Bobby Jindal Signs Mandatory Ultrasound Law with No Rape Exemption

Politics • Views: 4,072

In 2008 Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law a stealth creationist bill that some said would set the tone for his administration. And sure enough, this Tuesday Jindal signed more new laws — the “mandated ultrasound” laws being pushed by the religious right in many states, requiring ultrasound procedures for all women who get abortions.

But Jindal’s anti-abortion laws go a step farther; he also banned malpractice coverage for doctors who perform abortions, and banned abortion coverage by federal insurance pools.

And there are no exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest: Gov. Jindal Signs Manadatory Ultrasound Law With No Rape Exemption.

Jump to bottom

263 comments
1 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:12:16am

Let me guess, there’s also stuff in the law about how the ultra sound must get the clearest picture possible IE insuring those victims get vaginally penetrated against their will at least twice!

2 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:12:17am

Wait, so which GOP’ers aren’t wingnuts again?

3 tnguitarist  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:13:46am

I just don’t see how you can require an ultrasound for a legal procedure. Where all the people screaming for the government to stay out of our business?

4 Interesting Times  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:14:26am

re: #1 jamesfirecat

Let me guess, there’s also stuff in the law about how the ultra sound must get the clearest picture possible IE insuring those victims get vaginally penetrated against their will at least twice!

This would be the perfect place for you to make your point about “how small” the GOP wants to make government…

5 alexknyc  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:15:18am

Ugh… and this guy is mentioned as a serious candidate in 2012?

The way the GOP is self-destructing, it appears Obama’s re-election is God’s plan as well.

6 Kragar  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:15:33am

Fuck you Jindal.

7 tnguitarist  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:15:42am

re: #1 jamesfirecat

Let me guess, there’s also stuff in the law about how the ultra sound must get the clearest picture possible IE insuring those victims get vaginally penetrated against their will at least twice!

This is pretty much medical rape.

8 Gus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:15:44am

Repost!

Republicans.

9 theheat  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:16:24am

Ah, heck, I won’t start worrying until the fundie extremists take over the GOP and start pushing their agenda down our…

Never mind.

10 Lidane  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:16:33am

re: #7 tnguitarist

This is pretty much medical rape.

So it’s God’s plan, then?

/wingnut

11 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:16:56am

Screw you, Bobby Jindal.

You know what we shouldn’t do with women who have been raped?

Rape them again.

Asshole.

This law requires the ultrasound to be performed that is:

an ultrasound examination of the unborn child of a quality commonly used by the ordinary skillful, careful, and prudent physician engaged in similar practice under the same or similar conditions

This means that often, it will have to be a vaginal ultrasound.

Women who have been raped will be forced to consent to having an ultrasound wound penetrate them if they want to have an abortion.

Fucking terrible.

12 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:16:58am

Jindal for President speculation.

Would be a very very bad move on the part of the R’s.

13 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:18:12am

re: #4 publicityStunted

This would be the perfect place for you to make your point about “how small” the GOP wants to make government…

Of course it’s small, in fact we’ve made it small enough to fit inside this woman’s (cue slide whistle sound effect)

This joke has been brought to you by… Bad taste, my favorite coping mechanism…

14 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:18:30am

re: #2 McSpiff

Wait, so which GOP’ers aren’t wingnuts again?

This bill was submitted by a pro-life Democrat.

15 teleskiguy  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:19:34am

This reminds me of something Carlin said, I paraphrase: “The right-wing is pro-life up until you’re 18. After that, you’re on your own motherfucker.” “The right-wing isn’t pro-life, they’re anti-woman.” “The right wing wants to make more babies so they can make more dead soldiers.”

Or something like that.

This shit makes me ill.

16 lawhawk  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:20:18am

Here’s the full text of the ultrasound law.

This was just one of a series of controversial measures Jindal signed into law.

One was a gun-in-church bill, which would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons. They’d have to pass training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force. The head of the religious institution would have to announce that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of he security force. Those chosen have to undergo eight hours of tactical training each year.

17 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:20:19am

re: #8 Gus 802

Since a lot of people seem to be getting this wrong:

The House voted 79-0 for Senate Bill 528 sponsored by pro-life Democratic Sen. Sharon Broome of Baton Rouge

The problem is social conservatives. The GOP panders more to them, but it looks like in Louisiana, at any rate, the Democrats are on board with social conservatism as well.

18 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:20:20am

re: #14 Obdicut

This bill was submitted by a pro-life Democrat.

I’d like to see the percentages of democrats that support such a law, and republicans. Hint: Its not the Dems that are getting close to 100%.

19 Cannadian Club Akbar  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:20:21am

There was a similar bill in Florida (I know in regards to the ultra sound, not sure about the rape/incest part) Gunber Crist Vetoed it.

20 Lidane  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:20:56am

re: #14 Obdicut

This bill was submitted by a pro-life Democrat asshole.

FTFY.

Anyone who writes a bill mandating an ultrasound before an abortion, and with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest, is an asshole. Period. I don’t give a damn what party they’re from. =P

21 KingKenrod  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:21:18am

re: #14 Obdicut

This bill was submitted by a pro-life Democrat.

Sharon Broome

[Link: www.nola.com…]

22 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:21:23am

re: #14 Obdicut

This bill was submitted by a pro-life Democrat.

Yes, Sharon Weston Broome I believe.
Also, two of the most outspoken opponents to this were Republicans in the State legislature.

Can’t count on the usual positions to apply in state politics.

23 Sol Berdinowitz  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:21:35am

GOP not wanking wingnuts? Not in their own private Idaho:

[Link: www.salon.com…]

24 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:21:53am

re: #18 McSpiff

I’d like to see the percentages of democrats that support such a law, and republicans. Hint: Its not the Dems that are getting close to 100%.

Hint: In Louisiana, it probably was.

25 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:22:02am

re: #18 McSpiff

I’d like to see the percentages of democrats that support such a law, and republicans. Hint: Its not the Dems that are getting close to 100%.

Not a single Democrat voted against it in Louisiana.

60 members are Democrats, versus 44 Republicans.

26 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:22:24am

re: #14 Obdicut

This bill was submitted by a pro-life Democrat.

Nothing “pro-lilfe” about this bill if you don’t mind me saying so….

27 Gus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:22:35am

re: #14 Obdicut

This bill was submitted by a pro-life Democrat.

Ha! You know I was thinking to check before I said anything.

I blame the lack of coffee.

28 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:23:15am

re: #25 Obdicut

Not a single Democrat voted against it in Louisiana.

60 members are Democrats, versus 44 Republicans.

Because being anti-choice isn’t confined only to the GOP. *cough* STUPAK AMENDMENT *cough*

29 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:23:31am

re: #16 lawhawk

Here’s the full text of the ultrasound law.

This was just one of a series of controversial measures Jindal signed into law.

One was a gun-in-church bill, which would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons. They’d have to pass training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force. The head of the religious institution would have to announce that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of he security force. Those chosen have to undergo eight hours of tactical training each year.

////Well we all know how many violent shootings go down in churches maybe if George Tiller had been armed he would still be with us today….

30 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:23:44am

re: #22 reine.de.tout

Exactly. New York Republicans aren’t like Florida Republicans, and Louisiana Democrats aren’t like Washington Democrats.

The story is rightly focusing on Jindal, since he is at least treated like a national contender, but this is not something to lay at the feet of the GOP. 79-0. Nobody voted against this travesty. What a disgrace.

31 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:24:28am

re: #24 reine.de.tout

Hint: In Louisiana, it probably was.

Sorry, I should say what I’m thinking a little clearer. Jindal is being thrown around as “potential pres” material by the GOP. That’s a very different situation from the Dems. They all suck, no doubt about it, but it appears the Louisiana Dems have climbed as high as they’re going to on the power ladder.


Yes, the fact that not ONE SINGLE PERSON in that room apparently has any form of moral fiber is the most disgusting thing I’ve seen all day. make no mistake about it.

32 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:25:01am

In the Louisiana Senate:
33 yeas, 4 nays

In the Louisiana house:
80 yeas, 1 nay

33 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:25:30am

re: #30 Obdicut

Exactly. New York Republicans aren’t like Florida Republicans, and Louisiana Democrats aren’t like Washington Democrats.

The story is rightly focusing on Jindal, since he is at least treated like a national contender, but this is not something to lay at the feet of the GOP. 79-0. Nobody voted against this travesty. What a disgrace.

A few did.
See:
re: #32 reine.de.tout

In the Louisiana Senate:
33 yeas, 4 nays

In the Louisiana house:
80 yeas, 1 nay

34 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:26:17am

re: #32 reine.de.tout

Thanks for the correction. Who was the brave soul that voted against it?

Juan LaFonta, Democrat.

I amend my previous statement:

A single Democrat in the House voted against it.

35 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:26:22am

re: #32 reine.de.tout

In the Louisiana Senate:
33 yeas, 4 nays

In the Louisiana house:
80 yeas, 1 nay

Whoops, my mistake. I have respect for 5 of them. Faith in humanity is marginally restored.

36 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:27:50am

re: #33 reine.de.tout

Sorry for getting the number wrong, it appears there’s a few virulently pro-life outfits out there spreading a story of ‘unanimous’ decision on this.

Do you know the party affiliation of those senators?

37 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:28:16am

re: #36 Obdicut

Sorry for getting the number wrong, it appears there’s a few virulently pro-life outfits out there spreading a story of ‘unanimous’ decision on this.

Do you know the party affiliation of those senators?

I can find out, it will take a second, bbiam

38 Gus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:28:22am

“This is a bill that empowers women.”

Sen. Sharon Weston Broome, D-Baton Rouge

39 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:29:07am

re: #37 reine.de.tout

I can find out, it will take a second, bbiam

Thank you.

40 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:29:24am

BTW, lawhawk reminded me that I was going to do a page on this earlier: More Jindal craziness:

Jindal Signs ‘Gun-In-Church’ Bill, Allowing Congregants To Bring Concealed Weapons To Worship

Yesterday, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) signed a bill into law that will allow people to bring concealed weapons into houses of worship. The Times-Picayune reports on the bill


[…]

Last year, Ken Pagano, pastor of the New Bethel Church in Louisville, KY, invited his congregation to bring their firearms to church. “God and guns were part of the foundation of this country,” said Pagano, adding, “I don’t see any contradiction in this. Not every Christian denomination is pacifist.”

Last year, state Rep. Ernest Wooten’s (R) bill allowing concealed weapons on college campuses failed to make it through the legislature. “It is not a gun bill, it is a rights bill,” said Wooten at the time.

So let’s recap. Carrying a gun all the time, even to church? RiGHtS ISHYOO!
Forced pregnancy and medical rape? Some pesky ‘female’ thing and not a big deal.

Wingnut Values in action, folks.

41 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:29:37am

re: #2 McSpiff

Wait, so which GOP’ers aren’t wingnuts again?

Yeah… stuff like this is why I despise so called “reasonable” republicans. Such a thing simply does not exist. The true wingnuts are at least visible from the outset.

42 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:29:55am

re: #38 Gus 802

“This is a bill that empowers women.”

Sen. Sharon Weston Broome, D-Baton Rouge

That is Orwellian.

43 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:30:16am

Hmm. Smaller government my ass.

The GOP is every bit as invasive, intrusive, and malignant as they have ever accused liberals of being.

*spit*

Fuck you, Jindal. You are a fucking scumbag.

44 Gus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:30:56am

re: #8 Gus 802

Repost!

Republicans.

Nevermind (Roseanne Roseannadanna voice).

45 Kragar  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:31:13am

re: #38 Gus 802

“This is a bill that empowers women.”

Sen. Sharon Weston Broome, D-Baton Rouge

and how is that exactly accomplished?

46 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:31:29am

re: #2 McSpiff

Wait, so which GOP’ers aren’t wingnuts again?

Me.

47 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:31:58am

re: #40 iceweasel

BTW, lawhawk reminded me that I was going to do a page on this earlier: More Jindal craziness:

Jindal Signs ‘Gun-In-Church’ Bill, Allowing Congregants To Bring Concealed Weapons To Worship

So let’s recap. Carrying a gun all the time, even to church? RiGHtS ISHYOO!
Forced pregnancy and medical rape? Some pesky ‘female’ thing and not a big deal.

Wingnut Values in action, folks.

Now I have to agree with the gun in church thing. After all if the preacher starts talking bout social justice or the way that being Chist like means being humble, loving and caring for the poor and down trodden, he is clearly a Godless Commie and needs to be shot.

Besides, it will make the little tea and cookie events after services much more entertaining.

/////

48 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:32:23am

re: #36 Obdicut

Sorry for getting the number wrong, it appears there’s a few virulently pro-life outfits out there spreading a story of ‘unanimous’ decision on this.

Do you know the party affiliation of those senators?

All D’s

49 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:32:35am

If you have been raped, and have gone to the police to report the crime, and then you see a doctor and are vaginally examined again anyway.

At least, that was my experience (not me a friend). I admit it was years ago.

50 Lidane  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:32:56am

re: #45 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

and how is that exactly accomplished?

By forcing them to re-live their trauma, of course. It’s totally empowering. =P

51 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:32:59am

re: #46 Walter L. Newton

Me.

If you vote for assholes like Jindal, you are a wingnut. If you don’t, you aren’t voting republican.

52 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:33:04am

re: #46 Walter L. Newton

Me.

Ironic, considering you’re still Persona Non Grata for me. Or did you forgot that you agreed not to address me?

53 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:33:13am

re: #24 reine.de.tout

Hint: In Louisiana, it probably was.

A deeply sad but true fact.

54 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:33:31am

re: #40 iceweasel

BTW, lawhawk reminded me that I was going to do a page on this earlier: More Jindal craziness:

Jindal Signs ‘Gun-In-Church’ Bill, Allowing Congregants To Bring Concealed Weapons To Worship

So let’s recap. Carrying a gun all the time, even to church? RiGHtS ISHYOO!
Forced pregnancy and medical rape? Some pesky ‘female’ thing and not a big deal.

Wingnut Values in action, folks.

On the other hand, when the anti-abortion fanatics get worked up enough to murder doctors in church (like Dr. George Tiller), maybe the doctors could then shoot back.

I’m only half joking.

55 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:33:34am

re: #43 Fozzie Bear

Hmm. Smaller government my ass.

The GOP is every bit as invasive, intrusive, and malignant as they have ever accused the liberals of being are.

*spit*

Fuck you, Jindal. You are a fucking scumbag.

FTFY

56 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:33:50am

re: #47 LudwigVanQuixote

Now I have to agree with the gun in church thing. After all if the preacher starts talking bout social justice or the way that being Chist like means being humble, loving and caring for the poor and down trodden, he is clearly a Godless Commie and needs to be shot.

Besides, it will make the little tea and cookie events after services much more entertaining.

///

Yeah. Entertaining.

57 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:34:04am

re: #52 McSpiff

Ironic, considering you’re still Persona Non Grata for me. Or did you forgot that you agreed not to address me?

Sorry…

58 Baier  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:34:11am

re: #4 publicityStunted

This would be the perfect place for you to make your point about “how small” the GOP wants to make government…

Please note that Charles is correct to call this an action of the religious right and not the GOP.

59 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:34:49am

re: #50 Lidane

By forcing them to re-live their trauma, of course. It’s totally empowering. =P

Well that is part of G-d’s plan. Make no mistake that these animals truly believe that women should be made to “suffer for the sin between their legs.”

60 Charles Johnson  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:34:53am

re: #58 Baier

Please note that Charles is correct to call this an action of the religious right and not the GOP.

Unfortunately, there isn’t much space between the two.

61 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:35:09am

re: #55 Walter L. Newton

FTFY

Yeah, liberals TOTALLY are advocating for state-enforced raping of the already raped. Total equivalence. //

62 Lidane  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:35:42am

re: #49 Crimsonfisted

And these same assholes would deny emergency contraception or morning after pills to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Then, when a victim of rape or incest finds herself pregnant, she has to go through the whole thing again in order to get an abortion, if that’s her choice.

Honestly, it’s just a bunch of douchebaggery and concern trolling about women that is infuriating.

63 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:35:45am

re: #38 Gus 802

“This is a bill that empowers women.”

Sen. Sharon Weston Broome, D-Baton Rouge

If by “empowers” she means “makes her so angry she could throw Bobby Jindal across the Gulf”, then she’s correct.

64 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:35:57am

re: #58 Baier

Please note that Charles is correct to call this an action of the religious right and not the GOP.

Would you care to explain the difference?

65 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:36:19am

re: #64 Fozzie Bear

Would you care to explain the difference?

A whole lot of dems voted for this.

66 Kragar  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:36:28am

re: #59 LudwigVanQuixote

Well that is part of G-d’s plan. Make no mistake that these animals truly believe that women should be made to “suffer for the sin between their legs.”

They support the rights of all women, assuming they aren’t brazen harlots who finally got whats coming to them.

67 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:36:33am

re: #61 Fozzie Bear

Yeah, liberals TOTALLY are advocating for state-enforced raping of the already raped. Total equivalence. //

I never said total equivalence… I said intrusive, stay out of my medicine cabinet, my food, my health…

68 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:36:40am

re: #49 Crimsonfisted

If you have been raped, and have gone to the police to report the crime, and then you see a doctor and are vaginally examined again anyway.

At least, that was my experience (not me a friend). I admit it was years ago.

And if you want to terminate your pregnancy, a legal medical procedure in this country, you shouldn’t have to have medically unnecessary and invasive procedures that are designed to shame you and make that decision more difficult.

That’s what the ultrasound legislation is all about, and it’s not better legislation if it did exempt victims of rape and incest.

This ultrasound legislation is the new rage in the wingnut war on women, several other states have or are trying to pass such legislation (OK among them).

69 Baier  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:37:08am

re: #60 Charles

Unfortunately, there isn’t much space between the two.

I’m not in the GOP, but I know many Republicans and only a few pro-lifers among them (probably because I live in NYC).
I like to think there is still a difference between rational conservatism and religious wackos.

70 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:37:11am

re: #48 reine.de.tout

All D’s

A slight lift for Democrats, but that still means that the overwhelming super-majority of Democrats either voted for or stood silent while this bill was passed.

But again, I do think real heart of the story is that Jindal signed it. Jindal is the one with national presence. I can’t think of any Louisiana Democrat who has importance in the Democratic Party. Jindal, on the other hand, is big water for the GOP.

71 jamesfirecat  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:38:18am

re: #54 Charles

On the other hand, when the anti-abortion fanatics get worked up enough to murder doctors in church (like Dr. George Tiller), maybe the doctors could then shoot back.

I’m only half joking.

Already beat you to that joke Charles….. GMTA.

72 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:39:14am

re: #56 iceweasel

Yeah. Entertaining.

My point entirely.

Need anyone ask why one should bring a weapon into a house of worship in the first place?

Then again, I am from a tradition where a Torah is constructed in such a way pointedly that it could neer have any of its arts used as a weapon, and a great point is made about that as to why it is holy.

On holy ground you do not bring weapons.

The alter at the Temple was constructed out of stone that had not been touched even by iron tools - so that nothing that could be used as a weapon ever even touched it.

Of course this is one place where I will pass a very firm moral judgement and say that whatever G-d these cretins pray to, it isn’t the G-d of Jacob.

73 Lidane  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:39:59am

OT, but this is amusing, at least to me. Heh.

74 Gus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:40:32am

re: #68 iceweasel

And if you want to terminate your pregnancy, a legal medical procedure in this country, you shouldn’t have to have medically unnecessary and invasive procedures that are designed to shame you and make that decision more difficult.

That’s what the ultrasound legislation is all about, and it’s not better legislation if it did exempt victims of rape and incest.

This ultrasound legislation is the new rage in the wingnut war on women, several other states have or are trying to pass such legislation (OK among them).

Think about it. This is a state mandated medical procedure. It is done for the purpose of intimidating women into a level of guilt in the hope of them deciding not to have an abortion. It’s not done for the health of the woman. It is mandated in order to make these women feel guilty.

Now, were have we heard anger regarding “state mandated” medicine before?

Irony.

75 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:40:46am

re: #69 Baier

I’m not in the GOP, but I know many Republicans and only a few pro-lifers among them (probably because I live in NYC).
I like to think there is still a difference between rational conservatism and religious wackos.

Yeah, good luck running a non religious R.

76 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:41:17am

re: #73 Lidane

OT, but this is amusing, at least to me. Heh.

ooh I love that! You should do a page. :) (or did you already on this?)

77 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:41:25am

re: #54 Charles

On the other hand, when the anti-abortion fanatics get worked up enough to murder doctors in church (like Dr. George Tiller), maybe the doctors could then shoot back.

I’m only half joking.

Actually …
They haven’t been anti-abortion activists, but there have been several shootings in churches in this area, usually family squabble sorts of things. It does happen.

78 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:41:28am

re: #75 Varek Raith

Yeah, good luck running a non religious R.

Atheists can’t get elected almost anywhere to any office of any importance.

But yes, the GOP demands a level of fervor the Democrats don’t.

79 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:41:37am

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

My point entirely.

Need anyone ask why one should bring a weapon into a house of worship in the first place?

Then again, I am from a tradition where a Torah is constructed in such a way pointedly that it could never have any of its parts used as a weapon, and a great point is made about that as to why it is holy.

On holy ground you do not bring weapons.

The alter at the Temple was constructed out of stone that had not been touched even by iron tools - so that nothing that could be used as a weapon ever even touched it.

Of course this is one place where I will pass a very firm moral judgement and say that whatever G-d these cretins pray to, it isn’t the G-d of Jacob.

80 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:41:48am

re: #78 Obdicut

Atheists can’t get elected almost anywhere to any office of any importance.

But yes, the GOP demands a level of fervor the Democrats don’t.

True.

81 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:42:01am

re: #72 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course this is one place where I will pass a very firm moral judgement and say that whatever G-d these cretins pray to, it isn’t the G-d of Jacob.

And it certainly isn’t the God of the man who said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

82 Lidane  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:42:10am

re: #76 iceweasel

Nah. I did a page about Luap Nor and Ann Coulter agreeing with Michael Steele. Haven’t done one for this yet.

Maybe I should. Hmm.

83 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:42:31am

re: #77 reine.de.tout

Actually …
They haven’t been anti-abortion activists, but there have been several shootings in churches in this area, usually family squabble sorts of things. It does happen.

You know you might be a… ;-)

84 Baier  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:43:12am

re: #75 Varek Raith

Yeah, good luck running a non religious R.

Not many national politician on the left that don’t run on religion either.

85 alexknyc  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:43:13am

re: #75 Varek Raith

Yeah, good luck running a non religious R.

Here in NYC, it’s possible.

As a national candidate, not gonna happen given the current state of affairs.

86 theheat  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:43:43am

re: #74 Gus 802

Death panels!
//

87 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:43:57am

Interesting title of the music for this thread “Bitches Ain’t Shit”. Not familiar with it, but kinda ironic for this thread.

88 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:44:09am

re: #47 LudwigVanQuixote

Now I have to agree with the gun in church thing. After all if the preacher starts talking bout social justice or the way that being Chist like means being humble, loving and caring for the poor and down trodden, he is clearly a Godless Commie and needs to be shot.

Besides, it will make the little tea and cookie events after services much more entertaining.

///

I’m getting married in Louisiana soon. For some obscure reason my fiancee and I have decided against having a church wedding. ;)

89 Baier  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:44:38am

re: #85 alexknyc

Here in NYC, it’s possible.

As a national candidate, not gonna happen given the current state of affairs.

It’s probably why, as New Yorker, I don’t see the republicans as a bunch of religious wackos like some of friends in the fly-over states do.

90 Crimsonfisted  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:45:40am

Now the music has changed. Back to your regularly scheduled programming. (It just struck me odd is all, the title, that.)

91 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:45:45am

re: #83 McSpiff

You know you might be a… ;-)

quit it!

92 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:46:27am

re: #74 Gus 802

Think about it. This is a state mandated medical procedure. It is done for the purpose of intimidating women into a level of guilt in the hope of them deciding not to have an abortion. It’s not done for the health of the woman. It is mandated in order to make these women feel guilty.

Now, were have we heard anger regarding “state mandated” medicine before?

Irony.

Absolutely. I’ve posted this before in re: the ultrasound legislations:

But what if a woman doesn’t want an ultrasound, and there’s no pressing clinical reason for her to have it? Four states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—have taken the galling step of requiring her to have one regardless of need. They recently passed laws that go beyond offering ultrasounds to mandating them. Oklahoma’s new statute dictates that either the doctor performing the abortion or a “certified technician working in conjunction” with that doctor do the ultrasound, “provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting,” and also “display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them.” The law goes so far as to specify the doctor’s script: The physician must describe the heartbeat and the presence of internal organs, fingers, and toes. The patient then has to certify in writing that the doctor or technician duly did all of this before the abortion. She can avert her eyes from the screen, the statute allows. Maybe the legislators should have also thought to mention putting her hands over her ears.

TWENTY states have ultrasound legislation now.
In Ultrasound, Abortion Fight Has New Front

93 alexknyc  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:46:40am

re: #89 Baier

It’s probably why, as New Yorker, I don’t see the republicans as a bunch of religious wackos like some of friends in the fly-over states do.

That may be because the Republicans your friends see at home actually are religious wackos.

We in NYC don’t have a politically powerful religious right.

94 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:46:53am

re: #89 Baier

It’s probably why, as New Yorker, I don’t see the republicans as a bunch of religious wackos like some of friends in the fly-over states do.

You don’t have to go far outside NYC to see it.

Here in PA, not that far away, we have Santorum, a true wingnut among wingnuts. People that crazy can’t win elections easily in NYC, or at least not that brand of crazy.

95 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:47:17am

At this point, I’ve come to the conclusion that, barring a political “unknown” winning the GOP nomination in 2012, the party is screwed. It doesn’t seem like there’s a single “front-runner” who isn’t up to their eyeballs in stupid stunts, asinine comments, and hypocritical positions that are all meant to play to a base the party as a whole is in absolutely no danger of losing. Sadly, I fear that political dissatisfaction will be so great come 2012 that the GOP could run Rush Limbaugh and be guaranteed at least enough of a lead to take back the presidency.

Is it too late to call up Britain and ask for forgiveness?

96 Baier  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:47:23am

re: #93 alexknyc

That may be because the Republicans your friends see at home actually are religious wackos.

We in NYC don’t have a politically powerful religious right.

I think you misunderstood me:)

97 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:47:30am

My thought on the original post.

It must be terrible going through life with such a hard heart and such a soft head.

98 alexknyc  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:48:47am

re: #96 Baier

I think you misunderstood me:)

Entirely possible.

I do that sometimes.

99 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:49:24am

Volcano monitoring = Baaaddd.
Invasive, COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY, medical procedures = Goooddd.

100 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:49:54am

re: #95 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

At this point, I’ve come to the conclusion that, barring a political “unknown” winning the GOP nomination in 2012, the party is screwed. It doesn’t seem like there’s a single “front-runner” who isn’t up to their eyeballs in stupid stunts, asinine comments, and hypocritical positions that are all meant to play to a base the party as a whole is in absolutely no danger of losing. Sadly, I fear that political dissatisfaction will be so great come 2012 that the GOP could run Rush Limbaugh and be guaranteed at least enough of a lead to take back the presidency.

Is it too late to call up Britain and ask for forgiveness?

I think you are waaaaay off base. Obama is virtually guaranteed to win in 2012, unless the GOP can find a non-crazy candidate to run against him. Given the state of the GOP base, I don’t think that will happen.

101 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:50:26am

re: #95 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

At this point, I’ve come to the conclusion that, barring a political “unknown” winning the GOP nomination in 2012, the party is screwed. It doesn’t seem like there’s a single “front-runner” who isn’t up to their eyeballs in stupid stunts, asinine comments, and hypocritical positions that are all meant to play to a base the party as a whole is in absolutely no danger of losing. Sadly, I fear that political dissatisfaction will be so great come 2012 that the GOP could run Rush Limbaugh and be guaranteed at least enough of a lead to take back the presidency.

Is it too late to call up Britain and ask for forgiveness?

You can come up here to Canada. Our taxes are higher, but not by much. Our medical service is great and our wingnuts are few and fairly scattered.

They do form the government at the moment but thanks to our political system they can’t do anything too crazy.

102 Gus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:51:47am

re: #92 iceweasel

TWENTY states have ultrasound legislation now.
In Ultrasound, Abortion Fight Has New Front

Well then. Perhaps we should ask if the state can pass a law requiring citizens to “eat three fruits and veggies every day” and then look into the Commerce Clause. You might recall this from the Kagan nomination hearings.

Yes, states rights. According to them the Federal government can’t tell the states what to do but if it involves women and abortion the states can rule over women as though they were children.

103 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:53:02am

Why is this a right wing or wing nut issue when most who voted for this were dems and the person who submitted this is a dem.

Would it be more accurate to say that social conservatives did this? Most of whom were democrat? I don’t see how from most on here that the hate keeps getting poured on the GOP. OF which I am not a fan either.

104 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:53:23am

re: #95 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I just noticed how much I love you nic logo. Where did you get that symbol from?

105 Lidane  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:53:24am

re: #76 iceweasel

BTW, the page is now done. :)

106 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:53:31am

re: #103 brownbagj

Why is this a right wing or wing nut issue when most who voted for this were dems and the person who submitted this is a dem.

Would it be more accurate to say that social conservatives did this? Most of whom were democrat? I don’t see how from most on here that the hate keeps getting poured on the GOP. OF which I am not a fan either.

Jindal.
;)

107 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:53:40am

re: #102 Gus 802

Well then. Perhaps we should ask if the state can pass a law requiring citizens to “eat three fruits and veggies every day” and then look into the Commerce Clause. You might recall this from the Kagan nomination hearings.

Yes, states rights. According to them the Federal government can’t tell the states what to do but if it involves women and abortion the states can rule over women as though they were children.

Yup, if this is how rights are respect in the US I can easily say I’ll never live there.

108 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:53:50am

re: #102 Gus 802

Well then. Perhaps we should ask if the state can pass a law requiring citizens to “eat three fruits and veggies every day” and then look into the Commerce Clause. You might recall this from the Kagan nomination hearings.

Yes, states rights. According to them the Federal government can’t tell the states what to do but if it involves women and abortion the states can rule over women as though they were children.

Or a city should pass a law dictating what sorts of oil restaurants can use in their cooking.
hmmm.

109 Gus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:53:50am

re: #99 Varek Raith

Volcano monitoring = Baaaddd.
Invasive, COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY, medical procedures = Goooddd.

“The BP oil spill was an act of God.”

//

110 theheat  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:53:59am

re: #92 iceweasel

Why does this averting the eyes part remind me of Clockwork Orange?

This is so cruel, malicious, pointedly vicious, demeaning, hateful - I’ve run out of words to convey my disgust.

Stoning can’t be too far behind. Thank you, American Taliban.

111 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:54:14am

re: #104 LudwigVanQuixote

I just noticed how much I love you nic logo. Where did you get that symbol from?

He’s a Brotherhood of Steel Boyscout.

112 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:55:17am

re: #100 Fozzie Bear

I think you are waaay off base. Obama is virtually guaranteed to win in 2012, unless the GOP can find a non-crazy candidate to run against him. Given the state of the GOP base, I don’t think that will happen.

I honestly think Obama having an easy reelection is way too optimistic at this point. If Carter and Bush Sr. showed anything, it’s that economic downturns kill presidencies dead. I fear that the longer the misery drags out, the more problems like the spill that crop up, the more tempting the idea of voters giving the GOP “another try” will seem.

113 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:55:28am

re: #108 reine.de.tout

Or a city should pass a law dictating what sorts of oil restaurants can use in their cooking.
hmmm.

Seriously. I’ll fry chicken with motor oil, and my customers will like it!!

114 Lidane  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:55:46am

re: #100 Fozzie Bear

I think you are waaay off base. Obama is virtually guaranteed to win in 2012, unless the GOP can find a non-crazy candidate to run against him. Given the state of the GOP base, I don’t think that will happen.

Obama’s only virtually guaranteed a win if the economy doesn’t totally collapse between now and November 2012. If things don’t improve by then, he’ll be bounced out no matter who the GOP run.

115 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:56:20am

re: #103 brownbagj

Why is this a right wing or wing nut issue when most who voted for this were dems and the person who submitted this is a dem.

Would it be more accurate to say that social conservatives did this? Most of whom were democrat? I don’t see how from most on here that the hate keeps getting poured on the GOP. OF which I am not a fan either.

Jindal, the Gov who signed it, is a Republican.
But I agree that would be more accurate, to describe this being done by pro-life social conservatives.
But then the Dems here couldn’t score any points.

116 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:56:54am

re: #113 Fozzie Bear

Seriously. I’ll fry chicken with motor oil, and my customers will like it!!

I think NYC has done this, actually. I could be wrong, I’m reaching way back into the corners of my memory.

117 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:57:29am

re: #115 reine.de.tout

Jindal, the Gov who signed it, is a Republican.
But I agree that would be more accurate, to describe this being done by pro-life social conservatives.
But then the Dems here couldn’t score any points.

He couldn’t have signed it without it passing a democratic house and senate. Teh crazy is on both sides and to pretend otherwise just shows bias.

118 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:57:33am

re: #115 reine.de.tout

Jindal, the Gov who signed it, is a Republican.
But I agree that would be more accurate, to describe this being done by pro-life social conservatives.
But then the Dems here couldn’t score any points.

Fuck the dems. SoCons are raping the constitution, and need to be called out on it.

119 Gus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:57:54am

re: #108 reine.de.tout

Or a city should pass a law dictating what sorts of oil restaurants can use in their cooking.
hmmm.

Yep. I’m against all of that stuff. I don’t mind the dietary information requirement for restaurants that can afford it. Otherwise, when it comes to abortion, smoking laws, sexual practices, Blue laws, etc., I’m against it.

120 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:58:27am

re: #104 LudwigVanQuixote

I just noticed how much I love you nic logo. Where did you get that symbol from?

Tis the emblem of the Brotherhood of Steel, a knightly order who are working to preserve the still-glowing embers of civilization in the wake of the nuclear holocaust of the Great War. Oh, and keeping the Capital Wasteland’s super mutant population in check.

121 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:59:01am

re: #117 brownbagj

He couldn’t have signed it without it passing a democratic house and senate. Teh crazy is on both sides and to pretend otherwise just shows bias.

Its so true. Especially how both parties are looking at Louisiana for possible presidential picks… oh wait, that would just be the GOP. That’s the huge freaking difference.

122 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:59:12am

re: #120 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Tis the emblem of the Brotherhood of Steel, a knightly order who are working to preserve the still-glowing embers of civilization in the wake of the nuclear holocaust of the Great War. Oh, and keeping the Capital Wasteland’s super mutant population in check.

Fallout was a great game, I just missed the logo.

123 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:59:22am

re: #120 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Tis the emblem of the Brotherhood of Steel, a knightly order who are working to preserve the still-glowing embers of civilization in the wake of the nuclear holocaust of the Great War. Oh, and keeping the Capital Wasteland’s super mutant population in check.

Blah blah blah.
Power armored boyscouts.
Pansies.
/

124 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:00:02pm

re: #119 Gus 802

Yep. Any crime for which a definite victim other than the person committing the crime cannot be identified, should not be a crime.

Any victimless crime is simply an unjust law.

With certain things, like smoking, it can be a hazy line, and there is room for debate, however.

125 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:00:41pm

re: #121 McSpiff

Its so true. Especially how both parties are looking at Louisiana for possible presidential picks… oh wait, that would just be the GOP. That’s the huge freaking difference.

So he is a nut, surrounded by a HOUSE FULL of nuts. He MAY be a contender, but he cannot pass anything with the dems help. Period. That is a fact.

126 SpaceJesus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:01:40pm

strike the tax exempt status from every church in the united states.

127 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:01:56pm

re: #125 brownbagj

So he is a nut, surrounded by a HOUSE FULL of nuts. He MAY be a contender, but he cannot pass anything with the dems help. Period. That is a fact.

Yes. He’s a nut who is potentially looking to become the most powerful man in the world. Fact.

128 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:01:57pm

re: #125 brownbagj

So he is a nut, surrounded by a HOUSE FULL of nuts. He MAY be a contender, but he cannot pass anything with the dems help. Period. That is a fact.

They’re all, with a few exceptions, SoCons.

129 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:02:46pm

re: #127 McSpiff

Yes. He’s a nut who is potentially looking to become the most powerful man in the world. Fact.

Who, again, cannot pass anything with congress. Fact.

LGF exists to fight against teh crazy period. Not just on one side, right?

130 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:03:37pm

re: #129 brownbagj

Who, again, cannot pass anything with congress. Fact.

LGF exists to fight against teh crazy period. Not just on one side, right?

LGF can do whatever it pleases. I speak for myself.

131 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:03:40pm

re: #128 Varek Raith

They’re all, with a few exceptions, SoCons.

Which is why in my first statement in this thread that it is more accurate to blame this on tech socon crazy rather just on the easy whipping boy of the GOP. That just gives one side of the socons a pass.

132 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:04:29pm

re: #130 McSpiff

LGF can do whatever it pleases. I speak for myself.

Fine. Choose a side and let the crazies on your side run free. Have fun. I would rather not pick a side (party) and push out the crazies period.

133 reine.de.tout  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:05:46pm

re: #132 brownbagj

Fine. Choose a side and let the crazies on your side run free. Have fun. I would rather not pick a side (party) and push out the crazies period.

ditto.

134 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:05:54pm

re: #132 brownbagj

Fine. Choose a side and let the crazies on your side run free. Have fun. I would rather not pick a side (party) and push out the crazies period.

I don’t pick a side. I go after high value targets. Jindal is the most likely person in Louisiana to cause a nationwide fuck up, so he gets my focus.

135 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:07:11pm

re: #128 Varek Raith

They’re all, with a few exceptions, SoCons.

I probably shouldn’t have said this without, you know, seeing if it was true.

reine, was my statement correct?

136 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:07:39pm

re: #134 McSpiff

I don’t pick a side. I go after high value targets. Jindal is the most likely person in Louisiana to cause a nationwide fuck up, so he gets my focus.

Fair enough. Somehow I find the time to go against all the crazies everywhere.

137 McSpiff  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:08:40pm

re: #132 brownbagj

Fine. Choose a side and let the crazies on your side run free. Have fun. I would rather not pick a side (party) and push out the crazies period.

For the record, I also think this is what the people of Louisiana want. You dont get near-full House and Senate votes otherwise. Assuming this law is constitutional(a big if in my mind), the people of Louisiana can have it.

Is it really all that nuts to represent your voters interests?

138 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:09:13pm

What I am trying to say is this “disease” exists in both parties. If we do not attack the “disease” and only one party, the disease grows. What is right here is for women to not be forced to do this against their will. Whoever votes for this deserves scorn.

139 Targetpractice  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:09:27pm

re: #123 Varek Raith

Blah blah blah.
Power armored boyscouts.
Pansies.
/

*snorts* Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good laser rifle at your side, Sith.

/

140 Varek Raith  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:10:35pm

re: #139 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

*snorts* Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good laser rifle at your side, Sith.

/

Muhahaha.
I carry several blasters, a real sword and some thermal dets along with my lightsaber and the Force.
:)

141 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:10:53pm

re: #137 McSpiff

For the record, I also think this is what the people of Louisiana want. You dont get near-full House and Senate votes otherwise. Assuming this law is constitutional(a big if in my mind), the people of Louisiana can have it.

Is it really all that nuts to represent your voters interests?

No it isn’t. Which is why pushing against one party or person won’t help. We have to get at the root of the problem somehow.

Look, hatin’ on the GOP is a cool hobby for me to. But, in this case, just doing that won’t do anything about this problem. Heck, they have enough votes to override his veto. Democrat votes.

142 SpaceJesus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:11:37pm

re: #138 brownbagj

What I am trying to say is this “disease” exists in both parties. If we do not attack the “disease” and only one party, the disease grows. What is right here is for women to not be forced to do this against their will. Whoever votes for this deserves scorn.

the disease has taken hold of the entire GOP. taking away womens’ rights is a central platform of their party in every state i can think of

143 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:11:48pm

BBL gang!

144 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:12:53pm

re: #137 McSpiff

Is it really all that nuts to represent your voters interests?

It certainly is if your voters are nuts. I hope this is found unconstitutional.

145 CarleeCork  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:30:11pm

re: #142 SpaceJesus

the disease has taken hold of the entire GOP. taking away womens’ rights is a central platform of their party in every state i can think of


The disease comes from mixing religion with politics. Where’s that wall when we need it?

146 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:30:17pm

I’m sick of the freaking hate on women from whatever the source. So much for our “post feminist” society, amirite? I thought my radical feminist days were over in the 70s. Little did I know that was just a practice run.

147 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:30:42pm

This law seems disgusting and very draconian.
I do have a couple of questions:
1. Does anyone know the reason given by the government for the ultra-sound requirement? Is it perhaps to determine whether the abortion can be done without endangering the mother’s life?
2. Does anyone know if private insurance coverage will still be available for the procedure, albeit at perhaps a greater cost? Is this measure perhaps an attempt to isolate the risk and the cost of insurance?

148 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:32:14pm

re: #147 Spare O’Lake

1. It is to shame women into not having an abortion.

2. It is to shame women into not having an abortion.

149 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:33:20pm

re: #147 Spare O’Lake

There is no medical reason for the procedure. No, insurance won’t cover it since there is no medical reason. Abortion is a safe procedure, safer than pregnancy. This invasive ultrasound - which is done internally at that early point in a pregnancy - is for one reason alone… wait, two reasons. 1) to shame women and 2)make an abortion, a legal procedure, more costly.

150 CarleeCork  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:37:17pm

None of this will be an issue.

Doctors who perform elective abortions won’t be covered under medical malpractice laws.

Get ready for abortion wards in hospitals.

151 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:38:34pm

re: #149 allegro

There is no medical reason for the procedure. No, insurance won’t cover it since there is no medical reason. Abortion is a safe procedure, safer than pregnancy. This invasive ultrasound - which is done internally at that early point in a pregnancy - is for one reason alone… wait, two reasons. 1) to shame women and 2)make an abortion, a legal procedure, more costly.

Would doctors be willing to do invasive procedures that offer no medical benefit to the patient?

152 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:38:57pm

re: #150 CarleeCork

Good freaking point.

This is basically the end of legal abortion in Louisiana, then.

153 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:40:46pm

re: #138 brownbagj

What I am trying to say is this “disease” exists in both parties. If we do not attack the “disease” and only one party, the disease grows. What is right here is for women to not be forced to do this against their will. Whoever votes for this deserves scorn.

false equivalency
false equivalency
false equivalency
false equivalency
false equivalency

yeah!

154 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:41:35pm

I see the Oklahoma ultrasound law has been suspended pending the outcome of a lawsuit.

I was intrigued by another law Jindal signed having to do with punishing “crimes against nature”. The crimes were not specified (oil spills? bulldozing sensitive riparian habitat?) but since the aforementioned crimes were compared to prostitution, I assume it relates to homosexual prostitution. Anyone who thinks “teh Gay” is a crime against nature hasn’t spent much time actually observing nature.

155 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:41:51pm

re: #151 Decatur Deb

Would doctors be willing to do invasive procedures that offer no medical benefit to the patient?

If it’s the law, their willingness or not is a moot point if they wish to continue to practice.

156 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:42:58pm

re: #155 allegro

If it’s the law, their willingness or not is a moot point if they wish to continue to practice.

What about “first do no harm”?

157 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:43:00pm

re: #148 Obdicut

1. It is to shame women into not having an abortion.

2. It is to shame women into not having an abortion.

I was trying to get the other side, if there is one. Your response is not helpful.

158 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:45:00pm

re: #156 Decatur Deb

What about “first do no harm”?

Harm in this case would be a relative term. An invasive ultrasound requires a significantly sized wand to be inserted into the vagina. Though likely physically uncomfortable, it does no physical harm. Emotional harm, humiliation, etc. is clearly not a consideration… I take that back. It is the very point of the exercise.

159 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:45:51pm

re: #157 Spare O’Lake

The pro-life folks phrase this as “allowing” a woman to have an ultrasound to gain more information to help her with her choice. This is entirely ridiculous as they are mandating a procedure which doesn’t provide any new information-Yep. You’re pregnant.

160 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:46:04pm

re: #157 Spare O’Lake

I was trying to get the other side, if there is one. Your response is not helpful.

There isn’t another side. This is a law about shaming women into not having abortions and making it harder for them to get them.

Given that it strips malpractice insurance from doctors, it is basically removing the ability of women to get abortions at all.

The side doing this is very clearly and obviously doing this because they want to stop women from having abortions.

161 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:47:31pm

re: #159 calochortus

The pro-life folks phrase this as “allowing” a woman to have an ultrasound to gain more information to help her with her choice.

Oh yes, “empowering” doncha know. Damn, I am sputtering, spitting, hissing FURIOUS.

162 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:48:36pm

re: #158 allegro

Harm in this case would be a relative term. An invasive ultrasound requires a significantly sized wand to be inserted into the vagina. Though likely physically uncomfortable, it does no physical harm. Emotional harm, humiliation, etc. is clearly not a consideration… I take that back. It is the very point of the exercise.

Are there other procedures that are commonly mandated by legislation rather than medical necessity? Any medics know of any?

163 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:49:01pm

Millions of abortions have been done safely since 1973. Not ONCE have I ever heard of an ultrasound being called for, not for any purpose. There is no medical reason for it.

164 Obdicut  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:50:57pm

re: #162 Decatur Deb

Are there other procedures that are commonly mandated by legislation rather than medical necessity? Any medics know of any?

We used to do blood tests before marriage, but stopped. Even that could be called medical necessity.

165 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:51:00pm

re: #162 Decatur Deb

Are there other procedures that are commonly mandated by legislation rather than medical necessity? Any medics know of any?

*crickets*

166 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:51:08pm

re: #159 calochortus

The pro-life folks phrase this as “allowing” a woman to have an ultrasound to gain more information to help her with her choice. This is entirely ridiculous as they are mandating a procedure which doesn’t provide any new information-Yep. You’re pregnant.

What information would she gain from the ultrasound? Oh, wait, I get it…they do the ultrasound and then force the woman to look at the image of the poor little fetus so she will hopefully come to her senses and cancel the abortion. Is that pretty much it?

167 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:52:31pm

re: #166 Spare O’Lake

What information would she gain from the ultrasound? Oh, wait, I get it…they do the ultrasound and then force the woman to look at the image of the poor little fetus so she will hopefully come to her senses and cancel the abortion. Is that pretty much it?

An excellent and accurate summation.

168 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:53:59pm

re: #167 allegro

An excellent and accurate summation.

This thing gets overturned faster than AZ’s nirth cert requirement.

169 Spare O'Lake  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:55:51pm

re: #167 allegro

An excellent and accurate summation.

Well if that’s all they got then I would hope the Courts will strike down that provision pronto.

170 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:56:42pm

As I mentioned upthread, there apparently is a challenge to the OK law.

171 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 12:57:39pm

re: #170 calochortus

As I mentioned upthread, there apparently is a challenge to the OK law.

If the courts rule broadly, it might take out both, and future, laws.

172 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:01:01pm

re: #171 Decatur Deb

If the courts rule broadly, it might take out both, and future, laws.

Which would be a fine thing.

173 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:03:41pm

re: #168 Decatur Deb

This thing gets overturned faster than AZ’s nirth cert requirement.

I expect that it will. However, how long will that take? In the meantime, what of those women who need help now? What about the clinics that offer services? This is just freaking evil.

174 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:05:20pm

re: #173 allegro

I expect that it will. However, how long will that take? In the meantime, what of those women who need help now? What about the clinics that offer services? This is just freaking evil.

They can travel to adjacent liberal states like Mississippi.

175 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:06:14pm

I swear the women of Louisiana, Oklahoma, Florida, etc. should go all Lysistrata on their asses. Just lock down the pussy until they beg for forgiveness and stop this nonsense.

176 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:07:13pm

re: #175 allegro

I swear the women of Louisiana, Oklahoma, Florida, etc. should go all Lysistrata on their asses. Just lock down the pussy until they beg for forgiveness and stop this nonsense.

Are you trying to bring Sen Vitter to his knees?

177 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:07:47pm

re: #176 Decatur Deb

Are you trying to bring Sen Vitter to his knees?

I said nothing about Pampers.

178 CarleeCork  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:11:22pm

re: #173 allegro
The pendulum will have to swing the other way. That will only happen when women start dying from illegal abortions. There’s more here:
[Link: www.historycooperative.org…]

Wealthy women will continue to have access to safe abortions and poor women will die.

179 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:15:56pm

re: #178 CarleeCork

The pendulum will have to swing the other way. That will only happen when women start dying from illegal abortions. There’s more here:
[Link: [Link: www.historycooperative.org…]…]

Wealthy women will continue to have access to safe abortions and poor women will die.

We’ve already done that. I was 20 when Roe v Wade was decided so I am very familiar with the days before abortion was safe and legal. I don’t even want to remember those days least of us have to watch it all again. This is hardly ancient history.

180 allegro  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:16:42pm

us all PIMF

181 CarleeCork  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:33:47pm

re: #179 allegro

We’ve already done that. I was 20 when Roe v Wade was decided so I am very familiar with the days before abortion was safe and legal. I don’t even want to remember those days least of us have to watch it all again. This is hardly ancient history.


I don’t want to watch it again either, it’s just the way it is. Young people see the sonograms and the gruesome pictures that the protesters have, and no one is talking about what happens when women are butchered by illegal procedures. It all comes back to religion controlling politics.

182 Eclectic Infidel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:36:11pm

Jindal is a barbarian in a 3 piece suit.

183 Kefirah  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:40:09pm

it’s the medical malpractice bit that is the most concerning. insurance companies, who happily look for reasons to slough off risk, will ditch doctors who perform abortions - and without medical malpractice insurance, those doctors cannot practice ANYTHING. you don’t get covered per procedure, you are covered as an individual.

few doctors will risk coverage just to help pregnant women. [note: i didn’t say all, because there will be a stand.up smattering of physicians who hold their creed dearly]. i’m not sure they can even be blamed, frankly. either they continue to provide care for the rest of the population, minus pregnant women who want to legally terminate their abortions, or they risk failing to help anyone at all.

this one is on the politicians. they’ve effectively guaranteed the cessation of abortions in louisiana. to counter, i’m willing to bet that texas and other neighboring states pass similar laws, ostensibly to discourage people from coming HERE for a more easily obtained procedure.

bile tastes sour, and that’s all that’s rising in my throat, after this reading. glad to see sexism alive and well.

184 CarleeCork  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:46:03pm

re: #183 Kefirah
Yes, I see these cases winding their way to the SCOTUS. In the meantime, too bad for women.

185 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:51:32pm

re: #137 McSpiff

For the record, I also think this is what the people of Louisiana want. You dont get near-full House and Senate votes otherwise. Assuming this law is constitutional(a big if in my mind), the people of Louisiana can have it.

Is it really all that nuts to represent your voters interests?

I recall Edmund Burke spoke about this.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

186 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:56:15pm

re: #185 Romantic Heretic

Louisiana voted to secede by 113 to 17.
[Link: www.google.com…]

187 Kefirah  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 1:57:31pm

re: #184 CarleeCork

but, depending on who is on the court when this gets up there, they [the nine] could decide that this is not a direct infringement on roe v. wade. rather, this is a state regulating state business: insurance.

of course, whether or not insurance is state business is now really up for debate [see: healthcare], but the point is - i honestly don’t know how this one would shake out.

and that terrifies me.

188 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 2:01:56pm

I share those concerns-it never ceases to amaze me how people are unaware of history and the back and forth of various individual rights. It seems that we are getting a nasty push-back from the general expansion of individual rights (esp. for women, minorities and other not-quite-people) that occurred in the 60s and 70s.

I’ve been annoyed for years at young women who claim not to be feminists but would be absolutely dumbfounded if they went to the bank to transact business and were told their husband needed to approve of the transaction.

189 brownbagj  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 2:24:12pm

re: #153 WindUpBird

false equivalency
false equivalency
false equivalency
false equivalency
false equivalency

yeah!

I will be honest. I don’t understand. What about what I wrote is wrong?

190 bfos  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 2:38:24pm

As a pro-choice progressive, let me be maybe the only one here to voice support for this measure. I’d love for there to be a more reasonable discussion on this as I simply don’t understand the backlash, other than just as a knee-jerk reaction to anything that appears to pare back abortion rights (much the same as the instinctive reactions from cons to gay rights, economic stimulus, etc.).

While I may understand being critical of a wand-based ultrasound, first, it’s not clear that the law requires the measure, and second, it’s MUCH less intrusive than the pending abortion.

Regardless of where you stand as pro-life or pro-choice, there is no debating the degree of seriousness involved in the decision to have an abortion. I do believe there is a lot of misunderstanding to the level of development the fetus has undergone prior to many abortions taking place. It makes sense, to me, to make sure the woman knows exactly what she is deciding upon. It does not seem wise to maintain an out-of-site mentality on such a critical decision, regardless of how the pregnancy came about.

That said, I’d be curious how everyone would respond to the law if it explicitly did not include wand-ultrasounds and excluded cases of rape and incest. I’m guessing the twitch reactions would be the same.

191 garhighway  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 2:39:58pm

re: #190 bfos

As a pro-choice progressive, let me be maybe the only one here to voice support for this measure. I’d love for there to be a more reasonable discussion on this as I simply don’t understand the backlash, other than just as a knee-jerk reaction to anything that appears to pare back abortion rights (much the same as the instinctive reactions from cons to gay rights, economic stimulus, etc.).

While I may understand being critical of a wand-based ultrasound, first, it’s not clear that the law requires the measure, and second, it’s MUCH less intrusive than the pending abortion.

Regardless of where you stand as pro-life or pro-choice, there is no debating the degree of seriousness involved in the decision to have an abortion. I do believe there is a lot of misunderstanding to the level of development the fetus has undergone prior to many abortions taking place. It makes sense, to me, to make sure the woman knows exactly what she is deciding upon. It does not seem wise to maintain an out-of-site mentality on such a critical decision, regardless of how the pregnancy came about.

That said, I’d be curious how everyone would respond to the law if it explicitly did not include wand-ultrasounds and excluded cases of rape and incest. I’m guessing the twitch reactions would be the same.

Drivel.

192 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 2:43:03pm

re: #189 brownbagj

I will be honest. I don’t understand. What about what I wrote is wrong?

My guess would be that WUB hasn’t yet read the part on this thread where this bill was sponsored by a Dem., and passed in the House and Senate with overwhelming support of the Dems. Just guessing.

193 boxhead  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 2:45:32pm

re: #190 bfos

As a pro-choice progressive, let me be maybe the only one here to voice support for this measure. I’d love for there to be a more reasonable discussion on this as I simply don’t understand the backlash, other than just as a knee-jerk reaction to anything that appears to pare back abortion rights (much the same as the instinctive reactions from cons to gay rights, economic stimulus, etc.).

While I may understand being critical of a wand-based ultrasound, first, it’s not clear that the law requires the measure, and second, it’s MUCH less intrusive than the pending abortion.

Regardless of where you stand as pro-life or pro-choice, there is no debating the degree of seriousness involved in the decision to have an abortion. I do believe there is a lot of misunderstanding to the level of development the fetus has undergone prior to many abortions taking place. It makes sense, to me, to make sure the woman knows exactly what she is deciding upon. It does not seem wise to maintain an out-of-site mentality on such a critical decision, regardless of how the pregnancy came about.

That said, I’d be curious how everyone would respond to the law if it explicitly did not include wand-ultrasounds and excluded cases of rape and incest. I’m guessing the twitch reactions would be the same.

I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of women having abortions have thought about it very hard and will think about it for life. To say they need an ultrasound because the women need to think about it makes it sound like you think women are not capable of serious thought.

This is just a stupid and mean spirited law.

Talk about intrusive Government… sheesh

194 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 2:53:36pm

re: #190 bfos

Regardless of where you stand as pro-life or pro-choice, there is no debating the degree of seriousness involved in the decision to have an abortion. I do believe there is a lot of misunderstanding to the level of development the fetus has undergone prior to many abortions taking place. It makes sense, to me, to make sure the woman knows exactly what she is deciding upon. It does not seem wise to maintain an out-of-site mentality on such a critical decision, regardless of how the pregnancy came about.

That bolded statement is false. If you wish proof, I will debate it with you. The italicized statement is paternalistic, insulting, and contrary to your opening statement of being “pro-choice” and “progressive”. Makes you look trollish.

195 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:10:01pm

re: #190 bfos
On the slim chance that you really haven’t thought this through.
So you think a woman who has been raped, who knows the child she is carrying has a terrible defect, or whose own health will suffer if she continues a pregnancy (think about cancer treatments…) needs an ultrasound of any sort whatsoever? And a doctor who is required to tell her about the baby’s toes and heartbeat, but not necessarily the fact that her fetus will never have more than a brain stem? There aren’t any noticeable exceptions in this law. And oh yeah, no malpractice insurance for the doctor?

196 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:11:13pm

I won’t go into what I think of the law, (most of you know my views well enough to guess) what I’m surprised about is how many wanted an elected official to ignore the wishes of 96% of voters. If we assume that the legislators did what was in their own best interests, an easy assumption, then a lot of you are asking that the will of the vast majority of voters be completely ignored.

197 Amory Blaine  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:13:17pm

The question is, can I bring a handgun to the abortion?

198 bfos  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:14:02pm

re: #194 wrenchwench

My concern isn’t in maintaining the bucket to which I identify myself. If supporting a regulation requiring an ultrasound prior to electing for an abortion precludes me from pro-choice membership, despite my support for a woman’s right to make that choice, then so be it. My introduction was not to troll, but to establish that I’m not a right-wing, religious fanatical. Which many here voiced assumptions that one must be to support such a measure.

199 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:14:47pm

re: #196 RogueOne

I won’t go into what I think of the law, (most of you know my views well enough to guess) what I’m surprised about is how many wanted an elected official to ignore the wishes of 96% of voters. If we assume that the legislators did what was in their own best interests, an easy assumption, then a lot of you are asking that the will of the vast majority of voters be completely ignored.

Absolutely. I think it’s unconstitutional and the will of the voters and the will of the legislators and whoever else’s will is involved should be overturned, not just ignored.

200 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:16:28pm

re: #196 RogueOne

This is where the concept of the “Tyranny of the Majority” comes in. Just because a majority of people want a certain thing, it does not make that thing right, legal, nor constitutional.

201 bfos  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:20:43pm

re: #195 calochortus

In scenario #2 and #3, I’m almost sure that an ultrasound would have already been performed. I admittedly, don’t know all of the details of this specific regulation in regards to what the practitioner must tell the patient. Certainly, there could be things that I would believe to be over the line. I’m also working with the assumption these ultrasounds won’t be carried out by the local Baptist pastor bent on changing the woman’s mind.

The ban of malpractice insurance seems insane.

202 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:24:19pm

re: #201 bfos

In scenario #2 and #3, I’m almost sure that an ultrasound would have already been performed. I admittedly, don’t know all of the details of this specific regulation in regards to what the practitioner must tell the patient. Certainly, there could be things that I would believe to be over the line. I’m also working with the assumption these ultrasounds won’t be carried out by the local Baptist pastor bent on changing the woman’s mind.

The ban of malpractice insurance seems insane.

OK, I was composing an answer to your #198, but now I see it is not worth my time. Here’s a link to the full text of the law, as provided by Lawhawk above. Read it, then give an opinion.

Sheesh.

203 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:28:33pm

re: #199 wrenchwench

Absolutely. I think it’s unconstitutional and the will of the voters and the will of the legislators and whoever else’s will is involved should be overturned, not just ignored.

This is what happens when people don’t live, and expect their government to live, by the MYOB principle. When you believe the government has the right to force people to buy health insurance, to regulate what we eat/ingest/pierce in general, or pass any law where the phrase “it’s for the children!” has been used, then it makes it a little harder to argue the people don’t have the right to insist on a medical procedure for pregnant woman.

This is a situation where people need to vote with their feet by moving. If I held an extreme minority view on an important social issue and 97% of my neighbors disagree with me, I’d move.

204 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:29:53pm

re: #201 bfos

In scenario #2 and #3, I’m almost sure that an ultrasound would have already been performed. I admittedly, don’t know all of the details of this specific regulation in regards to what the practitioner must tell the patient. Certainly, there could be things that I would believe to be over the line. I’m also working with the assumption these ultrasounds won’t be carried out by the local Baptist pastor bent on changing the woman’s mind.

The ban of malpractice insurance seems insane.

I can’t imagine why an ultrasound would need to be performed if the pregnancy would impair a woman’s health, and while there might have been an ultrasound in the case of a fetal defect, it might have been discovered through amniocentisis. Yes, there would normally be ultrasound associated with that, but it might not meet the requirements of the law. The local Baptist pastor may not be involved physically, but this sort of law often has a script the doctors must adhere to that could have been written by said pastor.

I have no objection whatsoever to women being offered an ultrasound-and I understand in many cases that they already are.

The insanity of banning malpractice insurance should be a hint that the woman’s rights are not the primary issue. Surely you are aware that there are many, many laws that have a lot of window dressing to hide the true intent.

205 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:31:21pm

re: #203 RogueOne

From whence came the 97% statistic?

206 Amory Blaine  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:32:44pm

re: #204 calochortus

I can’t imagine why an ultrasound would need to be performed if the pregnancy would impair a woman’s health, and while there might have been an ultrasound in the case of a fetal defect, it might have been discovered through amniocentisis.

I think it’s meant to evoke an emotional response from the patient.

207 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:33:32pm

re: #203 RogueOne

Women who want to be treated as free-thinking adult humans should move out of Louisiana?

States don’t get to pass unconstitutional legislation. I’m hoping this will be found unconstitutional.

208 bfos  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:33:49pm

re: #202 wrenchwench

Thanks for the link, but I barely have time to partake in the conversation as it is. I fully concede that by not reading the law, there may be other things contained therein that I would disagree with. I already can’t believe the malpractice insurance ban. If that disqualifies me from conversing with you, no hard feelings.

209 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:33:57pm

re: #206 Amory Blaine

This was in response to whether an ultrasound would already have been performed in those cases and whether that would fulfill the requirement of the law.

210 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:34:44pm

re: #205 calochortus

From whence came the 97% statistic?

out of my ass, the actual vote result was roughly 96% in favor. I might stick around if 96% of the people around me disagree but not 97%, that’s where I draw the line.

211 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:35:57pm

re: #207 wrenchwench

Women who want to be treated as free-thinking adult humans should move out of Louisiana?

States don’t get to pass unconstitutional legislation. I’m hoping this will be found unconstitutional.

I would hope too but I sure wouldn’t bet on it. If they argue that 95% of the women already get ultrasounds then it’s going to be difficult to argue that it’s a burden on someone.

212 Amory Blaine  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:36:01pm

re: #209 calochortus

Ahhh thanks for clearing that up.

213 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:36:36pm

re: #208 bfos

Thanks for the link, but I barely have time to partake in the conversation as it is. I fully concede that by not reading the law, there may be other things contained therein that I would disagree with. I already can’t believe the malpractice insurance ban. If that disqualifies me from conversing with you, no hard feelings.

I sympathize with the lack of time. I should be doing other things myself. However, participating in the discussion without possession of the facts is a waste of time for all.

214 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:37:42pm

re: #211 RogueOne

If they argue that 95% of the women already get ultrasounds

I hesitate to ask the origin of that…considering #210….

215 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:38:53pm

re: #210 RogueOne

Hate to tell you but your statistic did indeed come out of your posterior. Louisiana is very different from most other states places on the planet if every single person in those districts agrees with the senator or rep.
And as has been pointed out, the government/Constitution is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

216 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:42:58pm

re: #214 wrenchwench

I hesitate to ask the origin of that…considering #210…

HA! I got it from the article within the article:

[Link: content.usatoday.net…]


It was unclear how significant the change will really be, however. Testimony from both sides indicated more than 95 percent of women who get abortions in Louisiana already had ultrasounds performed, without the requirement in place.

217 bfos  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:45:24pm

re: #204 calochortus

The insanity of banning malpractice insurance should be a hint that the woman’s rights are not the primary issue. Surely you are aware that there are many, many laws that have a lot of window dressing to hide the true intent.

Absolutely. And that is certainly cause for concern and skepticism regarding this law. But, that also does not ensure that every component of the law is inappropriate.

And I’m not trying to change any minds here. I’ve just been a little surprised by the villainy attributed to the concept of requiring an ultrasound. The fact that the protests typically devolve around the issues of the wand-procedure and rape/incest exclusions leads me to believe that there isn’t much of an argument against the general concept itself.

218 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:47:05pm

re: #215 calochortus

And as has been pointed out, the government/Constitution is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

That’s so naive it’s cute.//

You would think so in theory but that isn’t the way it has worked out for all of us has it? A lot of people read this:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

add to that the fact the federal government has been able to turn “interstate commerce” into “whatever the hell we want” and the whole protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority went out the window roughly 230 year ago.

219 Decatur Deb  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:47:33pm

re: #217 bfos

Absolutely. And that is certainly cause for concern and skepticism regarding this law. But, that also does not ensure that every component of the law is inappropriate.

And I’m not trying to change any minds here. I’ve just been a little surprised by the villainy attributed to the concept of requiring an ultrasound. The fact that the protests typically devolve around the issues of the wand-procedure and rape/incest exclusions leads me to believe that there isn’t much of an argument against the general concept itself.

Is it the state legislature’s proper role to tell doctors which medical procedures are needed?

220 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:48:26pm

re: #218 RogueOne

PIMF


A lot of people read this:


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

quite literally. Add to that the fact the federal government has been able to turn “interstate commerce” into “whatever the hell we want” and the whole protecting the minority against the tyranny of the majority went out the window roughly 230 year ago.

221 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:48:49pm

re: #216 RogueOne

I find that hard to believe. I’d have to see a transcript of the testimony to be sure they aren’t all testifying from the nether orifices.

222 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:49:57pm

re: #221 wrenchwench

Well, it was a USA today story so it’s possible.

223 RogueOne  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:51:25pm

Nite Wrench….

224 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:51:45pm

re: #217 bfos

The fact that the protests typically devolve around the issues of the wand-procedure and rape/incest exclusions leads me to believe that there isn’t much of an argument against the general concept itself.


I usually don’t do this, but I’m guessing you are a man. That’s somewhat unfair of me, because many men are able to empathize with women very well, and some women feel differently than the majority of others on these matters. But I’m still guessing you’re a man.

225 calochortus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:51:46pm

re: #218 RogueOne

Our (and similar) governments may not be perfect, but its much better than what happens without that attempt toward securing rights for even the despised minority.

And on that thought I’ll take my adorable naivete elsewhere. I’ve got some azuki paste in the making-red bean buns!

226 wrenchwench  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 3:52:11pm

re: #223 RogueOne

Nite Wrench…

Nite Rogue…

227 bfos  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 4:03:04pm

re: #224 wrenchwench

Speaking of trollish, to reduce to such levels to imply that I don’t empathize with women when there’s nothing I could do (aside from agreeing with you) to prove otherwise. If that’s what you’re offering, we are in agreement, time is being wasted.

228 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 4:17:20pm

re: #217 bfos

Absolutely. And that is certainly cause for concern and skepticism regarding this law. But, that also does not ensure that every component of the law is inappropriate.

And I’m not trying to change any minds here. I’ve just been a little surprised by the villainy attributed to the concept of requiring an ultrasound. The fact that the protests typically devolve around the issues of the wand-procedure and rape/incest exclusions leads me to believe that there isn’t much of an argument against the general concept itself.

You’d be wrong. Start reading.

229 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 4:19:39pm

re: #190 bfos

As a pro-choice progressive,

Bollocks. You are neither.

230 Fozzie Bear  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 4:28:00pm

re: #190 bfos

Regardless of where you stand as pro-life or pro-choice, there is no debating the degree of seriousness involved in the decision to have an abortion.

If you are pro-choice, it is a decision. Pro-lifers really don’t support there being a choice to make at all.

Once a again, it’s a serious decision to pro-choice people. Pro-lifers want to deprive everyone of the ability to make that decision at all.

231 Kefirah  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 4:50:19pm

re: #227 bfos

i don’t think @wrenchwench explicitly asked you to agree with her. she asked you to empathize with us - women. and let’s be perfectly clear and blunt and perhaps a bit tasteless about what this entails, from my [female] perspective:

getting a cold, hard, plastic + metal [or whatever material] object shoved inside of you solely because the government said that it has to be done is uncomfortable. it might even hurt. and it’s rape. know why?

because there is zero choice involved. the male equivalent [and this is absurd reductionism, but i’m trying to make a point] is if you chose to have an elective vasectomy and the doctor clucked his tongue and said:

“that’s fine, and perfectly legal, but first i have to foley catheter you.”

so 95% of women get the ultrasound anyway. grand. fabulous. they choose that. there’s…what’s that magic word…

consent.

let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s NOT a wand. it’s a surface ultrasound. guess what? that’s unwanted touching. i didn’t consent. there are legal remedies available to me: battery, for example.

oh, you mean i can’t? because i don’t have a choice as to whether or not i can consent? because the government made that decision for me?

i’m sort of disgusted that this even has to be said.

232 tnguitarist  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 4:58:59pm

re: #206 Amory Blaine

I think it’s meant to evoke an emotional response from the patient.

That’s exactly what it is. They want you to see the ultrasound and change your mind. They want to play head games.

233 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 6:07:52pm

re: #231 Kefirah

Fantastic comment; thanks for that.

234 Kefirah  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 6:14:44pm

re: #233 iceweasel

i wish i could say happy to help - but the comment should never have been necessary, because the law should never have been passed.

thank you, nevertheless. you did a bang.up job yourself.

235 Super-ego  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:06:41pm

re: #232 tnguitarist

They want you to see the ultrasound and change your mind. They want to play head games.

Yeah, they, want a pregnant female to actually see a living being inside her body. Proving that it’s not a figment of her imagination or some head trip she’s on. And then she might decide not to kill her baby. What a tragedy. How dare they, how dare her.

This might stir some emotions in a pregnant female. I would bet most humans might get stirred emotions knowing they are killing a living being. It’s called being human.

236 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:07:21pm

re: #235 Super-ego

Piss off, hater.

237 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:10:20pm

re: #16 lawhawk

Here’s the full text of the ultrasound law.

This was just one of a series of controversial measures Jindal signed into law.

One was a gun-in-church bill, which would authorize persons who qualified to carry concealed weapons. They’d have to pass training and background checks to bring them to churches, mosques, synagogues or other houses of worship as part of a security force. The head of the religious institution would have to announce that there will be individuals armed on the property as members of he security force. Those chosen have to undergo eight hours of tactical training each year.

What’s controversial about allowing congregations to have security personnel? Any gathering of a large number of people in a confined space need some sort of security. At football games, at political rallies, and at mega-churches.

Recent history confirms that congregations are indeed at some risk. It isn’t only Army bases, schools, University faculty meetings, and post offices.

There are reasons why Jindal should not be president. But not everything he’s ever done counts as yet another such reason.

238 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:12:11pm

re: #235 Super-ego

No asshole they want to terrorize a woman into deciding the way they want her to by violating her when she is vulnerable.

The fact that you think for a moment that this is OK or that women make the choice you are talking about without thinking or emotion is repugnant. You are simply a vile turd.

Do go back to whatever cesspit you crawled out of.

239 SpaceJesus  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:14:59pm

re: #235 Super-ego

i’m having some of those feelings right now actually

240 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:21:10pm

re: #236 iceweasel

Piss off, hater.

Huh? I don’t like this law. But the fact remains that whether the mother looks at the ultrasound image or not, the reality that would have become evident to her in the course of that ultrasound imaging was real. A small living thing, not part of herself, is inside her, something that given time and ordinary luck, would have become a baby. It’s not hate, to express regret when that time and ordinary luck are not provided.

There are a few very good reasons for abortion: the life of the mother is at stake; the mother conceived due to rape or incest; the fetus has already had abnormally bad luck and will not, cannot, live if it is brought to term; etc.

There are other reasons that we can ourselves regret, but reasons which for the mother are compelling. My view, and the view of the law, is that in those cases, she calls the tune. I’m not a busybody by inclination and I won’t press her to spare her fetus.

There are bad reasons for getting an abortion. Among them—-because the boyfriend or the family have pressed the woman and she feels she cannot defy them.

A less invasive law would be supportable: have the state publicize and offer free ultrasound, in case the mother would like to see how things stand before making a final decision.

241 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:23:15pm

re: #240 lostlakehiker

Huh? I don’t like this law. But the fact remains that whether the mother looks at the ultrasound image or not, the reality that would have become evident to her in the course of that ultrasound imaging was real. A small living thing, not part of herself, is inside her, something that given time and ordinary luck, would have become a baby.

FUCK. YOU. for assuming that the pregnant woman needs you, or anyone, to tell her what pregnancy means.

Too many trolls today, so I’ll let others beat on you for this idiocy. I’ll be back later to stomp on the remains.

242 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:25:26pm

re: #240 lostlakehiker

The gist of what you said was phrased in a way to garantee a very negative response no matter what the merits of what you may have been driving at were.

I agree that abortions are a big deal and that a fetus is not nothing. However, it is absolutely not the place of anyone to presume to tell a woman what her pregnancy ought to mean to her.

243 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:32:09pm

re: #49 Crimsonfisted

If you have been raped, and have gone to the police to report the crime, and then you see a doctor and are vaginally examined again anyway.

At least, that was my experience (not me a friend). I admit it was years ago.

If a rape has been committed, then the State has the duty to investigate the crime. This investigation necessarily includes getting samples of DNA so that if a suspect is named, he can be freed promptly if the accusation is false, and convicted unless his defense team can convince the jury that there’s a reasonable chance it was consensual.

Rape is an extremely serious crime. Most rape accusations are true, but in something like 20% of cases, there is a mistake or a spite accusation. If this cloud of uncertainty is allowed to hang over the whole body of cases, far too many guilty men will go free, and a few innocent men will be convicted. With rape kits, the wholly innocent cannot very well be convicted, and if a suspect can ever be identified, even if it takes years and comes from out of the blue when the offender gets caught in a net of suspicion in some other case, the guilty can mostly be convicted.

244 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:32:12pm

re: #242 LudwigVanQuixote


I agree that abortions are a big deal and that a fetus is not nothing. However, it is absolutely not the place of anyone to presume to tell a woman what her pregnancy ought to mean to her.

Actually, it’s not the place of anyone to assume that women don’t already know what a pregnancy is.

There simply are no benign versions of any ultrasound law, period. They’re all paternalistic, and they all presume that women seeking an abortion aren’t aware of what they’re doing.

245 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:36:42pm

re: #243 lostlakehiker


Rape is an extremely serious crime. Most rape accusations are true, but in something like 20% of cases, there is a mistake or a spite accusation.

Utter horseshit. Link, now.

PS: Links to ‘men’s rights’ sites aren’t going to help you.

246 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:36:56pm

re: #242 LudwigVanQuixote

The gist of what you said was phrased in a way to garantee a very negative response no matter what the merits of what you may have been driving at were.

I agree that abortions are a big deal and that a fetus is not nothing. However, it is absolutely not the place of anyone to presume to tell a woman what her pregnancy ought to mean to her.

Well, whether it’s anybody’s place or not, it’s not MY place, and it’s not the place of the state. If I’d said what ice thought I said, I’d be mad at me too.

It might be the place of a trusted friend or relative, especially if comment were requested. The separate question, not of what it means to the mother, but of what it is, is something all of us have every right to discuss.

247 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:37:49pm

Bah. I’ll be back.

248 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:39:35pm

re: #245 iceweasel

Utter horseshit. Link, now.

PS: Links to ‘men’s rights’ sites aren’t going to help you.

You must be kidding. This is common knowledge, substantiated by a host of studies over the years. Go find your own link. And you might try keeping a civil tongue. I respect you. Even when you’re wrong, I presume good faith error. What’s with this flying off the handle?

249 iceweasel  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:43:41pm

re: #248 lostlakehiker

You must be kidding. This is common knowledge, substantiated by a host of studies over the years. Go find your own link. And you might try keeping a civil tongue. I respect you. Even when you’re wrong, I presume good faith error. What’s with this flying off the handle?

20 percent of rape accusations are fake? You’re out of your mind.

250 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:49:58pm

re: #203 RogueOne

This is what happens when people don’t live, and expect their government to live, by the MYOB principle. When you believe the government has the right to force people to buy health insurance, to regulate what we eat/ingest/pierce in general, or pass any law where the phrase “it’s for the children!” has been used, then it makes it a little harder to argue the people don’t have the right to insist on a medical procedure for pregnant woman.

This is a situation where people need to vote with their feet by moving. If I held an extreme minority view on an important social issue and 97% of my neighbors disagree with me, I’d move.

But this is an instance of the govt itself failing to MYOB. Forcing a woman to get an ultrasound is bossy, and it’s bossy on a topic that’s too important to say the woman should just put up with it.

Consider freedom of religion. Almost anywhere a Mormon or a Bahai or Jehovah’s Witness goes, they’re in an extreme minority. They should move on? Anyway, this isn’t a medical procedure for the woman. No medical benefit for the woman is intended.

If women, or men for that matter, can be compelled to undergo medical procedures that will benefit them, how about we start with outlawing smoking and drinking? Next, let’s outlaw overeating. And speeding. And speedboats, and salty snacks, and skydiving, and sunbathing, and - and- and.

The government is too big and too bossy already, and this law just exacerbates that general state of affairs. Even apart from the constitutional issues, it’s a step in the wrong direction.

251 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:50:32pm

re: #244 iceweasel

Actually, it’s not the place of anyone to assume that women don’t already know what a pregnancy is.

There simply are no benign versions of any ultrasound law, period. They’re all paternalistic, and they all presume that women seeking an abortion aren’t aware of what they’re doing.

I agree completely. I am utterly opposed to this law or any variation thereof.

However…

I do not mean to be pedantic, but my medical relatives once had a case of a 14 yr old from a very religious family, no education, molested by a male relative. She did not know what pregnancy was even as a concept.

Someone did literally need to tell her what it means and what the options were.

I can not begin to discuss the ethical issues that ensued.

252 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 7:52:16pm

re: #249 iceweasel

20 percent of rape accusations are fake? You’re out of your mind.

A MISTAKE, or spite accusation. Try reading what’s there. Even if the woman has for damned sure been raped, and she’s given a lineup, she can MAKE A MISTAKE. When DNA testing came into force, and they went back through the records, this became all too apparent.

253 lostlakehiker  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 8:04:04pm

re: #190 bfos

As a pro-choice progressive, let me be maybe the only one here to voice support for this measure. I’d love for there to be a more reasonable discussion on this as I simply don’t understand the backlash, other than just as a knee-jerk reaction to anything that appears to pare back abortion rights (much the same as the instinctive reactions from cons to gay rights, economic stimulus, etc.).

While I may understand being critical of a wand-based ultrasound, first, it’s not clear that the law requires the measure, and second, it’s MUCH less intrusive than the pending abortion.

Regardless of where you stand as pro-life or pro-choice, there is no debating the degree of seriousness involved in the decision to have an abortion. I do believe there is a lot of misunderstanding to the level of development the fetus has undergone prior to many abortions taking place. It makes sense, to me, to make sure the woman knows exactly what she is deciding upon. It does not seem wise to maintain an out-of-site mentality on such a critical decision, regardless of how the pregnancy came about.

That said, I’d be curious how everyone would respond to the law if it explicitly did not include wand-ultrasounds and excluded cases of rape and incest. I’m guessing the twitch reactions would be the same.

It’s not a twitch reaction. The woman who has decided she wants an abortion because she hates the father and is utterly unwilling for the father to have progeny that no woman ever agreed to be a party to, has made up her mind. Maybe she knows, intellectually, what is involved, but she doesn’t want to look at it. She doesn’t want the extra nightmares she reasonably expects would follow.

Should juries in death penalty cases have to watch an execution, stem to stern, and then watch an autopsy, blow by blow slide by slide, before being allowed to vote the death penalty? There’s decisions that are hard enough without skull-fucking the person who’s making the call. You do realize why firing squads have more than one shooter, and some of the rounds issued are blanks?

Maybe you already have seen more than your share of the gutwrenching side of life. Maybe not. But from your writing, I’m guessing, not. Me either, but I’ve seen enough to know that it’s not something anyone should be arbitrarily and capriciously subjected to.

254 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:10:56pm

re: #88 Romantic Heretic

I’m getting married in Louisiana soon. For some obscure reason my fiancee and I have decided against having a church wedding. ;)

Congratulations, both on your impending nuptials and on not having the wedding in a church.

255 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:23:49pm

re: #185 Romantic Heretic

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

I knew where you were going with that one, as it is paraphrased by Dr. Lyman Hall of Georgia to explain his change of mind in favor of independence in “1776” (a role I’d love to play, among many I’d like to play if I
‘m ever in the show again). Few politicians, then or now, have the guts to do the right thing, to calmly and rationally exercise their own judgment rather than follow the mob and/or the party.

256 ClaudeMonet  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:33:14pm

re: #243 lostlakehiker

If a rape has been committed, then the State has the duty to investigate the crime. This investigation necessarily includes getting samples of DNA so that if a suspect is named, he can be freed promptly if the accusation is false, and convicted unless his defense team can convince the jury that there’s a reasonable chance it was consensual.

Rape is an extremely serious crime. Most rape accusations are true, but in something like 20% of cases, there is a mistake or a spite accusation. If this cloud of uncertainty is allowed to hang over the whole body of cases, far too many guilty men will go free, and a few innocent men will be convicted. With rape kits, the wholly innocent cannot very well be convicted, and if a suspect can ever be identified, even if it takes years and comes from out of the blue when the offender gets caught in a net of suspicion in some other case, the guilty can mostly be convicted.

Something tells me that any state which forces invasive procedures on a woman who wants to abort her rape-caused pregnancy will not be sympathetic toward a woman who claims to have been raped. If women are to be treated as lesser beings in one area, they will be treated as lesser in others.

What’s next? Women not allowed to vote? To inherit property? To testify in court? To divorce without the husband’s consent? To have custody of their children?

The American SoCons in effect are advocating Sharia, couched in “Christian” terms. Ironic.

257 Sacred Plants  Thu, Jul 8, 2010 11:57:26pm

A man who enjoys to scare women away from abortions apparently never has come across the idea that kids like to be desired by their parents. Odd.

258 iceweasel  Fri, Jul 9, 2010 3:18:38am

re: #252 lostlakehiker

A MISTAKE, or spite accusation. Try reading what’s there..

I did. This is what you said:

Most rape accusations are true, but in something like 20% of cases, there is a mistake or a spite accusation.

That reads like you’re saying that in 20 percent of cases (HORSESHIT) rape accusations are FALSE.

Now, I note that you backtracked— as I knew you would— and would like to now claim that by ‘mistake’ you mean ‘faulty eyewitness ID’, or even ‘gee, some mistake happened in the prosecution of rape cases’.

Words matter. You don’t get to be sloppy on this. By every reputable count, rapes are under-reported, and on every single legal and judicial count, not all accusations come to trial or result in a conviction.

Was that what you were saying? Because it sure looked like you were claiming that false accusations make up a big part of your FAKE stat that “20 percent of rape accusations involve a mistake”.

Link. Now.

BTW, have you figured out yet that I already have the links that prove you wrong, and have had them since I called you out?

You don’t get to be sloppy on this. You don’t get to elide the difference between ‘false claim of rape’ and ‘mistakes were made’.

People who like to do that are rapist apologists. As far as I know, you’re not that kind of person. That’s why you should be sensitive to these issues, and not get pissed at me for pointing this out.

259 iceweasel  Fri, Jul 9, 2010 4:06:04am

re: #251 LudwigVanQuixote

I agree completely. I am utterly opposed to this law or any variation thereof.

However…

I do not mean to be pedantic, but my medical relatives once had a case of a 14 yr old from a very religious family, no education, molested by a male relative. She did not know what pregnancy was even as a concept.

Someone did literally need to tell her what it means and what the options were.

I can not begin to discuss the ethical issues that ensued.

None of those ethical issues, or anything in your story, could justify legislation mandating medically unnecessary ultrasounds for women who have already chosen abortion.

260 bfos  Fri, Jul 9, 2010 7:40:20am

re: #253 lostlakehiker


Should juries in death penalty cases have to watch an execution, stem to stern, and then watch an autopsy, blow by blow slide by slide, before being allowed to vote the death penalty? There’s decisions that are hard enough without skull-fucking the person who’s making the call. You do realize why firing squads have more than one shooter, and some of the rounds issued are blanks?

Interesting that you compare abortion to the death penalty. Let it be noted, that is your analogy, not mine. But, to accurately answer your question, no I don’t believe the mother should be forced to watch an ultrasound as the fetus is removed. And, yes, a similar level of consideration to your jury should be made prior to electing for an abortion. That is not to say that most women aren’t already making that consideration with or without an ultrasound. It is to say that regulating an ultrasound to be a part of that consideration is not the evil it’s made out to be here. Thus, someone wouldn’t need to be a whack-job to support such a measure. I expect better from a community that spends so much time railing against the flippant defamations made by Palin, Beck, and the rest of their gang.

261 lostlakehiker  Fri, Jul 9, 2010 8:17:29am

re: #258 iceweasel

That reads like you’re saying that in 20 percent of cases (HORSESHIT) rape accusations are FALSE.

Now, I note that you backtracked— as I knew you would— and would like to now claim that by ‘mistake’ you mean ‘faulty eyewitness ID’, or even ‘gee, some mistake happened in the prosecution of rape cases’.

Words matter. You don’t get to be sloppy on this. By every reputable count, rapes are under-reported, and on every single legal and judicial count, not all accusations come to trial or result in a conviction.

Was that what you were saying? Because it sure looked like you were claiming that false accusations make up a big part of your FAKE stat that “20 percent of rape accusations involve a mistake”.

Link. Now.

BTW, have you figured out yet that I already have the links that prove you wrong, and have had them since I called you out?

You don’t get to be sloppy on this. You don’t get to elide the difference between ‘false claim of rape’ and ‘mistakes were made’.

People who like to do that are rapist apologists. As far as I know, you’re not that kind of person. That’s why you should be sensitive to these issues, and not get pissed at me for pointing this out.

Well, thanks for the faint praise. I am by no stretch of the imagination a rape apologist. Now, as to links, I did look around. The numbers are all over the map. I guess you read the wikipedia article. neutral linkThey couldn’t settle on anything definite. Published numbers ran from 1.5 percent to 50% or higher. In cases that reached a certain stage, the number 8% seems to be as good as any, but none of the numbers were deemed really solid. Where I got the number was from newspaper reports quite some time back about the Army’s conclusions. No link; I’ve actually been reading since before the internet came along, after all, and not everything published is on the internet.

Now, let’s be careful with words. The words I used were the ones I meant to use, and what they mean is what they say, not what you may have read into them. A false accusation is a different thing from a false claim of rape, because it makes two statements of fact: “I was raped” and “Bob did it”. Witness ID errors are nothing unique to rape, and even witnesses who are sure of themselves can be wrong.

Another point is that quite a few accusations are withdrawn before trial. Sometimes it’s because the accuser has lost her nerve. A pity; every time a woman backs down from a valid accusation, that just lets some bastard gloat and, odds are, do the same thing again later on. Sometimes it’s because the accuser’s story falls apart upon preliminary investigation. Sometimes it’s because the story holds up just fine but the suspect really does have an unbreakable alibi; it must have been somebody else.

I won’t try to offer numbers, but these things do happen. The cases that go to trial are the better cases, and the fraction of false [through error or spite] accusations that go to trial will be smaller in some measure [again I won’t try to put numbers to it] than if you take into account all accusations.

Whatever numbers one uses, the heavy majority of rape accusations are correct as to what happened and who did it. DNA testing helps both to convict the guilty, and to clear the innocent in a timely manner. I trust you have no objection to either of these possible outcomes.

262 Kefirah  Fri, Jul 9, 2010 8:59:32am

re: #260 bfos

you completely skipped or ignored the issues involving consent, or lack thereof in this case. until that’s appropriately addressed [and i am 99% sure that it simply cannot be argued in a manner that makes it a-okay], i’ll go ahead and assume that these “ultrasound laws” are, in fact, the evil i make them out to be.

263 areopagitica  Fri, Jul 9, 2010 4:20:25pm

Next I hear that Jindal is going to ram through an anti-volcanologist bill that will (1) make it illegal to own a volcano in Louisiana and (2) make it illegal to be a volcanologist


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
2 hours ago
Views: 71 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 3
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 371 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1