…rip a fetus out one piece at a time, but that isn’t akin to rape.

Isn’t that what caused the pregnancy in the first place? And isn’t *that* foreign object the source of the abortion industry’s business?

Seems that if foreign objects in the vagina were really a source of concern for the left, PP, NARAL, feminists, etc. would be hot on the abstinence wagon (and then out of funds). Those pesky “:foreign objects” cause babies.

Since many abortions include a D&C, either as the abortion method or to clear out any remaining placenta, etc. in other methods, what makes *that* destructive invasion acceptable and a benign transvaginal ultrasound (other than the mother-to-be may not want to face the fact murder is about to ensue) not?

As usual, we find logic is not an attribute greatly understood or valued by the left.

Sheesh,

vandalii

now too. Thank you Governor Perry!

Yes to protecting the rights of the unborn. No to politicians to telling doctors what procedures to perform.

Super!!!

This bill simply requires a woman receive informed consent before she have an abortion. For the left to get angry about this shows how ant-life their bias really goes!

http://www.redstate.com/griffinelection/2012/02/17/virginia%e2%80%99s-ultrasound-bill-a-major-step-forward-for-women-and-unborn-children/

Our daughter just turned 18. I took her to an oral surgeon to see if we should have her wisdom teeth taken out over spring break.

The technician took a panoramic x-ray. Then he brought my daughter and me in for the consultation. The x-ray was displayed. He HAD to show it to us. He then proceeded to list complications that could develop from the surgery, including facial nerve damage and even death. He kept insisting that he HAD to inform us of the complications that could develop, even if the possibility of a particular complication occurring was remote.

So using the “logic” of the twit from Slate, was the panoramic x-ray like oral sex?

Was the consultation after the x-ray an invasion of our privacy?

and will undoubtedly try to cover for their sociopathic lack of concern for human life by mumbling something about personal opposition to abortion, or somesuch fig leaf.

The state legislatures, with a healthy, no holds barred debate from both sides. It is clearly not a Constitutional issue.

I’m pro-life, 100% (except for “life of the mother,” which was always legal anyway – although “risk” does equal “threat,” so it is extremely rare that abortion would truly be necessary to save the mother’s life). But California, New York, and a few other states had already legalized abortion, which had become one of the ’60s counterculture and feminist causes, before Roe v Wade made it a federal matter. And I accept that, although I strongly disagree with the outcome in those states.

Today, many more states would legalize it, perhaps most. I would argue strongly against such laws in each, and expend any available revenue to help prevent them, but that is the law of man and our system never promised perfect outcomes.

I see this as a trial run for the happy day Roe v Wade is overturned. We must be able to win such little victories as the sonogram test if we are ever to hope to win the greater battle when it comes.

Democrats will start popping out of the woodwork in VA and in droves to protest this “horrible law” that infringes on the “rights of the mother” AKA “the woman who wants to murder an unborn child”.
But I don’t care how much the Left whines, this law is a beautiful step towards banning murdering the unborn children of America.

As a Conservative, generally speaking, I’d just as soon government stay out of our way and allow us as much freedom as possible. But when it comes to the abortion industry as a whole, I’ll be the first in line cheering on regulatory measures that increase the accountability of abortion providers!

The left will now whine and cry about how increasing regulatory measures increases costs which could limit access, thereby “denying a woman her rights”.

It’s bad enough that I’m made complicit in the murder of unborn children by having funds taken out of my check every week for Medicaid, and to know that somewhere down the line, that money could be used to kill a baby.

But they also expect it of those of us who pay into those funds to feel guilty over it when legislators and/or judges display enough of common sense and decency to require abortion providers to adhere to a bare minimum of best standards practice that would protect the life of the mother, too?

Talk about a bunch of shallow, self-centered, self-serving, hypocritical cheapskates!!!!

Forget the guilt trip already. It ain’t happening. Bring on the regulatory measures!!

Let’s review: A woman needs an abortion. Her doctor OK’s the procedure. The woman doesn’t request an ultrasound scan. Her doctor says it’s medically unnecessary. The State says, Heck you must do it, even if you have to stick a probe up her privates. Or else carry the baby to term — even if it kills you, because it’s a high-risk pregnancy, or it’s the product of rape or incest.

Hmm. How did we get to this in America?

Any doctor worth their salt is going to provide a patient with images (x-ray, MRI, PET) of the “problem” before excising it. Cancer? Here’s a picture. Broken bone? Here’s a picture? That nail in your head? Here’s a picture.

It seems logical, then, that a woman would be shown the foreign body about to be excised from her body.

Then again, I probably disqualified those who perform abortions by stating “any doctor worth their salt” as no doctor I would trust would find it acceptable to perform the kind of ritualistic torture on a human being currently allowed by law.

Landmark decision from the AL Supreme Court issued yesterday. From the story here:

A wrongful death case in Alabama calls into question Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

On Friday the Alabama Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, according to Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, because it allows an individual mother to bring a wrongful death complaint on behalf of her unborn child — even though the baby could not have lived outside the womb at the time the infant died.

“… The concurring opinion by Justice Tom Parker goes through the historical as well as the legal precedent to show that Roe v. Wade’s viability standard is ill-conceived and ultimately does not apply, but should eventually also be overturned,” the Liberty Counsel founder explains.

Parker wrote that “Roe’s viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development.”

That is significant, says Staver. “It clearly shows that viability — the ability to live outside the womb — is just a medical, technological issue and has nothing to do with the dignity of the human being,” states the attorney. “[It says] that the human being is a human being from the moment of conception and should be treated as such through all stages of development.”

Friday’s Alabama Supreme Court ruling in Hamilton v. Scott was unanimous. Three other justices joined Judge Parker in the concurring opinion.

My own state of Oklahoma passed the Oklahoma Personhood Act, Senate Bill 1433, which states life begins at conception. The bill, sponsored by Tulsa Senator Brian Crain, was carefully researched and incorporated language that includes what is already constitutionally protected for the unborn from recent Supreme Court decisions and it is as close as it can be in the complete protection of a child that is allowed by the SC. The measure defines the terms “unborn child” and “unborn children” to “include all unborn children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.”

The following comes from the Personhood USA website:

From 02/14/2012 “Virginia’s HB1, introduced by Del. Bob Marshall, declares that “The life of each human being begins at conception,” that “Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,” and “The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.”

“The laws of this Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth,” it reads.

From 01/24/2012 (italics mine) “Authorities have given the green light to gather signatures for proposed ballot measures in Colorado, Ohio, Montana and California, while legislators in Kansas, Virginia (now passed), Oklahoma (now passed), Wisconsin, Alabama and Georgia have been working on bills that could lead to personhood referendums.”

“In Nevada and Arkansas, personhood campaigns also are in place, but have been slowed by disputes over the wording of proposed ballot measures. In Florida, anti-abortion activists are gearing up to seek a referendum in 2014.”

“In Colorado, the new personhood measure is considered likely to qualify for the ballot again this year because of the state’s relatively low threshold for petition signatures. It’s frustrating to the state’s abortion-rights activists, who spent heavily to defeat the 2008 and 2010 measures by better than 2-to-1 margins.”

Of course, Planned Parenthood has something to say:

“It’s very clear that one of the goals of the personhood movement is to waste our resources,” said Vicki Cowart, president of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. “Every dollar we’re spending on getting people out to vote is a dollar not spent for birth control or sex education or breast exams.” Yada yada yada…

I believe there’s hope and change…one state at a time!

When speaking of virtue he said;

Now a thing’s perfection is considered chiefly in regard to its end.

It’s ironic, really, how the entire liberal being is obsessed with controlling, manipulating and destroying life under the guise of some superior utopian vision. How people who tow the liberal line and believe in practices such as abortion can still identify themselves as Christian or some other religious orthodoxy which considers life sacred simply defies logic and reason.

I am duly amazed with some of my so-called brethren in the Catholic Church who for some reason still consider themselves “practicing Catholics” when they openly disagree with church doctrine on these matters. That would make one perhaps Catholic by birth, but by no means “practicing”.

So according to the Lib’s reasoning, an abortionist commits two crimes, rape and murder.

ONE OF THE WAYS IS TO HAVE CONGRESS PLACE A CLAUSE IN A BILL THAT MAKES A LEGAL ABORTION TO BE ONE THAT TAKES NO MONEY FROM ANY COLECTIVE CITIZENRY; TAXPAYER!IN OTHER WORDS THE ABORTION MUST BE PAID FOR P E R S O N A L L Y BY THE PERSON HAVING THE ABORTION.
THIS MEANS NO PUBLIC FUNDS.NO WELFARE MONEY CAUSING EVERY CITIZEN TO JOIN IN THE COST OF THE ABORTION.

NO CITY, TOWN, COUNTY, STATE, OR FEDERAL MONEY!
THE ABORTION REQUESTER MUST EARN THE MONEY OR FIND A WAY TO NOT PASS THE COST ON TO ANY TAXPAYER.
IN TODAY’S TECHNOLOGY, THERE IS NO REASON FOR AN ABORTION FOR THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER!