Althouse: "To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion..."

January 31, 2012

"To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion..."

"... Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication."

152 comments:

Rob said...: As if the Government's finger isn't already up our asses.; 1/31/12, 2:22 PM
Mark said...: This story did make me laugh.

Legislating medicine is a bad idea all the way around.

What a lovely example or legislative intrusion on both ends.; 1/31/12, 2:24 PM
Darleen said...: Rob wins the thread ...; 1/31/12, 2:25 PM
Andy said...: See also: Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers; 1/31/12, 2:26 PM
Spread Eagle said...: As if that makes sense.; 1/31/12, 2:27 PM
chickelit said...: I think she meant "prostate exam" but she said "rectal" to scare the homophobes. But otherwise, it's ultra sound advice. Just can't legislate it. Viagra is freely offered over the internet while ultrasound exams are not.; 1/31/12, 2:28 PM
Darleen said...: btw ... only ultrasound can determine as close as possible gestational age

but hey, abortion is so special, LESS information is best for the poor liddle female - gotta protect her fragile sensibilities.; 1/31/12, 2:29 PM
cubanbob said...: How about a proposal that as long as abortion is legal men are exempt from child support unless they chose to do so.; 1/31/12, 2:31 PM
Revenant said...: How about a proposal that as long as abortion is legal men are exempt from child support unless they chose to do so.

That would be much too ethically and intellectually consistent, so no.; 1/31/12, 2:33 PM
Moose said...: Rob's was good but I like Cubanbob's better...; 1/31/12, 2:34 PM
traditionalguy said...: She wins today's Newt Gingrich feisty award.

That is how politics should be done.

See, no personal character attacks needed.; 1/31/12, 2:34 PM
coketown said...: It's good to see unborn babies and boners put on the same moral plane.; 1/31/12, 2:36 PM
shiloh said...: Conservatives turned into a self-parody re: govt. intrusion er their hypocritical less govt. meme some time ago.

Abortion
School prayer
Voting Rights
cheney/bush's Dept. of Homeland Security
Mandated vaccines
Frist diagnosing Terri Schiavo from his senate seat.
TSA
Patriot Act

etc. etc.; 1/31/12, 2:37 PM
Tank said...: Ya know, I'm almost 60 now, and I can't figure out - who are all these guys who can't get it up?

I must be doing something right, but what?; 1/31/12, 2:37 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Rectal exam and cardiac stress test before gunning someone down? Consistent.

Oh, just to get Viagra.; 1/31/12, 2:38 PM
Meade said...: “I do believe that erectile dysfunction in this context is different from pregnancy,” she said on the senate floor.

Credit her for understanding that.

What would be the downside to requiring sonograms? $300-400 cost? At six weeks, the baby will only look like a little dot, so that should please the pro-abortion folks. Of course, at 21 weeks, the dot will be looking a lot like a baby and at that point most mothers wouldn't choose to kill their dots. So the pro-abortion folks, understandably, don't want us to connect any dots.; 1/31/12, 2:38 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Being anti-abortion rights is a properly libertarian position.; 1/31/12, 2:39 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Somewhat ambivalent about abortion, being male, and no longer consorting with the sort of women who are likely to find themselves in this sort of situation.

But, I think that the reality is that this law is aimed primarily at 3rd trimester abortions, where the fetus could just as easily be called a baby in utero. Babies born at this point of gestation routinely live. And, maybe somewhat 2nd trimester. But my memory is that you really can't see much of anything during the 1st trimester, when most abortions occur. We had one for our kid at the end of the 1st trimester, and all we could see was something flashing with the very rapid heartbeat.

Don't see anything wrong with a prostate exam before getting a (first) Viagra prescription. Plus maybe blood pressure test, etc. Online pharmacies in the U.S. essentially utilize self-reporting of potential issues such as these, which protects them legally, but not their patients/customers. I do occasionally test my blood pressure, but don't really think that a prostate self-exam is all that feasible, esp. for those of us who haven't been through medical school.

But, then, again, maybe the answer is mail order abortions - which we may see if states can limit access to abortion pills. The woman just does what the guys do with their Viagra, and self-reports on their health - yes, they were positive on a pregnancy test, no,don't have high blood pressure, etc.

Then, again, would probably need some sort of super-express delivery system for day-after pills.; 1/31/12, 2:43 PM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Touche - or maybe it is more accurate to say tookus-che. Heh.; 1/31/12, 2:44 PM
Mick said...: Relativism of the brain damaged left on full display.; 1/31/12, 2:46 PM
Scott M said...: Too soon. Wait until 3D printers are extremely cheap and make THAT mandatory.; 1/31/12, 2:50 PM
Hagar said...: Turn-around is fair play.

But "can you top this?" is not really the way to go about legislating.; 1/31/12, 2:51 PM
Toad Trend said...: LOL Rob, winner.

I would add that it isn't just the finger, more like the AC joint.; 1/31/12, 2:51 PM
Pettifogger said...: CubanBob says: "How about a proposal that as long as abortion is legal men are exempt from child support unless they chose to do so."

I would not want to see this proposal become law, but it has one virtue. It's flaw is too sensitive for abortion enthusiasts to want to address. That is, we are talking about a child with rights and needs of its own.; 1/31/12, 2:52 PM
RonF said...: Deal.; 1/31/12, 2:57 PM
n.n said...: This makes sense when we deny that the issue under consideration is the assignment of dignity to human life -- a moral issue.

As much as Howell would like to believe it is simply her body, she is incapable of changing the nature of human biology. Women, by design, have to accept the responsibility of bringing forth new human life into our world. Other than in cases of involuntary exploitation, or endangerment to the mother's life, there are really no mitigating factors to consider. There are at least two lives that exist after conception. The only question is when society deems it fit to assign dignity to the new human life or lives, and afford it protections guaranteed by our Constitution. At present, that assignment is arbitrary and, depending on the timing, even perverse.

She may desire retributive change, but it is not relevant to the debate when the exploitation was voluntary.

Sorry, ladies, but when you engage in a voluntary activity where another human life has no recourse, then both you and the father have to personally accept responsibility for your actions.

In fact, this is not a new issue, but a variation of an age old one. Previously, it was a question of assigning dignity to all human lives post-birth. Now, it is a question of not who but when a human life should enjoy dignity.

As for ED treatment, the procedure could only legitimately be moderated when payment is made from funds recovered through involuntary exploitation (e.g. taxation). Unless the treatment or payment involved involuntary exploitation, it is not in the purview of government redress.; 1/31/12, 2:57 PM
Fen said...: btw ... only ultrasound can determine as close as possible gestational age

Pro-Choice: "We're not really sure when life begins. And no, we don't want to know.

And we don't want you to know either.

What? Err on the side of caution when a human life is involved? Are you a some kind of right-wing religious freak?"; 1/31/12, 2:57 PM
Fen said...: C'mon now, Carrie Bradshaw needs another pair of shoes.

And diapers would cut into the entertainment budget.; 1/31/12, 2:59 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: How about an amendment to require everyone to have a rectal exam before committing murder?

Then when people are caught for murder and haven't undergone the exam, you can add a charge of Evasion of Rectal Examination.; 1/31/12, 3:00 PM
Tibore said...: The question here is whether a specific requirement has a basis in medical need or not. In general, I'd be opposed to any sort of legislation that mandates a medical procedure that has no basis in whatever the standard of care is. So the question here is: Does the bill have any such basis? If so, then the specifics need to be further considered. If not, go no further.

Now, this is the part of the bill that bugs me:

"... to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging..."

I'm wondering at the medical necessity of this. I don't know if there's any way of determining fetal age in any way other than a sonogram, and if there is, I don't like that there's a law mandating that a specific procedure be used. If there is, then government needs to keep its paws out of that selection. If not... well, to make a long story short, I'm always uncomfortable and initially opposed to law dictating medical practice. Medical practice should follow professional standards of care and be protected by the law, not dictated to by it. The libertarian part of me doesn't turn cartwheels at any law actually dictating some element of care or treatment; I'd want to know what the medical reasons are for it.

Whether its a harmless procedure or not doesn't answer the question of whether it's a fair or unfair compulsion mandated by the government.; 1/31/12, 3:01 PM
rhhardin said...: Maybe they could compromise on getting a phonograph.

The etymology would be better too.; 1/31/12, 3:02 PM
Scott M said...: Then when people are caught for murder and haven't undergone the exam, you can add a charge of Evasion of Rectal Examination.

New mom's shouldn't be thinking, speaking, or typing the word "rectal".; 1/31/12, 3:02 PM
Tibore said...: "Then when people are caught for murder and haven't undergone the exam, you can add a charge of Evasion of Rectal Examination.

Don't worry about it. Convicted murderers will get theirs during incarceration anyway...

:-O

;); 1/31/12, 3:03 PM
Scott M said...: Maybe they could compromise on getting a phonograph.

What, do you suppose, would a pornograph look like, what would it use for a stylus, and on what medium with it, um, play?; 1/31/12, 3:08 PM
edutcher said...: Ultrasound knocks the whole "fetus" thing into a cocked hat and the feminazis know it and they're scared of it.

And, yes, her "requirement" is what men over 50 get once a year anyway. Maybe she can get the Commonweal to pay for it.

chickenlittle said...

I think she meant "prostate exam" but she said "rectal" to scare the homophobes.

More like the homophones.; 1/31/12, 3:09 PM
purplepenquin said...: I must be doing something right, but what?

Either you're doing something right, or she is ;); 1/31/12, 3:10 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: One of the sidebar polls here says poll takers (presumably truthful poll takers) here outnumber women by over 75%.

So I would understand if this is... kind of a touchy subject.; 1/31/12, 3:12 PM
Alex said...: I still never quite got why Christian conservatives like prying into other ladies wombs.

Care to answer that one Freeman?; 1/31/12, 3:15 PM
Tibore said...: "Lem said...
One of the sidebar polls here says poll takers (presumably truthful poll takers) here outnumber women by over 75%.

So I would understand if this is... kind of a touchy subject."

Well, at least Lem didn't make some sort of contextual pun about pollsters "probing" people... ;); 1/31/12, 3:16 PM
cubanbob said...: Pettifogger said...
CubanBob says: "How about a proposal that as long as abortion is legal men are exempt from child support unless they chose to do so."

I would not want to see this proposal become law, but it has one virtue. It's flaw is too sensitive for abortion enthusiasts to want to address. That is, we are talking about a child with rights and needs of its own.

1/31/12 2:52 PM

I am curious, why would you not want to see my proposal as law? It strips the issue of hypocrisy rather well.; 1/31/12, 3:16 PM
Scott M said...: I still never quite got why Christian conservatives like prying into other ladies wombs.

Christian doesn't have to have anything to do with it. If you believe human life begins with conception, the rights of the unborn are at issue. There's nothing religious about it, if you look at within that context.; 1/31/12, 3:18 PM
Alex said...: Scott - maybe 1% of anti-abortionists are not Christians. It's hardly relevant. This is about using religious power all over again. This is why the Quakers left England.; 1/31/12, 3:20 PM
Scott M said...: Scott - maybe 1% of anti-abortionists are not Christians.

Cite please.; 1/31/12, 3:20 PM
JAL said...: Freeman is smokin' today.; 1/31/12, 3:24 PM
Lyssa said...: I still never quite got why Christian conservatives like prying into other ladies wombs.

Not a Christian conservative, but for me, I couldn't care less about ladies' wombs. I'm a big enough of a girl to look after my own womb and I expect other ladies to do the same. I care about the babies.; 1/31/12, 3:26 PM
Amartel said...: Because if wimmens are gonna be slightly inconvenienced prior to undergoing a controversial medical procedure then uh er the mens should be anally probed while running. Because, uh, fairness.; 1/31/12, 3:26 PM
cubanbob said...: @Tibore said...

Tibore I'll grant you the medical need is probably iffy. However on the moral plane it isn't. If you are going to allow someone to commit what a large percentage (if not the majority) of the population considers a form of homicide then the least the woman should have the decency to look at whom she is killing.; 1/31/12, 3:27 PM
Alex said...: Amazing all you womb pryers! Mind your own damn womb.; 1/31/12, 3:28 PM
Scott M said...: Amazing all you womb pryers! Mind your own damn womb.

Again...1%...cite please.; 1/31/12, 3:30 PM
Tibore said...: Saying that the argument is instead about "religious power" is saying that those who argue for unborn rights are lying. That's a pretty stiff accusation to make without evidence.

But of course, some don't wade into a conversation to add worth. They merely do so to fire off rhetorical broadsides. It's their self-affirmation practice: Take on the "bad guys", boy, do I ever feel so good!

Remember, folks: Stridency = Self Affirmation. We saw that in the Occupy folks, they seem to have learned it well from those before them.; 1/31/12, 3:30 PM
DADvocate said...: Makes sense, women have been giving it to men up the ass for decades.; 1/31/12, 3:31 PM
Methadras said...: Andy R. is already lining up at the doctors to get exam for the pill, minus the pill.; 1/31/12, 3:33 PM
cubanbob said...: Rob said...
As if the Government's finger isn't already up our asses.

1/31/12 2:22 PM

Dude I just paid my quarterly and let me tell you it felt more like a fist than a finger and they didn't even have the decency to use KY.; 1/31/12, 3:33 PM
Meade said...: RonF said...
"Deal."

Hmm. Yeah - deal!; 1/31/12, 3:39 PM
Scott M said...: Dude I just paid my quarterly and let me tell you it felt more like a fist than a finger and they didn't even have the decency to use KY.

OUCH! Kentucky is indeed too roughly contoured to be used properly. My doctor uses FL. Much better. Just be glad he's not using TX.; 1/31/12, 3:40 PM
Known Unknown said...: What, do you suppose, would a pornograph look like, what would it use for a stylus, and on what medium with it, um, play?

My grandmother (age early 90s) bought me a turntable for one christmas. She proudly declared to me "you have to have a pornograph to play pornos!"

She's not senile, as far as I know.; 1/31/12, 3:42 PM
Known Unknown said...: Are men most likely to suffer from ED also the most likely to impregnate women who will then possibly desire abortions?

The mind boggles!; 1/31/12, 3:45 PM
Tibore said...: @cubanbob:

If it takes a picture to sway the woman, then the problem was there before the woman even got pregnant. The real fight against abortion happens before that point in creating recognition of the consequences before the woman gets pregnant. Giving someone an image to look at is at best a band-aid. Dragging doctors into it by having them conduct procedures without medical need is making the application of the band-aid time and resource consuming.

If we're talking moral imperative, then the inculcation of that needs to happen before the point of the procedure. Otherwise, there are too many forces helping point towards it, and you're creating a problem for the medical professionals in making them do something not dictated by standards of care. Ounce of prevention/pound of cure issue here. Regardless of the moral imperative, you're still risk dictating non-medically required procedures to medical professionals, and I hate for that Pandora's box to be open. We've already seen the deleterious effect such government control of the medical profession can be in repressive societies; see 'forced psychiatric hospitalization, Soviet Union' for examples.

----

By the way, a minor point: If you click through, the law doesn't compel the patient to look at the image. It merely cites that a medical practitioner give her the opportunity to do so. So unfortunately, the bill that's stimulating this discussion falls short of the sentiment you expressed.; 1/31/12, 3:45 PM
chickelit said...: @edutcher at 3:09PM LOL! Good one!; 1/31/12, 3:46 PM
Tibore said...: You know what frightens me about this discussion? The fact that we probably haven't exhausted the rude comic possibilities of "rectal examination".

/flees; 1/31/12, 3:48 PM
TMink said...: alex stated: "I still never quite got why Christian conservatives like prying into other ladies wombs."

A fair question. Same reason we have child labor laws, to protect the innocent.

Other ladies wombs are nobody else's business until they contain a life. Then, as a civilized society, we protect the helpless.

We believe that life comes from God and is in that way holy.

So that is a decent primer for you. Just remember, it is not the womb, it is the yet to be born that we are interested in.

Trey; 1/31/12, 3:51 PM
Brian Brown said...: In liberal land this is an "analogy"

But of course these people are idiots, so it is expected.; 1/31/12, 3:56 PM
edutcher said...: Alex said...

I still never quite got why Christian conservatives like prying into other ladies wombs.

Care to answer that one Freeman?

Maybe it has something to do with the lives inside those wombs and the fact that cheapening those lives makes other lives cheap, too.

Death panels ring a bell?

PS Thanks, chick.; 1/31/12, 3:56 PM
Alex said...: Maybe it has something to do with the lives inside those wombs and the fact that cheapening those lives makes other lives cheap, too.

That's faulty reasoning.; 1/31/12, 4:00 PM
Scott M said...: That's faulty reasoning.

You're dropping in percentages as fact without backup. There's little more faulty. Aside from that, merely saying it's faulty without explaining why is faulty because it doesn't provide a premise for your argument.; 1/31/12, 4:02 PM
chickelit said...: Alex wrote: That's faulty reasoning.

Life begins at birth is faulty reasoning. Arbitrary and convenient at best.; 1/31/12, 4:11 PM
Fen said...: Alex: I still never quite got why Christian conservatives like prying into other ladies wombs.

Really? You still don't get it? How old are you, twelve?

How the hell can you take a position without bothering to understand the arguments against?

You've never been exposed to the pro-life viewpoint? Public education and the MSM fail Alex again.; 1/31/12, 4:11 PM
Darleen said...: Alex

As a woman, please tell me how YOU have any right to say anything on my or my sisters' uteri either way?

(your rules, so shut up); 1/31/12, 4:13 PM
Wince said...: "Whew, that was... awesome."; 1/31/12, 4:16 PM
Bender said...: INFORMED consent is already fundamental law in medicine.

The problem is that the abortion industry holds itself above the law and really does not believe in authentic freedom of choice.

Authentic freedom of choice requires that a decision be an informed decision, with knowledge of all surrounding circumstances. But rather than giving women the ability to make an informed and knowledgeable choice, the pro-abortionists want to keep women ignorant of the facts. It is the pro-abortionists who are the ones who are anti-choice.

If there is some information that is necessary to making a free and informed decision, such as the state of the living human being that is growing in the womb, then that information should be provided as a matter of informed consent.

If some physical exam is necessary for informed consent in seeking a prescription for Viagra, or in order to dispense birth control pills to minor girls, then by all means, it should be provided.; 1/31/12, 4:16 PM
Steve Koch said...: At BabyCenter.com, you can look at what a baby in the womb looks like on a week by week basis.

http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-10-weeks; 1/31/12, 4:17 PM
Alex said...: We're proud, we're fierce, we're feminists and we will NOT shut up!; 1/31/12, 4:24 PM
Paddy O said...: "But my memory is that you really can't see much of anything during the 1st trimester, when most abortions occur. "
At about 8 weeks was our first appointment, and you could see a little blob with a very distinct heartbeat. We could even hear it (with the equipment)

We had a second ultrasound at 12 weeks. Very distinct hands, face, spine. She turned over while we were watching, and showed very clear limbs.

So, at that late 1st trimester the ultrasound clearly showed a small human (though with a developing jaw and small head one that looked a bit too much like Homer Simpson for my tastes).; 1/31/12, 4:27 PM
Bender said...: Christian doesn't have to have anything to do with it. If you believe human life begins with conception
________________

Mere "belief" regarding the beginning of human life has nothing to do with it either.

Either the entity in the womb is a living human being or she is not. Belief, opinion, wishes are all irrelevant. All that matters is fact, all that matters is truth.

And, as a matter of scientific truth, the entity in the womb is animated life, a member of the species homo sapiens (human), taking in nourishment and growing, and an individual who is separate and distinct from the mother even if the placenta is attached to the mother's womb.; 1/31/12, 4:29 PM
Tibore said...: "Alex said...
We're proud, we're fierce, we're feminists and we will NOT shut up! "

See? Like I said: Self-affirmation and feel-goodism.; 1/31/12, 4:31 PM
Darleen said...: geez Alex, I'm a feminist and I don't remember you lurking at the meetings.; 1/31/12, 4:33 PM
LordSomber said...: I am reluctantly pro-choice, but I am quite sure less people would give a damn about "prying" into your business if the taxpayers weren't asked to pay for your "mistake."; 1/31/12, 4:34 PM
chickelit said...: We're proud, we're fierce, we're feminists and we will NOT shut up!

Glad to be guy.; 1/31/12, 4:34 PM
Bender said...: geez Alex, I'm a feminist and I don't remember you lurking at the meetings
______________

Feminism to the likes of Alex means being able to exploit women, knock them up, then drive them down to the abortion clinic and demanding that they kill their child so that he doesn't have to pay child support, and then dumping the women afterward.; 1/31/12, 4:36 PM
Sydney said...: Bender is correct. Biologically and medically, the embryo is human life from the moment of conception. From the moment egg and sperm fuse, the continuum that is human development begins. It doesn't end until we are laid in our graves. What the two sides are really arguing in the abortion debate is whether or not this life is worth protecting.; 1/31/12, 4:40 PM
Pettifogger said...: CubanBob says: "I am curious, why would you not want to see my proposal as law? It strips the issue of hypocrisy rather well."

Because, as I tried to point out, there's a child involved. The law should not prejudice the child because the mother or the father or both are irresponsible, jerks, or otherwise undeserving people. The child did not ask the man to impregnate the woman, but the child has everything at stake on what happens when impregnation occurs.; 1/31/12, 4:52 PM
Chuck66 said...: "I still never quite got why Christian conservatives like prying into other ladies wombs."

Hey Alex,

I'm glad you didn't talk to my father's birth mother. Maybe you would have tried to convince her to kill my father before he had a chance to be born.

Or the birth mothers of the 3 children my cousin and her husband have adopted.

Or the birth mother of my girlfriend. She said it was a tough birth and they (docters) didn't think my girlfriend would live. But she did and is doing great.; 1/31/12, 4:52 PM
Chuck66 said...: If the baby doesn't isn't a seperate human, how can it have a different blood type then its host?; 1/31/12, 4:54 PM
Roberto said...: If this were to take effect nationally many of the regulars who post here might finnally see their heads.; 1/31/12, 5:05 PM
Roberto said...: Chuck66 - Maybe you should concentrate more on how to spell than providing inane comments that make little if any sense.; 1/31/12, 5:07 PM
edutcher said...: Alex said...

Maybe it has something to do with the lives inside those wombs and the fact that cheapening those lives makes other lives cheap, too.

That's faulty reasoning.

Margaret Sanger didn't see it that way.

Neither did her penpal.

Guy named Himmler.; 1/31/12, 5:09 PM
Roberto said...: Blah, blah, blah.

I see the Althouse regulars are still firmly behind being against a woman's choice.

If men had babies there would be no debate.; 1/31/12, 5:09 PM
Roberto said...: An old question, but still relevant:

Had you known who they would eventually be...would anyone here have aborted Hitler, Eichmann, etc.?; 1/31/12, 5:12 PM
chickelit said...: Roberto ha scrito: If this were to take effect nationally many of the regulars who post here might finnally see their heads.

[emphasis added along with an lol]; 1/31/12, 5:12 PM
chickelit said...: Roberto ha scrito: If men had babies there would be no debate.

If men had babies then women would be men and there'd still be a debate.

Enough of your unisex fantasies.; 1/31/12, 5:16 PM
Bender said...: Had you known who they would eventually be...would anyone here have aborted Hitler, Eichmann, etc.?

Baby Hitler and Baby Eichmann were entirely innocent.

It was only when Hitler and Eichmann engaged in their own particular brand of "choice" that they became evil.; 1/31/12, 5:19 PM
DCS said...: Just what we need: another bunch of unnecessary tests mandated by politicians.; 1/31/12, 5:22 PM
Steve Koch said...: It would be good to see an argument for why the not yet born baby is not a human being with dna that is different from the mother. If the not yet born baby is a distinct human being, why should the mother have the right to kill the baby?

It seems to me that logic is on the side of the right to life argument while the votes are on the side of the abortion rights argument. Let each state vote their conscience. Letting the supreme court decide this is a perversion of our constitution.; 1/31/12, 5:30 PM
Brian Brown said...: Roberto said...

I see the Althouse regulars are still firmly behind being against a woman's choice.

I see you can't read & comprehend.

Additionally, it is funny to watch you tout the "choice" meme when you don't want informed patients.; 1/31/12, 5:33 PM
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...: My late father-in-law, a pathologist, said for years that any (non-emotional) erectile dysfunction issues (and there are ways to tell which is which, please don't ask me) were fundamentally cardiac issues.

I agree that legislating medicine is rather stupid -- and I specifically exclude attempting to protect the most helpless humans in our society -- but there's a medical basis to the legislator's proposal.; 1/31/12, 5:50 PM
SteveR said...: Well I actually already do that...Next; 1/31/12, 5:54 PM
Methadras said...: Darleen said...

Alex

As a woman, please tell me how YOU have any right to say anything on my or my sisters' uteri either way?

(your rules, so shut up

I won't speak for alex, cause well, he's alex. But I will say this much. If your uteruses are empty, I have zero issue with them or anything else related to them on that matter. Now, if they are being occupied by a life, then that is another matter. Men, or specifically the father should have a say so on that matter to some degree.; 1/31/12, 6:00 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Tibore,

I see your point @ 3:45pm, but really this is just one attempt at fighting back against the "clump of cells" meme. And quite likely, it's not a good way to go about this, but I completely agree with the sponsors of the bill in thinking that pushback is greatly needed.; 1/31/12, 6:03 PM
Fen said...: Roberto: An old question, but still relevant:

Had you known who they would eventually be -

[yawn]

I have a better one: Roberto has been declared sub-human. At least until he can *prove* he is not. Please treat him accordingly.; 1/31/12, 6:06 PM
David said...: In the name of equality, shouldn't the men have an ultrasound too?; 1/31/12, 6:10 PM
Ralph L said...: who are all these guys who can't get it up?
I read ~85% are heavy smokers. The rest are probably from crotch injuries and surgeries and extensive bike riding.

Viagra is supposed to go generic in the US fairly soon, so I've been told.

WV - twants - for the straight ones; 1/31/12, 6:14 PM
Ralph L said...: I imagine much of the intent of the ultrasound bill is to squeeze the profits of the dark satanic mills by increasing costs, not just reducing the incidence of abortion.; 1/31/12, 6:18 PM
chickelit said...: Viagra is supposed to go generic in the US fairly soon, so I've been told.

Big Pharma will have to find another way to stiff Americans.; 1/31/12, 6:27 PM
JAL said...: Hey Roberto -- what are your other Commenter names on Althouse?

I see you know all about the Althouse regulars.... (Actually more like the Irregulars ...); 1/31/12, 6:33 PM
JAL said...: These discussions always remind me of one of my nursing classes when we brushed up against abortion (30 years ago). The instructor said that it wasn't a harmful procedure.

"Well, except for the baby," said one class member.; 1/31/12, 6:38 PM
JAL said...: Informed consent was a biggy when I was worked in the clinical setting.

Isn't it funny how that goes.

Or not.; 1/31/12, 6:39 PM
Rusty said...: Alex said...
Amazing all you womb pryers! Mind your own damn womb.

1/31/12 3:28 PM

Then don't put anything in one so that I don't have to pay for it later.; 1/31/12, 6:42 PM
Tibore said...: "Kirk Parker said...
Tibore,

I see your point @ 3:45pm, but really this is just one attempt at fighting back against the "clump of cells" meme. And quite likely, it's not a good way to go about this, but I completely agree with the sponsors of the bill in thinking that pushback is greatly needed."

I've got no problem with pushback. I just dislike this method of doing so.

I wish people would think about the door it's opening: If a doctor is not against abortions, that doctor saying so outside the context of medical practice is rightfully seen as the speech of a normal, regular citizen who's but another equal among all. But force that doctor into the context of medical care and suddenly it's no longer a political discussion. It's perceived as a professional one, even though the issue itself is still the same.

Does that make sense? One situation is that doctor rightfully participating in the debate of a politcal and moral question in the context of being a citizen. But involve laws like the bill in this specific case, and suddenly it's a situation where that doctor is speaking from a position of having been dragged into the discussion in his/her position of authority within the medical field. Even though the issue is still the same moral/social/legal one. The authority suddenly gets inflated beyond the normal professional scope, and it's the government's own damn fault because it's a law like the one proposed in that SB 484 bill that set the stage for that context.

See the danger?; 1/31/12, 6:45 PM
Darleen said...: Now, if they are being occupied by a life, then that is another matter.

I totally agree. But when a Leftist male starts asserting that want non-Leftists want to do is "control" uteri, I'll counter with his own Leftist dogma ... only females can comment on female reproductive issues.; 1/31/12, 6:45 PM
madAsHell said...: Are you sure it's just a finger??; 1/31/12, 6:52 PM
Rusty said...: Margret Sanger must be smiling in the particular corner of hell she has been assigned to.
According to government statistics black women have three times the abortion rate as white women. making Abortion the preferred method of birth control among black women.; 1/31/12, 6:53 PM
Lyssa said...: Roberto said: I see the Althouse regulars are still firmly behind being against a woman's choice.

My "choice" is to exercise caution and intelligence in my sexuality; to abstain when having a child was out of the question*, then to make careful use of protection, while accepting the risk, when it was something that I could deal with but didn't find desirable.

(* Lest you think me a prude, I'll point out that spit doesn't make babies.)

And fuck all of you who try to infantalize me, and all women, by suggesting that we don't have a "choice" in these matters.; 1/31/12, 6:55 PM
paul a'barge said...: No problem ... As long as Ms Janet is performing the rectal exam.

With her tongue.; 1/31/12, 7:04 PM
roesch/voltaire said...: Yep women just don't know anything about their bodies which is why we big men have to show them how to connect the dots. I like that women are now telling the men to shove it.; 1/31/12, 7:12 PM
Ty Bowen said...: Just an observation from a developmental scientist. I'd seen so many ultrasounds of various different embryos, both human and other animals, that when I saw the ultrasound of my son it wasn't anything special or momentous to me. Id become used to sonograms and such. When I held him for the first time however, that was transformative.; 1/31/12, 7:24 PM
Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...: Separate post because it's a separate topic. "Choice" is not the issue. It is a distraction. Most "choices" involve consequences. Feminists wish to avoid those consequences.

I have the "choice" to pick up a brick and wave it around. I also have the "choice" to throw the thing.

However, if in throwing that brick I injure you, or damage your property, I shall suffer consequences. That does not negate my choice.

If you choose to kill your baby, there should be consequences. Killing the weakest, most helpless, most vulnerable amongst us is inexcusable, and as an adoptive father I have not one bit of sympathy for the women who do such things.

Rape and incest combined are no more than 1% of pregnancies. As for the rest that are aborted ... the women are selfish, thoughtless thugs, and to some extent ought to be treated as such.; 1/31/12, 7:27 PM
Hal Duston said...: As I understand it, in many cases an ultrasound is already performed in order to determine the position of the baby for the procedure. So the law isn't really mandating a medically unnecessary procedure, but rather that the ultrasound visual be shown to the patient.; 1/31/12, 7:39 PM
William said...: I feel a certain amount of ambivalence on this issue. On the one hand, the term viable foetus is just another way of saying baby. On the other hand, up to about the age of five or six the child belongs far more to the parents than he does to himself. In the Catholic faith, a child doesn't reach the age of reason until seven. I think that if we allow the abortion of a viable foetus, we should also loosen up the rules for post natal abortions. I think up to the age of six years, mothers should be allowed terminate their children. Many birth defects and aesthetic issues don't become apparent until the child is into the toddler stage. It's very unfair to stick the mother for life with an umpromising child.; 1/31/12, 7:55 PM
Sydney said...: There's a young adult book with a plot like that - Unwind. But parents can get rid of their kids up until adolescence.; 1/31/12, 8:13 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Did you know that my husband is not allowed to kill me EVEN if he does it in the privacy of his own home?

All these home pryers out there.

A man tries to exercise his freedom of choice in his own bedroom, and every busybody thinks he gets to have a say in it. The nerve.; 1/31/12, 8:16 PM
Phil 314 said...: 10 week ultrasound; 1/31/12, 8:41 PM
Rex said...: I already get one of these each year and the other one every 2-3 years, so what's the big deal?; 1/31/12, 8:50 PM
Phil 314 said...: many women wait for the second missed period before acting.

That puts them at about 10 weeks when they have "procedure"; 1/31/12, 8:51 PM
Alex said...: her body her choice eat it cons; 1/31/12, 8:59 PM
Bender said...: her body her choice eat it cons
_____________

So why the hell are you even voicing an opinion on it? You're a guy. You have no say in the matter. So get lost.

Eat that.; 1/31/12, 9:28 PM
victoria said...: Love it!!!!!

Vicki from Pasadena; 1/31/12, 9:32 PM
Steve Koch said...: "her body, her choice"

But the unborn baby is not the mother's body, it is the body of another human being.

"Reproductive right"

But that isn't what we are talking about. Abortion is about the right to kill an unborn baby. Abortion is about killing, not reproduction.

Before abortion was legalized, there should have been a persuasive proof that not yet born human babies are not human.; 1/31/12, 9:43 PM
Michael Haz said...: Sounds like a fair trade, actually.; 1/31/12, 9:56 PM
Anonymous said...: What a odd bill.

Ultrasounds before 7 weeks, when women take RU486 don't show much of a picture.

Waste of medical technology and tech time. Better put to use on people who need their cancer diagnoses.; 1/31/12, 10:00 PM
Ralph L said...: I'm with you, William, but it really needs to be extended to the bad-tempered teen years. Of course, then parents really would be responsible for their children's behavior.; 1/31/12, 10:24 PM
Quaestor said...: ScottM wrote:
What, do you suppose, would a pornograph look like, what would it use for a stylus, and on what medium with it, um, play?

I won't speculates as to what the stylus might look like, but it's a safe bet the size is always smaller than what is claimed in the specs.

The medium? Latex.; 1/31/12, 11:01 PM
TMLutas said...: The average cost for a stress test is $3000-$5000. Way to bend the health care cost curve!

Oh, and here's the adverse effect list from Wikipedia:

Side effects from cardiac stress testing may include
Palpitations, chest pain, MI, shortness of breath, headache, nausea or fatigue.
Adenosine and dipyridamole can cause mild hypotension.
As the tracers used for this test are carcinogenic, frequent use of these tests carries a small risk of cancer.; 1/31/12, 11:50 PM
Amos said...: "I still never quite got why Christian conservatives like prying into other ladies wombs."

Like Andrew Sullivan?

I'll bite, and I'm an atheist. (Nice straw man argument, btw.) The answer is because there's an innocent human involved.

"It's my body."
True enough, but you're missing a variable: the other body. Which makes the whole Obamacare thing bleedingly ironic. To be a Progressive, one must say out of one side of one's mouth: "my body is my business alone," when there's another body involved, but for ALL other medical procedures (a transplant is two), when there is only one body involved, Progressives are all "Hopenchange! It's a collective problem!" out of the other side of their mouths.

"Yes, it's human, but it's not a human being."
What is beingness? Define, beingness for us, Heidegger. Let us see your definition, your test. If you can show us a way that you know the beingness of a specific human which shows you at sleep or in a coma (or simply from our perspective) as a being and an unborn baby as a non-being (or subhuman enough to kill for socio-economic reasons), I'd be willing to accept that you have a point. Otherwise, the concept of "beingness" is fantastical. It's myth. It's religion.

"It's a choice."
Wrong. It's many choices. It's the choice to use the pill. The choice to use an IUD. The choice to use a condom. The choice to use a foam. The choice to use a diaphragm. The choice to abstain. The choice to choose a good partner worthy of parenthood. The choice to pull out, for chrissakes. The choice to wait for your cycle. Yeah, none of those is perfect, but they are all individual choices with non-zero rates of preventing pregnancy.

And yes, it is a perfectly libertarian position to oppose abortion. Abortion is libertine, not libertarian, because it is about power - the avoidance of responsibility - rather than freedom, which is the acceptance of it.; 2/1/12, 12:13 AM
Darrell said...: Silly law all around!
Nobody would ever lie about such a thing as when they conceived, would they? Let's give them the benefit of the doubt even if they look like Octomom the day before her delivery.; 2/1/12, 4:30 AM
Curious George said...: "Alex said...
her body her choice eat it cons"

Exaclty to the point of
"cubanbob said...
How about a proposal that as long as abortion is legal men are exempt from child support unless they chose to do so."

I have always poised this position to Pro-Abortion folks.

Her body. Her choice. To have sex too. To which one consequence is pregnancy. Men have no say in whether to have the baby.

Her choice. Her responsibility.

Suck it.; 2/1/12, 7:09 AM
Scott M said...: How about a proposal that as long as abortion is legal men are exempt from child support unless they chose to do so.

This is the logical extension to "pro-choice", but you will never get an ardent abortion defender to admit it. If memory serves, the last time the topic was brought up and this point made, even our hostess pushed back against it.; 2/1/12, 7:22 AM
saved said...: Before stating, "I'm okay with abortion." you need to see this video. It is not gruesome but will make you think, possibly even wake you up to the reality of abortion. It is not a victimless act and it is taking us down. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI; 2/1/12, 7:37 AM
Curious George said...: "Scott M said...
How about a proposal that as long as abortion is legal men are exempt from child support unless they chose to do so.

This is the logical extension to "pro-choice", but you will never get an ardent abortion defender to admit it. If memory serves, the last time the topic was brought up and this point made, even our hostess pushed back against it."

Well, our hostess also thinks abortion is wrong but should be legal. So no surprise.; 2/1/12, 8:00 AM
Scott M said...: Well, our hostess also thinks abortion is wrong but should be legal. So no surprise.

Not being a responsible father, at least financially is also wrong and is currently illegal.; 2/1/12, 8:09 AM
SarahW said...: Most surgery is gruesome, and induced abortion, or therapeutic abortion to treat missed abortion or incomplete abortion is also gruesome.

Gruesome is not an argument; it's nonsensical even.

Ultrasound "to see what you're aborting" as the reason presumed by insty is not a medical rationale. Procedures are to reduce risk, not to "inform" the patient. I'm all for people having access to necessary diagnostics and films and reports. ALL fOR it. All patients should get a chance to look at any records or images on request. But ordering tests unecessary for treatment is indefensible.

Ordering your doctor to make you take an infection transmitting test, however, when there is no medical basis for it, is a bridge too far. It creates risk where there was none

Transvaginal ultrasound has risks, some serious, and there is no medical benefit to the patient as it is usually not necessary to treat the patient.; 2/1/12, 8:15 AM
Darcy said...: SARAH!

Bringing the science, as always. :)

Going to DM you on twitter - hope to see you at CPAC this year.; 2/1/12, 8:25 AM
SarahW said...: "cubanbob said...
How about a proposal that as long as abortion is legal men are exempt from child support unless they chose to do so."

I have always poised this position to Pro-Abortion folks."

Good God there was never a more ridiculous argument : it completely misses the one reason a woman has any say at all.

Pregnancy has risks; it permanently alters the body. SHE IS IN DANGER; women didn't have churching ceremonies to thank God seeing them trhough the pain and peril o f pregnancy for nothing.

Pregnancy can turn on a dime even for a healthy woman; but every woman should be able to determine for herself in real time whether the risks of pregnancy and childbirth outweigh the ben fit in her unique situation.

I can't blame every person for being ignorant o f the law but I do blame "mens rights" types who think paying for a kid or supporting a kid with money is in any way an equivalent interest. It is not.

THe law has always seen a *born* living child as a boon to BOTH parents; there is no "wrongful birth".

Woman have a say because their blood, brain, bone, liver, eyes, gut ....all being coopted to reproduce another being. They have a right to stop being a li f support machine, a human respirator. Her choice isn't to kill, she has no such option when the baby is born; her right is its to protect herself; 2/1/12, 8:27 AM
Scott M said...: Her choice isn't to kill, she has no such option when the baby is born; her right is its to protect herself

Your point would be valid if all abortions were only done to protect the mother's health. As it is, despite your "her choice isn't to kill", the end result is a dead human. Killed by the choice to go ahead with the procedure.

She had the choice not to have sex in the first place, just like the man. Unless you're arguing your "life support" case only in instances of rape, she should bear responsibility for her consensual actions. It's a human life we're talking about here, and you would send it swirly based upon nothing more than the whims of the mother.; 2/1/12, 8:42 AM
Squid said...: The law has always seen a *born* living child as a boon to BOTH parents; there is no "wrongful birth".

The law can be wrong, and can be changed. I think every truly pro-choice voter can understand that men should have a choice regarding the support of children they never wanted. My wallet; my choice!

I'll see your nine months of "horrible, crippling bodily changes," and raise you eighteen years of indentured servitude. You really wanna play this game?; 2/1/12, 8:49 AM
Fen said...: My "choice" is to exercise caution and intelligence in my sexuality; to abstain when having a child was out of the question*, then to make careful use of protection, while accepting the risk, when it was something that I could deal with but didn't find desirable.

This.

A real woman who understands the risks of even protected intercourse, and accepts responsibility for the choices she makes with her body.; 2/1/12, 8:56 AM
SGT Ted said...: My concern for womens wombs will end when they quit expecting men to pay for their "choice" for 22+ years.

Pro-Choice is where you can murder AND enslave others and be praised for your "bravery"!; 2/1/12, 10:21 AM
SGT Ted said...: Yep women just don't know anything about their bodies which is why we big men have to show them how to connect the dots.

Based on the number of abortions performed annually, I say there's some truth to that.

I also base that opinion on that reality TV show where the fat women suddenly have a baby pop out and they had no clue they were pregnant.

Yes, I breaking progg womens eggs today because I'm really tire of mens penises being held solely responsible for what goes on in womens vaginas, like we all just sneak up no them in their sleep and they had no say so in it.

Your Choice, Your Responsibility, all the way. Deal with equality and quit trying to live off of men.; 2/1/12, 10:35 AM
Pastafarian said...: SarahW: "Good God there was never a more ridiculous argument: Pregnancy has risks..."

Risk of loss of life?

So work holds no such risk? I have no less chance of premature death if I drive 20 miles to my job at the gravel pit or the steel mill, than if I stay home?

Huh.

And do you know what the odds are of my losing the time I trade for a salary, thus effectively shortening my life? 100-fucking-percent, lady. That's slightly higher than the 0.01% chance of death giving birth.

If you multiply the probability times the cost to arrive at an expected value for loss-of-life for the mother and the father, I don't think there's as wide a disparity as you histrionically assert.; 2/1/12, 11:42 AM
Griff said...: I've long wanted there to be an "Equal Reproductive Rights Amendment," and would have tried to find an especially brave legislator to have sponsored it, if there weren't so many other pressing questions.

But as for fairness: By law, women have 100% of the choice whether to be a parent or not. BY LAW. Yet, if the woman decides to become a parent, once the child is born, a man is suddenly 50% financially responsible (for 18 or more years) for what was 100% of a woman's choice.

Where is the equal treatment under the law there? And don't ask a pro-choice feminist, because "Choice" exists only for women.; 2/1/12, 1:03 PM
Scott M said...: Yet, if the woman decides to become a parent, once the child is born, a man is suddenly 50% financially responsible

It's not an even split at all. Only one parent gets all of the tax breaks from having the dependent and primary custody goes, in most cases, to the mother.; 2/1/12, 1:18 PM
Methadras said...: Darleen said...

Now, if they are being occupied by a life, then that is another matter.

I totally agree. But when a Leftist male starts asserting that want non-Leftists want to do is "control" uteri, I'll counter with his own Leftist dogma ... only females can comment on female reproductive issues.

Indeed. I defer to your uterine wisdom. :D; 2/1/12, 5:56 PM
Rosalyn C. said...: human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
OED

Some of us still follow that definition and it's still a little too far of a stretch to say a blastocyst is a person or a human being. See: http://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm

I appreciate how emotional people here are about this issue, so I don't want to get into an argument about this. But I could not call a woman "a murderer" because she ends a pregnancy at a very early stage.

I also have a problem with government intrusion into medical procedures which are not medically necessary.

Why not make intercourse illegal without a government license or permit? /sarc; 2/1/12, 8:20 PM