Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    62% of women getting abortions in Indiana are having them done within the first 9 weeks - when this supposed "person" is the size of a peanut - and they can simply take a pill that terminates the pregnancy, and a second later that flushes the uterinal contents at home. Then there is a follow-up, which may use a blood test to determine success.

    What do Indiana Republicans want to do to attack this exercise of a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body without government getting involved?

    1. Require TWO transvaginal ultra-sounds: One before and one after this non-surgical procedure, regardless of whether medically indicated.

    2. Require all abortion providers that ONLY deal with non-surgical abortions.....to meet the requirements of those that provide surgical abortions (rebuild walls, doors, to be wider; install anesthesia & surgical equipment that will never be used, etc.).

    (In other words, force them to close because they can't just up and rebuild their building).

     

     

     

     

    Let's see. All the things that should get a good conservative riled up:

    - Interference with small businesses.

    - Interference with health care.

    - Mandated action by individuals.

    - Mandated expenses for businesses.

    - Mandated exdpenses are unnecessary.

    - Government invading your body.

    - Destruction of Freedoms.

     - Trampling the Constitution (and before anyone objects, read Marbury v. Madison and note the lack of amendment to overturn it).

     

     

    Right?

     

     



    8 wk peanut for you.

     

    Lazy wiki look-up.

     

    Contraindications

    In clinical trials, nearly all women using mifepristone experienced abdominal pain, uterine cramping, and vaginal bleeding or spotting for an average of 9–16 days. Up to 8% of women experienced some type of bleeding for 30 days or more. Other less common side effects included nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, fatigue, and fever.[32] Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is a very rare but serious complication.[33] Excessive bleeding and incomplete termination of a pregnancy require further intervention by a doctor (such as vacuum aspiration). Between 4.5 and 7.9% of women required surgical intervention in clinical trials.[32] Mifepristone is contraindicated in the presence of an intrauterine device(IUD), as well as with ectopic pregnancy, adrenal failure, hemorrhagic disorders, inherited porphyria, and anticoagulant or long-term corticosteroid therapy.[32]

    The FDA prescribing information states that there are no data on the safety and efficacy of mifepristone in women with chronic medical conditions, and that "women who are more than 35 years of age and who also smoke 10 or more cigarettes per day should be treated with caution because such patients were generally excluded from clinical trials of mifepristone."[32]

     

     

    That surgical intervention thing could be why the evil legislation wants the wowen to get appropriate medical review of the procedure.  It could be that they care.

     

    That being said why are we talking about this?  When the much hyped Oquestration will take place March 1st and the ensuing nightmate will be well, March Madness

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In a HuffPost piece attacking this new law, a doctor said this:

    "Davis said that transvaginal ultrasounds are the "standard procedure" used for first-trimester abortions..."

    So in attacking this new law, the pro-abortionists mess up and admit that ultrasounds are medically needed for a first trimester abortion...

    Moving the goal posts. 

    Yet Jon Stewart and the pro-abortion lobby called ultrasounds an intrusion by the government... the Virginia law on ultrasounds only mandated an external ultrasound, and this was bashed as somehow extremists "impinging on a woman's body ".

    The fact is, WDYWN said the progressive position on abortion is this..

    "a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body without government getting involved"

    Translation: abortion on demand, for any reason including gender selection , through 9th month, including partial birth abortion , paid for by taxpayers (government cant get involved, except to pay)... 

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    That surgical intervention thing could be why the evil legislation wants the wowen to get appropriate medical review of the procedure.  It could be that they care.

     

    Hahahaahahahahaahahahahaahahha. I know that you don't believe that.

    Sometimes you seem reasonable but this is far out.

     

    1. A bill that tries to make it as unpleasant as possible to obtain an abortion in one prong, and tries to force financial failure on existing clinics in the other.....  

    ...that's not because Republicans are fighting Roe. It's because they care about women?

     

    2. Now all of a sudden legislators know better than treating physicians? Physicians are so clueless they are unaware of your statistics?

     

    3. You cite the statistic without context. Are all those complications ones that went undetected because an ultrasound was not performed before and after the non-surgical abortion?

    Or is it just a blank statistic that you're waving around to read good intentions into a bunch of Indiana Republicans who spend all their time lying about their core values, as demonstrated by their attempt to pass this bill?

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    That being said why are we talking about this?  When the much hyped Oquestration will take place March 1st and the ensuing nightmate will be well, March Madness[/QUOTE]

     

    Gotta love that dodge. There's an important issue somewhere, so, shut up about everything else (that I don't want to hear)!

     

    Right.

    Yes.

    Let's look the other way so we do not see lying hypocrite Republicans violating every last one of their principles to try to clamp down on exercise of a constitutional right.


    The facts that their is sequester means that no one is allowed to talk about things that reflect negatively on Republicans.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Only because you decided to bring this up I looked and provided my response.

    You inferred the procedure was no bid deal take a pill to remove this annoying peanut.  I decided to see what this peanut was all about, as it turns out a prettty huninoid loking peanut.  But lets forget that like you did in your repsonse.

    I decided to see what the issues where with non-surgical abortion by the pill, assune it was UU-486 so I looked for the contraindications.  They were hard to find and the manufacturer is a paper company Danco Labs to hide the real company.  Found a series of risks and reactions but they were prolife websites and the "prochoice" pop a pill websites didn't say much about problems.  So I went to wiki for the quick answers.

    Between 4.5 and 7.9% of women required surgical intervention in clinical trials

    That sounds like a significant problem to me, which is why they want medical care as part of this procedure as opposed it being just a pill shop and pushing there problems onto to ER's.

     

    Onto to Sequester; we should all be outraged over what is going on.  The Adminstration is doubling down to turn this into a problem if the cuts happen; but there is a growing concern among Dem pundits that it could blow up in the administration's face if there are no real problems.  So now the WH finds itself in the awkward position of being worried about what it wished for.  There is high stakes perception poker being played here and the outrage is that it is being played on the backs and livelyhood of federal workers and defense workers.

     

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "Davis said that transvaginal ultrasounds are the "standard procedure" used for first-trimester abortions... '

     

    If a transvaginal ultrasound is medically indicated, the doctor will order it. That's how "free market health care" - as you call it - is supposed to work.

    Funny, though. Did he say two are indicated, in all abortions, that are non-surgical? Or did he say something else and you're being dishonest with it?

    Nevermind your supposed principles-based opposition to Obamacare and all things Democrat.

     

     

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    Translation: abortion on demand, for any reason including gender selection , through 9th month, including partial birth abortion , paid for by taxpayers (government cant get involved, except to pay)... 

    Ah, but the above liar knows I made clear I'm happy where Roedrew the line.

     

     

     

    Ultrasounds are not at the discretion of a doctor, they are medically required before an abortion to determine the age of the fetus , and whether there are any other medical impediments to an abortion being perfomed. This procedure of abortion is not akin to a dental filling.

    Laws mandating reasonable medical procedures prevent abortion mills from hurting women. You are generally in favor of such Nanny State regulations. 

     "Roes drew the line at the first trimester. I'm happy where Roedrew the line."

    Yet you oppose any laws  which are the only method to prevent late term abortion.

    If you are in favor of such laws, then you are in favor of "legislating vaginas" arent you?

    If you are happy where Roe drew the line, then you do not really mean your gauzy broad statement that you favor the "exercise of a woman's right to make medical decisions about her own body without government getting involved."

     

     

     

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    You inferred the procedure was no bid deal take a pill to remove this annoying peanut.  I decided to see what this peanut was all about, as it turns out a prettty huninoid loking peanut.  But lets forget that like you did in your repsonse.



    Yes, let's forget that blow-up picture of a potential human. Because it's irrelevant.

     

    Roe is the law of the land. That, or link me an article about how Marbury v. Madison was repealed by amendment when the founders decided the Supreme Court got its role wrong.

    But yeah, your point underscores what I'm talking about: Anti-abortion people are willing to flush every last principle they ever shouted from the rooftops when their issue hits.

     

    We're talking about a government mandate that ignores the constitution, interferes in medical care, and imposes unnecessary costs on individuals and small businesses in furtherance of that constitution-trampling.

    And you are defending it.

     

     

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    Between 4.5 and 7.9% of women required surgical intervention in clinical trials

     

    That sounds like a significant problem to me, which is why they want medical care as part of this procedure as opposed it being just a pill shop and pushing there problems onto to ER's




    Again, you are dishonestly reading good intentions into the bill because it hit your issue.

     

    Moreover, you ignored airborne's point that the transvaginal ultrasound is not a diagnostic tool for the problems you are mentioning.

    It's for the fetus, not the mother.

     

    Again, you are ignoring the fact that the doctor will order whatever procedures are necessary as a result of complications. The bill hit your issue.

     

    Again, you are ignoring all your criticisms of what Obamacare does. The bill hit your issue.

     

     



    You brought up the size of the festus; in which you infer it is just some blob of protoplasm.  As you could see it was much more then that, I didn't get all self righteous I left that up to you.  I know uncomfortable facts aren't part of your issues, even when you bring it up.

    I'll give you the trans vaginal ultra sound; that's shouldn't be required.  But follow up is required to ensure the health of the mother.

    The bill wants to ensure proper safeguards are in place to ensure the health safety of the of the formerly pregnent women, its still an abortion just in pill form.  Its not like taking a couple of aspirin.

    Did I miss something when did this turn into an ACA issue?

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    Doesnt the choice for wheather or not you have a baby come when you lay down next to someone? Or when you choose wheather or not to use contraception??? Right there you have two choices. After that why give someone a third choice when they have already chose twice to say yes to Having a baby. I think abortions just let people off the hook who have already Made two very questionable choices...

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

     

    Doesnt the choice for wheather or not you have a baby come when you lay down next to someone? Or when you choose wheather or not to use contraception??? Right there you have two choices. After that why give someone a third choice when they have already chose twice to say yes to Having a baby. I think abortions just let people off the hook who have already Made two very questionable choices...

     




    Great, now the argument is to restrict choices.

     

    Of course the fact that contraception isn't 100% and pregnancies can have health consequences for the mother are just two reasons that come to mind.

     



    I have no problem with abortion if it relatates to health of the mother or in a case of rape. But if your just having an abortion because you dont want the kid then no i dont support that. And ill say again you already made two choices to lay down with someone  and a choice wheather or not to use contraception. And your right Birth control isnt 100%. Its 99.9% percent effective. If you dont choose to use contracepion then thats your problem, deal with the consequences.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from xXR3S1NXx. Show xXR3S1NXx's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    Doesnt the choice for wheather or not you have a baby come when you lay down next to someone? Or when you choose wheather or not to use contraception??? Right there you have two choices. After that why give someone a third choice when they have already chose twice to say yes to Having a baby. I think abortions just let people off the hook who have already Made two very questionable choices...



    Well, ok, and I may not agree with how wide the second amendment right to bear arms is. But the Supreme Court said what it said in Hellerand I oppose any law that violates it.

     

    You may oppose abortion, but in a constitutional Democracy I hope you would agree that it is not OK to pass laws simply to make it harder to get an abortion, simply because you think the right shouldn't exist.

     

     




    What about the babys rights?? The rights to life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness??

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: Indiana: Legislating Vaginas, non-surgical abortion

    People don't necessarily have sex to make babies, we all know that.  There are plenty of reasons why recreational sex leads to pregnancy, sometimes condoms break, birth control fails, or the persons involved may have been irresponsible.  But I find it silly that anyone would stand up and claim that as a result someone should have to give birth, regardless of how they became pregnant, because they should have to deal with the consequences.  Here's an idea, why don't you worry about whats between your legs and let other people worry about what's between their because it literally isn't any of your business.  If you have religious qualms then I'd advise you to pray for the sinner and hope god is in a forgiving mood (that would be the christian thing to do), and if not then you aren't the one dealing with the fiery pits of hell now are you?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share