Maryland pro-life activists get $385,000 settlement for illegal arrests
This is great closure.
In August 2008 I reported that Maryland State Police had illegally arrested 18 pro-lifers, including two minors, who were participating in a constitutionally protected picket.
Well, the subsequent lawsuit has been settled, and hooray for our side. From the Baltimore Sun, March 6 (albeit getting the number of pro-lifers wrong):
The Maryland State Police have agreed to pay a $385,000 settlement to 17 anti-abortion protesters arrested by Maryland State Troopers four years ago in Harford County.
The protesters, two of whom were 14 at the time, were arrested and processed and spent a night in the Harford County Detention Center….
The protesters, who were holding up graphic images to passing motorists, claimed they were mistreated by the police and filed suit in U.S. District Court in Baltimore against Harford County, the town of Bel Air and seven local and state police agencies.
The suit claimed that at least 12 police officers handcuffed 18 demonstrators and would not tell them a reason for their arrests. Three young women were twice subjected to strip searches, the suit alleged, once at the Bel Air police station and again at the Harford County Detention Center. The women, who were not released until the next day, were denied permission to call relatives or contact attorneys, the suit said.
Police said motorists complained about the graphic nature of the protesters’ posters. Officers ordered the demonstrators to leave the county and arrested them when they failed to obey, police said.
The state dropped charges, which included loitering, disorderly conduct and failure to obey a lawful order, soon after the arrests.
A federal judge ruled last year that police violated the demonstrators’ constitutional right to free speech. The judge also upheld the group’s claim that the arrests violated due process.
[Photos via Maryland Pro-Life News and Commentary]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hooray for those pro-lifers! Our rights, ya know, the REAL ones spelled out in the Constitution (not made up rights like the “right” to kill our children) are being trampled by rogue police left and right. I’m glad these pro-lifers fought back and I hope every one of those police officers were disciplined and made to undergo a little constitutional education.
the photo says it all.
some more recent arrests in Jackson, MI:
http://www.lldf.org/in-the-public-square/pro-life-youth-arrested-on-public-sidewalk-for-engaging-in-peaceful-free-speech-activity/
SURVIVORS.LA is still trying to reach bail.
This was an obvious set-up by so-called “conservatives,” who are imitating the methods of their libtard counterparts to discredit the Maryland State Police, the only thing that stands between “us” and “them.”
Now that they’ve received an ill-gotten settlement, maybe they can use some of that money to buy better clothes, visit a hairdresser and get off food stamps.
You people have no respect for law and order. Remember, it’s only a thin line of khaki-clad men and women wearing plantation hats that stand between you and anarchy.
Think about that.
:)
Bobbi,
That stinks. Perhaps you could email a link to the Baltimore Sun story to the officials in Jackson, MI. and to the defense lawyers. According to the Jackson Convention and Visitors Bureau web site, Jackson, MI is “the city with Soul…the people…are just about the friendliest you’ll ever meet“. Yeah right.
Wrong Jackson. The Survivors were arrested in Jackson, Mississippi.
Jackson, Michigan is the birthplace of the Republican Party, so of course it doesn’t have any soul.
Jackson, Mississippi, on the other hand, has lots of soul.
You got a problem with soul?
Good!! stick it to these arrogant Obama goons.
Barb, mp,
You are right, it’s Mississippi (MS not MI). The website quoted is correct.
Good!! stick it to these arrogant Obama goons.
If you don’t, Obama’s goons will be coming for your women in the middle of the night and sending your pre-pubescent children to FEMA-built re-education camps.
And condemning those who are left to slave labor camps, where they make birth control for wealthy liberal sex fiends.
:)
385K? I bet some pregnancy resource centers are about to get some fresh donations! If I won a settlement like that, I’d be donating.
Well, you know what this means – police lose almost 400 grand = fewer police = more crime and death. Way to go, pro-life!
They should make that spot an annual protest. Maybe even twice a year.
yes MP, thats pretty much right…
law: “Well, you know what this means – police lose almost 400 grand = fewer police = more crime and death. Way to go, pro-life!”
Actually, the human mortality rate remains 100%.
And as for your other point, I guess you hate justice. Remember back in ’91 when, facing a $45 million dollar discrimination lawsuit, Maryland settled with the black troopers for $900,000 and gave some promotions in lieu of a court battle?
Well, you know what this means – police lose almost a million $ = fewer police = more crime and death. Way to go, black state troopers!
At that time, the settlement amount — not counting promotion pay for the officers — was more than .5% of the state police budget at the time.
In the current case, the settlement is less than .2% of the current state police budget.
Obviously black state troopers care even less about public safety than pro-lifers! And the state promoted them!
Stupid troll.
“Actually, the human mortality rate remains 100%.”
Oh, well I guess we don’t need police at all then. Stupid troll.
“Obviously black state troopers care even less about public safety than pro-lifers!”
Obviously when you sue a municipality for money, it’s not the government that suffers, it’s the people who live there and require the vital services that those tax dollars pay for. You must be so proud! But oh well, as long as pro-lifers still have 14 year olds to do their political dirty work for them by hanging out in traffic, everything is jake.
It’s tough to see something as simple as a categorical imperative blow your snark out of the water, isn’t it law?
Let’s do it again with the “hanging out in traffic” thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk_n-C5S8g4
Categorical imperative.
Make it stick.
That one started in a church too — by a pastor. You know, one of those moron Christers. Civil rights idiots costing the state a ridiculous amount of money. Uppity of ’em, right? Letting the kids do the political dirty work by hanging out in traffic.
Stupid troll.
“Obviously when you sue a municipality for money, it’s not the government that suffers, it’s the people who live there and require the vital services that those tax dollars pay for.”
Obviously, the people were already suffering. “A federal judge ruled last year that police violated the demonstrators’ constitutional right to free speech. The judge also upheld the group’s claim that the arrests violated due process.”
Your idea of a “vital service,” doubtless.
Stupid troll.
Going back through the comments on the original post of the story Jill linked us to (August 2008)is instructive. The choicers look at the law through the lens of their anti-prolifer bias and were not at all troubled by the abuse of our first amendment rights.
Now that our views have been vindicated by the settlement of the lawsuit are we to expect a chorous of mea culpas from the choicers and trolls? No of course not, because they do not learn from their mistakes–they simply mutter to themselves and dig in deeper. We are seeing some of that from them in the comments posted today (and for that matter pretty much on a daily basis). They do not want to told they are wrong–change and truth are always hard to accept when a person is invested in error.
They do not want to told they are wrong–change and truth are always hard to accept when a person is invested in error.
It’s good to know, Jerry, that you keep the truth.
Like most human beings, I’m limited to the world of facts.
The fact is, you can’t handle the truth.
The fact is, you can’t handle the truth.
Are you really Jack Nicholson?
“Let’s do it again with the “hanging out in traffic” thing.”
I always find it amusing that you fetus people think you’re the equivalent of the Civil Rights movement. Well, it would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Meanwhile maybe the 14 year olds who were arrested in this case got credit in their abstinence only class, at least.
(*sigh*) When is the HTML going to come back to its previous functioning, so that I can post my “Do Not Feed The Troll” sign again?
Absolutely a Civil Rights Movement. It is nothing OTHER than that.
mp
Yes, you do know the truth. God has written it in our hearts.
law: “I always find it amusing that you fetus people think you’re the equivalent of the Civil Rights movement.”
I always find it amusing when two-bit trolls move logical goalposts to squirm out of a tight spot.
This was about your snark regarding the use of children in traffic in protests.
I note you’re not willing to apply your sneer categorically, because of course you don’t wish to be seen as sneering at children literally marching in traffic — when they happen to be black civil rights activists in 1963.
Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise… a proverb
Troll activity is evidence that we are gaining!
“I always find it amusing when two-bit trolls move logical goalposts to squirm out of a tight spot.”
Oh please. There’s nothing “logical” about anything you have to say. If you think young children should be hanging out in traffic rather than in school, you’re the one in a tight spot. Of course, when one of said children gets run over, obviously you’d expect the cops to show up and help and be Johnny on the Spot. Just like Westboro.
“If you think young children should be hanging out in traffic rather than in school, you’re the one in a tight spot.”
I love this quote.
Unless the cars are driving off the road across the shoulder and onto the grass, these pro-life activists were not “hanging out in traffic”.
And notice how 14 year olds are “young children”, but those same “young children” should be able to get b.c. pills and abortions without parental consent. LOL.
Those black folks should have stayed home in the 60s as well. It’s their own fault their churches and buses got blown up.
Whatever.
So the 1963 Children’s March never should have happened? It was more important for the little black sheep to be in their segregated schools than participating in changing history — because being in school is so very important — like a good little citizen of The State.
Do you believe that civil rights leaders are responsible and to blame, then, for the consequence — incredible expense to the police (and jeopardy to those vunderful “vital services”), the use of fire hoses against the children, and (snicker) lost time in school?
“Just like Westboro.”
STUPID troll.
ummm….law….we’re ALL “fetus people”…we all went through that stage of development. I mean, surely you didn’t just congeal in a gutter somewhere rather than gestating inside your mother as the rest of us did?
“Unless the cars are driving off the road across the shoulder and onto the grass, these pro-life activists were not “hanging out in traffic”.
Here’s a photo of Route 24 near Bel Air in Harford County. This is a HIGHWAY. This is not a safe place for loitering, adults OR children. There is a reason that when cops pull cars over, they approach the passenger side in a scenario like this, so they can dodge out of the way in case a motorist hits the parked cars. The cops asked the protestors to leave because they were not only disrupting traffic, they were being unsafe. That is why, ” The Office of the Attorney General has determined that the officers, who were assisted by the Bel Air Town Police, were neither grossly negligent nor malicious in the performance of their duties.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MD_24_northbound_in_Harford_County.jpg
The police testified that
“”The Maryland state troopers who responded to the scene that day did so in response to numerous calls from motorists who complained of individuals disrupting traffic at the intersection,” said Greg Shipley, MSP spokesman. “The troopers acted in good faith, in the interest of public safety, and in accordance with advice from the county state’s attorney’s office.”
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-03-07/news/bs-md-ha-protestor-settlement-20120306_1_arrests-greg-shipley-anti-abortion-protesters
This is why you don’t hang out on the highway, and one of many reasons why hitchhiking and riding bicycles on freeways is prohibited in numerous municipalities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iROitbRYQAw&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PLA7EA2A1C5694E046
Sure, no sexually active 14 year old should ever be on birth control, but if she becomes a speed bump during a protest, that’s fine.
“So the 1963 Children’s March never should have happened?”
At the time, the Children’s Crusade received it’s share of criticism, including by both Robert F. Kennedy (a noted civil rights activist) and Malcolm X (also a noted civil rights activist). The former stated “an injured, maimed, or dead child is a price that none of us can afford to pay” in the New York Times. X was quoted as saying “Real men don’t put their children on the firing line.”
One can be in favor of civil rights activism without believing that one must compromise the safety of children to reach your goals. Children should not be part of protesting adult matter any more than they should be used as carriers for bombs. Having goals is great but the ends do NOT always justify the means, which is a principle that the pro-life movement has totally and completely ignored. I guess if you can shoot a doctor in a church, having your kids play in traffic is no big whoop.
“Just like Westboro.”
STUPID troll. “
Ha, Westboro is known for having a particular penchant for suing police for “civil rights violations.” That’s how they make their money. They’re a family of lawyers and litigation is their bread and butter. They’ve sued cops, the military, city municipalities, anyone who is even tangentially related to their so-called rights being violated. That’s how they roll.
Oh, and they like to use kids in their protests too, but I can see you guys are NOTHING like them.
And here’s a picture of those pro-life activists standing on the grass off that “HIGHWAY”.
https://www.jillstanek.com/2008/08/truth-tour-pro-life-picketers-arrested/
Clearly not “hanging out in traffic”.
Sure, no sexually active 14 year old should ever be on birth control, but if she becomes a speed bump during a protest, that’s fine.
Hmm. A “sexually active” “young child”? Or are you giving up on the 14 yr old = young child?
Yep looks like a highway to me. Notice the location of the guardrail, lack of berm, and lack of protection between the protestors and the highway traffic. That is state patrol jurisdiction, so the first commenters were correct.
And yes, 14 year olds are children but sometimes they have sex. It happens. Even to the “Christian” ones.
Children should not be part of protesting adult matter any more than they should be used as carriers for bombs.
This is interesting. Sexually active 14 year olds should be able to get abortions (“adult matter”), but not protest against them?
Just curious, do you know any 14 year olds well? Do you know what the school curriculum for 14 year olds includes? Probably things you would consider “adult matter”.
“This is why you don’t hang out on the highway, and one of many reasons why hitchhiking and riding bicycles on freeways is prohibited in numerous municipalities.”
LOL
law, transformed from nemesis of all fetus-fetishists to traffic prude. Awesome!
Cherry pick the article, law. “The suit claimed that at least 12 police officers handcuffed 18 demonstrators and would not tell them a reason for their arrests.” If the reason was “the interest of public safety,” one might expect that this would have been been mentioned by the officers. No? Or is depriving citizens of their liberty without citing the reason one of the “vital services” you find so invaluable?
Stupid troll.
“Three young women were twice subjected to strip searches, the suit alleged, once at the Bel Air police station and again at the Harford County Detention Center. The women, who were not released until the next day, were denied permission to call relatives or contact attorneys, the suit said.”
Right — because that’s always an important course of action when people are disrupting traffic.
“Police said motorists complained about the graphic nature of the protesters’ posters. Officers ordered the demonstrators to leave the county and arrested them when they failed to obey, police said.”
Leave the COUNTY? Not the intersection? What, there’s traffic all over the county? There’s nowhere in the county where they would not have been a hazard to traffic?
Stupid troll.
“The state dropped charges, which included loitering, disorderly conduct and failure to obey a lawful order, soon after the arrests.”
Heh. So in light of “The troopers acted in good faith, in the interest of public safety, and in accordance with advice from the county state’s attorney’s office.” — it looks as of the state’s attorney’s office had second thoughts about their legal standing for arrest. His/her change of mind seems to have been validated by the court’s decision.
Stupid troll.
“This is interesting. Sexually active 14 year olds should be able to get abortions (“adult matter”), but not protest against them?”
That 14 year olds sometimes get pregnant is not an excuse for you, or WBC, or anyone else to use them to advance your agenda when they cannot even understand all of those agendas for themselves yet. A pregnant 14 year old is a victim. 14 year olds, pregnant or not, are not for you to use as picket sticks. Children cannot vote, or drive, or join the military, or have jobs, but that you think they’re out there protesting because they have worked through all of the logical facets of the abortion debate for themselves shows just how bloody stupid you people are.
“law, transformed from nemesis of all fetus-fetishists to traffic prude. Awesome!”
I’m no traffic prude, but I’ve seen plenty of people darwin themselves on the highway in my day. Notice I didn’t say the lawsuit was totally without merit. What I am saying is that the protestors were being unsafe, and that their lawsuit is not without it’s effect on other people.
But then again, since when has pro-life cared about it’s effect on actual, real people?
Lrning: This is interesting. Sexually active 14 year olds should be able to get abortions (“adult matter”), but not protest against them?
Yeah, I read that too and chuckled.
Stupid troll.
law: Westboro is known for having a particular penchant for suing police for “civil rights violations.” That’s how they make their money.
Wait, so you mean their civil rights are actually being violated? The courts are siding with them? This means that government authorities are breaking the law, then — violating people’s constitutional rights. Either that or the courts are corrupt. Something.
Which is it, law? Which cases were badly decided, where no constitutional violations were foisted by authorities? Which courses were rightly decided, and we have the Westboro loons to thank for keeping state power accountable to the people?
Personally I have little familiarity with such cases, but since you cite this with sufficient familiarity to generalize about it, can you help out with some facts?
Thanks, stupid troll!
law: “That 14 year olds sometimes get pregnant is not an excuse for you, or WBC, or anyone else to use them to advance your agenda when they cannot even understand all of those agendas for themselves yet.”
LOL — but they can consent to an abortion.
STUPID troll.
law: “Children cannot vote, or drive, or join the military, or have jobs, but that you think they’re out there protesting because they have worked through all of the logical facets of the abortion debate for themselves shows just how bloody stupid you people are.”
What business do you have telling your child that murdering an adult human is wrong, law, inasmuch as they “haven’t worked through all the logical facets” of that?
LOL
Only pro-lifers are obliged to let their children figure things out with parental lips zipped shut. Everyone else is permitted to teach their kids right from wrong.
Stupid troll.
“What business do you have telling your child that murdering an adult human is wrong, law, inasmuch as they “haven’t worked through all the logical facets” of that? “
???
“Only pro-lifers are obliged to let their children figure things out with parental lips zipped shut.”
No one said you couldn’t teach your kids whatever you want. Indoctrinate them at the School of the Dining Room Table at will. You have to meet state educational standards, but after that you can tell them whatever makes you happy, including that a talking snake convinced a rib woman to eat from a magical tree. And chances are, they’ll believe you! Because they’re kids and don’t know any better. And this is why they’re not allowed to vote.
Abortion’s REALLY unsafe, especially for all the children who get killed.
“LOL — but they can consent to an abortion.
STUPID troll”
They cant consent to abortion. OR sex. OR CHILDBIRTH. What to do, what to do…
And thank GOD you are not a mother, law, because you would teach your child that she would be unvictimhooded by killing her own child. And no road walking for you, missy!
You can’t make this stuff UP.
“Wait, so you mean their civil rights are actually being violated? The courts are siding with them?”
Sometimes, sometimes not. They litigate so often that it’s a numbers game for them. They don’t have to pay for the government investigations, all they do is cash the big fat check that MAY come out of it should the police or city make ANY mistakes dealing with them. They’ve gotten to be such a huge nuisance that bikers have gathered together to surround them with sheets so the police don’t really have to be involved.
“Personally I have little familiarity with such cases, but since you cite this with sufficient familiarity to generalize about it, can you help out with some facts?
Thanks, stupid troll!”
Well, the only thing you have any familiarity with is the inside of your own rectal cavity, but you’re welcome anyway, choad!
law: ???
Oh, poor law can’t follow the implications of his own remarks.
Well that certainly explains some things.
Stupid troll.
“And thank GOD you are not a mother, law, because you would teach your child that she would be unvictimhooded by killing her own child. And no road walking for you, missy!
You can’t make this stuff UP.”
That someone would say “you can’t make this stuff up” after using “unvictimhooded” in a sentence is nothing short of classic.
law: “Well, the only thing you have any familiarity with is the inside of your own rectal cavity”
Showing your true colors.
So to speak.
law: “They can’t consent to abortion.”
There’s that backwater American provincialism again.
Stupid troll.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minors_and_abortion
Oh, right, ’cause pro-lifers only think about America. Just like abolitionists didn’t care about the global character of the slave trade, or American civil rights activists never cared about Apartheid, or . . .
Come to think of it, I’ve never once heard law cite anything outside his narrow American experience.
Provincial troll.
law: “That someone would say ‘you can’t make this stuff up’ after using ‘unvictimhooded’ in a sentence is nothing short of classic.”
I congratulate you, troll, on this sound observation. She indeed imitates neophrastic work redolent of Shakespeare, as well as his wit for ironic juxtaposition. So “classic” is mot juste.
And Rasqual, you know, one of my degrees is in English. I ended up using that Riverside Shakespeare and British Romantic Poets and Poetry to prop us my babies’ crib so as to facilitate the drainage!
law: “Children cannot vote, or drive, or join the military, or have jobs, but that you think they’re out there protesting because they have worked through all of the logical facets of the abortion debate for themselves shows just how bloody stupid you people are.
They cant consent to abortion. OR sex. OR CHILDBIRTH. What to do, what to do…”
Yeah, I didn’t think you knew any 14 year olds.
Newsflash, 14 year olds can get jobs.
They can consent to abortions in every state. (Might require court bypass.)
http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws.htm
And they are quite capable of doing research, determining how they feel about issues, and *gasp* deciding they want to protest with their parents!
My almost 14 year old daughter absolutely understands why killing the unborn is wrong and is a shame of our society.
It’s usually the graying adults who tend to mottle their morality.
“There’s that backwater American provincialism again.”
Considering that the original post was about Maryland, maybe it’s fair to say that you’re all over the map, moron.
According to you guys’ own linkage:
“Maryland
Requires parental notification and parents have to consent.
Allows minor to bypass parent by obtaining a court approval.
So no, brain trust, they can’t just “consent to an abortion,” not in the way that adults can. Not if they’re in Maryland. Their parents have to say it’s OK and if not they have to jump through a bunch of legal hoops. The reason for this is – wait for it – THEY’RE MINORS, children, and need law and adults to protect them, because they can’t do it themselves. Their parents have to ok them having jobs as well, you know, that whole child labor law thing. They can’t vote, they can’t drive, they can’t drink, they can’t join the military. But fortunately, they have options to protect them from crazies that think it’s healthy for them to have babies early and often to protect them from breast cancer.
Seriously, I think some of you should have to have a forced ultrasound on your skulls just to see if there’s anything in there.
mp says: March 7, 2012 at 6:30 pm
“Remember, it’s only a thin line of khaki-clad men and women wearing plantation hats that stand between you and anarchy.”
==============================================================
Don’t forget their guns!
or
the second ammendment to the United States Constitution.
It isn’t a police state that stands between us and anarchy.
It is a self controlled and informed public, many of whom possess their own firearms.
It is individuals who place a premium on human life and liberty and pursuit of a better tomorrow, today.
law: “Children cannot…have jobs…”
Lrning: “Newsflash, 14 year olds can get jobs.”
law: Their parents have to ok them having jobs as well, you know, that whole child labor law thing.
law: “They cant consent to abortion.”
Lrning: They can consent to abortions in every state. (Might require court bypass.)
law: So no, brain trust, they can’t just “consent to an abortion,” not in the way that adults can.
Don’t you ever get tired of back-pedaling? For someone with the moniker “law” you seem to know surprisingly little about the law.
law: I think you’ve observed that I widened the scope of the conversation to Alabama almost immediately. Right? Or did you miss that?
Some of us look at forests while the nitwits stare at particular trees.
Was what the children were doing that day in Maryland legal, or not?
Apparently the prosecutor thought he had no case — after abusing their civil rights.
A judge agreed.
And your most potent criticism — your heroic rant — is that of a traffic prude?
So that’s what pro-abortion trolls have been reduced to — church lady trivial moralists.
Stupid troll.
“Don’t you ever get tired of back-pedaling?”
Do you ever get tired of being an irrelevant twuntbag? You write like you’re eating your face. Why so mad?
“I think you’ve observed that I widened the scope of the conversation to Alabama”
No, if you’ll recall you tried to make it “global” (despite discussing nothing about any other country’s laws), and that’s because like anyone who has gotten good at projecting, you “move the goalposts,” (bringing up “provincialism” in a thread about Maryland would be a good example, so I wonder if you just learned a new word recently) accuse someone else of doing the same, and then hold them to a standard that only you know about. For example, what does “consent” mean? Apparently to you that’s some absolute statement with no legal definition at all – IE if a parent or the state has to do it, it’s still absolute to the child. D’OH! The fabric of consent vis a vis minors is very detailed (minors can’t enter into contracts either), but what am I even saying? You don’t care. You’ve already moved on from about the Children’s Crusade and how people of conscience have historically disagreed with using children in protests (oops), and then somehow it became objectionable to have minors having access to healthcare, though they make great road pizza.
You didn’t want to actually discuss the loss of money out of government coffers and how that affects people, you didn’t want to talk about the pro-lifers acting like buffoons by flouting common sense traffic safety (that plenty of other people pointed out in the thread YOU guys referenced), ignoring everything I said about it, why are you even bothering to have this discussion?? Was there a point you wanted to make somewhere?
Oh that’s right, your only purpose here isn’t to say anything intelligent, you’re here for the express purpose of catching me making some error so you can be right. This is how strong you are in your faith and beliefs – that they depend on me being wrong about a detail somewhere.
I take that as a great compliment – that your poor self-esteem and utter lack of faith depends on trying to find other people’s mistakes and throw them in their faces. Were you the kind of hateful cancerous self-loathing wannabe that tore down other people’s wardrobe choices in middle school? I bet you were the school bully who mercilessly harrassed and assaulted other people in the halls. This is why you identify now with a movement that culminates in the gun deaths of medical providers attending church with their families.
If you ever figure out what you actually believe about anything besides that fetuses are the most special living things ever, let me know. Or hey, keep on it because you know I type 70wpm and I’m sure I’ve misspelt a word here or there or used too instead of to. I might have even misplaced a bit of punctuation. Hang in there!
“Right? Or did you miss that?”
No, I don’t really read your posts either.
law says:
Do you ever get tired of being an irrelevant twuntbag? You write like you’re eating your face. Why so mad?
Bwhahaha! Did you actually stomp your foot as you typed that? Watching you resort to misogynistic name-calling has been quite a trip. Maybe you should go out and talk to some actual 14 year olds. You’d find it educational.
“Bwhahaha! Did you actually stomp your foot as you typed that? ”
No but in my editing phase I did make a mistake by accidentally leaving a word out of a sentence, did you see it? Alas I am a human not a computer (though I know it must be hard for you to tell in your quest to treat all post-birth people as objects), and I make mistakes all the time – in fact I was mistaken for many many years on an entire worldview, shocking isn’t it. Now, don’t you feel ever so much better in your quest to resemble Christ on earth?
“Watching you resort to misogynistic name-calling has been quite a trip.”
That would be an interesting accusation provided I cared an iota about your gender or even had any idea what it was. I neither know nor care, as long as you aren’t using the equipment thereof molest poor altar boys.
law: Are you genuinely an idiot? Do you really not know the difference between applying a categorical imperative and “moving the goalposts?”
It’s no shame to not understand the difference, but you need to be called on your idiocy when you presume to use terms you apparently don’t understand, reflecting them reflexively at your critics. Which explains, now, why I didn’t see substantive replies from you. You literally didn’t understand.
Stupid troll.
Good GRIEF: “You didn’t want to actually discuss the loss of money out of government coffers and how that affects people” — really? To the contrary, I continued in that vein and you dropped the subject quickly when I wanted to see whether you would apply that critique consistently in the case of civil rights activists as well. You nervously red-herringed yourself out of that tight spot by impugning pro-lifers as presuming parity with the civil rights movement.
“you’re here for the express purpose of catching me making some error so you can be right”
LOL
When you make errors and are called on them, it implies that the purpose other people exist is to aggravate your inferiority complex.
I see.
“I take that as a great compliment – that your poor self-esteem and utter lack of faith depends on trying to find other people’s mistakes and throw them in their faces. Were you the kind of hateful cancerous self-loathing wannabe that tore down other people’s wardrobe choices in middle school? I bet you were the school bully who mercilessly harrassed and assaulted other people in the halls. This is why you identify now with a movement that culminates in the gun deaths of medical providers attending church with their families.”
So what do you do when you find out you’re making losing bets?
Hey troll, are you accustomed to those YOU bully rolling over and peeing? Sorry to disappoint. I’m engaging someone who’s impugned participants here relentlessly, gratuitously, and with personal cruelty.
And now the troll is whining about bullies.
Too rich.
“I type 70wpm and I’m sure I’ve misspelt a word here or there”
Right. Another straw man — as if I’ve engaged in spelling flames with you.
Stupid troll.
Church lady traffic prude.
twunt
What a lovely combination of words that law uses. My ex and his brother liked to refer to me and other women with names such as these.
One of these boy-men broke my nose. The other one raped me. They both support legal abortion.
I read your posts, law. You remind me how important it is to keep fighting to stop legal abortion. It’s the true bullies that support abortion, dear.
“One of these boy-men broke my nose. The other one raped me. They both support legal abortion”
All those who murdered abortion doctors support the banning of abortion. The Catholic Church, which has protected those who rape children, supports the banning of abortion. Catholic priests, who “counsel” outside abortion clinics, harass women who are exercising their right to an abortion. Can we talk “true bullies,” dear?
Cabeza Cortigiana,
‘true bullies’ are pathetic predators who prey on the weak and the helpless.
You and the rest of your ‘dead babies r us’ mob have the bodies of hundreds of millions of pre-natal children accredited to your account.
How many dead butcher/botcher bullies can you credit to us?
Claiming to fight for women’s rights while using offensive names for female genitalia to insult people? Many lulz to be had on this thread.
law is a re-tread.
The name is different, but the odor is familiar.
The putrefying stench of decomposition hangs in the air like the fog over a rendering plant on a dreary winters morning.
“Claiming to fight for women’s rights while using offensive names for female genitalia to insult people?”
Perhaps you come from the feminist school of thought that says that it’s anti-feminist to use certain words or phraseology. I don’t.
“It’s no shame to not understand the difference, but you need to be called on your idiocy”
Idiocy is when parents let their children hang out beside a busy highway harassing oncoming traffic when in most municipalities, its illegal because it’s unsafe for both motorist AND pedestrian. Not that you seem to care. Those kids have already been born, so screw them, they make great picket sticks. The problem here is that you mistakenly think you’re approaching this from a moral high ground and that I somehow have a disadvantage ergo in your head you’ve somehow already won. This is why ultimately the debate always crashes and ends as soon as one of you reliably trots out “the bodies of hundreds of millions of pre-natal children” at which point those of us who would have been arguing better and more thought out points helplessly fall asleep from boredom.
“I wanted to see whether you would apply that critique consistently”
Now why on earth would you care about whether or not I’m being consistent about something (literally a topic that only has a tangential bearing on this discussion and on which you were completely wrong BTW, plenty of people far better than you have objected to the use of children for protests and should definately do so should the protests potentially be violent or dangerous) when you guys can’t even be consistent about real civil rights that are happening now?? To you it’s acceptable to require women to endure expensive, potentially painful, and unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds in violation of medical standards of practice, yet at the same time requiring people to carry medical insurance coverage so they don’t end up flat broke with medical bills and on public aid is an affront to the constitutional republic expectation that the lame, sick, blind, deaf, mentally ill, and poor to pay their own way or die?
I mean really, do you stay up at night trying to think of new ways to be a horrible, self-refuting Chaucerian fraud?
Consistently. From a movement that cares not one single iota about anyone who is already here. One that is provably hostile towards women, doctors, children, nonbelievers, gays, Muslims, you align yourself with a movement so incredibly stupid that it links the sexual habits of humans to the weather.
“When you make errors and are called on them”
You really are a legend in your own mind.
“You nervously red-herringed yourself out of that tight spot by impugning pro-lifers as presuming parity with the civil rights movement.”
Had nothing to do with nervousness or a red herring, your presuming the mantle of the Civil Rights movement is deeply, deeply insulting. This is a board largely comprised of Catholics, a body of hatred and stupidity so monumental that it hasn’t even finished apologizing for all of it’s countless crimes against humanity, including children.
You’ve placed yourself on a pedestal so high that not even your Jesus deserves to be on it.
law: Do you ever get tired of being an irrelevant twuntbag?
Lrning: “Watching you resort to misogynistic name-calling has been quite a trip.”
law: That would be an interesting accusation provided I cared an iota about your gender or even had any idea what it was.
Comedy gold.
You probably shouldn’t use words if you don’t know what they mean. When you use misogynistic words like “twunt” it doesn’t really matter if you’re directing them at a man or a woman.
“To you it’s acceptable to require women to endure expensive, potentially painful, and unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds in violation of medical standards of practice,”
It’s already the current standard of care.
http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ultrasoundstudy.pdf
“Lifenews” – wow, I’m totally convinced. Let me jettison everything I know from the official published opinions of the ACOG and the New England Journal of Medicine, as well as everything I’ve seen from the official positions of nationwide insurance carriers, let me change my mind entirely about everything! At the devastating citation of “Lifenews” let me chuck it all and convert to Christianity!
“When you use misogynistic words like “twunt” it doesn’t really matter if you’re directing them at a man or a woman.”
Right, I haven’t the slightest clue about the gender of anyone here, nor do I care, nor do any of my beliefs have a specifically gendered bent, but I’m definately a sexist. Accusations of sexism from those who identify with any of the many flavors of Christian tradition with it’s historic known hatred and persecution of women, you’ll understand, are a very, very special brand of hypocrisy. :-)
This is a board largely comprised of Catholics,
I don’t think so. It might lean the other way. Jill is not Catholic.
a body of hatred and stupidity so monumental that it hasn’t even finished apologizing for all of it’s countless crimes against humanity, including children.
I’m sorry you feel that way. Gosh, I forgot that you secularists are perfect. Maybe you should talk to someone to get over the hurt you feel.
God bless.
“When you use misogynistic words like “twunt”
Suddenly we care now about “misogyny” after spending the week defending the odious windbag Rush Limbaugh, who maligned a college student as a “slut” and a “prostitute” for three days and in no fewer than fifty different ways for talking about women’s healthcare, by objecting “Well, Bill Maher once called What’s Her Name a slut!” and now you want to subject everyone to a lecture about what words are and are not misogynistic.
If you were in front of me right now I would seriously laugh straight in your face.
Omfg this is freaking funny. Okay, you spent several posts on another thread complaining about people calling Fluke sexist names, which I wholeheartedly agree with btw, that was not cool or okay for her to be called that. But you are going to turn around and claim that the misogynistic language that you use is fine, because it’s against Christians, or so you think? Are you really just trying to be as ridiculous as possible?
“Okay, you spent several posts on another thread complaining about people calling Fluke sexist names, “
It wasn’t just people. It was a large body of the conservative blogosphere, cartoonists, radio hosts, and several TV personalities, for several days straight. Limbaugh himself maligned Fluke, and ALL women, no fewer than fifty times. Which, really, is fine by me because it did no damage to anyone but the entire conservative movement and the Republican party is baling water as fast as it can right now. I’m truly for freedom of speech, give someone enough rope and they’ll reliably hang themselves.
which I wholeheartedly agree with btw, that was not cool or okay for her to be called that. But you are going to turn around and claim that the misogynistic language that you use is fine
Misogyny is not just words, it’s belief systems – which is why Rush’s apology holds no weight. He apologized for the words he spoke and not the ideas behind them. Misogyny is voting to remove women’s rights and freedoms. Misogyny is expecting women to adhere to gender roles. Not all of us are the word police. Some of us are, but a few of us do not care for political correctness in terminology, fortunately the recent events in the media highlight this important distinction. And as far as what is and is not misogyny, anyone who aligns themselves with any of the various flavors of Christianity does not get to offer lectures on the subject.
Ah, so you are not the politically correct word police, but you WILL tell people who are allied with a certain religion that their opinions are invalid. I am not a Christian, am I allowed to have something to say or are you going to find another excuse to disregard me because I disagree with you?
And plenty of feminists realize the connection between using gemdered insults and poor treatment of women, especially since the word used as insults that are male-specific are considered by society to be a lot less vicious and degrading. You can disregard that if you please, but you should realize it makes you look a tad silly.
This is a board largely comprised of Catholics, a body of hatred and stupidity so monumental that it hasn’t even finished apologizing for all of it’s countless crimes against humanity, including children.
I’ll start with mine. I am so, so sincerely sorry that members of the Catholic Church have been involved in terrible evils. ):
“but you WILL tell people who are allied with a certain religion that their opinions are invalid.”
If their religious opinions weren’t invalid I would share them.
“And plenty of feminists realize the connection between using gemdered insults and poor treatment of women”
There are also plenty of feminists that believe in doing something to combat actual poor treatment of women through legislation such as outlawing sexual harrassment in the workplace, or protesting for stronger punishments for rape (or more funding for rape investigations – this list could extremely long) rather than policing people’s legitimate use of the first amendment.
law says: “Lifenews” – wow, I’m totally convinced.
Well, it’s too bad you didn’t actually look at the study, because you would have seen that it’s not from Lifenews, but from individuals representing Ipas, the Department of Maternal and Child Health and Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, the National Abortion Federation, and The Consortium of Planned Parenthood Abortion Providers. Read and be “totally convinced”.
law says: Suddenly we care now about “misogyny” after spending the week defending the odious windbag Rush Limbaugh
Please quote one comment of mine where I defended Limbaugh.
Not all of us are the word police. Some of us are, but a few of us do not care for political correctness in terminology
But you’ll blow a gasket when a prolifer tells you abortion kills a baby.
Misogyny is expecting women to adhere to gender roles.
What gender roles are you talking about?
There are also plenty of feminists that believe in doing something to combat actual poor treatment of women … rather than policing people’s legitimate use of the first amendment.
Hmm. Poor treatment of women like illegal strip searches and violating due process? And violating the pro-lifers constitutional right to free speech?
“Well, it’s too bad you didn’t actually look at the study”
I did, only I got it from Science Direct. And what do you know, it says nothing about ultrasounds used to obtain photos of the embryo or fetus for “informed consent” purposes or for medical files being “the standard” of medical care. I’m shocked.
“because you would have seen that it’s not from Lifenews, but from individuals representing Ipas, the Department of Maternal and Child Health and Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, the National Abortion Federation, and The Consortium of Planned Parenthood Abortion Providers”
You should stop believing what those idiots tell you what studies say and just read them for yourself.
“But you’ll blow a gasket when a prolifer tells you abortion kills a baby.”
On the contrary, pro-life propaganda works better than my off-label use of Trazodone as a sleep aid. Really, I ignore that stuff.
If their religious opinions weren’t invalid I would share them.
Surprise, surprise. You are your own religion. That would make you your own god. Do you know Duck?
What gender roles are you talking about?
“Poor treatment of women like illegal strip searches and violating due process?”
The reason I know you don’t actually care about rights violations is because it’s characterized here as a “win” for the pro-life cause, (“hooray for our side“??) not for the people that had to endure being searched and detained, and hooray for money into “pregnancy resource centers”, and ‘yay, stick it to Obama‘ not, ‘gee, I’m glad they were compensated for THEIR pain and suffering.’
Sorry but the language used here is anything but convincing that there is concern here over human rights violations.
Meanwhile, I’ve been protesting illegal strip searches and violations of due process, mostly for the elderly and disabled – for years now ever since the TSA implemented the new security measures at airports. I have almost three years worth of info on it and have blogged about it and collected dozens of articles and offered commentary, I’ve also written letters to legislative bodies. Where have you idiots been, again? I don’t see any posts here caring about “illegal strip searches and violations of due process” except this one because, surprise, you don’t really care about it.
FYI, just this week, the TSA violated a nursing mother by forcing her to pump breast milk before boarding a plane. Even Fox News reported on it.
http://www.care2.com/causes/tsa-forces-mom-to-pump-breast-milk-before-boarding-plane.html
I’ll not hold my breath waiting for a post here about it.
“You are your own religion.”
No, I am an antitheist.
But what gender roles do you speak of, law?
law says: The reason I know you don’t actually care about rights violations is because it’s characterized here as a “win” for the pro-life cause, (“hooray for our side“??) not for the people that had to endure being searched and detained, and hooray for money into “pregnancy resource centers”, and ‘yay, stick it to Obama‘ not, ‘gee, I’m glad they were compensated for THEIR pain and suffering.’
Please quote where I said those things.
law says: You should stop believing what those idiots tell you what studies say and just read them for yourself.
Did you actually read it? Because if you had, you would know that in 83% of NAF member clinics, vaginal ultrasounds are always done before early abortions. The practice you characterized as “expensive, potentially painful, unnecessary” and “in violation of medical standards of practice” is already the standard of care.
If you read the study, then you read “Early abortion has become a safe and practical option due to advances such as highly sensitive urine pregnancy tests, including kits for home use, development of effective regimens for medical
abortion and vaginal ultrasonography.”
So why do you object to ultrasound legislation again?
“Because if you had, you would know that in 83% of NAF member clinics, vaginal ultrasounds are always done before early abortions. “
And? If it was absolutely required before every abortion, all doctors and all clinics would do them 100% the time. They don’t. And the DON’T do them because of informed consent.
“is already the standard of care.”
Apparently you’re confused and think “standard of care” means “something that’s done a lot.” In reality, standard of care means methods are done correctly and for the right reasons, not whether or not they are done often or for nefarious purposes.
As far as informed consent goes, apparently Arizona Republicans don’t agree with Virginia Republicans that informing women is a good idea, as they have taken the exact opposite tack by protecting doctors who deliberately withhold information about their pregnancies from women.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/03/06/senate-approves-bill-on-wrongful-births/
Oh, BTW, for those of you who need to be reminded that law is two days ahead of the news, please roll this up, put it in your pipes, and smoke it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/08/virginias-pre-abortion-ultrasound-law-medically-unsound-violates-guidelines-of-american-college-of-obstetricians-and-gynecologists/
law,
From the author of the article at Forbes:
There is a reason why physicians take a cautious approach to ultrasound scans. They simply are not always safe in every situation.
The author of the article does not specify what the safety concerns might be. Do you know?
“The author of the article does not specify what the safety concerns might be. Do you know?”
Here ya go.
http://www.bmus.org/about-ultrasound/au-safetystatement.asp
law,
Knowing where the baby is and exactly how developed can only make the abortion safer for the mother. Why are you concerned about the ultrasound possibly hurting the fetus? You want the baby killed anyway right?
You are the one who is ok with the baby killed but you are also the one posting links the the British ultrasound socity saying vaginal ultrasounds laws are bad cause they aren’t safe for the fetus. huh?
law says: Apparently you’re confused and think “standard of care” means “something that’s done a lot.” In reality, standard of care means methods are done correctly and for the right reasons, not whether or not they are done often or for nefarious purposes.
Definition of Standard of care
Standard of care:
1. A diagnostic and treatment process that a clinician should follow for a certain type of patient, illness, or clinical circumstance.
2. In legal terms, the level at which the average, prudent provider in a given community would practice. It is how similarly qualified practitioners would have managed the patient’s care under the same or similar circumstances.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33263
Thankfully, it looks like the average, prudent early abortion provider doesn’t agree with you that vaginal ultrasounds are “unnecessary” and “in violation of medical standards of practice”. Their use of ultrasound to confirm gestational age and location of the pregnancy has probably saved women’s lives. Do you care about saving women’s lives, law?
No, I am an antitheist.
People on Jill’s site; say hello to the enemy of God. And law2014 runs around in circular logic to the point where that unclean spirit inside of law just told us their name. Law, in the name of Jesus and by the power of our Father Almighty the webs you spin will will be no more. You shall never convince the faithful of Jesus Christ that you have a right to mutilate mother’s and tear their babies from their wombs. May God rebuke you. And may He make it known that your words are like bloodied bile that could never again be spun into something acceptable here.
Ecce crucem Doimini
Fugite partes adversae
Vicit Leo de Tribu Judah
Radix David
Is this perhaps a case of bias or sloppy reporting?
From the Forbes article:
Indeed, the statute’s stated purpose for mandating the ultrasound scan is to ”document the measurements that have been taken to determine the gestational age of the fetus.“—a reason most certainly not within the medical guidelines put forth by the ACOG for performing this test.
From ACOG:
Major Recommendations
The grades of evidence (I-III) and levels of recommendation (A-C) are defined at the end of the “Major Recommendations” field.
The following conclusions are based on good and consistent evidence (Level A):
Ultrasound examination is an accurate method of determining gestational age, fetal number, viability, and placental location.
Gestational age is most accurately determined in the first half of pregnancy.
Ultrasonography can be used in the diagnosis of many major fetal anomalies.
Ultrasonography is safe for the fetus when used appropriately.
http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=14180
A more complete summary.
http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/Reports/Misc_PDFs/Ultrasound%20Summary–NCRP.pdf
The Forbes article provides links, helpfully. The ACOG has no problem at all with ultrasound use for numerous purposes, documented a bit better here (Aetna’s source):
http://issuu.com/olinad_2005/docs/101
The Forbes writer is a bit too eager to make his point, imagining that the fact that the ACOG takes a dim view of “souvenir photo” uses of ultrasound is relevant in considering its use for genuine medical purposes.
Whether one agrees with requiring its use before abortions or not, this article doesn’t make much of a case — not on the merits of its cited authority, at any rate. In fact, Lrning’s cited quote suggests the author is lying or sloppy, inasmuch as ACOG cites that determining gestational age is an indication for ultrasound.
BTW, law, nice rant above — you crawled out of your insufferable traffic prude mode. If you’re gonna troll, do it right, I always say.
truthseeker: “You shall never convince the faithful of Jesus Christ that you have a right to mutilate mother’s and tear their babies from their wombs.”
Well, nor will he convince our secular pro-life friends. He’s not trying to convince. He’s trolling — citing half-baked articles he quickly googles without first going to primary sources. He’s like a used car salesman who figures everyone’s a rube and won’t look under the hood. It’s easy to impress the rubes. Not so much those who’ll look a bit deeper.
Stupid troll.
Law is a kind of woman: angry, disappointed, and beaten down. I have wondered, reading this exchange, if she has ever had a kind, gentle thing ever happen to her. I would bet no.
“inasmuch as ACOG cites that determining gestational age is an indication for ultrasound.”
Gestational age is a legitimate reason for an ultrasound. “Informed consent” is not. When are you idiots going to get it through your thick skulls??
“People on Jill’s site; say hello to the enemy of God. And law2014 runs around in circular logic to the point where that unclean spirit inside of law just told us their name. Law, in the name of Jesus and by the power of our Father Almighty the webs you spin will will be no more.”
LOL! Now even the lay believers do message board exorcisms.
Law is a woman? My bad. Seriously. I do this all the time in these parts.
law: “Gestational age is a legitimate reason for an ultrasound.” Well, that’s a welcome concession from you, since Ungar remains too dishonest to admit as much. I commend your proper humility in the face of the facts.
There may be more to this troll than I suspected.
“Thankfully, it looks like the average, prudent early abortion provider doesn’t agree with you that vaginal ultrasounds are “unnecessary””
AGAIN, MORONS:
Those of us who object to this bill do not object to the use of ultrasounds. Like Sandra Fluke said nothing about her sex life, we have said nothing about that we think ultrasounds should not be used before abortions. Whether one is needed should be up to a doctor, not a politician.
The argument is, and you may as well get it right, is that this bill mandates ultrasounds whether or not they are necessary in any given case (and they aren’t always necessary, yet they are costly and will not be covered by insurance) and that the reasons the bill mandates them is a violation of ACOG guidelines that ultrasounds should not be used only for the purpose of obtaining pictures of the fetus.
Perhaps the problem is that you hillbillies couldn’t be bothered to actually read the text of the bill either?
“Standard of care:
1. A diagnostic and treatment process that a clinician should follow for a certain type of patient, illness, or clinical circumstance.
2. In legal terms, the level at which the average, prudent provider in a given community would practice. It is how similarly qualified practitioners would have managed the patient’s care under the same or similar circumstances.”
What’s 50-7?
Answer: the number of states that don’t have “ultrasound bills.” So apparently government mandated ultrasounds are NOT the “standard of care.”
And as far as “legal terms” go, McDonnell backed off the transvaginal part because his advisors told him, correctly, that it wouldn’t pass 4th amendment muster.
Have a nice day.
50 advertisers. Gone.
“ the reasons the bill mandates them is a violation of ACOG guidelines that ultrasounds should not be used only for the purpose of obtaining pictures of the fetus.”
Um, no. Ungar didn’t even read the documentation. He’s imagining that the “boutique services” disclaimer in the ACOG document covers use of ultrasound for gestational age determination, when it most obviously (for anyone having parsed the document even casually) does not.
The law states that a print shall be retained for documentation purposes in the patient record, which has nothing to do with the ACOG clause. It shall be offered the woman, but she’s under no obligation to view it.
law, I think you should take some of your own advice.
law says: “You should stop believing what those idiots tell you what (laws) say and just read them for yourself.”
SB 484: “At least 24 hours before the performance of an abortion, a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal transabdominal ultrasound imaging on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age. If the pregnant woman lives at least 100 miles from the facility where the abortion is to be performed, the fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed at least two hours before the abortion. The ultrasound image shall contain the dimensions of the fetus and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community for determining gestational age. When only the gestational sac is visible during ultrasound imaging, gestational age may be based upon measurement of the gestational sac. If gestational age cannot be determined by a transabdominal ultrasound, then the patient undergoing the abortion shall be verbally offered other ultrasound imaging to determine gestational age, which she may refuse. A print of the ultrasound image shall be made to document the measurements that have been taken to determine the gestational age of the fetus.
Nothing herein shall preclude the physician from using any ultrasound imaging that he considers to be medically appropriate pursuant to the standard medical practice in the community.”
law says: “So apparently government mandated ultrasounds are NOT the “standard of care.”
Nice attempt, but no cigar. Clearly the current standard of care is for an ultrasound to be performed prior to an early abortion. Why on earth would anyone that cares about women object to the government mandating that all providers follow the current standard of care?
law says: “and that the reasons the bill mandates them is a violation of ACOG guidelines that ultrasounds should not be used only for the purpose of obtaining pictures of the fetus. Perhaps the problem is that you hillbillies couldn’t be bothered to actually read the text of the bill either?”
I’m embarrassed for you.
“Ungar didn’t even read the documentation.”
I did. SB484 states, ‘Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion’
IE, as part of our campaign to take pictures of embryos because they’re squeee adorable and no woman who sees a picture of an embryo would ever want an abortion.
Morons.
He’s imagining that the “boutique services” disclaimer in the ACOG document covers use of ultrasound for gestational age determination”
What part of “informed consent” did you not understand? Ultrasounds are not supposed to be mandated for the purposes of influencing women’s medical decisions. They are medical technology that doctors use for informational purposes, they are not tools in the pro-lie agenda. They are not performed in all instances or by all doctors, and are not always medically necessary.
“Nice attempt, but no cigar. Clearly the current standard of care is for an ultrasound to be performed prior to an early abortion. “
“Once the woman’s choice to proceed with an abortion has been clearly established and written informed consent has been obtained, there is no need for further delay, which may only increase the risk of complications. Counseling should be offered only if the woman requests it or there is a perceived need for it.The blood-group rhesus type should be determined and Rh immune globulin should be administered in Rh-negative women. Cytologic screening of the cervix and screening for sexually transmitted diseases should be offered as appropriate. Ultrasonographic examination of the uterus is common, but it is not required routinely before a first-trimester abortion is performed.”
Kulier R, Kapp N. Comprehensive analysis of the use of pre-procedure ultrasound for first- and second-trimester abortion. Contraception 2011;83:30-33
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE … #t=article
The current standard of care is that it’s up to the doctor to decide whether it’s necessary, not politicians, which is how it’s done in the vast majority of states. It’s only politicians in the idiot states who think SQUEE pictures of embryos are a brilliant abortion deterrent.
In Alabama, their bill has a name – “the right to know and see” act – which differs from boutique sonograms only inasmuch as a woman wants to keep her pregnancy.
This bill and other similar bills will be overturned as soon as they’re brought before a court. If only there were a way to gamble on it because I sure would.
“50 advertisers. Gone.”
I understand he had five full minutes of dead air yesterday and is now filling slots with PSAs.
OOps, sorry, link didn’t paste properly. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMcp1103639?activeTab=comments&page=1&sort=oldest&#t=article
law: I’m embarrassed for you too. When someone holds you accountable for saying [thing A] and demonstrates that you’re wrong, your retort is “You idiots don’t get it! It’s all about [thing B]!”
Worse, and more embarrassing (fortunately your ego is strong enough that such embarrassment is water off your duck’s back), is how you holler that folks should read the statute, then you cite a line of it but supply the rest of what you imagine it says/implies from premises mucking about inside your own febrile skull.
It’s unseemly, to be sure.
Troll.
MPQ-
Betcha 5 bucks law is @mthoughts and her friend that flies jets for the army is @juliewashere
You gonna take it? I seriously will give you 5 dollars via paypal if I’m wrong.
I understand he had five full minutes of dead air yesterday and is now filling slots with PSAs.
One can now say, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that Limbaugh’s best days are behind him. The same may hold true for the Republican Party. Leonard Pitt put it best. He said the conservative movement and the Republican Party has become a landfill, with Limbaugh circling above it like some scavenger bird.
As an old-time conservative, I saw it coming. These new people aren’t interested in common ground, they want total victory and are willing to pay any price for it, hence the “double down” and “don’t retreat, reload” rhetoric. They are, as I’ve warned here, marginalizing themselves into irrelevance.
The mainstream, which these so-called conservatives despise, is expressing itself through social media, but they’re not hearing the message. The mainstream is saying they’re tired of the ideological harangues, but the interpretation being offered by the likes of Hannity and O’Reilly is “liberal plot” or “set-up.” They should have learned something from the Komen and Limbaugh-Fluke events, but they’re not listening; they’re too busy doubling-down and declaring, like one commenter here, that “tolerance is a refuge for the spineless and those without conviction.” They are the only ones to whom “The Truth” has been revealed.
I saw it happen before, in 1964.
law says: SB484 states, ‘Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion’. Morons. What part of “informed consent” did you not understand?
Comedy gold.
SB 484: Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion.
IE, gestational age is a required component of informed consent and will be measured via ultrasound. AGOG says “Ultrasound examination is an accurate method of determining gestational age”.
Are you using words you don’t understand again?
mo·ron
noun
1.a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.
Now even the lay believers do message board exorcisms.
Apparently so since I read above where they got the devil in you to call out her name ‘antitheist’. You are a liar from the beginning. You post links claimimg that ultrasounds should not be done cause they aren’t safe for the baby but you are the one who is ok with the baby being killed with or without an ultrasound. The father of lies is never concerned with truth is he?
As an ‘old-time’ conservative, I saw it coming.
mp , as an ex-conservative who claims to value truth; why did you avoid answering this post I put to you earlier. ‘How many advertisers does Rush have throughout his affiliates?’
mp , as an ex-conservative who claims to value truth; why did you avoid answering this post I put to you earlier. ‘How many advertisers does Rush have throughout his affiliates?’
meh.
Which is it law2014? Are you genuinely concerned about babies being hurt by ultrasound? I hope so. But from your other posts it would appear you don’t really care about the unborn as much as you care about using them to your advantage when possible. So which is it? Are you really concerned about babies being hurt by vaginal ultrasound?
Lrning nothing: “SB 484: Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age“
WHY IS ‘INFORMED CONSENT” in this bill at all?? Why is there a component that the photos of the fetus must be put in the woman’s medical file?
Oh that’s right, because this bill has everything to do with changing women’s minds and nothing to do with letting doctors decide what is necessary.
Why are you people pretending that legislators in Virginia know so much about women’s health that they have to mandate a medical procedure in all cases, prudent or not?
This is a losing proposition for you guys. Really! You keep trying to take different tacks to justify a government mandated medical procedure when there are no good arguments for it.
mp: “As an old-time conservative, I saw it coming.”
It was only after I left conservatism did I REALLY see it. It’s like a Monet, you have to step away to see what it really looks like.
“When someone holds you accountable for saying [thing A] and demonstrates that you’re wrong”
Scott, not only have you never demonstrated that I’m wrong about this, you continue to sing and dance despite being shown that ultrasounds should not be used as tools to convince women to change their minds, which is EXACTLY what this legislation is about and there’s no way you can honestly deny that. You guys have been caught out. That you stand behind this legislation as if members of a state government know all about responsible medicine and on top of it have women’s best interests at heart when they certainly never have before just shows that this is a political issue for you – that power grab over women is just entirely too tempting to ignore. Who the heck do you think you’re fooling??? Your argument is basically that because doctors largely perform ultrasounds before abortion (thought not always and you’ve never denied that), that the government should now mandate it in ALL cases in an effort to make women behave differently and you won’t even accept that they ADMIT that’s why they’re doing it.
Stick with brewing coffee, I’m sure you’re way better at it than you are about understanding what women need and that they DON’T need Bob McDonnell to step between them and their doctors. Jerk.
“Betcha 5 bucks law is @mthoughts and her friend that flies jets for the army is @juliewashere”
I don’t use Twitter. Send the $5 to:
2122 W Taylor St # 104 Chicago, IL 60612
Thanks :)
meh.
mp,
So you post dozens of updates about how thrilled you are that Rush is losing advertisers and then when I ask you how many advertisers Rush has you say you don’t care how many advertisers Rush has. What gives mp? Your posts are not even worth reading if this is the kind of bs you spin.
WHY IS ‘INFORMED CONSENT” in this bill at all?? Why is there a component that the photos of the fetus must be put in the woman’s medical file?
….It was only after I left conservatism did I REALLY see it. It’s like a Monet, you have to step away to see what it really looks like….
law,
You kind of answered your own question. I think a woman deserves to see the BIG PICTURE before making such a huge decision to take the life of her child. It has nothing to do with “guilting” or “shaming” her. An ultrasound gives her as much information as possible before making her final decision. But you already knew that.
“You kind of answered your own question. I think a woman deserves to see the BIG PICTURE before making such a huge decision to take the life of her child…An ultrasound gives her as much information as possible before making her final decision. “
That is not what sonography is for. As we have been saying. It is a diagnostic tool for doctors, not a counselling tool for politicians to use to make women behave differently.
“Apparently so since I read above where they got the devil in you to call out her name ‘antitheist’. You are a liar from the beginning.”
I swear I’m going to start clicking “like” on these posts because they’re so funny. You should change your nickname to “Carrie White’s Mother,” as I read your stuff I can almost hear Pino Donaggio’s excellent score in my head.
law2014,
Cat got your tongue again? Are you genuinely concerned about babies being hurt by ultrasound? I hope so. But from your other posts it would appear you don’t really care about the unborn as much as you care about using them to your advantage when possible. So which is it? Are you really concerned about babies being hurt by vaginal ultrasound?
That is not what sonography is for. As we have been saying. It is a diagnostic tool for doctors, not a counselling tool for politicians to use to make women behave differently.
Spoken like a true pro-abort who WISHES women still bought the lie that “it’s not a baby, only a blob of tissue”.
****
mp,
Rush is not going to be losing listeners during an election year. His advertisers are either short-sited or (gasp*) conspiring to raise Rush’s presence in the news of the day to reap future benefits when they decide to come back to him.(They will.) I don’t condone Limbaughs poor choice of words last week, by the way.
law: “WHY IS ‘INFORMED CONSENT” in this bill at all??”
Judging by the required components of the informed consent in SB 484, it appears the legislators are trying to address the many ways women have been victimized by abortionists. Never again:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-victim-calls-philadelphia-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell/story?id=12731387#.T1pXuPX3Gxg
SB 484:
D. For purposes of this section:
“Informed written consent” means the knowing and voluntary written consent to abortion by a pregnant woman of any age, without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion by the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent. … This basic information shall include:
1. A full, reasonable and comprehensible medical explanation of the nature, benefits, and risks of and alternatives to the proposed procedures or protocols to be followed in her particular case;
2. An instruction that the woman may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the performance of the procedure;
3. An offer for the woman to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion so that he may answer any questions that the woman may have and provide further information concerning the procedures and protocols;
4. A statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed and that fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed prior to the abortion to confirm the gestational age; and
5. An offer to review the printed materials described in subsection F. If the woman chooses to review such materials, they shall be provided to her in a respectful and understandable manner, without prejudice and intended to give the woman the opportunity to make an informed choice and shall be provided to her at least 24 hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least 72 hours before the abortion by first-class mail or, if the woman requests, by certified mail, restricted delivery. This offer for the woman to review the material shall advise her of the following: (i) the Department of Health publishes printed materials that describe the unborn child and list agencies that offer alternatives to abortion; (ii) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department; (iii) the father of the unborn child is liable to assist in the support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, that assistance in the collection of such support is available, and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department; (iv) she has the right to review the materials printed by the Department and that copies will be provided to her free of charge if she chooses to review them; and (v) a statewide list of public and private agencies and services that provide ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services free of charge. Where the woman has advised that the pregnancy is the result of a rape, the information in clause (iii) may be omitted.
law: Why is there a component that the photos of the fetus must be put in the woman’s medical file?
Possibly for enforcement purposes. Having the photo of the fetus with the measurements marked proves that the ultrasound requirement was followed.
Judging by the required components of the informed consent in SB 484, it appears the legislators are trying to address the many ways women have been victimized by abortionists.
I’m sure that’s their motivation. Fortunately I have my little personal stenographer to play that back for you:
“A top Republican legislative leader in Virginia described abortion as a “lifestyle convenience” during the floor debate on a controversial measure to require trans-vaginal ultrasounds before a woman can get an abortion.”
Let’s go the video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uci-a6wAHzY
No, this isn’t blatant hostility to women or abortion in general, of course not! I’m sure our bald-headed hero here is NOTHING like his fellow Republicans, and that he is definately only about making sure that slutty sluts who are choosing lifestyle convenience are doing so safely!
*snort*
law2014,
You seem to be avoiding answering this question. Probably because not even an antitheist can spin/twist an answer to this question far enough to make your position look sane. Even though you don’t speak the truth; you do know what the truth is and answering this question would shine a very poor light on you wouldn’t it? I’ll give you one more chance to answer this question for yourself.
Are you genuinely concerned about babies being hurt by ultrasound? I hope so. But from your other posts it would appear you don’t really care about the unborn as much as you care about using them to your advantage when possible. So which is it? Are you really concerned about babies being hurt by vaginal ultrasound?
That’s a powerful 18 seconds of video ya got there. Too bad it doesn’t include any context. I can’t seem to find full video of all of his comments. Wonder why that is?
“blatant hostility”? He doesn’t look very hostile to me, but maybe he’s wicked antagonistic in the missing rest of the video. Please post a link when you find it.
So let’s look at what he said. “But in the vast majority of these cases, these are matters of lifestyle convenience, Mr. Speaker.” And then let’s look at the top 10 reasons women choose abortion.
Percentage of women reporting that specified reasons contributed to their decision to have an abortion:
Having a baby would dramatically change my life, 74%
Can’t afford a baby now, 73%
Don’t want to be a single mother or having relationship problems, 48%
Have completed my childbearing, 38%
Not ready for a(nother) child, 32%
Don’t want people to know I had sex or got pregnant, 25%
Don’t feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child, 22%
Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion, 14%
Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus, 13%
Physical problem with my health, 12%
I think he might be able to make the case that “lifestyle convenience” is a reason in the vast majority of abortions.
law2014,
Your positions have ALL been shown to be WRONG. Your posts are full of bile and frequently leave a disgusting stench on the mind of those who bother to read them. You avoid answering questions that show the insanity of the circular arguments you spin. Inability to support your comments or offer sane response to rebuttals makes one a troll.
I said I’d bet MPQ, not you. And she didn’t take the bet. :(
But you’re from Chicago, so that explains a lot. My fiance and I were just talking about how the overflow from the toilet that is Chicago makes what could be a nice place like Milwaukee that much worse.
2122 W Taylor St # 104 Chicago, IL 60612
This is the address for the Disabled American Veterans.
What war were you in, law? What is your disability?
“And then let’s look at the top 10 reasons women choose abortion.”
The fact that this would be a consideration for you OR Virginia Republicans is precisely the problem.
“Your positions have ALL been shown to be WRONG. Your posts are full of bile and frequently leave a disgusting stench on the mind of those who bother to read them.”
“They’re all gonna laugh at you!! ”
“This is the address for the Disabled American Veterans.”
Yes, yes it is. Consider sending your $5 to them.
@xalisae
“flies jets for the army”
HAHAHA What the raging crap?
I stand corrected the army has 37 jets.
Thanks for confirming the address, law, and for caring about our veterans (after all, they were all once in their mom’s wombs just like we were).
We need to consistently thank veterans and those in the service who protect our great country. The address for the US Army Recruiting Office in Chicago is 525 South State Street if you are interested in making a donation to them as well.
Now why do you keep avoiding the question I’ve asked numerous times?:
What gender roles are you talking about?
Praxedes,
law has no answers or sound dialogue. Just her bile to spew. If she can’t answer questions or respond to her lies then she is a troll. Methinks she may be over-ingesting steroids over an extended period of time and may be post-abortive. And asking her to answer questions is meaningless at thiis point cause she has a proclivity towrds lying or avoiding dialogue that shows her ignorance.
She strikes out when somebody tells her conception is the beginning of life. It is sad to see somebody in this day and age so deluded.
xalisae,
my dad was a captain in the army and in WWII he served his tour in Europe as a meteoroligist telling those 37 jets when the weather was safe to fly missions.
When law is asked if she is concerned about babies being hurt by ultrasound she will not answer because YES means she admitting to the evil that is abortion and if she says NO then she is showing her lack of civility. It sucks to be in the position of a mindless minion of the pro-death culture. I actually feel sorry for her.
law: “Scott, not only have you never demonstrated that I’m wrong about this…”
Wrong about what, law?
Do you even know?
Or was that just boilerplate rhetoric?
Seriously, wrong about what? I’d like you to demonstrate that you even know.
Lrning: “IE, gestational age is a required component of informed consent and will be measured via ultrasound.”
Determing gestational age is also important from a standpoint of Roe v. Wade. Inasmuch as a state can regulate abortion in the second trimester, it becomes important for an abortionist to be able to demonstrate compliance with any such laws, by making the best possible measure of gestational age. An ultrasound image in the record provides documentation of good faith in compliance.
This kind of thing is routine in any other area of the law where compliance audits have consequences. Abortionists have been given a pass few other industries or health care providers receive — mainly because abortion advocates view any regulation as a pro-life camel’s nose under the tent.