At Least One Louisiana Judge Has Some Sense
There is at least one judge in Louisiana with some sense and respect for the law. NPR reports that U.S. District Judge Ralph Tyson has placed a temporary restraining order on the requirement that any woman seeking an abortion be forced to have an ultrasound first, and view the results of that ultrasound before having an abortion.
This is good news not only for women in Louisiana, but for women in other states where similar laws have been passed. While the key will be finding a judge willing to actually evaluate the facts in light of the Constitution, this is certainly a step forward.
The right wing has spent a lot of time working to get laws passed (mostly in Southern states) that are clearly discriminatory to women, violate their rights, and are just a stalking horse for an excuse to try and overturn Roe vs. Wade.
The assault on women's reproductive rights has been relentless in 2010.
Louisiana (temporary restraining order granted):
One of the new laws would block abortion doctors from participation in a state-run medical malpractice fund. The other would require women about to undergo abortions to first have an ultrasound examination and receive a photograph of the ultrasound image.
Legislators in eight states introduced measures to require that ultrasound services be offered to a woman seeking an abortion. Missouri was the only state in which a measure was approved, and the governor is widely expected to allow it to go into effect without his signature. Three other states currently require providers to offer ultrasound services to women (see Requirements for Ultrasound).
Measures enacted this year in Utah and West Virginia place requirements on a provider who is performing an ultrasound in preparation for an abortion. The Utah law requires the provider to offer to show and describe the image to the woman. The new law in West Virginia is similar but explicitly allows the woman to choose whether or not to view the image. These two new laws bring to 10 the number of states with such provisions.
Finally, legislatures in three states—Oklahoma, Florida and Louisiana—moved to enact or strengthen requirements mandating that women seeking an abortion first obtain an ultrasound. Oklahoma adopted the most stringent measure. It would require abortion providers to perform an ultrasound on every woman obtaining an abortion, display the image to her and provide a verbal description; the woman would be entitled to “avert her eyes” if she did not want to view the screen. The measure is identical to one passed in 2008 that was overturned by a state court on procedural grounds. The new law, written to avoid the procedural issues, was nonetheless challenged immediately upon enactment, and enforcement is currently blocked pending the outcome of the litigation.
And of course, let's not forget the assault on the Affordable Care Act:
Meanwhile, legislators in 14 states (including states that already have laws applying to all private plans) introduced measures that would limit coverage of abortion through the insurance exchanges that will be set up under health care reform by 2014. Legislation has been enacted in four states. Arizona’s new law permits coverage only in cases of threats to the woman’s life or health, while Mississippi’s permits coverage only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. Laws in Louisiana and Tennessee prohibit all coverage of abortion, with no exceptions. Legislation approved by the legislature in Missouri is awaiting action by the governor, and measures in Florida and Oklahoma have been vetoed.
Just one more reason to keep the wingers out of Congress and by extension, out of women's reproductive systems.
every where but especially in the South!
So the right wing is proposing that medical care can be mandated.
Everything else is supposed to be off-limits. Just women's reproductive organs. Because God wants it that way. (sarcasm)
every damn state that has laws now and pending
to restrict a woman's right to an abortion should
all be required to assume full financial responsibility
for the children born from these strict abortion
laws. if the gop/teabaggers want to push this
country into a gop/teabagger social state, then
they can pay for it themselves.
the gop can not have it both ways. either the government
is out of our private decisions or the government can
be financially responsible for for their intervention.
Hopefully this sets in motion the bringing down of these bad laws.
I've never seen change without a fire
It's all that humidity...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Stumidity?
... they can do that the moment the Rethuglicans in Congress agree that before cutting unemployment benefits, they set aside their salary and make do on those benefits for the same amount of time.
... or that we bring back stoning to death for adulterers. It's too bad about Clinton and Edwards, but, boy, howdy - it'll get us Sanford and Vitter and Gingrich and Limbaugh and ...
"bring back stoning to death for adulterers"
Smaller offenses just get you graveled half to death.
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
If the patient is supposed to pay, that is another added cost like the 24 hour delay, that just piles on. If we used ultrasounds every one or two years for women, I bet we could cut deaths by ovarian cancer astronomically. Instead, ignorant politicians want to force unnecessary procedures on women.
You read my mind.
Insurance? I'd be very surprised to hear that Insurance is supposed to pay. (No doubt, they'd turn around and recoop the payments from the patient.)
The State? Even if they were flush, it is hard to imagine them paying for it.
and require that a woman consume her aborted fetus, then have her pay the chef. Yes, that is thoroughly disgusting, but I am THAT angry.
In China the family of an executed person must pay for the bullet.
This is the insane right trying to get between a woman and her doctor.
Medical stuff is private.
The judges need to strike this kind of thing down.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
First things first.
A more just law would also require men to jack off in a dixie cup and view film of their sperm wiggling around prior to fornicating.
That would be exciting. We could take bets on who the winner would be. We could name our own horse (so to speak) and put it up on a jumbotron.
I just found the next big reality TV event!
Let me make a guess.
I'm not familiar with these laws, but it seems to me that having women look at an ultrasound photo of their fetus is intended as a measure that will make the fetus more "real" and more like a baby to the mother in the hopes that it will make her less likely to go through with the abotion, correct? Or am I completely off base here?
It seems to me that this can certainly be explained as being an educational step in the process towards obtaining an abortion, not unlike other consumer protection efforts to make sure that a buyer of some service or product is fully informed as to their rights prior to making an expensive purchase of some kind. Heaven knows that when you buy a house, for example, there are tons of forms that have to be filled out to make sure the purchaser is educated and has some kind of idea as to just what kind of a potential legal morass he or she is getting into.
Getting an abortion ought to be seen as a big deal, a major, major life decision, shouldn't it? Or is getting an abortion merely the moral equivalent of getting rid of some unwanted tissue, like cancer? How can turning women into better and more informed purchasers of abortion services be a bad thing?
Is this seen as some kind of "trick" or something?
how much can an impoverished woman afford, on top of an abortion?
If you are not the woman requesting a medical procedure, then yes, I'd say not only are you completely off base here (you asked), along with the other people forcing women into paying more money, but that it's really none of your business, what goes on between anyone and their doctor. It's a private matter.
You think it takes a costly ultrasound to make this a bigger deal to someone who has to get an abortion? It might, if the ultrasound pushes the cost right out of her budget. So yes, in the sense that the additional cost of a required by the state ultrasound will price the procedure out of the reach of many who may need one the the most, I see it as a "trick" or something.
me-oww!
Cost is the only objection?
Of course, the cost of an ultrasound is nothing compared to the cost of raising a child.
I was going to say that if the state is requiring the ultrasound, maybe the state ought to pay for it as well, but it occurred to me that the state requires me to update my driver's license every few years, and it's not paying for that, either. We could claim that if the cost of getting a new license screws up my budget, maybe I shouldn't be driving a car, but then we could also say that if the cost of an ultrasound is too much to bear, then maybe risking pregnancy isn't all that good an idea, either.
if a woman can't afford an ultrasound, she shouldn't fuck or be raped? Your premise and equation of driving a car and procreation here is stunning in the outrageousness of it. Here's a thought: if you are so gung ho for this and consider it to be your business to meddle in the medical concerns of others, you pay for all the ultrasounds required. It's about $200 a pop. You think that it's so goddamned easy to scrape the money together, you foot the bill. Maybe you'll get a case break, you know, 10% off every 12.
You missed the privacy part, as in someone else's medical treatment none of your fucking business. Roe v Wade was decided on the fourth amendment right to privacy.
Look, if YOU personally do not want to be involved in abortion, don't fuck. And keep you nose out of the medical business of others. I've never noticed you being such a nosy parker before.
me-oww!
... she sure as heck can't afford a child. And since rape is always brought into the picture, it would really be nice to have some numbers as to what percent of unwanted pregnancies are (allegedly) caused by rape.
I think it would be a wonderful thing if the state would keep its nose out of all sorts of things, but I can see the state getting its nose out from under the abortion tent just as soon as it decides that seat belt laws or forced auto insurance laws are stupid. If people insist that the state interfere with some things, then I guess we'd better expect that it's going to interfere with a whole bunch of things.
but you reserve the right to stick your nose in where it's not needed wanted or required. and to promote the use of unnecessary procedures because it might change someone's mind,
Why don't you just advocate the requirement of a poster sized picture on the doc's ceiling, along with something to keep the patient's eyes open during the procedure?
Butt the fuck out. It's none of your goddamned business what someone does in the doctors office. There are federal laws regarding it.
me-oww!
but, I think since you are obviously not in favor of those women in LA having abortions: How does forcing a pregnant woman who's already decided to have an abortion (for whatever her reason may be) to get an ultrasound and then make her look at it in any way correspond with 'educating' her about a medical procedure??
The only purpose for doing this would be to cause the women to suffer emotional distress and shame, with the hope that they would then decide not to go through with the procedure. This is sick! Like something Dr. Mengele would have dreamed up.
Getting an abortion is a 'big deal' for most women....it is not something they do without thought or usually without regret, at some point. You are entitled to make that decision for yourself....you are not entitled to make it for another woman.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
How many women, do you think, end up changing their minds about the abortion as a result of the required ultrasound photo? That's what I'm really curious about. The negative reaction to this law is what I find interesting. If the number of women who change their mind and decide not to go through with it is zero, then it's obviously a stupid law.
But I can only assume that the negative reaction is because it is believed that there is some mind changing going on here, and it's automatically assumed to be a bad thing.
Is it?
to satisfy your curiosity. right. First you say that women exercising their right to a personal medical choice need to stump up a couple hundred extra bucks for a legal procedure (money that is no problem for you to get, so why would anyone else have a problem with it), to impress upon them the gravity of that choice, as if they're too stupid to know any better. Then you suggest that fucking and driving are the same thing, and women should not fuck if they don't want to get pregnant. Now it's all about YOUR curiosity.
You think women who fuck should be punished with offspring for doing so.
You are a disgusting vile narcissist. You truly are.
me-oww!
You take the words right out of my brain! You go girl, there's nothing like calling out meddling morons on their transparent pretexts against a woman making up her own mind about her own reproduction, the implication being that she, being so ignorarant and simple minded, needs male mandated "help" making such a complicated decision.
My mantra is the same, "mind your own fucking business". Too bad the local taliban has so much influence on secular law.
... you refused to answer the question.
There is no need for an ultrasound to make the fetus more "real". A pregnant woman isn't so dumb as to not know what's in there. It is a huge deal to the woman and she is completely aware of what she is doing.
And, how nice of these people to not "force" the silly woman to look at it, why, she's even allowed to avert her eyes! Really, maybe we should put them in restraints, staple their eyelids up and force them to watch every second!
Amazing that they want government out of every aspect of their lives except a woman's uterus.
And if they are they shouldn't be raising a child. :)
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT1DCun3U9M
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
but does the father of the child have to view the ultrasound, too?
If we're gonna punish people for their "sexual deviance" I think a mandatory steel boot to the nuts would be advised at least.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
... since the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies are apparently the result of rape.
Just because you didn't get pregnant from your uncle raping you, doesn't mean that it's not a real problem for women, douchebag.
What's the percentage?
I hope this educates you, since you claim to want to know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9QI4v9Jehs
Wait until the rightwing starts getting all medieval on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0BNz02JQN4
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
The right passes woman hate laws, gay hate laws, drags the unemployment benefits out, and women and gays still vote for these people. WTF is that
Stupid people in these states vote these uncaring stupid people into office that constantly screw women and take their rights away, so then it's their problem now.
Comments are closed on this entry