Here we are told that hot dogs are as dangerous as cigarettes.
Well, maybe, if you have a two pack a day hot dog habit...
Here's my question: There are two different information campaigns going on here. One is the campaign to put pictures and warning labels on cigarettes....and now hot dogs.
And there is a campaign to ensure women who are going to have abortions have to see the ultrasound of their fetus. Other people are trying to display photos of aborted fetuses.
The question: why is that all the bed wetters who want to force us to see cigarette- damaged lungs fiercely oppose the idea of displaying abortion-damaged fetuses?
I'm a libertarian; I think people can get their own info. But you lefties, who think everyone (except you) is an idiot....why no on the fetus thing? Why aren't you consistent?
(nod to the Blonde)
7 comments:
Generally because the ultrasound and waiting periods delay access to medical treatment. Access to clinics and abortion providers is decreasing across the country.
Women in rural areas, women without resources, teens, assualt victims, abuse victims, and any combination of the above generally have a harder time physically getting to the clinic so these rules, restrictions, and other barriers to access are challeneged.
Timing and delay become important especially when you consider most unplanned/unwanted pregnancies are not immediately discovered and women have to decide very quickly if they want to carry a fetus to term or have an abortion. Even before the 2nd trimester, price increases with gestation and options for service become limited quickly.
Free birth control for all instead of ultrasounds for women who want abortions?
"But you lefties...Why aren't you consistent?"
Because one choice places an undue economic hardship on a corporation (cigarette warning labels), and the other on a helpless, unfortunate pregnant woman.
I'm being more serious than facetious. When trying to look for logic in a progressive world-view, libertarians would do well to consider that corporations aren't viewed as groups of individuals, but a sentient, evil being with bottomless pockets.
Actually if you read the bill (something that, apparently, most of its commentators have not done) it says that a physician must inform the woman that an ultrasound is available if she wants it. She doesn't have to get it.
I think the Republicans might not be talking about that because they want their base to believe the bill is better than it is, and the Democrats because they want their base to believe the bill is worse than it is.
Matt Gilliland apparently has not read the bill, because it absolutely does require that she get a sonogram before she can receive an abortion!
The Texas Health and Safety Code states as follows:
section 171.012(4)before any sedative or anesthesia is administered to the pregnant woman and at least 24 hours before the abortion . . .
(A) the physician who is to perform the abortion or an agent of the physician who is also a sonographer certified by a national registry of medical sonographers performs a sonogram on the pregnant woman on whom the abortion is to be performed;
(B) the physician who is to perform the abortion displays the sonogram images in a quality consistent with current medical practice in a manner that the pregnant woman may view them;
(C) the physician who is to perform the abortion provides, in a manner understandable to a layperson, a verbal explanation of the results of the sonogram images, including a medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of external members and internal organs; and
(D) the physician who is to perform the abortion or an agent of the physician who is also a sonographer certified by a national registry of medical sonographers makes audible the heart auscultation for the pregnant woman to hear, if present, in a quality consistent with current medical practice and provides, in a manner understandable to a layperson, a simultaneous verbal explanation of the heart auscultation;
I'm not going to disagree with your point because I find it compelling too, but I just want to say the anti-hot dog people in the link are a well-known front group for PETA. It is not legitimate hot dog science.
Michael, you get comment of the month: "It is not legitimate hot dog science".
You made me snort Muscle Milk out of my nose.
Kudos.
Michael knows his wieners, don't you Michael?
Post a Comment