And there you have it...
As a legislative saga unfolds in South Carolina, it is becoming increasingly apparent which political party wants people armed with factual information and which wants an easily manipulated constituency ruled by emotion rather than data.
South Carolina is on the verge of becoming the only state to require that women seeking an abortion (with exemptions for victims of rape and incest) first see ultrasounds of their babies. The proposed law has wide support in the house, will likely pass the state senate and has the full support of Republican governor, Mark Sanford.
Opponents of informing and educating women have the following to say:
An opponent, Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat, said there was no need to change the law, because women already have access to ultrasound images if they want them.
“It suggests that women don’t know what they’re doing, that they’ve arrived at this decision quite lightly, and nothing could be further from the truth,” Cobb-Hunter told WIS.
So using the logic of Rep. Cobb-Hunter, we don't need warning labels from the surgeon general on cigarette packages because the images of cancer ridden lungs are readily available on the internet. And yet, which party is pushing the ban on smoking practically everywhere? So the socialist, I mean, Democrat party wants us to trust them on smoking and global warming and abortion... no need to fact check or come face to face with hard data. The Republicans in S.C. are saying women should make an informed decision - not just about aborting a baby - but about aborting their own baby - the very real, very much alive biological side effect of intercourse.
It's even more interesting that Cobb-Hunter wants to make this sound like an insult to women. She's rallying the pink clad college co-eds with the inflammatory idea "Hey girls! they think we're stupid!" Nothing could be further from the truth. Women are smart. Smart enough to make a good choice when well armed with accurate information instead of deceptive drivel from agenda driven activists. In fact, Cobb-Hunter and her partisan cohorts are the ones who want stupid women - they want women to buy the Planned Parenthood talking points hook, line, and sinker. They want women who prefer to live in denial.
So go ahead and abort that baby. But don't light up or drive an SUV. And don't worry about asking why... just trust us on this...
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by Sleazy— 2007/03/25 @ 05:10 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/03/25 @ 11:42 PM — (Reply)
Why is there an exemption for victims of rape and incest?? Aren't they entitled to the same 'education' that all the other women deserve??
You know full well that this is just a ploy to scar women. "Fully informed," my patootie! If your goals was simply to inform women about the very real biological aspect, then you would not accept any exceptions to this law. It'd be like banning smoking, except for folks who already have cancer.
It's utterly absurd that you take this issue and suggest it's the DEMOCRATS who are playing cheap emotional theatrics.
Maybe South Carolina doesn't have all those irritating billboards showing the little babies pleading with their mommies? Maybe protesters there aren't rife with grotesque images of aborted fetuses?
Then again, considering the literacy rate down in South Carolina, maybe this is a good law for them.
Comment by Michael— 2007/03/27 @ 08:50 AM — (Reply)
On the "ploy" accusation: Is it a ploy that a defendant has the right to face his/her accuser?
Further, I have not accused anyone of cheap emotional tactics. My contention is that Democrats want to run the government like overindulgent parents who make excuses for their children's bad behavior rather than expect true accountability. Dems want to call that compassion but what it boils down to is irresponsibility. True compassion is having the heart to teach others how to make the right choice up front and then helping them make better choices if they fail initially. Compassion is not pity and it is not feeling sorry to the point of rationalization.
On SC highways and byways: Haven't driven through SC in almost a year but when I did, I didn't see any of the billboards you describe.
Now, you failed to address the real issue which is, why do the DEMOCRAT opponents of this legislation prefer to encourage women to cover their eyes. (As it now stands women can see ultrasounds if they pay for them.) Is that compassion or is that holding a bucket of sand with signage reading: Insert head here.?
Comment by Cate— 2007/03/27 @ 09:35 AM — (Reply)
You go, girl! Woo Hoo!! The same scientists who are written off as wackos declare there is irrefutalbe proof that life begins at conception.
God will not strive with us much longer if we continue to kill our young. What is the difference between Andrea Yates and a woman who authorizes the chopping of her baby? A: nothing.
Comment by Jane— 2007/03/27 @ 05:52 PM — (Reply)
To the point. The idea behind the rape and incest exceptions has to do with the fact that the ultimate goal that a child be raised by it's father and mother. I don't know from firsthand experience but my educated guess is that perhaps those particular victims might have a very psychologically difficult time raising the child and whether the mother raises the child or the child is raised otherwise, the child will know his or her origins and with that there exists a high probability of psychological trauma.
So to me, an opt out if you will under these circumstances may be a benefit for all concerned. Again it is an opt out, not mandatory and the pregnancy was not intentional caused by commission or omission.
Appears like vastly different circumstances to me than where the pregnancy is the result of intention or carelessness.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/03/27 @ 06:13 PM — (Reply)
You know, you have to undergo a psych evaluation for gastric bypass but you can abort a baby with a phone call the planned parenthood and your eyes closed.
Comment by Cate— 2007/03/28 @ 09:01 AM — (Reply)
But that was just poking fun anyhow, and certainly wasn't meant as an insult to anyone personally- sorry if it came off sounding like it was, Barry!
Back to the topic, though.
You suggest that abortions in South Carolina are as easy as ordering a pizza. That a woman can go through the procedure blissfully unaware of any of the consequences of their decision. That just ain't so.
South Carolina's informed-consent law already requires the mother to have an ultrasound taken, and be informed of the approximate age and developmental stage of the fetus. As noted elsewhere, the mother has access to the ultrasound, should she want it. After the ultrasound, the physician must give the woman a brochure that
-depicts or describes the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the fetus at two-week gestational increments;
-describe abortion methods and their risks and the risks of carrying a pregnancy to term;
-describe the mechanisms available for obtaining child support payments;
-include information about the availability of medical assistance benefits for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care, including the names, addresses, and phone numbers of appropriate agencies;
-provide a comprehensive list of public and private agencies and services, including adoption agencies, available to assist the woman through pregnancy, upon childbirth, and while the child is dependent.
This change in law is not about educating- South Carolina edumacates their would-be aborters better than they do their high school students! This law is simply about traumatizing someone over what is a legal medical procedure.
It's these slippery slopes that convince me that there is no middle ground in this debate. Concede a little ground, as in an informed decision law, and the opponents will push for more and more.
The Democratic opponents of this measure know full well what this act is. It's stunning to me that you can't see it yourself, Cate.
Comment by Michael— 2007/03/30 @ 12:50 PM — (Reply)
What concerns me is that it's easier in some respects to get an abortion than to get married or get a driver's license. When you take driver's ed you get to see all the gory pics of auto wrecks and when you get married the government reserves the right to interfere based on your blood test results. Abortion though is somehow off limits and without meaning this to sound condescending, I seriously suggest that you can't understand this unless you've been in the stirrups.
As a woman who has been pregnant 6 times, I know how easy it is to walk in and out of an ob clinic after having received the speech about fetal age and medical complications and still have no idea what was said until I researched it on my own.
The emotional nature of pregnancy, the sickness, the profound hormone fluctuations of early pregnancy - they take a toll. And many doctors are more concerned with getting you in and out of the office than with discussing your concerns or explaining what's going on. The first time I miscarried, my doctor, reputed to be the best in the region - literally walked in, scooped up the remains of a tiny fetus off the floor of the exam room and said, "We'll run some tests to see if we can figure out what happened." And that was it. I never heard from him again and when I returned for the follow up, a PA did the exam and they placed me in the same room where I'd literally lost my baby. I use this example only to show that the notion that abortionists are saintly folk trying to help poor women in trouble is ridiculous - they are working for a living just like you and me. They meet basic requirements and then they walk away. When was the last time your urologist sat down and chewed the fat with you about those pesky glands - to your complete satisfcation. When was the last time you came home from the doctor (other than for a routine visit) and didn't immediately google something he'd said?
Generally, you walk in to the clinic, a nurse takes your history, reads a long list of required crap (usually in a painful monotone) about AIDS testing and prenatal vitamins and then says sign here.
Why people assume it's some glorious feminine bonding experience when you go in for an ultrasound or dating (again, I've done it 6 times) I'll never know. Most young women walk in and out with the same normal fear of questioning authority that a person has when they meet their oncologist for the first time.
Add to that the social stigma of aborting and the personal feelings of the physician/nurse (about abortion) and you are going to have a very compromised medical professional or a very uninformed patient.
And that is the voice of experience.
Comment by Cate— 2007/03/30 @ 02:37 PM — (Reply)
In a way, your analogy is ironic, because from my perspective I've long held an analogous concern- that it is easier to have a baby than to get a drivers license. The consequences of neglectful or abusive parenting can have far greater, longer lasting and more insidious impact on society than any car crash caused by reckless driving. I'm not speaking hyperbole when I say that a bad parenting can affect generations of their off-spring.
I think we both wish for a more responsible populace, making informed decisions and keeping themselves accountable for their own actions.
I'll totally conceed the point that due to the die roll that stuck me with a Y chromosome, my view point is going to be limited in comparison to yours, or any other woman's. That much I can't do anything about. I can't lactate either, so my opinion on breast-feeding only goes so far too, I suppose.
As for the personal question you asked, it was, in fact, just 6 weeks ago that the urologist, as he was removing the rubber glove, gave me a small bit of information I found highly significant. I made damn sure I didn't leave that office until I had a good handle on what he was telling me. That might just be me, though. Perhaps other folks would prefer to extract themselves from that awkward position... regrettable for them, frankly.
Comment by Michael— 2007/04/02 @ 11:48 AM — (Reply)
Even my college educated friends and I stood like ingenues in the presence of our obstetricians. Get any group of young mothers together and the conversation will inevitably turn to pregnancy and childbirth. Almost without fail, every woman says, 'I wish I'd known...' or 'I was so nervous I forgot to ask the doctor about...' and almost invariably the conversations reveal that the women researched on the internet or in books to find info they felt their doctor should have provided. And these were women who wanted their babies.
In the case of an abortion, there is only an hour between flash to bang time. No time for googling. No time for consulting friends who know better. Your education is limited to what you knew walking in and what the doctor takes the time to explain.
If women are educated about abortion and want to follow through with the 'procedure' at any cost, the ultrasounds won't make a difference anyway. If women come in thinking that the fetus they carry is an unformed blob or as many pro-abortionists like to say 'only a clump of cells' then the ultrasound will be highly educational.
All this legislation says is that women should be left with no doubt as to the tangible nature of their choice.
There are no victimless crimes. Only victims we refuse to acknowledge.
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/02 @ 12:39 PM — (Reply)
In addition to my own napping daughter, there are sleeping upstairs right now a toddler and an infant whose mother abandoned them. I would bet that there are countless others like my husband and me who'd take children in need of homes and raise them in loving, healthy environments.
Which reminds me, how's your dad?
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/02 @ 12:48 PM — (Reply)
Assuming EB's information, a review of images from this 7-9 week time-frame, makes me really call into doubt the informative value of the ultrasound. I know from my own experience (due to our situation, we were getting ultrasounds almost every other week), it wasn't until about week 16 when we could say- "Oh... that's a baby..."
I understand the seriousness of the issue from your perspective. We can agree that many of the women in this situation are terrified, fearful and alone. But if the law already requires doctors to give the mother the information about fetal development, do you sincerely believe that showing an ultrasound is going to improve their 'education'? You've already suggested that they may be something other than warm, friendly guiding angels; isn't it just as natural to presume that they'll do a quick print-out, probably with as little relevant detail as most of those images from the link, and toss it to the mother with a quick 'Okay, the law says you gotta look at this. Sign here, saying you saw it. Thanks.' ?
I don't personally know any woman who ever took the decision between abortion and pregnancy lightly, and I don't think I'd ever like to know anyone who could. I suppose there are some women like that out there, but maybe I've hung in a somewhat different crowd. Heck, my wife and I spent a good deal of time debating the whole circumcision question... I'd hate to think that we spent more energy worrying about what IS "just a clump of cells" than anyone ever did on a pregnancy.
Thanks for asking about my dad. He's doing okay for now. With his most recent seizure a month ago, we had to move him to a nursing home because his care needs exceeded our abilities. I don't know how long he'll be able to stay there, so we may be having him back home with us soon, but at least for now, he's getting more of a regimen than we could give him.
Comment by Michael— 2007/04/02 @ 02:09 PM — (Reply)
I may have mentioned this before, if so, please pardon the retelling. My ultrasonographer in Ga. where I had two of the boys, confided that many women were repeat offenders when it came to abortion. Some she said had come in for as many as 7 in the space of just a few years. They were using it as birth control.
Just a few weeks ago a California organization made headlines by announcing the release of cards (think Hallmark) for the occasion of an abortion. I read them and with one exception thought the cards were genuine and reasonable appropriate so I wondered who the founders of the organization were. On the 'about' page it makes clear that they had all had at least one abortion.
That people are taking abortion lightly is a sad but in indisputable fact. Multiple abortions implies that the unwanted pregnancies are symptoms of a pattern of irresponsibility rather a singular lapse in judgement.
Comment by Cate— 2007/04/02 @ 03:05 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/03/28 @ 08:43 AM — (Reply)
michael i'll keep you and your father in my prayers
from what I understand a baby at 7-9 weeks has a heartbeat, brain waves, fingers and toes....it may not show up on an U/S but listening to the heartbeat may help a woman better understand the decision
Comment by elmers brother— 2007/04/03 @ 08:47 AM — (Reply)