment when life begins? All arguments hinge on that crucial point."
Weren't you told? Its already been decided...life begins when the 'clump of cells' exits the vaginal cavity. But not before.
This is a key sacrament in the cult of progressivism.
"You all arent truly for smaller government are you?"
I say again:
What made you think government interventions in Obamacare would arise only from the Democrats?
The Democrats won, and changed the face of American healthcare forever.
So now sit back and watch the GOP version of statism. You will choke on it.
Gee, you think a bitch should have to look their kid in the eye before she has it vacuumed out of her uterus?
Is that too much to ask?
@Don't Tread 2012
I forgot to read the instruction book, and I wasn't thirsty when they passed the Kool-Aid tray.
the 19th century is going to be so much more fun this time around.
I note how abortion restrictions and gun control borrow from each other. The 24-72 hour waiting period borrows from gun control. So Democrats might consider requiring prospective gun buyers watch a film of someone's head being blown off.
"Disgusting… Leftists Move to Have Prominent Republican’s Children Expelled From State University"
Quit. Fucking. Whining.
Instead, do it to them, but twice as hard.
They have kids too. Surely we can come up with something if we just think like they do, only more ruthlessly.
wv= sishap [lib word for when a girl fetus is aborted]
" So Democrats might consider requiring prospective gun buyers watch a film of someone's head being blown off."
That's what Netflix is for.
"I note how abortion restrictions and gun control borrow from each other."
Strange, innit?
Like they both involve killing or sumpin'.
I've heard the arguments and seen the pictures, but I still think making abortion a core issue is idiocy on the part of republicans. It is one of those things that should be left alone whether you personally would abort or not.
"Rights of the unborn" can be carried a long way.
If studies show a certain behavior inhibits production of healthy sperm, or damages the egg in some way, then let's make that illegal.
It is not the business of those not involved whether a woman gives birth or not. Freedom often requires the discipline not to force people to believe and behave as you do. These intrusions just cross the line. It's sick and I don't buy for a second that it is all out of concern and love for the poor unborn.
That is where repubs leave me cold. Freedom is apparently not really the goal. And it is one of the few areas where dems believe in freedom of choice.
Unbelievable.
"That is where repubs leave me cold."
It's stupid is what it is.
What the hell they messing with this crap for? We're being spent into penury and they gotta go all social con all of a sudden. WTF?
It's like the car is veering toward the edge of a cliff and they spend their time adjusting their skirts so their stockings don't show.
Freedom of choice, John0? Can it not be said that the "choice" was made prior to the act that caused impregnation in the first place?
And you think Republicans restrict freedom? Is it Republicans trying to tell schools what to serve at school lunches (being under the purview of the state, NOT the federal government), or maybe it is Republicans that want to tell us how to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights? Or Republicans trying to "nudge" Americans into purchasing a "green" car?
The only "choice" that liberals support is the "choice" to be a sodomite or to kill an unborn child. In all other areas, Democrat are NOT for choice.
And then, if the unborn have no "rights", I suggest you lobby the Democrats to remove from all state laws that address the death of an unborn child when the mother is murdered. How can states charge the murderer with TWO murders if the unborn has no "rights"?
I don't think that they should have to have a sonogram. But I would hand them a picture of the unfortunate souls burning in the firey pits of hell. So they can see what they have to look forward to if they get an abortion. Just sayn'
Pogo, have you ever witnessed an abortion? Have you ever seen the video "The Silent Scream"?
If not, don't tell me that you approve of a procedure that you have no information on.
Liberals go all apoplectic when someone kills a kitten, but ripping an unborn child apart because it is an "inconvenience" has absolutely no affect on them.
Pogo is a doctor in real life he just doesn't play one on the internets. He knows all about it. Trust me you are barking up the wrong tree.
@JohnO
"And it is one of the few areas where dems believe in freedom of choice. "
Congratulations, I think you just unwittingly summed up the progs succinctly.
Do you think that many women would blanch at the sight of the sea horse and change their minds?
Maybe they could show them this video of a bunny in a blender.
Seriously, though, I've had the vaginal probe thingy to look at all my cute children when they were as big as my pinky. I loved counting their heart beats.
It's less painful and "intrusive" than a pap smear, for crying out loud. It's also smaller than a you-know-what.
Is anyone really surprised by this? This is the same state that was both so moronic and intolerant of homosexuals that they made it a crime for them to have sex. Despicable.
Mike, wassa matter? Did you have to move out of Texas when it was illegal to be a sodomite there?
FLS: Do you think that many women would blanch at the sight of the sea horse and change their minds?
Do you actually know any real-life women who are actually, you know, human?
It's not a fucking sea-horse, shit-for-brains.
Mike, wassa matter? Did you have to move out of Texas when it was illegal to be a sodomite there?
At least now you can buy sex toys in Texas. A judge used Lawrence v. Texas to strike down Texas' obscenity law.
In Burleson in 2004, Joanne Webb, a mother of three and a former schoolteacher, faced up to one year in prison for selling a vibrator to two undercover police officers posing as a married couple at a private party.[1] She was later acquitted, and the undercover officers were issued reprimands. In 2007, a lingerie shop in Lubbock was raided, and items "deemed to be illegal by the Texas Penal Code" were confiscated. The clerk on duty at the time was arrested and may have to register as a sex offender.
former law student said...
Do you think that many women would blanch at the sight of the sea horse and change their minds?
Don't confuse metaphors with similes.
You still can't legally sell sex toys in Alabama.
Hell - like I've said before. You can't outlaw abortion because woment are insane. They'll abort something that if - when they're in *another* frame of mind - they'll defend to the death. That meets my criteria.
So this then: we pay for the abortion - no guilt or judgement. As long as they agree to view the fetus before, during and after the procedure. Particularly the during part.
At least now you can buy sex toys in Texas. A judge used Lawrence v. Texas to strike down Texas' obscenity law.
Woohoo!! I love how you "progressives" always cite such freedoms as the next advance for civilization.
Does the law apply to all abortions or just elected abortions.
Seems awfully cruel is a women requires an abortion for medical reasons to be force to look at a sonogram.
"It's not a fucking sea-horse, shit-for-brains."
Oh great, now he's going to come back and tell us all exactly why in his mind it is.
Groan
woof said...
You still can't legally sell sex toys in Alabama.
Because, in the end, don't we all need sex toys? [pun intended]
DOH!
@woof:
I mean, if you're going to be creative, why not use things handy like concrete and ping pong balls: link
wv = "seroid" Andrew Sullivan's dream pharmaceutical: a cross between serotonin and a steroid.
"The State of Texas argued that the state has the right to regulate morality: "The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate “morality based” reasons for the laws, which include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation."
The law was struct down in 2008.
It's not a fucking sea-horse, shit-for-brains.
http://tinyurl.com/28t7zp5
"A spherical radiolucency"
I hate when that happens.
"The forced sterilization amendment should be the story."
I'm pretty sure the forced sterilization amendment is a bit of political theater suggesting that men would never stand for government intrusion upon reproductive freedom.
@FLS
Again, you're confusing metaphor and simile. I honestly expect better from someone who has been to law school.
And what, FLS, did you hope to prove by posting that photo?
That you're an obtuse idiot?
Ok, I concede. You win.
You're an obtuse idiot. But that was never in dispute anyway.
I'm not for this but if we are going to fund Planned Parenthood then they should at least be required to fully inform their patients.
How about this. If the abortion provider receives Federal or State funding they are required to provide a sonogram.
Next--require the woman to take the aborted fetus home in a clear glass jar?
Maybe woman who have abortions for reasons other than medical emergencies ought to be required to pay the would of been kid's lifetime social security and medicare/medicaid contributions. If all of the aborted kids would have been born and paid the taxes they would have paid would the states and federal governments be in such financial bind?
And as long as woman are the sole decider on staying pregnant it's time to abolish child support for men unless the man chose to be the father. And require proof of paternity before ordering a man who chooses to be a father pay just in case he was deceived and is not the father. Read somewhere that 10% of kids born to married couples or couples living together the father isn't the presumed father.
I'm pretty sure the forced sterilization amendment is a bit of political theater suggesting that men would never stand for government intrusion upon reproductive freedom.
If it is theater it's a hell of a lot more intelligent than the run and hide approach the Wisconsin Dems take when faced with something they don't like.
I'm always bemused that those on the left seem to think this sort of thing will always break the way they'd prefer.
What amuses me is how many lefties agitate for single-payer health care without realizing that there is no way in hell single-payer health care is going to cover abortions. An America with single-payer health care is an America with no legal abortion providers -- simply because the vast majority of Americans are opposed to taxpayer-funded abortion.
You're an obtuse idiot. But that was never in dispute anyway.
From now on I suggest he be referred to as "Former Sea Horse" rather than as "Former Law Student."
Maybe the fellow can get clipped as a condition of not paying the child support, sort of like proof that he doesn't want kids, and he gets that one free-bee but if he won't pay for it he doesn't get any more.
And the woman can get clipped as a condition of not *having* the child, sort of like proof that she really doesn't want kids, and she gets that one free-bee but if she won't follow through on that pregnancy she doesn't get any more.
Well, he'd make a better sea horse than a lawyer, that's for sure.
Jeebus. Thank God he never got to the point where he could represent some unsuspecting soul at trial. How fast do you think this bubble-thinker could alienate a jury?
WV: Woodless
Not something I've been able to relate to.
"I need to practice my hollow laugh for the next time a conservative criticizes "Obamacare" for forcing government intervention in the doctor-patient relationship."
Pogo already said it better but just to reiterate...
What made you think that once Obamacare was enacted (or single payer or any other government program) that the Democrats would be in charge of it and the interventions would all be the ones you *liked*?
In other news . . . President Obama has appointed the mediocre but unobjectionable Gary Locke as our next ambassador to China. Locke is a former two term governor of Washington State who is presently Secretary of Commerce. Locke spent most of his career in politics and has limited business experience. President Obama thought so highly of him that he made Governor Locke his third nominee for Secretary of Commerce, after the first two nominees had to withdraw.
The 100th comment is always pregnant with meaning. But this one is an abortion.
101 abortions!
I'm pretty sure the forced sterilization amendment is a bit of political theater suggesting that men would never stand for government intrusion upon reproductive freedom.
That it is considered acceptable "theater" by the people staging it says a lot.
It Democrats proposed a new restriction on business and Republicans responded with an amendment re-legalizing slavery, I'm guessing journalists wouldn't just shrug and say "its just theater". We'd be hearing outraged retellings of the story for decades to come.
@Jason
"It's not a fucking sea-horse, shit-for-brains."
Beautiful.
@'fsh'
If you don't kill it, it turns into a person.
Just sayn'.
I've had both the vaginal and the abdominal ultrasounds and the vaginal is much easier. For the abdominal you have to drink lots of water to fill your bladder to almost bursting and and try really hard not to wet your pants waiting for the ultrasound to be over.
You try drinking a lot of water and driving to the doctor's office and hit a pothole on the way...
On the other hand, you need an empty bladder for the vaginal. Not nearly as uncomfortable
I'm against killing children and have no sympathy for women who do so. This bill is still a stupid idea. It is bound to be unconstitutional, and will at the very least be tied up in the courts for years.
Primarily it is a stupid tactic politically.
"@fsh" Folicle Stimulating Hormone
Unintended double entendre
So you have to look at somebody before you kill him. Seems fair.
Seems awfully cruel is a women requires an abortion for medical reasons to be force to look at a sonogram.
They've almost certainly already looked at it in that case. That's what they do when you go in because something is wrong during a pregnancy: give you an ultrasound.
I wonder how many scientists and doctors looking at seahorses and fetuses get confused between the two. And libs want to say that conservatives are anti science.
Pogo, Freeman, and Synova have covered it, nothing to add.
FWIW I agree that abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. And never when the child would be viable outside the womb except in the most desperate circumstances. Other people have different opinions.
a few months ago the WaPo tried to drum up opposition to Governor McDonnell over his efforts to have abortion clinics licensed and reviewed like any other outpatient facility. Gosnell and the disastrous clinics down in Florida seems to have boosted the governor and shredded the WaPo's sails. For now. He's a Republican; they'll have to find something else to with which to (try to) smear him.
And as long as woman are the sole decider on staying pregnant it's time to abolish child support for men unless the man chose to be the father.
When men can get pregnant they will be treated same as women.
When women have a penis they'll be treated the same as men.
No?
Again, you're confusing metaphor and simile.
I'm pretty sure the nuns explained that to me correctly in 7th grade. You're free to explain what you think the difference is.
The point, which has sailed over the heads of so many: will viewing the image of our tailequipped predecessor persuade anyone not to have an abortion?
I'm pretty sure the forced sterilization amendment is a bit of political theater suggesting that men would never stand for government intrusion upon reproductive freedom.
Opposition to forced sterilization is a pro-life position, so FAIL on the strained "hypocrisy" defense. If you weren't a reactionary you might have realized that.
When men can get pregnant they will be treated same as women.
When women have to register for Selective Service, they will be treated the same as men.
We can trade stupid non sequitors all night if you'd like.
former law student, when women can get pregnant with out the product produced by a man, they can have say over what they do with their own bodies.
"When men can get pregnant they will be treated same as women."
Actually, no.
The LGBT community advises that simply declaring oneself a woman means you can then demand to be treated the same as women.
No pregnancy needed.
What's the purpose of this requirement... Is it to discourage abortion? I doubt it. More likely it is to sock it to Democrats, to show them that Republicans are their electoral masters, at least down in Texas. It's theatrical dirt kicking in the Leftist face. Let's not pretend that there is some high-minded principle behind it.
Rick Perry is still the Republican governor down there. And he's had a long streak of doing everything possible to make sure likely innocent people are not given their day in court, even after they've been killed by the Republican establishment... e.g. Cameron Todd Willingham.
This same Republican administration argued before the Supreme Court that Hank Skinner should be killed before the state turns over evidence that contains DNA and that Skinner says will exonerate him. Kill first, ask questions later... Oh wait... it's "kill first, don't ask questions"!!! (Luckily Dianna Ross & the Supremes today refused to follow this barbaric reasoning.)
These people do not support life. They only support political expediency and the acquisition of power, which will then be used for nefarious and corrupt ends.
Here where I live--and, by definition, it's a bi-state area--among secular and religious homeschoolers alike, there's a great debate about birthing rights. One of the things uniting a specific part of that is the right to birth children as they see fit, and to see to medical care thereafter as they see fit. In both Iowa and Illinois, this poses issues (and those issues are no respecters of the progs v. god types).
If the state can force women seeking abortions to undergo sonograms as an "informed consent issue," why can't it force women seeking home births, for just one iteration of potential unintended consequences, to undergo them under the same theory?
Let's talk about the grounds for the state to have trumping power.
What's the purpose of this requirement... Is it to discourage abortion?
Yes.
I doubt it. More likely it is to sock it to Democrats, to show them that Republicans are their electoral masters
That struck you as "more likely", did it? Weird.
When men can get pregnant they will be treated same as women.
As trolling attempts go, that was pretty weak.
"Opposition to forced sterilization is a pro-life position, so FAIL on the strained "hypocrisy" defense. If you weren't a reactionary you might have realized that."
I'm not exactly sure how you have pegged me as a reactionary. I didn't support or criticize the forced sterilization proposal. I'm simply asserting it's quite obviously kabuki.
Everyone is going to have their own conclusions on whether or not that's a good thing. For what it's worth, I find it annoying. But it seems silly to pretend the idea was serious.
former law student said...
When men can get pregnant they will be treated same as women.
You do understand that this is a bullshit counter-argument don't you. Men aren't biologically capable of becoming pregnant under any circumstances and yet you would use that fact against them even though they contribute 100% of their genetic material to 50% of the human creation process and then shut them out completely anyway? Your a fucking nut and your leftism makes you this way.
I'm simply asserting it's quite obviously kabuki.
It might be kabuki, but the person who suggested it should still be dragged from the statehouse and beaten bloody in the street.
Just in case.
though they contribute 100% of their genetic material
Wrong
The sperm provides 50 %, 23 chromosomes, same as the egg.
When sperm cells are created, the 46 chromosomes are randomly split.
Julius, the left's best argument for abortion.
Too bad he doesn't know what he is taking about.
Wonder how many "Free Mumbia" t-shirts he has.
"It might be kabuki, but the person who suggested it should still be dragged from the statehouse and beaten bloody in the street."
Really? An exasperated sigh and eyeroll seem sufficient.
Men aren't biologically capable of becoming pregnant under any circumstances and yet you would use that fact against them even though they contribute 100% of their genetic material to 50% of the human creation process and then shut them out completely anyway?
The contributions of a pig and a hen to a plate of ham and eggs are equal, yet the commitment required from each is vastly different.
And who is going to pay for this??
The contributions of a pig and a hen to a plate of ham and eggs are equal, yet the commitment required from each is vastly different.
That's a clever analogy FSH. Male/ female roles and commitments can of course change throughout a child's live.
Even with regards to gestation and birth the lowly sea horse provides an exception to your rule: link.
But the you, having been formally a sea horse instead of merely having been like one, well I suppose you knew that already.
Here where I live--and, by definition, it's a bi-state area
So, does everyone play on both sides of the street, or do you live in Death Valley or a lake?
It's less painful and "intrusive" than a pap smear, for crying out loud. It's also smaller than a you-know-what.
You should be more specific. I'll bet that some who post here have very small vaginal probe thingies, but there are also some really big dickheads.
Just out of curiosity, how does this bill deal with rape? I can't imagine they'd try to force a woman to view the sonogram who was raped and had an unwanted pregnancy. And yes, of course it'll go to the courts, which will almost definitely strike it down.
I haven't seen in data that suggests they reduce abortions.
Oh, but it means the politician is Doing Something about abortions, so please continue to vote for him or her.
reader_iam said...
Let's talk about the grounds for the state to have trumping power.
I think that reduces down to when rights of fetus vest, after which the grounds should be self-evident.
Cindy Martin said...
And who is going to pay for this??
The idea is that maybe the child won't.
The idea is that maybe the child won't.
God protects unwanted children?
which will almost definitely strike it down.
Why? Is it an "undue burden?" Is it as intrusive or dangerous as, say, a D & C?
Really? An exasperated sigh and eyeroll seem sufficient.
To paraphrase Woody Allen -- an exasperated sigh and eyeroll is fine, but bricks and baseball bats really get right to the point.
The contributions of a pig and a hen to a plate of ham and eggs are equal, yet the commitment required from each is vastly different
That explains why we always make the chicken pay for the pig's upkeep after the farmer decides to swear off bacon.
Er, or something. Was there a point to this inane metaphor?
I haven't seen in data that suggests they reduce abortions.
I'm not aware of any hard data -- or how one would go about gathering it, for that matter.
But we've got thousands of years of human history telling us that familiarity and empathy go hand in hand.
Unlike the healthcare bill, which is being challenged under the Commerce Clause (I still don't think the challenge has muster, and doubt the SCOTUS will either, especially considering Scalia's past rulings), this is not an issue of commerce.
A woman's right to privacy is a constitutional issue under federal law, not state. Whether that means having an abortion or forcing someone to take a sonogram test, it's a direct violation of her personal right to have control over her body. I hope you all don't need a lesson on the Supremacy Clause--federal law clearly trumps state law here.
Oh, and I'm guessing AA hasn't even chimed in on this because 1) She disagrees with it, and 2) She knows it's unconstitutional.
Mike -- Please tell us where you find abortion anywhere in any clause in the Constitution.
Thanks in advance.
Also, if the Supremacy Clause is so wonderful and omnipotent, why can Congress not pass any law it wants? I am looking forward to this brilliant explanation...
I love this blog! keep up good works...its to be nice if we can know each other, do you think so?
audi-parts
Seven Machos--have you ever even read the constitution? The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as "the supreme law of the land."
Roe v. Wade made the right to privacy a constitutional issue with regards to abortion--I know it may be way, way over your head, but I highly suggest you read the opinion by Justice Blackmun. The right to privacy is what the Court refers to as an "implied right." That simply means it's not expressly written.
Read Griswold, in which Douglas does a great job establishing the right to privacy in the Constitution. Then, read Roe, where they apply it to abortion. This is undoubtedly a constitutional issue--it doesn't have to be expressly written to be one; that's simply not how the Court works. Do some reading up on your history, then attempt to come back with a rational thought.
Also, apparently you've never heard of our system of "Checks and Balances." When Congress passes a law, the legal basis of it can be challenged under the Constitution...and guess what? The Court has struck down plenty of federal statutes and laws.
I mean, this is something you should've learned in middle school. Did you not make it that far?
Mike -- But what about your vaunted Supremacy Clause? Under your theory, just for example, the Commerce Clause and all Erie jurisprudence are unnecessary.
I practice law every day, Mike. You strike me as a lightweight who knows very little about constitutional law. But don't let that stop you from sophomoric pontificating, dude.
woof said...
though they contribute 100% of their genetic material
Wrong
The sperm provides 50 %, 23 chromosomes, same as the egg.
When sperm cells are created, the 46 chromosomes are randomly split.
Really? No kidding? Oh wow, you learned me good mr. woof. Read what I said again. My sperm is 100% mine until I contribute it to a 50%/50% arrangement, which is as far of the creation process I can take and no woman will hold her biology against me because it's simply unequivocal.
former law student said...
The contributions of a pig and a hen to a plate of ham and eggs are equal, yet the commitment required from each is vastly different.
I'm talking about life, you stupid fuck. Clearly, your brain is steeped in death, just like the ideology you hold dear, idiot.
Whether that means having an abortion or forcing someone to take a sonogram test, it's a direct violation of her personal right to have control over her body.
There is no absolute "right to have control over her own body" recognized by the Supreme Court. If there was, bans on prostitution would be unconstitutional.
Since the added cost of a sonogram is trivial it is doubtful that this would get overturned on the basis of presenting an undue burden. It aims to discourage abortions by guilt-tripping expectant mothers into not going through with them, that's all. There's no recognized Constitutional right to freedom from guilty feelings.
I hope you all don't need a lesson on the Supremacy Clause--federal law clearly trumps state law here.
There is no federal law granting women the right to abortions, so the supremacy clause doesn't apply. This would be a 14th amendment case.
I'm talking about life
Then every time you have penis-in-vagina sex, you should be prepared to support the fruit of your loins for the next 22 years and counting.
There is no federal law granting women the right to abortions
Another statist who thinks that Big Daddy government doles out rights to people.
Abortion is really much closer to a noisy neighbor issue than any sort of constitutional issue, not least because it is nowhere mentioned in the document (and any serious student of the law admits that Roe is a piece of shit, if only because it makes such poor arguments for the pro-abortion side).
Anyway, what we have is a woman who does not wish to carry a baby to term or raise the baby for the next 18 or so years. We also have a baby who has no desire to be killed. Both of these individuals have rights at common law.
Whats another name for a mamacita who has had a first term abortion or two??--
crimefighter
That's how most realistic conservatives think, apart from the ones infected with fundamentalism
Lefties seem to know a lot of racist jokes.
When I read the proposed amendment about free college tuition if the woman chooses not to undergo the abortion, I immediately thought: so, what's to stop lots of women from pretending like they want to have an abortion, then "changing" their minds so they can get free tuition? I'm confused as to how this amendment would even have worked...
And, as others have mentioned, the forced sterilization of the men is incredibly ironic. And disgusting.
Another statist who thinks that Big Daddy government doles out rights to people.
Government doles out obligations, i.e., Obamacare. Can't abortion be restricted by virtue of it affecting interstate commerce?
After all, it eliminates a potential taxpayer.
Then every time you have penis-in-vagina sex, you should be prepared to support the fruit of your loins for the next 22 years and counting.
Correct. I take it you're just now realizing this? Let me be the first to say "welcome to responsible adulthood."
rocky: I'm not one of the "women can get an abortion but I can't Life Just Isn't Fair Waaaahhhh!" types commenting here.
Further, such types merely need to buy fertilization insurance, because they only risk diverting some of their income, not their health or their life.
When men can function as the life support system for an embryo/fetus, then they will be similarly situated to women.
Former Law student wrote:
Then every time you have penis-in-vagina sex, you should be prepared to support the fruit of your loins for the next 22 years and counting.
Why should a womens womb dictate what a man has to pay for 22 years? I'd think that a womans right to control a man's paycheck would end after 9 months.
When men can function as the life support system for an embryo/fetus, then they will be similarly situated to women.
Ah, so a woman is acting as life support for another person? How then is it simply a womens control over her own body, if you are acknowledging that the organism in her womb is actually separate from her.
I'd think that a womans right to control a man's paycheck would end after 9 months.
Another conservative who thinks life begins at conception and ends at birth.
Ah, so a woman is acting as life support for another person?
Do you think that that tadpole (no more sea horses, in deference to chickelit) is a person?
@fls:
Another conservative who thinks life begins at conception and ends at birth.
With unrestricted abortion, is it fair to argue from the baby daddy's point of view, that since the child could have been aborted, and he never intended to be a father, he should not be financially obligated to pay for the child?
Because as it stands now, he's on the hook unless the woman chooses to abort. He has no say so.
You also haven't responded to the Commerce Clause argument: Does the state have the power to regulate abortion under the Commerce Clause? Because if they have the power to make me buy health insurance, and participate in the health care system, then it seems to me they can regulate abortion under that power as well.
is it fair to argue from the baby daddy's point of view, that since the child could have been aborted, and he never intended to be a father, he should not be financially obligated to pay for the child?
No.
I don't know what they teach kids these days, but I learned at a young age where babies come from. Combined with the knowledge that no birth control method is 100% effective, every man who has penis-in-vagina sex runs the risk of being a daddy. If this prospect is intolerable, find another way to get your rocks off.
Now, you argue that this is somehow unfair because the woman can decide she would rather get an abortion or not to be host to a parasite for nine months, and the parent of a child for the rest of her life. But this is like complaining that the Jehovah's Witness you shot in the gut refuses to get a transfusion and is bleeding to death -- if you don't want to be charged with murder don't shoot people. Don't expect other people after the fact to act to minimize the consequences to you.
Sadly, Brian will never be eligible to enter Galt's Gulch, because he fails the second part of the credo:
“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
You also haven't responded to the Commerce Clause argument:
Make an argument.
@fls:
I'm arguing a hypothetical here. I personally believe a man is responsible for the offspring he brings into the world, but I was curious about the argument of a choice that is believed absolute: Abortion on demand. It's one that a woman has access to, that affects the man in the equation, but he has no say so in. In this instance, his "input" ends with the sex. Hers goes with the sex, the pregnancy, whether to carry the baby to term, whether to give the bay up for adoption, whether to keep the baby daddy on the hook until the baby is legally an adult.
However, you still haven't answered the commerce clause argument: Does the state have the power to regulate abortion? If not, why is abortion outside the commerce clause, but someone who wants to pay for their other health choices otherwise not?
former law student said...
I'm talking about life
Then every time you have penis-in-vagina sex, you should be prepared to support the fruit of your loins for the next 22 years and counting.
I do and have you stupid twat. Shut up already.
former law student said...
When men can function as the life support system for an embryo/fetus, then they will be similarly situated to women.
And this is the fundamental evil in your thinking, that you can use your biology against men, in general, because you think because we can't procreate like you do gives you some special bragging rights? Fuck you.
You may think you're making an argument, but I don't see one. I can answer this question:
Does the state have the power to regulate abortion?
Yes. Per oyez.org, Planned Parenthood v. Casey held that 'The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."' So states can apply their usual regulations for physicians and clinics, etc. etc.
But even Roe v. Wade limited the time in the pregnancy when abortion was allowed. The Casey Court realizing that pregnancy was a continuum, in effect from amoeba to tadpole, to baby, set the dividing line between permissible abortion and impermissible at viability, where the state's interest in the life of its future citizens outweighs the rights of the woman, "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother".
you think because we can't procreate like you do gives you some special bragging rights
I've heard of womb envy but I never thought I'd see an example of it.
former sea horse:
Do you think a tadpole is a person?
No, shit-for-brains. A tadpole is a baby frog or toad.
"There is no federal law granting women the right to abortions"
Another statist who thinks that Big Daddy government doles out rights to people.
You should probably take a few minutes to re-read the discussion. It will probably become obvious to you why that was a really dumb comment for you to make.
I don't know what they teach kids these days, but I learned at a young age where babies come from. Combined with the knowledge that no birth control method is 100% effective, every man who has penis-in-vagina sex runs the risk of being a daddy.
Whereas women are, presumably, a bunch of silly little bimbos who just don't understand where babies come from?
So they totally shouldn't have to live with the consequences of their sex life. Just a quick visit to Vacuum Cleaners 'R' Us and its all better. :)
In response to Former Law Student:
I'd think that a womans right to control a man's paycheck would end after 9 months.
Another conservative who thinks life begins at conception and ends at birth.
I never said I did believe that. But women say that men have no say in pregnancies and whether women can be forced to keep a baby. Because it's the womans body. But the baby is only in the womans body for around 9 months. Yet child support is for the life of the child.
Now if a woman has total say then why is the father on the hook AFTER the baby is out of the womans womb? You've already stated that the man has no say in the pregancy and the woman has made the sole choice. Why then can't a man say "You chose to keep the baby, it was in your body, it's your responisibility. I have no desire to be a daddy." If you're going to make the argument that you can abort a baby because of harship, then why can't a dad, who had no say in whether the baby would be born choose hardship? After all, if a woman knew the father didn't want the baby and couldn't afford it, and decided to keep the baby anyway, then hasn't she always taken into consideration the hardship issue and decided to keep the baby anyway? She made the choice, it was her body. So then pay for it.
If you want to absolve the daddy's responsibilty during pregnancy then it's wrong to suddenly decide for the daddy that he has to pay for a child that he had no say over. At that point its not in the mothers womb,so again, where is she getting the power to take money out of his paycheck.
It seems like women are asserting an awful lot of power because of their wombs that extend far beyond their own bodies. THey control the life support of a child within their wombs and can kill it if they feel like it. A dad who submited half the dna has zero has as wether she can keep the kid. If he doesn't want it he has no say, whereas she can cry hardship. If he does want it and she doesn't then he's still out of luck.
Then even after the baby is born due to the mothers choice she still gets to choose that the daddy has to be a daddy and support his baby, the baby he had no say over because it was in her body? Her choice her choice her choice. Does the baby get a choice? Does the daddy get a choice?
If women want to take the argument that its their choice and their choice alone to keep or discard their baby, then that power should end once the baby leaves her womb. So if a dad says, nope I don't feel like being a dead, then he shouldn't be obligated to pay for HER CHOICE. Right?
or are you extending the power of the womb to the mans wallet and the fetus's body in perpetuity.
You should probably take a few minutes to re-read the discussion.
Sorry rev. If you meant, "a woman's right to abortion is self-evident, irrespective of what nine old men thought in 1973," I wish you had phrased it that way.
So they totally shouldn't have to live with the consequences of their sex life.
I daresay the vast majority of unexpectedly pregnant women would gladly pay child support if the father provided life support.
Now if a woman has total say
over the physical, biological processes of her body.
jr -- if you want someone else to pay to raise your kids, become an anonymous sperm donor.
Sorry rev. If you meant, "a woman's right to abortion is self-evident, irrespective of what nine old men thought in 1973," I wish you had phrased it that way.
I really don't care what you "wish". The topic under discussion was the Supremacy Clause's relationship to abortion -- not whether or not a natural right to abortion exists.
Because I am feeling generous, I will deign to simplify this for you:
Mike claimed that the Supremacy Clause forbade states from banning abortion. I pointed out that the Supremacy Clause covers Constitutional and federal law, and that no such law exists. I further explained that the basis for federal protection of abortion rights was the 14th amendment.
You rather stupidly assumed I was saying that nobody has a right unless the state grants it to them. But I'm not accountable for your stupidity.
if you want someone else to pay to raise your kids, become an anonymous sperm donor.
So FLS has come out against TANF? How conservative! :)
Former law student wrote:
jr -- if you want someone else to pay to raise your kids, become an anonymous sperm donor.
The mother should raise the kids because she made the choice to not abort her kid. Remember how she can abort her kids because of hardship or beause the kid won't have a good life? Well, didn't she factor that into her choice when deciding to have the baby (and blocking the man out of any decisions during that nine months). If she knows the daddy is not going to be in the picture and doesn't want to be a dad then if she decides to have the baby and makes the daddy pay isn't she in fact making someone else raise her kid?
If she can't raise the kid by herself, maybe she should have had the abortion (since we are talking about her right to choose). If it's her right alone, then it should also be her responsibility alone. Unless of course the dad wants to be involved. But we shouldn't force dads to be dads if we are saying we cant force moms to be moms.
Former law student wrote:
if you want someone else to pay to raise your kids, become an anonymous sperm donor.
I love how those who are pro choice are all ok about shutting out a dad completely and making the mother about to kill her baby into some noble creature who is sacrificing her baby because she wants to, or thinks it wont have a good life, or wants to deal with her career first. Yet after completely denying the dad any say in the equation, they then turn around and say "if he didn't want a baby he shouldn't have had sex". Well what about choice?
What if a dad wants to deal with his career first? Why is that notion suddenly the sign of a dead beat dad, when prior to that women were using the same justification to KILL THEIR KIDS!
"If SHE didn't want a baby, she shouln'd have had sex either. If she doesn't mind sacrificing her kid to furhter her career, you can't hold dads responsible for being as callous with kids they don't want. At least they're not having their babies brains scooped out in the name of their careers.
Post a Comment