WV Dems support harmful anti-choice legislation

Lida, before I contact them, (0.00 / 0)

could you please explain how an Ultrasound interferes with a woman's right to make an informed decision?

I am asking this as someone who has often been described as a  "liberal", even though I don't think I'm an extremist by any definition of the term.

I was baptized and eductated a Roman Catholic male. Whether despite or because of that, I'm a male who believes in a woman's right to choose. As you well know, there are a LOT of us, both male and female. So before you flood me with a load of NOW talking points, please understand that I'm not only already a longtime supporter of NOW, I believe in every one of the group's original 1998 declarations.

Right along with most Americans.

On the other side of the equation, please understand that I'm struggling to NOT be a doddering father who loves his only offspring as if she were his namesake.

Which she is.

In other words, Lida, please realize that if you lose this battle, although it may be tough for you, please don't forsake West Virginia.

We need you, girlfriend

PLEASE take the time to explain your reasons why a state-sponsored ultrasound would infringe on anyone's right to make an informed decision.  

---

by: One Citizen @ Fri Feb 19, 2010 at 20:19:19 PM UTC

Harmful Anti-Choice (4.00 / 1)

There are nuances in these bills that we should understand.

First, West Virginia's "Woman's Right to Know" law is a comprehensive, arguably overreaching, existant law.
There is nothing in this new measure that adds a bit of protection to the woman or the fetus. She or her doctor can request an ultrasound under current law. The materials she will be offered to review before an abortion include very specific, detailed pictures of the uterus and fetus at each stage.

Second, the proposed bill attempts to establish in law the ultrasound as a medical "standard of care" which will add cost and interferes with the medical provider's ability to set those standards. I don't think many people would want the government setting those standards in any elective procedures of any kind.
That may actually be what kills this bill because providers are already up in arms over the idea that state government would involve itself to that degree.
Rightfully so.

Finally, any woman who has come to the point where she is contemplating a legal abortion procedure has been offered all the data type information anyone could need to make this crucial decision. She likely has thought of or pictured nothing else for days or weeks.

So what are we telling her by adding one more bit of advice? Once again we are saying, you just don't have all the information to make an informed decision (dear). If you look at these pictures (sweetie) you will change your mind. And on and on. None of which will change her mind.

The decision to have an abortion is one I will never make.
For that I am grateful. But as a woman, I can certainly see that this is another paternalistic effort to show women that they need more guidance than men when it comes to lifeshattering decisions.

On the political side, we have several men, each hoping to be governor, vying for the endorsement of West Virginians for Life as if that was the only card left in the deck. My questions for these characters would include:
What would you NOT do to be governor?
Why are you trying to make a tough situation that much tougher at the expense of women?
And last but not least, why do you not want my vote, my pro-choice, get-out-of-my-exam-room vote?

That might be the question to send to our legislators.

---

by: bluebird @ Sat Feb 20, 2010 at 22:00:34 PM UTC

Thank you, bluebird. But you may be wrong here. (0.00 / 0)

I am the first to recognize that most men are from Mars. And I have to admit that I still don't quite "get it" when it comes to your argument that women should actually have their knowledge limited prior to elective surgery. However, I am impressed by the candor of your argument that the increased cost associated with a required ultrasound will kill the bill.

Personally, I think that the cost should be the LAST consideration.

Regarding that particular point, I suggest that you make certain to follow up and on each and every reason those who ultimately kill that legislation publicly admits to. I suggest this because it will come in quite handy regarding NOW's future causes of action in WV.

Killing ultrasound legislation because it costs too much could spell the end of a holier-than-thou political career.

On a different and more personal note: While your above use of the terms "sweetie" and "dear" are fairly obvious attempts to underscore my own paternalistic tendencies, they also reveal much about yourself.

In short, please note that when I commented above that most men are from Mars, I was also subtly implying that not all women are from Venus.

Don't be put off here, because women not from Venus are those whom I most respect. They're also those who most likely would appreciate a state-sponsored ultrasound or three, "sweetie".

Bluebird, if you're from West Virginia, you likely already realize that our childhood poverty rate and infant mortality rate are each unnacceptible.

Because those rates actually jump in our resource-rich southern coal fields, I say that we should tax the coal industry to pay for the death and destruction that their pollution causes.

One penny per ton ought to easily pay for the three ultrasounds I've suggested, with money left over. On a more realistic note, if you really want to kill that bill, simply attach it directly to the increase of a coal severance fee.

Seriously.

---

by: One Citizen @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 15:15:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just read Justice Kennedy's opinion on the late term issue (0.00 / 0)

It is very paternalistic. I am not sure about this writer at The Nation, but many that I admire are Catholic and liberals.

With his opinion in Gonzalez v. Carhart, Justice Anthony Kennedy utterly changed the course of abortion jurisprudence in this country. Among the reasons he cited for upholding the ban on a type of midterm abortion procedure was the concern that some women may "come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained.... Severe depression and loss of self-esteem can follow."

Although he could find "no reliable data to measure the phenomenon," nor did he make an effort to explain why a reaction to this particular procedure would be more severe than to any other abortion procedure, he deemed his conclusion "unexceptional."

This seems like waiting periods. Go home and think about this some more and come back. Like any woman who shows up to terminate a pregnancy is ditzy and just making the decision because she broke a fingernail or something.

And what about not thinking that extra ultrasounds are necessarily 100 safe. Are we to accept a big group of Friends of Coal making treatment-type decisions? Many disagree with Palin's decision to have testing on her unborn baby Trig. For what, the possibility of a false result? Know many over 35 moms who truly left things in God's hand. If termination is not an option, why take on the risk of miscarriage?

Like you I am Catholic. Not cradle but a convert. What business is it of the government to even know that any female is pregnant? Do women now have to prove they are not pregnant both before and after a doctor's visit for cramps, and the possibility of ovarian cysts, to satisfy those who only love the babies before they are born?  

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 17:00:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow... I'm going to be lambasted (0.00 / 0)

As I understand this legislation, the ultrasound viewing would be optional. That's the only thing that makes me even tolerant of this legislation.

If viewing the ultrasound was required, then I would be ardently against it.

Then, there's one more factor. Most West Virginia women seeking abortions don't have them done in-state. We don't even have a clinic in the Northern Panhandle... they all go to Magee Women's Hospital in Pittsburgh.

---

by: WV26003 @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 14:55:43 PM UTC

Methinks your assertions prove one of my points. (0.00 / 0)

If what you've posted is true, then perhaps attaching an even larger increase to existing coal severance fees should be mandated, for the purpose of funding the establishment of an abortion clinic equiped with an ultrasound device in that part of the state. Otherwise, how else could the coalo-sexuals driving wedge issues such as this one control all the baby killer Venusians who live here?

---

by: One Citizen @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 17:03:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I take the last statement as a red herring. (4.00 / 1)

And a to the first, it's the same as waiting periods, extra appointment, extra miles driven, extra, extra, extra, still legal but more roadblocks.

This is a non-medical ultrasound. Why did Connecticut ban them? Because the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says the evidence is inconclusive as to whether it harms a fetus.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 17:06:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the (1.00 / 1)

pro-choice folks are much akin to the NRA...any law on the subject is percieved as the potential "foot in the door" to more restriction of their cause...thus no matter how innocuous, they are steadfastly against it...

---

by: stevewvu @ Mon Feb 22, 2010 at 21:41:11 PM UTC

What is next, forced needle in the belly and amniocentesis? (0.00 / 0)

how about 24-7 cameras on the men to make sure they don't spill their seed and kill all those potential babies?

More ultrasounds are not necessarily good. Nothing is guaranteed safe.

And who and how is this paid for?

Even Mary had a choice.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 19:19:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you made (0.00 / 0)

my point...thank you

---

by: stevewvu @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 20:50:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

on a serious note, why did Conn decide that more ultrasounds were unsafe? (0.00 / 0)

Medically unsafe, not the word you choose, but unsafe for the woman?
Seriously, why get a mandate for extra testing?
Nothing to do with the legal options.
Not a medical luddite, but more is not always better.

NFTT: Support My Team or I Will Dance

---

by: CA Berkeley WV @ Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 22:03:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]