Do you have any idea how much those new ultrasounds cost? Try around $800!!!!!! And insurance won't cover it like a normal ultrasound (around $150). It's really more of a vanity item for the rich, not some cost-effective way to convince a woman to not have an abortion?

I'm confused, aren't all Ultrasounds adminstered by doctors and hence done at a "doctor's order?"

I'd love to know where you came to the conclusion that abortion advocates WANT babies to die. Say what you want about the intelligence of liberals, I don't think that they desire the death of the human race. The important thing is for the option to be there SHOULD IT BE NEEDED. The idea being that if the mother is not ready for a child, she won't do the baby the disservice of bringing the child into the world before she is ready for the immense responsibility of raising it.

That statement seems more to be aimed at demonizing the opposition rather than an empirical observation. I agree this bill is over reach, but when two well funded, politically powerful factions clash, each side aims for the fences rather than bat singles.

Pro-Abortion Mindset: "The idea being that if the mother is not ready for a child, she won't do the baby the disservice of bringing the child into the world before she is ready for the immense responsibility of raising it."

Pro-Life Mindset: "The idea being that if the mother is not ready for a child, she won't have sex, before she is ready for the immense responsibility of raising [a child]."

But of course, we can't have women practicing abstinence and responsibility now can we.

"The important thing is for the option to be there SHOULD IT BE NEEDED."

Nice try. The "important thing" is for the option to be there for when the condom fails and irresponsible women who were not "ready for the immense responsibility of raising [a child]" need a fallback birth control option.

FACT: 90% of abortions are done for "convenience" of the mother. Make abortions illegal and most of that 90% would think twice about participating in risky behavior when they actually have to take responsibility for that risky behavior and can not just get rid of the consequences by killing life they created.

The reality is that abortion today is being used as birth control so that people can have sex with no consequences. 1+ Million abortions occur per year. ~900,000 of them could be prevented. ~100,000 reportedly are actually "necessary" for medical reasons. Make abortion illegal with an exception for the mother's health and we save 900,000 innocent lives from being destroyed.

Knuckle dragging liberal buffoons:

"Do you have any idea how much those new ultrasounds cost?"

Nope. It doesn't really matter eitehr because your leftist twit congress critter buddy is worried about the "political" influence of ultra-sounds. Idiot.

"I'd love to know where you came to the conclusion that abortion advocates WANT babies to die."

Well, fool, abortion is a "procedure" that ends with the death of pre-term baby. So if you advocate aborition, you advocate baby death.

"Say what you want about the intelligence of liberals,"

We don't have to.....

"I don't think"

Your statements speak for themselves.

"that they desire the death of the human race."

Ooooooooo! Had to jazz up the charges? We actually just think that abortion proponents are gung ho to kill babies. That is what abortion is all about.

"The important thing is for the option to be there SHOULD IT BE NEEDED."

See Michael in MI's response. Most of the time it's used as an alternative to conception control. A lot of good the condoms on banana education did. See, there are these things called conception control devices. Condoms, the pill, the patch. Eh. Keep dragging those knuckles, fool.

"The idea being that if the mother is not ready for a child, she won't do the baby the disservice of bringing the child into the world before she is ready for the immense responsibility of raising it. "

As Michael said, we'd never ask her to refrain from engaging in risky sexual behavior. That requires more presence of mind than any leftist can muster.

Ian,

Michael and Scar already answered it pretty well...but I'll point out that only an ignoramous or someone in love with death is opposed to restrictions on late-term abortions; given that the lady pushing the issue opposes restrictions on late-term abortions, then she's either an idiot or a pro-death fanatic...there's no indication of a lack of mental acuity, so it must be the latter.

I am confused with why this is a win for Pro-Abortion advocates...from the excerpt, I understand that ultrasounds must be ordered by a doctor...which is understandable since they are medical professionals...

If a patient wants an ultrasound, just ask their doc. I don't see how it benefits any abortionist...how can people get access to ultrasound without a doctor?

Abortion as birth control is wrong...the procedure as practiced by doctors was to save mother's lives from child birth and not to avoid unwanted pregnancy. As with any other activity, human nature has cause abuse of abortions.

I also heard that many women before professional abortions were performed by themselves or untrained people and cause great danger to the mother.

Hoping that banning abortion would reduce abortions as birth control would also prevent abortions as life saving treatment.

Perhaps as a compromise, abortions must be validated by two ob/gyns as life saving and those children that are merely unwanted by mothers must be put up for adoption.

The idea is to cut any emotional attachment that the mother would have with her unborn child. That's the issue regarding abortion; much like in the 70's where there was the oft quoted phrase that an abortion was like removing a hangnail.

Can't have people feel guilty about killing their unborn children. They're supposed to feel guilty about the war in Iraq and the homeless in Seattle. Just think of something else while the government takes care of it for you.

Michael in MI and Mark Noonan: Both of you raise excellent points. Thank you for that.

"Valiant" Elephant: Christ buddy, you missing a chromosome or something? Calm the hell down. When you're ready to act like a big boy, like Michael and Mark, drop me a line. Notice how they responded without cheap insults? That's how grown ups talk. One day, when your big boy hair grows in, you'll understand that.

I am confused with why this is a win for Pro-Abortion advocates...from the excerpt, I understand that ultrasounds must be ordered by a doctor...which is understandable since they are medical professionals...

Perhaps you should read the article again. The sponsor of the legislation, Rosemary Mulligan (a Republican) is described as being a strong abortion advocate. That should be your first clue. The article also says that the bill was supported by Planned Parenthood. That is the loudest and strongest supporter of abortion in America today. Also, the same article points out that Mulligan has voted against banning partial birth abortions (a barbaric practice). Those are facts which should indicate to you what the true motivation for this bill is based on.

Next, we have the misdirection. To make the pill easier to swallow, the pro-abortionists couch its language in terms of caring about the health of the unborn fetus. What a load of crap that is - they want to kill the fetus, not protect its health. And when an opponent asked for some proof that ultrasounds were dangerous, all Mulligan could say was that the Federal Drug Administration had warned that muscle and nerve development could be affected by long exposure. That's a joke. An ultrasound is not "long exposure" and this is a red herring, meant to confuse the issue. Mulligan also stated that ultrasounds should not be done to make anyone change their mind about "any particular purpose."

The scenario might go like this. A pregnant woman goes to the doctor. She asks for an ultrasound but the doctor decides for one reason or another (perhaps he performs abortions for fun and profit) not to authorize one. If the girl went somewhere else, to a center that stresses pro-life issues, for example, and asks for an ultrasound, right now she could get it. If this law passes, that avenue will be closed.

It is assumed that when a woman sees an ultrasound (especially the new 3-D ones) of the baby living inside her and sees its hands, feet, head, and beating heart, it will become much more difficult for her to agree to kill the unborn child than it is if she never sees that image. Hence, this legislation, with the attendant obfuscation and babble to confuse people (perhaps the cause of your "I am confused" remark) is brought out to stop women from being fully informed of what they are carrying inside of them. Ultrasounds, especially the new ones, provide shocking proof that the fetus is better-formed and more like a baby earlier in the pregnancy than what the pro-abortionists have tried to convince women for decades. The pro-abortionists tell women that it is a blob, a nothing, a lizard-like creature inside of them. The ultrasounds put the lie to that. This is why all the usual suspects support this bill.

If a patient wants an ultrasound, just ask their doc. I don't see how it benefits any abortionist...how can people get access to ultrasound without a doctor?

There are plenty of ways in clinics and such. But you miss the point that when a woman selects a doctor she doesn't necessarily know if he will or won't order ultrasounds when she asks for them and she is not likely to switch doctors in the middle of a pregnancy. And the doctor could be much more mercenary, too, and refuse to order a test (ultrasound) that is only partially covered by health insurance. In any case, the bill is just an attempt to limit women's access to all the information they need to make informed decisions - a tactic you must use when you can't win the argument any other way.

Patrick T -- If you notice the "money quote" from State Rep. Rosemary Mulligan that Mark Noonan highlighted, she says "an ultrasound should not be done for political reasons to make anyone change their minds about any particular purpose." Ms. Mulligan is an abortion advocate. She admits here with her quote that she believes that providing ultrasounds to pregnant women is solely for the purpose of having them "change their minds about any particular purpose." In other words, she feels that providing ultrasounds would encourage pregnant women to not have abortions. The opposite of that is to not provide ultrasounds which would encourage pregnant women thinking about abortions to proceed with their wish to have an abortion.

The fact is that an ultrasound should be a mandatory procedure for any pregnant woman. She should have all the facts in front of her before making a decision on her health and the health of the child she carries inside of her. One of those facts would be to see the progress of the life inside her through an ultrasound. Personally, I would not have any problem funding ultrasounds through taxpayer dollars at places such as Planned Parenthood (ie, abortion clinics) and at Family Planning clinics which discourage abortion.

Also, this bill is completely backwards. Instead of having a law that states that ultrasounds are illegal unless there is a doctor's order to perform one, there should be a law on the books that states that an ultrasound is mandatory for all pregnant women coming in for consultation, especially in the case of a woman coming in seeking an abortion. And if the woman is not covered on her insurance for such a procedure, then the state will pay for it out of taxpayer dollars. (I would like to hear the argument that Pro-Abortionists would use telling us why taxpayers should not pay for the health interests of a pregnant woman. If they want taxpayer money to go towards abortions, then they should not have a problem with taxpayer money going towards ultrasounds) This would be a good bill which would not state that she could not have an abortion, but would simply make sure she had all the facts in front of her so she may make an informed decision. If she still wants to have an abortion after seeing the ultrasound, so be it. I would be disappointed in that decision, but I would be satisfied that she at least made an informed decision. However, I also feel confident that pregnant women would make an informed decision to not have an abortion if they were to have all the facts about their pregnancy and their options.

Incidentally, the motivation behind HB2492 might have to do with the recent national surge in "crisis pregnancy centers." Many on the left view them as deceptively named pro-life centers. See, for example: http://www.ppscm.org/cpc.html (I know you guys love Planned Parenthood). The common understanding is that a women goes to a "crisis pregnancy center," expecting an unbiased opinion and sympathy, and suffers a deluge of anti-choice propaganda--of which ultrasounds are a key ingredient. Anyway, that would be my guess as to the underpinnings of the bill. Now, assuming some evil, "knuckle dragging" (?) liberals want women to make an informed choice about whether or not to terminate their pregnancy, requiring a doctor to order an ultrasound isn't an outrageous concept, is it? Given the above? Also assuming--as I see no reason not too (though I'll be happy to hear evidence to the contrary) that doctors are relatively impartial? And have an obligation to protect life?

well ... since many of you brain trusts evidently don't read the news, you may be interested to learn that there are a lot of "mom-and-pop" sonagram services opening up across the country. they perform sonagrams WITHOUT A MEDICAL ORDER OR SUPERVISION to provide videotapes to parents.

there are NO studies to determine what the long-term effects are of repeated, unnecessary songrams are on fetuses. while I'm sure most of you wrap yourselves in the cloak of libertarian "let the market sort everything out" philosophy, you SHOULD be interested in protecting the health of the fetuses you worship.

oh, and to the idiot who said that 90% of abortions are done for "convenience" - site that stat, please. if you're going to throw numbers around, at least have the integrity to site from whence it came.

Michael in MI,

So the man has no responsibiity in creating the child and bringing it into this world, It's all the woman's fault?

Incidentally, the motivation behind HB2492 might have to do with the recent national surge in "crisis pregnancy centers."

There is little doubt that the bill was written to minimize the pro-life voice in the abortion debate and to keep pregnant women from getting all the information they need to make a difficult decision about whether to get an abortion.

Many on the left view them as deceptively named pro-life centers.

Given that pro-lifers feel that a woman who is considering killing an unborn baby is in fact a pregnancy in crisis. I find it illustrative that you attempt to assign negativity to the pro-lifers because they are trying to support their belief in the sanctity of life. BTW: your attempt failed.

Your citation of the Eugenics Center (I mean Planned Parenthood), is a joke. They're the biggest pushers for unrestricted access to abortions for any and all women. Of course they'd feel threatened by centers that attempt to keep the grim reaper at bay. They resent anyone with the "hubris" to deny them their due in tiny, dead carcasses.

The common understanding is that a women goes to a "crisis pregnancy center," expecting an unbiased opinion and sympathy, and suffers a deluge of anti-choice propaganda--of which ultrasounds are a key ingredient.

Bull. That is not a "common understanding" - it is what your propagandists would like to convince people is the reality, but it is a lie. Please cite anywhere that a woman can go to get an unbiased opinion about abortion. There is no such place left in the U.S.

Anyway, that would be my guess as to the underpinnings of the bill.

Well, your guess is partially correct - it is the pro-abortionists trying to suppress information such as ultrasounds from getting to women who are struggling with life and death choices. But it is by no means just the pro-choice (read pro-abortion) bunch reacting to the aggressive and uncalled-for actions of the pro-life bunch.

Now, assuming some evil, "knuckle dragging" (?) liberals want women to make an informed choice about whether or not to terminate their pregnancy, requiring a doctor to order an ultrasound isn't an outrageous concept, is it?

Yes.

Given the above?

Especially because of the above.

Also assuming--as I see no reason not too (though I'll be happy to hear evidence to the contrary) that doctors are relatively impartial?

Impartial? Surely you jest. Some doctors refuse to perform abortions based on their own moral standards and ethics, others, like the abortionist from Vermont, Howard Dean, make a pretty good living at killing unborn babies. There are few abortions performed in this country that are not performed by doctors and every one of them gets financial compensation for performing the state-sanctioned killing. Asking a doctor's advise on whether to get an abortion is like saying to a used car salesman, "so, you think I should buy this car you just showed me?" Impartial my ass.

And have an obligation to protect life?

Then I supposed they'd be against killing the unborn. That doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch, even for a liberal. Oh, wait, what was I thinking? Abortions empower liberals to support and participate in things like unrestricted and unbridled sex with whomever and wherever they get the urge without the attendant responsibility of possibly having to protect and provide for the offspring produced by their hedonism. Message to unborn babies: you'd better hope your mommy and daddy are not liberals 'cause if they are, you are one dead sucker.

Right. That was very thorough. The underlying point I was trying to make (not doing a very good job) is that both liberals and conservatives view themselves as trying to ensure women make informed choices about their pregnancies. Conservatives by ensuring access to ultrasounds and liberals by preventing women from going to misleadingly titled "crisis pregnancy centers." Now Scaramonga, it might be worth noting that--as you appear to express some distrust towards liberal motivations--both sides want the same thing. And so (this is never going to fly) such abject skepticism might not be appropriate. I'm just saying.

Uh...ultrasounds being refused? I don't know of many doctors that would refuse such a reasonable request...and if for some reason there was a refusal, switch doctors...go to those pro-life institutions which should have doctors on staff to order ultrasounds...All doctors have priviliges to admit patients to facilities. Those 4-d ultrasounds are super expensive and not necessary...Ultrasounds are used to determine development and surgery. Also to confirm that there really is a fetus inside.

I cannot accept a patient not switching a doctor during pregnancy, many women don't even see a doctor until labor, so those that are seeing doctors are obviously more intelligent and have some kind of funding to find alternative doctors.

Unfortunately, making ultrasounds mandatory could pose legal problems...like forcing ob/gyns to purchase machines or small hospitals in the rural areas to purchase machines... and what if patients refuse ultrasounds? Would that be constitutional?

Finally, what is up with all this taxpayer funded healthcare? Once taxes are used to buy machines for one procedure, there will be abuses by doctors/hospitals/institutions that will demand funding for other machines and more procedures. Thus we create a socialized healthcare system which I feel is inefficient, unfair, and makes taxes go up, more freebies.

"So the man has no responsibiity in creating the child and bringing it into this world, It's all the woman's fault?"

Casey -- I don't see where I said that, but I will answer your question on it's merits. According to Pro-Abortionists and the "women's right to choose" crowd, abortion is to only be between a woman and her doctor. The man has no say in the decision. The only time they want the man involved is when a woman, much to the dismay of the pro-abortionists, decides to keep the baby. Then the man is responsible for either marrying and/or being the baby's father or simply paying child support.

I don't agree with this mentality, but according to the abortion advocates, which is the reason for this thread, that is how the issue of abortion should be handled: up until the moment that a baby is born, the responsibility is a private matter to be decided between the woman and her doctor.

I don't know of many doctors that would refuse such a reasonable request

How many doctors do you know? 2 - 3, 10? Too small a statistical sample, I'm afraid. How many doctors refusing to order an ultrasound exam are too many? I'd say somewhere around 1. Doctors wouldn't refuse food and water to an otherwise healthy patient either, right?

and if for some reason there was a refusal, switch doctors

As I said below, that is not likely. And it can be costly. Often if you switch doctors in the middle of a pregnancy, the new one will re-order and re-conduct exams and tests which were already done by the previous doctor. Not only does that add expense (possibly not covered by insurance) but exposes the fetus to additional threats of harm from things like X-rays or whatever the doctor orders.

go to those pro-life institutions which should have doctors on staff to order ultrasounds

Which illustrates one of the unspoken goals of the pro-abortionists. Require pro-life clinics to staff up with expensive doctors to comply with the law. Many of those clinics are being run by donations and can't afford to hire lots of doctors. The pro-abortion clinics, on the other hand, can just bill Blue Cross/Blue Shield or whatever health insurance company.

All doctors have priviliges to admit patients to facilities.

So...???

Those 4-d ultrasounds are super expensive and not necessary

Excuse me, but what is your medical qualification to make such a statement again? It seems to me, admittedly someone with an engineering background, that the more accurate the picture, the more desirable the test. Are you seriously proposing to use inferior systems when better ones are available?

Ultrasounds are used to determine development and surgery. Also to confirm that there really is a fetus inside.

True, so what?

I cannot accept a patient not switching a doctor during pregnancy, many women don't even see a doctor until labor, so those that are seeing doctors are obviously more intelligent and have some kind of funding to find alternative doctors.

You statement seems to be driven by anecdotal experience, not on any studies or evidence other than a hunch. Most women see doctors to verify that they are pregnant. They usually establish a relationship with that or some other doctor (based on doctor's advise) to get good pre-natal care. Many women have long-standing relationships with OB/GYN doctors for normal medical care like exams for cervical and breast cancers. They develop a trusting relationship and loyalty to the doctor. Many women have health insurance and it really has little to do with their intelligence. But I have not seen in my nearly 60 years or life many examples of women switching doctors, unless they perceive the doctor is harming them in some way. In truth the likely scenario would be for the woman to ask for an ultrasound, the doctor recommending against it for whatever reason like too costly, your insurance doesn't cover it, or the fact that he doesn't want the woman to carry the baby to term (because he wants to make money from an abortion). The woman likely trusts whatever the doctor tells her and goes along with it.

"One thing we know about abortion advocates is that the worst thing, in their mind, is for an abortion not to happen."

Surely if you believe in your convictions and arguments, you don't have to resort to such ridiculous falsehoods as above. You pollute your own credibility with such gross distortion.

Make your point, surely, but make it honestly.

(Ed. Note: This comment was posted by a person who used a bogus e mail addr and did not provide a real name...courage of convictions, we guess)

"expecting an unbiased opinion"

They'd get that from planned parenthood, wouldn't they leftist? :)

" and sympathy,"

Poor dear, now let's kill that baby. Sympathy for who, you delusional psychopath?

"and suffers a deluge of anti-choice propaganda--"

You'd know all about "anti-choice propaganda" wouldn't you? You never mentioned anything about a woman's CHOICE to engage in behavior that could result in pregnancy! That is indeed a CHOICE a woman makes! NOR did you mention anything about this poor knuckle-dragger's decision to abstain from using conception control! Your full to the brim with "anti-choice propaganda". Any particular reason you didn't say "anti-abortion propaganda"? Too hard to swallow?

"of which ultrasounds are a key ingredient."

The exact sentiment of the scum bag pol that is trying to ban ultrasounds. Not all mothers choose to kill their babies, leftist. Ultrasounds can tell doctors things about babies (growth, current size, developement) and their environment that they would otherwise not know. But you aren't concerned about wanted or unwanted babies. Your ultra-leftist handlers told you you were "pro-choice" and you are off to tell those who are anti-abortion what a thoughtless self centered, shallow, sack of crap you really are.

"Anyway, that would be my guess"

And it is worth SOOOO much....thanks for sharing!

"as to the underpinnings of the bill. Now, assuming some evil, "knuckle dragging" (?) liberals want women to make an informed choice "

LOL!!!! Did you type that with a straight face?! You DON'T want to "INFORM" them with ultra-sound imagery, do you scum?

"about whether or not to terminate their pregnancy,"

About whether to "kill" their "baby".

"requiring a doctor to order an ultrasound isn't an outrageous concept, is it? Given the above?"

Scaramonga is correct, it is outrageous because of the above. The entire point of this legislation is to make it more difficult for a woman to attain an ultrasound. That's utterly "outrageous".

"So the man has no responsibiity in creating the child and bringing it into this world, It's all the woman's fault?"

Men are only expected to pay depending on the "choice" a woman makes whether to kill her baby or raise her child. They have no rights to the life they helped create. Are you advocating a change? Should fathers be given a say in whether the mother kills the baby they created?

mmmm...sultry,

As it turns out, my father is currently seriously ill in the hospital and they did an ultrasound on his heart yesterday...while the technician was doing her job, I decided to check with a person more likely to know that you, I or anyone else here...as far as she knows, and she's been doing this for years (while literally tens of millions of ultrasounds have been done over the years), there is not risk involved in an ultrasound...its about the most non-invasive medical procedure you can imagine. The risk to the unborn is almost certainly non-existent...and the advocates of the bill know this...they just don't want a single abortion to not happen.

For all the libs/abortion advocates in this thread, you can educate yourself here about the reasons for abortion and the 90% "convenience" statistics (if you notice, these statistics are from the research branch of Planned Parenthood, hardly a Pro-Life source):

Reasons Given for Having an Abortion in the United States (Last Updated December 2003)

Reasons Given for Abortion (1987):

Unready for Responsibility: 21%

Can't Afford Baby Now: 21%

Concerned about how having baby would change her life: 16%

Has Problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood: 12%

Is too immature or young to have child: 11%

Has all the children she wanted or all are grown: 8%

Possible Fetal Health Problems: 3%

Husband or Partner wants her to have abortion: 1%

Doesn't want other to know she had relations or is pregnant: 1%

Rape or Incest: 1%

Woman's parents want her to have abortion: less than 0.5%

And, likewise, check out: http://www.guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf

Abortions have been in steady decline for over a decade and--coincidentally--since Roe so have the number of women who have died while having abortions.

So, here's a question my "handlers" failed to answer for me. Why do vast swaths of the conservative movement feel liberals want abortions to happen? I've always thought the distinction between wanting them and fighting to allow them was pretty obvious.

Cause let me tell ya, I don't know anyone who likes or wants their to be abortions. And I know a lot of liberal people.

And let me preemptively admit I'm lying, this is a ruse, a coverup, and a ploy. We might even, if your amenable, give the name calling a pass and you can answer my question.

This is for the "ultrasounds are harmful" crowd:

The ultrasound is a non-invasive exam which poses no risks to the mother or developing fetus.

Are ultrasounds a necessary part of prenatal care?

Ultrasound procedures are part of routine prenatal care and provide your healthcare provider with valuable insights for giving you the highest level of care. As noted above, ultrasounds enable your healthcare provider to confirm normal development as well as diagnose potential problems. Because there are no risks to you or the developing baby, there are no reasons not to use ultrasound technologies.

Sounds extremely dangerous to me, then again I am no doctor.

Now, since I have provided my sources, I would like those who are against the ultrasounds to present their sources showing research that shows ultrasounds are dangerous.

"assuming some evil, "knuckle dragging" (?) liberals"

I should have addressed the little "(?)" the first time! "knuckle dragging" = unevolved, uncivilized, barbaric.....take your pick. Lefties love to hold high the mantle of science but for some reason forget science even exists when it comes to the meriad of options available to couples seeking conception control. They eliminate such options entirely from the abortion equation. "Ug uh um Me am pro-choice. Me want ugh um kill babies prevent burden." When you are that utterly ignorant of medical advancements as common as conception control, you are a barbarian...a primate....uncivilized filth.

"Valiant" Elephant" Yes, knuckle dragging buffoon?

"Christ buddy,"

An invocation?

" you missing a chromosome or something?"

I'm not the one dragging my knuckles. That would be you.

" Calm the hell down."

F*** You :)

"When you're ready to act like a big boy,"

Says the knuckle dragger.

"like Michael and Mark, drop me a line."

I'm dropping you a line now, loser. You want address something I actually said, or are you conceeding your argurments?

"Notice how they responded without cheap insults? "

My insults aren't cheap.

"That's how grown ups talk."

Grown ups actually inform themselves before they speak. Something you've failed to do.

"One day, when your big boy hair grows in, you'll understand that."

"big boy hair" That must be how "grown ups talk", huh a**hole? :)

"I also heard that many women before professional abortions were performed by themselves or untrained people and cause great danger to the mother."

It's dangerous to murder life inside of you? Tough! Cease engaging in risky behavior!

"there are NO studies to determine what the long-term effects are of repeated, unnecessary songrams are on fetuses. "

There are NO studies that show "long term effects" of "repeated" and LOL! "unnecessary" (just had to throw that in there, didn't ya?)sonograms are on unborn babies either. I, personally, have encountered many subjects (read babies whose mom's received ultra-sounds and lived to tell about it) that could be observed in order to judge any possible effects. Nothing so far! :)

"So, here's a question my "handlers" failed to answer for me. Why do vast swaths of the conservative movement feel liberals want abortions to happen? I've always thought the distinction between wanting them and fighting to allow them was pretty obvious."

Well if liberals do not want abortions to happen, have you talked to your liberal friends about this story? Were they on the side of the mother to care for her child or on the side of the abortion clinic keeping her from her daughter?

Also, how about Planned Parenthood and pro-Abortion groups not wanting laws about parental notification? Especially in the case of statutory rape? They claim that the reason they cannot notify parents is because the father may be the one who got the girl pregnant. Well since rape cases constitute only 1% of the abortion cases, this is not a good reason to prohibit a parent from knowing about their children and their intentions to kill life.

Then of course there is this law (cited in this thread) which does not want a pregnant woman to see their baby inside them through the ultrasound/sonogram.

And of course there is this which shows that Pro-LIFE laws have reduced the amount of abortions.

You also may want to ask your liberal friends about this case.

And finally, if liberals do not want abortions, I would like to know if they support these laws which have effectively reduced abortions.

You also may want to check this out. He debunks much of the "pro-choice" arguments.

Just in case my first hand experience isn't good enough :)

This one is more official

Is ultrasound harmful?

No. After many years of using diagnostic levels of ultrasound, no harmful effects have been demonstrated.

Or!

Radiologists

Don't bother reading the opinion of those in the field. I'm sure you know better than they do :)

"Abortions have been in steady decline for over a decade and--coincidentally--since Roe so have the number of women who have died while having abortions."

You mean there are risks to killing the baby living inside of you? NO! Guess the answer is to make sure they get the best care in the world while they kill the kid then.

"So, here's a question my "handlers" failed to answer for me."

Only one?

"Why do vast swaths of the conservative movement feel liberals want abortions to happen?"

Because they fight to give people the opporutinity to attain them.

"I've always thought the distinction between wanting them and fighting to allow them was pretty obvious. "

Only in your warped little mind. The end result is still the same. "Oh we don't want them, but we want you to be able to get them." Whatever helps you sleep at night.

"Cause let me tell ya, I don't know anyone who likes or wants their to be abortions."

Liar. You are advocating for continued abortions right now.

"And I know a lot of liberal people. "

There's a shock.

"And let me preemptively admit I'm lying, this is a ruse, a coverup, and a ploy."

We know.

"We might even, if your amenable, give the name calling a pass and you can answer my question. "

Question answered. There is no difference between advocating for the "choice" to kill babies at will and killing them at will. The end result is exactly the same.

Maybe people should 'follow the money'.

Abortion clinics get their funds from where? Where does Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups get their money? If they could not advocate and ensure abortions were performed, they would lose money.

If anyone could get Planned Parenthood's financial statements and salary disclosures, they should post these to show why they fight so hard to ensure pro-life organizations are shut out of the political debate, and pro-life legislation is demonized.

There seems to be a fundamental mix-up here. After I said liberals "don't want" abortions to happen, both of you (The Valiant Elephant and Michael in MI) responded with, effectively: Then why do you let them happen?

You know the answer already, even if you don't like it. Even if you hate it. Because what I want to happen is trumped by a woman's choice to have or not have a child before viability. And so is yours.

Liberals don't want abortions to happen--they believe other issues make them allowable, albeit with restrictions. So I'll ask again a question I thought was obvious the first time: Why do conservatives insist on saying that liberals want abortions to happen?

Wow, it is so easy to see the push to control female sexuality here. The bottom line is that abortion will always be legal, because in the final analysis, men do NOT want to be held responsible for THEIR sexual behavior. And dead-beat dad laws being what they are, the idea of women having children and sticking it to the the pappa with impunity strikes terror into the hearts of men from sea to shining sea.

Wow, it is so easy to see the push to control female sexuality here.

No one is trying to control female sexuality here. Your emotional reaction aside, we are talking about whether the law in Illinois should be passed. Our position is that the law restricts information from pregnant women with no obvious benefit except to promote abortions based on making uninformed decisions. You, for example, are perfectly entitled to run down to the local abortion shop and get your own fetus ripped out of you and dumped into a can labeled "medical waste" and run right back out and be as sexual as you desire. So stop with the hyperbole.

The bottom line is that abortion will always be legal,

All that has to happen to prove you wrong would be a re-visit of the Roe v Wade decision with a slightly different makeup of the SCOTUS and "legal" abortions would be history, so don't be so sure of yourself.

because in the final analysis, men do NOT want to be held responsible for THEIR sexual behavior.

Hahaha. So liberal of you. Act irresponsibly and then blame it on someone else.

And dead-beat dad laws being what they are, the idea of women having children and sticking it to the the pappa with impunity strikes terror into the hearts of men from sea to shining sea.

I think you must have had a bad experience with an irresponsible father. There are plenty of men paying child support, medical expenses and acting responsibly toward their child or children (for example from a divorce.) Some are irresponsible for sure but they don't worry anyway because they have no intentions of paying anything to support the bastard child. But last I looked, except in cases of rape, it takes two to tango. And since pro-abortion liberals keep saying that the decision is between the woman and her doctor with the father having no say, I can't say as I blame them for heading for the hills.

"There seems to be a fundamental mix-up here. "

Yep. It's taking place inside that vapid skull of yours.

"After I said liberals "don't want" abortions to happen,"

They don't want it SOOOOOO bad that they work tirelessly to ensure that they can and will.

"both of you (The Valiant Elephant and Michael in MI) responded with, effectively: Then why do you let them happen?"

Not LET it happen. ENSURE that it will.

"You know the answer already, even if you don't like it."

This must be in reference to that cranial malfunction you are laboring under.

"Even if you hate it."

Hate?

"Because what I want to happen is trumped by a woman's choice to have or not have a child before viability."

The only CHOICE that is TRUMP in your book, savage, is that of killing babies before they are born. See WE have the true PRO CHOICE position. We hold the CHOICES that led to pregnancy as..."TRUMP" :) Thereby avoiding the "choice" to murder babies all together!

"And so is yours."

No. We use logic and reason. You'd rather kill babies.

"Liberals don't want abortions to happen--"

They just work tireleslly to ensure that they happen for any reason at any time.

"they believe other issues make them allowable, "

:) What other issues, barbarian?

"albeit with restrictions."

LOL!!! What "restrictions" do "liberals" wish to place on abortions? NONE! I'll wait patiently for a list!

"So I'll ask again"

You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results?

"a question I thought was obvious the first time: "

You don't "think". Your synapses fire sure. But what comes out is far from coherent.

"Why do conservatives insist on saying that liberals want abortions to happen?"

Because they work tirelessly to ensure that they do. They fight late term abortion bans. They prevent moms from stopping their own children from getting abortions. They deny parents the right to even know whether their child is getting an abortion. They forbid restrictions of all kinds on the big business of abortion. They refuse to recognize that CHOICE happens BEFORE pregnancy. They forget entirely that conception control even exists. They try to prevent women from seeing their babies in utero via ultra sound. They refuse any legislation that seeks to educate women on the cognitive abilities of the baby they carry. The call THIS a "procedure" on a "blob of tissue" a "CHOICE". And then they have the audacity to ask dipsh*t questions like, "Why do you think liberals want there to be abortions." Dumbass. You are pathetic. Flail against reality, fool....flail! Let me predict your response, pathetic sack of sh*t:

*without addressing a single thing we said*

"I figured this would be an obvious question, what makes you think liberals want abortions?"

Michael: >>I also feel confident that pregnant women would make an informed decision to not have an abortion if they were to have all the facts about their pregnancy and their options

Ah yes..in a perfect world? In Britain, after the 24th week of pregnancy, viability, an abortion is permitted only when "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."

In 2001, an unborn child 28weeks old was aborted because a sonogram detected a fetal abnormality indicating that the child had a cleft lip and palate. An Anglican curate tried to sue for "unlawful killing"..(she had been born with a similar deformity and her brother has Down Syndrome); Prosecutors refused to file charges relying in part on guidance by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists that stated there is "no precise definition of serious handicap."

It implies that any abnormality can qualify as a serious handicap because seriousness is determined not by the handicap's impact on the handicapped person's life chances but by the parents reluctance to be inconvenienced by it.

The use of a sonagram can work both ways..for and against abortion..If a mother thinks of her unborn baby as a bundle of joy, the sonogram brings them closer and can detect any health problems early on, some of which can be operated on and corrected inutero. OTOH..when a sonogram shows an abnormality..it could prompt a mother to avoid the stressful, life altering and costly experience of caring for a disabled child.

Bottom Line: It depends on the mother's sense of committment and love for the baby...if she calls it a fetus, chances are she'll abort with or without a sonogram.