House GOP: mandate Ultrasounds before abortions

[Dana7360]

You don't need an ultrasound to perform an abortion.

You don't need an MRI to perform brain surgery either, but they give doctors and patients a better understanding of the situation and can predict possible complications.

Non-sequitur. The baby is being aborted, dude. There is no scientific or medical reason for it to have an ultrasound.

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

 

[HenryBHough]

No doubt, for your next trick, you will perform a river dance in baseball cleats.

A rather inelegant way to proclaim your joy over the killing of infants but you have every right to those feelings so long as they remain just feelings.

 

[orogenicman]

No doubt, for your next trick, you will perform a river dance in baseball cleats.

A rather inelegant way to proclaim your joy over the killing of infants but you have every right to those feelings so long as they remain just feelings.

Actually, it was an elegant way to point out your obfuscation and the fact that you people never miss a chance to insult the president of the United States, whether or not he is even a part of the topic under discussion. Trust, me. It could have been much worse.

 

[JoeMoma]

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

It adds an unnecessary cost to an already expensive procedure. But hey, at least you are now being honest as to exactly why you think they should have this test. You want them to have it not for any medically valid reason, since there is no medically valid reason for performing this procedure on a fetus that is going to be aborted. You want to force them to have the procedure to try to make them change their minds on whether or not to have the abortion. Even if it worked, it is not your place to do that. All decisions with regard to a woman's health is the woman's decision (and hers alone) in consultation with her doctor.

And it still will be, even with the ultrasound. Are you afraid that a lot of women will change their minds after seeing that baby inside.

You are supporting a requirement that doctors perform an unnecessary procedure on their patients. That is highly unethical.

Present that argument to a person who was not aborted because his mother saw an ultrasound. Don't deny that if this requirement is passed as law that there will not be such people.

Appeal to emotions fallacy. This is all you have? Really?

No! I have logic. Logic which you are trying to ignore by calling it an emotional fallacy.

 

[HenryBHough]

Actually, it was an elegant way to point out your obfuscation and the fact that you people never miss a chance to insult the president of the United States, whether or not he is even a part of the topic under discussion. Trust, me. It could have been much worse.

This is true!

Worse, for example if John F(ucking) Kerry had been nominated and won instead of our current "leader".

But getting back to the subject, are you in favour of unnecessary medical procedures and expenses? If not then how can you justify the use of anesthesia for frivolous infanticide (abortion)

 

[jknowgood]

You don't need an MRI to perform brain surgery either, but they give doctors and patients a better understanding of the situation and can predict possible complications.

Non-sequitur. The baby is being aborted, dude. There is no scientific or medical reason for it to have an ultrasound.

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

Obamacare took care of that problem, remember? Why obamacare makes sure everyone has access to the best medical care in the world. So she should get an ultra sound.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should you need to have an ultrasound before you have your appendix out? Your tonsils? Your gall bladder?

 

[haissem123]

Can some body explain the part where the government is subsidizing abortions in some way? Cause if they can pay for that shit, I could use some dental work to eat those dead babes better. lol.

 

[Dana7360]

Non-sequitur. The baby is being aborted, dude. There is no scientific or medical reason for it to have an ultrasound.

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

Obamacare took care of that problem, remember? Why obamacare makes sure everyone has access to the best medical care in the world. So she should get an ultra sound.

If she lives in a state that expanded medicaid and joined the exchange then yes, she would probably have coverage.

However, if she's in one of the many red states that didn't expand medicaid and joined the exchanges then no, she's probably not covered.

 

[HenryBHough]

Should you need to have an ultrasound before you have your appendix out? Your tonsils? Your gall bladder?

Before undertaking any of those a responsible surgeon (one not hell-bent on a malpractice suit) would have X-rays or MRI scans done. When those are inappropriate (for example, no MRI's for folks with metal plates over their lobotomy access ports) then, yes, an ultrasound may be exactly what is needed.

X-rays are shunned for pregnancy for what most doctors consider prevention of radiation exposure to the unborn child - in case it's not marked for murder.

 

[haissem123]

Do the women who preach so hard about keeping late term and making it easier and funner to have abortions really think women should as many as they want? are they going for records on how many they have? it would seem so the way they get into like it's a good thing and their right to crush the skull of their unborn children like it's a game they deserve to play cause their doctor said he'd do it for the right price? When it's needed or before pain is one thing, but we really shouldn't make more effort to prevent it. Take the pills early as possible and some other steps to protect your body you want such control over then you won't have to kill someone else's small body for a stupid slip of the dick. lol. I must confess. I did have an abortion. so there. I did try to minimize them tho. Do you hate me more now?

 

[Political Junky]

Aw shucks.....a woman who doesn't have an ultrasound and have a printout made of the results will have NO pictures of her child to brag on. Unless she decides maybe aborting isn't such a great hobby after all.

So it is about making it difficult for the woman. Make her suffer.

 

[HenryBHough]

So it is about making it difficult for the woman. Make her suffer.

Selectively cost-conscious all of a sudden?

 

[OKTexas]

You don't need an MRI to perform brain surgery either, but they give doctors and patients a better understanding of the situation and can predict possible complications.

Non-sequitur. The baby is being aborted, dude. There is no scientific or medical reason for it to have an ultrasound.

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

I guess you haven't been listening to your dear leader, everybody has health care now and almost all diagnostic procedures are free. BTW many of the remote problems you describe are diagnosed via ultrasound to begin with so the largest portion of your argument doesn't hold water and most abortion regulations have exceptions for rape and incest.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It's not that complicated. Abortion is a medical procedure. If you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an ultrasound is a medical necessity in an abortion, you win.

If you can't, you lose.

If abortion is a medical procedure then I'm a Veterinarian for being a hunter. Abortion is murder. Prove it's not or you lose.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You don't need an MRI to perform brain surgery either, but they give doctors and patients a better understanding of the situation and can predict possible complications.

Non-sequitur. The baby is being aborted, dude. There is no scientific or medical reason for it to have an ultrasound.

Really, where did you get your medical degree? Like I said, up to date imaging can give the patient and doctor information that is not otherwise available and can prevent unexpected complications. You can deny it all day but that won't make it true.

I don't need a medical degree to understand the motive behind this bill, and it has nothing to do with providing a valuable medical tool that can prevent further complications, and everything to do with making the cost prohibitive and trying to influence the mother into NOT having the abortion. Again, the baby is going to be aborted. It doesn't need an ultrasound.

All gynecologist have ultrasound machines, it's not cost prohibitive, they use them all the time for diagnostic reasons. You just don't want mothers to see a reason not to kill their child.

While there is an ultra sound machine in that doctor's office. The use of it isn't free to the patients.

The average cost to the patient for an ultra sound is around 200 dollars.

Which to a woman who has no insurance and doesn't have much money, 200 dollars is very expensive and would probably keep the woman from having the abortion she needs.

Or what about a woman who planned her pregnancy and the fetus turns out to have severe spina bifida? Which happened someone I know. The fetus wouldn't have lived through birth. She had to have an abortion. Do you want to further traumatize her?

Or what about in a very planned pregnancy, the cord gets wrapped around the neck of the fetus and it dies? She's already mourning the loss and you want to force her to actually see her dead fetus? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who has an ectopic pregnancy? Are you going to make her see the damage that fertilized egg is doing to her fallopian tubes and ovaries? And how it's going to kill her if she doesn't have an abortion? Can you be more cruel?

Or what about a woman who was raped? You want to force her to see what that barbaric monster has put inside her? Can you be more cruel?

That's one of the problems with ideas like this from conservatives. They don't think things through and innocent people are hurt because of it.

In every bolded case you mentioned there would have already been ultra-sounds and x-rays to determine the baby had a complicating medical issue so that is a poor example.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Aw shucks.....a woman who doesn't have an ultrasound and have a printout made of the results will have NO pictures of her child to brag on. Unless she decides maybe aborting isn't such a great hobby after all.

So it is about making it difficult for the woman. Make her suffer.

Last I checked the woman was still alive and is killing off the baby to make her life better right? So who's suffering here? Oh yeah, the dead child.

 

[Lovebears65]

Luddly Neddite

Obamacare puts the government in the doctor's office with you. And now, so does the idiot Republican caucus in the House.

Only, Obamacare doesn't do that. Just like Obamagas doesn't put the gubbermint in your car.

Yes it does..

 

[OnePercenter]

Aw shucks.....a woman who doesn't have an ultrasound and have a printout made of the results will have NO pictures of her child to brag on. Unless she decides maybe aborting isn't such a great hobby after all.

So it is about making it difficult for the woman. Make her suffer.

Last I checked the woman was still alive and is killing off the baby to make her life better right? So who's suffering here? Oh yeah, the dead child.

Your belief that Ford didn't take bailouts makes all of your opinions STUPID.

 

[thanatos144]

Aw shucks.....a woman who doesn't have an ultrasound and have a printout made of the results will have NO pictures of her child to brag on. Unless she decides maybe aborting isn't such a great hobby after all.

So it is about making it difficult for the woman. Make her suffer.

Last I checked the woman was still alive and is killing off the baby to make her life better right? So who's suffering here? Oh yeah, the dead child.

Your belief that Ford didn't take bailouts makes all of your opinions STUPID.

Ford was forced to take tarp money for which they unlike gm promptly paid back.