Texas: "Want an abortion? Take a 24 hour guilt trip first!"

Story here

Quote :

(CNN) -- Abortion rights advocates plan to rally in Texas Tuesday after state lawmakers approved controversial legislaton that requires mothers seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound examination and listen to a description of what it shows.

The state house approved the anti-abortion measure in a 107-42 vote Monday. And state senators backed a similar proposal last month. After a conference committee hashes out the details, Texas Gov. Rick Perry will have the final say.

"This is a defining moment in reproductive rights, not just in Texas, but across the nation," Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region said in a statement discussing its rally and lobbying day scheduled for Tuesday.

Perry praised lawmakers for their vote.

"I commend the Texas House for passing this legislation, which bolsters our efforts to protect life by ensuring Texans are fully informed when considering such an important decision," the governor said in a statement Monday. "The decision to choose life becomes clear when someone has access to all the information, and I look forward to this important legislation reaching my desk very soon."

But opponents of the measure say it is intrusive and interferes with the relationship between doctors and patients.

"It is not the jelly on the belly that most of you think. This is government intrusion at its best," Texas state Rep. Carol Alvarado said during a debate on the House floor last week.

Anti-abortion advocates say they prefer the more stringent version of the bill passed by the Texas House, CNN affiliate KVUE reported.

The House measure requires 24 hours to pass after the ultrasound before a woman can have an abortion, while the Senate version allows just two hours.

"A woman should have a day, at least, to think about the information she's receiving about the abortion procedure," anti-abortion advocate Joe Pojman told KVUE.

The Senate version also allows a woman to choose not to see the images or sounds if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or if the fetus has an irreversible medical condition. The House version contains no such provisions, KVUE said.

"At the end of the day they're both very problematic bills, and they do the same thing of using an ultrasound for political ends," Dr. Scott Spear of Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region told the station.

What is it with Ricks?

But seriously, though, fuck the one hundred and seven people who thought this was a good idea.

EDIT: on second thought I just remembered how laws pass in america and this was probably passed underneath a more important bill which is still pretty shitty

But don't you see, JC, women are simply too stupid to understand what "being pregnant" actually means unless they see a blurred, grainy picture of the baby Jesus inside their tummies.

And of course the politicians quoted as being in favour of this crap are men, and I'll bet at no point in their lives did they ever possess a uterus.

How great would it be if all the women identified in Texas just collectively migrated the fuck out of there, and left them with nothing but lots of dick. Maybe some Hamosekswell lovings to keep them warm at night.


... shut up
I can dream in my fantasy world ok
where things are simplistic and make me grin

Devil’s Advocate: If the sight of the blob in your belly is going to make you not want an abortion, shouldn’t you not be getting one in the first place? And if you’re 100% sure about the abortion, well what’s it going to do to you?

Edit: I'm talking about the Senate bill which seems to be the much better choice. Making a woman look at her baby that has no head and going "YAY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A BOY :D :D" is all kinds of stupid I don't even want to think about.

Devil's Advocate to Devil's Advocate: Why spend the money on all those ultrasounds then, if they make no difference, anyway?

Related question: Are these sessions state-sponsored (in which case WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY), or do the ladies have to pay for them (in which case PENALTY FOR PREGNANCY MUCH [considering that poor ladies might not even be able to pay for this pre-abortion bullshit first])?

Saleha wrote:

Devil's Advocate to Devil's Advocate: Why spend the money on all those ultrasounds then, if they make no difference, anyway?

Related question: Are these sessions state-sponsored (in which case WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY), or do the ladies have to pay for them (in which case PENALTY FOR PREGNANCY MUCH [considering that poor ladies might not even be able to pay for this pre-abortion bullshit first])?

Hey! They can't spend their money on roads and better schools! That would be bullshit!

I heard this was not going to be the regular ultra sound, but the invasive one where you have to put the thing up in you.
I'm pretty much pro-life, but if a women choses abortion, that's her decision. As long as she has made the choice without anyone forcing it on her, fine.
I do, however, think a woman has a right to know what is happening, just like any other medical procedure. And she should be educated about proper birth control. Education. That's what I adovocate.
Perry's a dick. He basically lied to get reelected. So they have money for this, but they want to slash the education budget? Screw you, Perry.

karmyn31 wrote:

He basically lied to get reelected. So they have money for this, but they want to slash the education budget? Screw you, Perry.

I guess some people think you don't matter after you've been born. This isn't new information it's just...fuck. I really don't understand these people.

If you're going to have an abortion, you want to think about that blob of cells inside your uterus as little as possible. It's nothing personal. It's just that you son't want to think about it. I don't see how this act is going to get 14 year old girls who got knocked up to suddenly want that baby.

But you know the next thing they're going to try passing? They're going to try and work in a requirement to be preached at by a priest so that they can try and make you change your mind even more, as if the priest is the one who's going to have to pay for and bring up the baby.

Well, I don't know. That's just a guess.

But seriously, if a woman wants an abortion, the window during which it's legal to get an abortion is so small, that at that point the heart hasn't even properly developed yet and the baby is still in the stages where it resembles a fish more than a baby.

Once again it's just another attempt to make abortion seem like murder, while in another state a senator considers the death penalty for those who have an abortion.

Women aren't dumb enough not to know that the fetus they are aborting is an invasive organism that is feeding off their bodies. This really isn't going to deter women as much as it will annoy and violate them.

karmyn31 wrote:

I do, however, think a woman has a right to know what is happening, just like any other medical procedure. And she should be educated about proper birth control. Education. That's what I adovocate.

Abortion is a valid form of birth control. The word you are looking for is "contraception".

"Yaaaawn. Yes, it is a freakish gummybear shaped blob-creature. Get rid of the goddamn thing."

Not to mention the fact that intra-uterine ultrasounds cost about three times as much as ordinary ones. They're usually reserved for cases where it's believed the child might be suffering from a serious birth defect (read, one that's incompatable with life), to give the mother the option of aborting it now instead of carrying it to full term, knowing they're going to give birth to either a dead baby, or one that will die soon after birth.

And unless done carefully, they can actually increase the chances of the woman having one done miscarrying. Messing around with the fetus in-utero that early along is never a good idea.

I have a dream today that women in every state that makes or proposes laws against women's rights to choice and privacy will refuse to have sex with any male partner* until these laws are no longer operative.

Call it the "Cross Your Legs for Freedom Boycott".

*Lesbians? Not part of the problem AFAIK.

Three day waiting period to exercise a right specifically granted by the US Constitution = imokaywiththis.jgp

Twenty-four hour wait for a "right" that was made up by lunatic feminists =

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

WD40 wrote:

I can't believe it took me even 5 seconds to realise I was being trolled.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Women aren't dumb enough not to know that the fetus they are aborting is an invasive organism that is feeding off their bodies. This really isn't going to deter women as much as it will annoy and violate them.

karmyn31 wrote:

I do, however, think a woman has a right to know what is happening, just like any other medical procedure. And she should be educated about proper birth control. Education. That's what I adovocate.

Abortion is a valid form of birth control. The word you are looking for is "contraception".

Most birth control doesn't require your uterus to be scraped out.

karmyn31 wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Women aren't dumb enough not to know that the fetus they are aborting is an invasive organism that is feeding off their bodies. This really isn't going to deter women as much as it will annoy and violate them.

karmyn31 wrote:

I do, however, think a woman has a right to know what is happening, just like any other medical procedure. And she should be educated about proper birth control. Education. That's what I adovocate.

Abortion is a valid form of birth control. The word you are looking for is "contraception".

Most birth control doesn't require your uterus to be scraped out.

... Duh?

Or, alternatively: so?

karmyn31 wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Women aren't dumb enough not to know that the fetus they are aborting is an invasive organism that is feeding off their bodies. This really isn't going to deter women as much as it will annoy and violate them.

karmyn31 wrote:

I do, however, think a woman has a right to know what is happening, just like any other medical procedure. And she should be educated about proper birth control. Education. That's what I adovocate.

Abortion is a valid form of birth control. The word you are looking for is "contraception".

Most birth control doesn't require your uterus to be scraped out.

No, it just involves dosing yourself with hormones to stop you ovulating, or shoving a bit of plastic up yourself and leaving it there.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmm hormones

rachel wrote:

I have a dream today that women in every state that makes or proposes laws against women's rights to choice and privacy will refuse to have sex with any male partner* until these laws are no longer operative.

Call it the "Cross Your Legs for Freedom Boycott".

*Lesbians? Not part of the problem AFAIK.

I think they tried this in the play Lysistrata, and, according to that paragon of good research Wikipedia, in numerous other real places and times (Kenya was the most recent one, I think).

karmyn31 wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Women aren't dumb enough not to know that the fetus they are aborting is an invasive organism that is feeding off their bodies. This really isn't going to deter women as much as it will annoy and violate them.

karmyn31 wrote:

I do, however, think a woman has a right to know what is happening, just like any other medical procedure. And she should be educated about proper birth control. Education. That's what I adovocate.

Abortion is a valid form of birth control. The word you are looking for is "contraception".

Most birth control doesn't require your uterus to be scraped out.

Is that an argument against abortion as birth control? Because it's not a good one.

Couldn't this rule backfire? I mean, a woman who is conflicted and not sure she wants an abortion might see the ultrasound of a blob instead of a cute baby and decide she doesn't want it.

Jesus. wrote:

karmyn31 wrote:

Most birth control doesn't require your uterus to be scraped out.

Is that an argument against abortion as birth control? Because it's not a good one.

Claiming that abortion has greater health consequences than most forms of birth control isn't a good argument against abortion as birth control?

Lady Anne wrote:

Couldn't this rule backfire? I mean, a woman who is conflicted and not sure she wants an abortion might see the ultrasound of a blob instead of a cute baby and decide she doesn't want it.

But Lady Anne don't you know that women are all easily led little lambs who will break down into tears as soon as they see a couple grainy pixels on a screen even though it probably more closely resembles a fish than a human being because they almost killed it? Just kidding this measure isn't actually to help anyone it's just to make women think about what might have been for the rest of their lives and to make sure they don't do it again.

TheHedonist wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

karmyn31 wrote:

Most birth control doesn't require your uterus to be scraped out.

Is that an argument against abortion as birth control? Because it's not a good one.

Claiming that abortion has greater health consequences than most forms of birth control isn't a good argument against abortion as birth control?

Against using it as your regular form of birth control, yes. Of it being birth control at all, no. Fact of the matter is, when all else fails, abortion is a valid option. Most BCP and Plan B still have significant health risks anyway if proper guidelines and common sense are not followed when using them. They just are less invasive and take much longer to show effect if it does at all.