Wisconsin GOP: Forcing Women To Undergo Transvaginal Ultrasounds Is Our ‘Priority"

[Vox]

omg...cruel and immoral..can you be any more dramatic?
...you ever have a pap smear?
if you want I'll give you the details and then you can judge if it's cruel and immoral..good grief

Killing one's baby is NOT cruel and immoral, it's a "choice", VIEWING the baby while she is still alive on a screen is
Can it be more hypocritical?

some of these people are twisted and silly dramatic..
all one can do is

they are simply LIERS. They LIE to themselves about "cluster of cells" to justify what they did and they KNOW they killed a baby - that is why it slipped from their subconscious guilt about cruelty - becasue the are very well aware that what they are advocating for - is MURDER

 

[Circe]

Killing one's baby is NOT cruel and immoral, it's a "choice", VIEWING the baby while she is still alive on a screen is
Can it be more hypocritical?

You are calling it a baby but of course it isn't --- that's the whole point. To prevent the fetus from becoming a baby.

So forcing women to "view the baby" is obviously incredibly hypocritical and cruel if they have come there to get rid of it.

This kind of law is amazingly immoral. I don't see how anyone can stand to support it. Why not just try to overturn the legality of abortions? Don't do this kind of cruel stuff. It's very wrong.

 

[Vox]

Killing one's baby is NOT cruel and immoral, it's a "choice", VIEWING the baby while she is still alive on a screen is
Can it be more hypocritical?

You are calling it a baby but of course it isn't --- that's the whole point. To prevent the fetus from becoming a baby.

So forcing women to "view the baby" is obviously incredibly hypocritical and cruel if they have come there to get rid of it.

This kind of law is amazingly immoral. I don't see how anyone can stand to support it. Why not just try to overturn the legality of abortions? Don't do this kind of cruel stuff. It's very wrong.

your subconscious guilt is so Freudian and so visible, do not try to justify it

 

[CaféAuLait]

Killing one's baby is NOT cruel and immoral, it's a "choice", VIEWING the baby while she is still alive on a screen is
Can it be more hypocritical?

You are calling it a baby but of course it isn't --- that's the whole point. To prevent the fetus from becoming a baby.

So forcing women to "view the baby" is obviously incredibly hypocritical and cruel if they have come there to get rid of it.

This kind of law is amazingly immoral. I don't see how anyone can stand to support it. Why not just try to overturn the legality of abortions? Don't do this kind of cruel stuff. It's very wrong.

And again, as the article notes, they are not forced to look at the screen.

although the woman would not be forced to look at the image.

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Not to mention the abortion provider is already using ultrasound to determine the age of the fetus and relays that information the female seeking an abortion.

 

[Circe]

[

Lyons warned conference attendees that “critics will say a vaginal ultrasound is the equivalent of rape.” She added that “the bill does not require this form of ultrasound.”

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Ah, but it requires, forces, SOME form of ultrasound to torture women who come to get a legal abortion?

Pretty awful behavior to force women to do that --- maybe you should try to make abortion illegal, don't just torture women because you can't get what you want forced onto people. Pretty low; I don't think you can go much lower, but you antiabortion people may well think of someway to maltreat women that's even worse.

Why not just be honest and decent? If you object, try to get abortion made illegal. If you fail, the democracy is against you, that's all. Give up and get a hobby.

 

[Stephanie]

Killing one's baby is NOT cruel and immoral, it's a "choice", VIEWING the baby while she is still alive on a screen is
Can it be more hypocritical?

You are calling it a baby but of course it isn't --- that's the whole point. To prevent the fetus from becoming a baby.

So forcing women to "view the baby" is obviously incredibly hypocritical and cruel if they have come there to get rid of it.

This kind of law is amazingly immoral. I don't see how anyone can stand to support it. Why not just try to overturn the legality of abortions? Don't do this kind of cruel stuff. It's very wrong.

you got that people...it's to PREVENT the clob of cells or the fetus..... to become a baby...too bad it didn't happen on some you abortion cultist...there would be less heartless and cold people in this country

 

[Circe]

And again, as the article notes, they are not forced to look at the screen.

although the woman would not be forced to look at the image.

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Not to mention the abortion provider is already using ultrasound to determine the age of the fetus and relays that information the female seeking an abortion.

Interesting. You know it's wrong and the legislators know it's wrong, and they are all defensive about what they are trying to do. Backtracking, working around, etc.

It's really disgusting. Why not just treat people right and mind your own business?


The only reason can be that you want to control, control, control so people do what you tell them to do, especially women.

I think that's pretty terrible.

You'll never go to heaven mistreating people like this. You're headed for the hot place; you need to rethink your need to control other people.

 

[Spoonman]

Killing one's baby is NOT cruel and immoral, it's a "choice", VIEWING the baby while she is still alive on a screen is
Can it be more hypocritical?

You are calling it a baby but of course it isn't --- that's the whole point. To prevent the fetus from becoming a baby.

So forcing women to "view the baby" is obviously incredibly hypocritical and cruel if they have come there to get rid of it.

This kind of law is amazingly immoral. I don't see how anyone can stand to support it. Why not just try to overturn the legality of abortions? Don't do this kind of cruel stuff. It's very wrong.

it only isn't a baby because liberals redefined the term of life so they didn't have to feel guilty about killing babies.

 

[Spoonman]

And again, as the article notes, they are not forced to look at the screen.

although the woman would not be forced to look at the image.

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Not to mention the abortion provider is already using ultrasound to determine the age of the fetus and relays that information the female seeking an abortion.

Interesting. You know it's wrong and the legislators know it's wrong, and they are all defensive about what they are trying to do. Backtracking, working around, etc.

It's really disgusting. Why not just treat people right and mind your own business?


The only reason can be that you want to control, control, control so people do what you tell them to do, especially women.

I think that's pretty terrible.

You'll never go to heaven mistreating people like this. You're headed for the hot place; you need to rethink your need to control other people.

only the law in question does not require the bullshit you libs are trying to spin here.

 

[Spoonman]

[

Lyons warned conference attendees that “critics will say a vaginal ultrasound is the equivalent of rape.” She added that “the bill does not require this form of ultrasound.”

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Ah, but it requires, forces, SOME form of ultrasound to torture women who come to get a legal abortion?

Pretty awful behavior to force women to do that --- maybe you should try to make abortion illegal, don't just torture women because you can't get what you want forced onto people. Pretty low; I don't think you can go much lower, but you antiabortion people may well think of someway to maltreat women that's even worse.

Why not just be honest and decent? If you object, try to get abortion made illegal. If you fail, the democracy is against you, that's all. Give up and get a hobby.

ok, again. show us in the law where it requires any such thing. it doesn't. once agian you libs are showing yourself to be a bunch of clueless bozos.

 

[Vox]

[

Lyons warned conference attendees that “critics will say a vaginal ultrasound is the equivalent of rape.” She added that “the bill does not require this form of ultrasound.”

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Ah, but it requires, forces, SOME form of ultrasound to torture women who come to get a legal abortion?

Pretty awful behavior to force women to do that --- maybe you should try to make abortion illegal, don't just torture women because you can't get what you want forced onto people. Pretty low; I don't think you can go much lower, but you antiabortion people may well think of someway to maltreat women that's even worse.

Why not just be honest and decent? If you object, try to get abortion made illegal. If you fail, the democracy is against you, that's all. Give up and get a hobby.

TORTURE?

Why is laying on a comfy bed and having a light probe sliding over your belly a TORTURE?

Explain.

 

[CaféAuLait]

[

Lyons warned conference attendees that “critics will say a vaginal ultrasound is the equivalent of rape.” She added that “the bill does not require this form of ultrasound.”

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Ah, but it requires, forces, SOME form of ultrasound to torture women who come to get a legal abortion?

Pretty awful behavior to force women to do that --- maybe you should try to make abortion illegal, don't just torture women because you can't get what you want forced onto people. Pretty low; I don't think you can go much lower, but you antiabortion people may well think of someway to maltreat women that's even worse.

Why not just be honest and decent? If you object, try to get abortion made illegal. If you fail, the democracy is against you, that's all. Give up and get a hobby.

You have made a lot of assumptions above because I was pointing out facts. Facts which have been ignored an abundance of times here on this thread. An ultrasound is ALREADY required to determine the age of the fetus by the doctor.

Abortion Forms Affiliated Medical Services Abortion Clinic

 

[CaféAuLait]

And again, as the article notes, they are not forced to look at the screen.

although the woman would not be forced to look at the image.

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Not to mention the abortion provider is already using ultrasound to determine the age of the fetus and relays that information the female seeking an abortion.

Interesting. You know it's wrong and the legislators know it's wrong, and they are all defensive about what they are trying to do. Backtracking, working around, etc.

It's really disgusting. Why not just treat people right and mind your own business?


The only reason can be that you want to control, control, control so people do what you tell them to do, especially women.

I think that's pretty terrible.

You'll never go to heaven mistreating people like this. You're headed for the hot place; you need to rethink your need to control other people.

LOL did you just infer I am going to hell?

After you are done with your damnation of my eternal soul, please, tell me who I am controlling?

BTW no one is backtracking as you state, the title of this thread is a complete lie and you fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

 

[Plasmaball]

[

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

Ah, but it requires, forces, SOME form of ultrasound to torture women who come to get a legal abortion?

Pretty awful behavior to force women to do that --- maybe you should try to make abortion illegal, don't just torture women because you can't get what you want forced onto people. Pretty low; I don't think you can go much lower, but you antiabortion people may well think of someway to maltreat women that's even worse.

Why not just be honest and decent? If you object, try to get abortion made illegal. If you fail, the democracy is against you, that's all. Give up and get a hobby.

You have made a lot of assumptions above because I was pointing out facts. Facts which have been ignored an abundance of times here on this thread. An ultrasound is ALREADY required to determine the age of the fetus by the doctor.

Abortion Forms Affiliated Medical Services Abortion Clinic

there is a vast difference between a normal ultrasound and a vaginal one. You care comparing apples to oranges here.

Just remember folks, NSA wiretapping bad, but vaginal probing for women is good...

What a fucking hypocritical stance to have.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Ah, but it requires, forces, SOME form of ultrasound to torture women who come to get a legal abortion?

Pretty awful behavior to force women to do that --- maybe you should try to make abortion illegal, don't just torture women because you can't get what you want forced onto people. Pretty low; I don't think you can go much lower, but you antiabortion people may well think of someway to maltreat women that's even worse.

Why not just be honest and decent? If you object, try to get abortion made illegal. If you fail, the democracy is against you, that's all. Give up and get a hobby.

You have made a lot of assumptions above because I was pointing out facts. Facts which have been ignored an abundance of times here on this thread. An ultrasound is ALREADY required to determine the age of the fetus by the doctor.

Abortion Forms Affiliated Medical Services Abortion Clinic

there is a vast difference between a normal ultrasound and a vaginal one. You care comparing apples to oranges here.

Just remember folks, NSA wiretapping bad, but vaginal probing for women is good...

What a fucking hypocritical stance to have.

Again, this bill does NOT require a vaginal ultrasound, the title of this thread states such but it is a lie which is being promoted by state rep who is a past employee of Planned Parenthood.

Lyons warned conference attendees that “critics will say a vaginal ultrasound is the equivalent of rape.” She added that “the bill does not require this form of ultrasound.”

Read more: Ultrasound bill a 'priority' for anti-abortion lawmakers : Ct

 

[CaféAuLait]

Here is the bill not an article which lies, anyone care to show me were a transvaginal ultrasound is forced upon a woman? Anyone care to show me where she is forced to view any images or hear any heartbeat? The bill CLEARLY states the woman gets to choose which kind of device or ultrasound transducer she wants and she is not forced to see or hear a thing:

...qualified person to perform, an ultrasound on the pregnant
woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses...

No person may require the pregnant woman to view the
ultrasound images or visualize any fetal heartbeat and no person, including the
pregnant woman, may be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman declines to
view the images or visualize any heartbeat.

The bill goes onto say the woman does not have to pay for this ultrasound as well.


https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/sb206

 

[TemplarKormac]

The way to really limit abortions is for women to change their minds and not have them. That's the real objection to ultrasounds. A woman contemplating an abortion might change her mind and not have one. How DARE she decide not to have an abortion.

It's unconstitutional to put undue restrictions on abortion before fetal viability if the motive for the restriction is simply to support the State's interest in a potential life.

It's against the law to commit murder. In my state, if you kill a pregnant woman, and her child dies too; that's two counts of murder. It's a wonder why people like you never grasp the value of life.

 

[Plasmaball]

Here is the bill not an article which lies, anyone care to show me were a transvaginal ultrasound is forced upon a woman? Anyone care to show me where she is forced to view any images or hear any heartbeat? The bill CLEARLY states the woman gets to choose which kind of device or ultrasound transducer she wants and she is not forced to see or hear a thing:

...qualified person to perform, an ultrasound on the pregnant
woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses...

No person may require the pregnant woman to view the
ultrasound images or visualize any fetal heartbeat and no person, including the
pregnant woman, may be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman declines to
view the images or visualize any heartbeat.

The bill goes onto say the woman does not have to pay for this ultrasound as well.


https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/sb206

yes it seems like a redundant bill.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Here is the bill not an article which lies, anyone care to show me were a transvaginal ultrasound is forced upon a woman? Anyone care to show me where she is forced to view any images or hear any heartbeat? The bill CLEARLY states the woman gets to choose which kind of device or ultrasound transducer she wants and she is not forced to see or hear a thing:

...qualified person to perform, an ultrasound on the pregnant
woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses...

No person may require the pregnant woman to view the
ultrasound images or visualize any fetal heartbeat and no person, including the
pregnant woman, may be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman declines to
view the images or visualize any heartbeat.

The bill goes onto say the woman does not have to pay for this ultrasound as well.


https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/proposals/sb206

yes it seems like a redundant bill.

I agree, it does seem redundant. But far from what the title of this thread says. This thread has totally lied about what the bill says based on one person who used to work for Planned Parenthood (Rep. Chris Taylor) and she also states it 'may' or might. However the language of the bill clearly shows that her claims are invalid as well as the title of this thread.

 

[Harry Dresden]

The way to really limit abortions is for women to change their minds and not have them. That's the real objection to ultrasounds. A woman contemplating an abortion might change her mind and not have one. How DARE she decide not to have an abortion.

No, the real objection is that it is emotional torture, trying to torture women into not having the abortion she came in there to get. It's definitely cruel and unusual punishment.

How about this: let her ask for it voluntarily. The clinic pamphlet can say that a woman can receive a vaginal ultrasound if she wants to see the fetus before aborting, she can sign up for it.

How many do you suppose would do that? 1%?

Forcing women to undergo this is incredibly cruel and immoral. Hey, make it illegal if you can (you can't) but knock off the Mickey Mouse meanness stuff.

omg...cruel and immoral..can you be any more dramatic?
...you ever have a pap smear?
if you want I'll give you the details and then you can judge if it's cruel and immoral..good grief

ask "Dottie".....