Bits & Pieces (Monday Night Open Mic)

Apparently, Obama Girl is becoming disillusioned with Barack. And doing it to the tune of “You’re The One That I Want” from the hit musical Grease! 

 

 

Kind of unspecific, but certainly not as head-over-heels as Obama Girl’s 2008 videos.

Ancient Japanese Fart Scrolls. Nuff said.

Why do Tiger’s Have Stripes? Alan Turing figured it out years ago!

ABC tours the Foxconn’s factory that makes all the groovy Apple stuff.

As a call back to a recent discussion a brief history of Coke cans. There was once a 32 oz can with a cone top and a bottle cap that required a bottle opener, like the classic glass bottles.

257 Responses

  1. Kevin, I do believe that you are the only man your age who would not only link to them, but then create a special tag for fart scrolls. 🙂

    Of course, now you’ll have to use the term a lot so that it becomes more prominent in the Tag Cloud.

    Like

    • Kevin, I do believe that you are the only man your age who would not only link to them, but then create a special tag for fart scrolls.

      Nah.

      This is a consciousness raising moment.

      Like

  2. Nice summation of the state of campaign finance “reform” and what to actually do about it.

    “The super PAC confusion
    By Robert J. Samuelson,
    Published: February 19

    The emergence of super PACs shows once again that “campaign finance reform” has failed abysmally. After nearly four decades, it has achieved none of its goals. It has not purged politics of big donations, nor cured public cynicism about the influence of the rich, nor made elected leaders more trusted. What it has done is compromise basic First Amendment rights, clutter politics with baffling laws and regulations, and actually deepen cynicism.

    Except for contribution disclosures, campaign finance laws should be scrapped. If there were no limits on individual contributions to candidates (the basic limit is $2,500 per candidate per election, meaning $5,000 for a primary and general election together), there would be few — if any — super PACs. The wealthy would give to candidates directly instead of resorting to some contorted alternative. Super PACs are merely the latest of many contortions born of a muddled Supreme Court.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-super-pac-confusion/2012/02/17/gIQApb1FOR_story.html

    Like

  3. Mich,

    Did you see the Liz Trotta Comments on Fox over the weekend. As a female Vet I bet you must have been truly impressed! She’s out with an update on her original which is also a real gem!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/20/fox-news-liz-trotta-rape-military_n_1288769.html

    Trotta said, “the military is not a social services operation or a testing ground for gender wars. It is a fighting machine. Yet male troops are now encumbered with the realities of feminist biology. Women are not as strong as men. Their instincts and reactions in crisis are markedly different. There’s a reality the left will not face. “Biology is destiny.”

    Like

  4. As a female Vet I bet you must have been truly impressed!

    Um–not.

    Like

  5. All this constitutional talk and worry over just exactly how far to the left Obama would go, if given the opportunity, has got me thinking about something else……call me crazy, but what exactly would be the constitutional justification for forcing women to undergo an invasive medical procedure that has no basis in medical necessity? And what would you call that philosophical proclivity, politically speaking? Virginia is on the verge of passing their version of the ultra-sound bill and their Gov. says he’ll sign it.

    Like

  6. lms:

    call me crazy, but what exactly would be the constitutional justification for forcing women to undergo an invasive medical procedure that has no basis in medical necessity?

    States don’t need a constitutional justification for passing laws. In the absence of a constitutional justification for disallowing a state from passing and enforcing a given law, the state can do whatever it wants.

    BTW, my understanding of the law in question requires the procedure only for women who are already requesting to have an invasive medical procedure performed on them.

    And what would you call that philosophical proclivity, politically speaking?

    Federalism.

    Like

  7. I’m out of here for a few days.

    Like

  8. Mich:

    I’m out of here for a few days.

    Something I said?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. BTW, my understanding of the law in question requires the procedure only for women who are already requesting to have an invasive medical procedure performed on them.

    Scott, good grief. I must say that I had not picked you as one to parrot Loesch. You can justify anything, huh?

    Like

  10. BTW, my understanding of the law in question requires the procedure only for women who are already requesting to have an invasive medical procedure performed on them.

    It’s all about making exercising a constitutional right as onerous as possible. Meanwhile Citizens United means there cannot be any restrictions whatsoever on the right to spend money during elections. We should just reframe abortions as political free speech and then nobody can limit them.

    Like

  11. I am shocked the Obama Girl stuff is still going strong four years later. The best parts of that video are the amusement park posters in the background. We have The Real Housewives of Newt and Rick Santorum’s Frothy Shakes. Details like that are genius.

    Like

  12. okie:

    I must say that I had not picked you as one to parrot Loesch.

    I don’t know who that is.

    You can justify anything, huh?

    I’m not justifying anything. I’m just questioning lms’ framing of the issue. It strikes me as rather odd to object to the invasiveness of a medical procedure in the context of defending abortion.

    My own opinion of the law is that it is silly and, in any event, unlikely to be effective at limiting abortions. I do, however, understand that, given the fact of Roe, and it’s effect of severely restricting the normal political process with regard to regulating abortion, those who want to make abortion more regulated are forced to be creative in their attempts.

    Like

  13. yello:

    It’s all about making exercising a constitutional right as onerous as possible.

    Given that no such right actually exists in the constitution, I would say that it is all about finding ways around the Supreme Court’s severe restrictions placed on a state’s ability to regulate a controversial medical procedure.

    Like

  14. Given that no such right actually exists in the constitution,

    Thank you for your considered minority dissenting opinion, Justice White.

    Like

    • yello:

      Thank you for your considered minority dissenting opinion, Justice White.

      I take it, then, that you think the constitution has no objective meaning, and says whatever 5 SC justices claim it says at any given time. I disagree. The constitution is not a mysterious document comprised of words understandable only to an anointed few. I am capable of reading and understanding it, and have done so. I suspect you are too if you gave it a try sometime rather than simply relying on what 5 lawyers in robes tell you it says, and if you do, you will discover that nowhere in the document is a right to an abortion guaranteed.

      In short, I believe that the Supremes can get things wrong, and have done so on occassion. Apparently you do not.

      Like

  15. Apparently you do not.

    Nice strawman there. I said no such thing. Courts make lots of mistakes but it takes a lot to reverse them once they are enshrined. Just saying so doesn’t change decisions on the book.

    I understand that many people consider Griswold vs. Connecticut a far more egregious judicial error than the Dred Scott decision (which was about property rights after all) but it took a war and three constitutional amendments to overturn the latter.

    You can moan about the lack of constitutionality but there is a lot of interwoven case law supporting it.

    Like

    • yello:

      I said no such thing.

      Well, in fact you didn’t say much of anything, as your response was just snark rather than something substantive. But quite plainly your snark implied that my claim is wrong because it was not prevailing SC opinion. Such a response only makes sense if one believes that the Supremes cannot be wrong about what the constitution says or means.

      Courts make lots of mistakes…

      Excellent. So, then, I assume you agree that dismissing a claim about what the constitution says simply because a majority of Supremes once said otherwise isn’t really a sensible or legitimate response. Which makes me wonder why you did it.

      Just saying so doesn’t change decisions on the book.

      Now that’s a strawman. I wasn’t talking about changing the decision on the books. I was quite specifically talking about what rights the constitution guarantees.

      Like

  16. Scott

    It’s so ironic to me that so many of you worry about Obama’s leftward inclinations, which I find highly debatable anyway, while at the same time state legislatures are coming between women and their doctors and mandating all sorts of “silly” (your word not mine) unnecessary, demeaning, invasive, costly and controlling procedures in the guise of “for their own good” policy.

    Apparently the fear of government’s overreach only applies in certain circumstances.

    BTW, I didn’t mean to begin another “War on Women” debate as I don’t have the time or energy right now to do much more than the occasional comment……sorry. I just happened to be reading a piece about the VA legislation last night and it pissed me off so I made a quick comment here in light of the discussions over recent days. I saw a connection……………………always possible I’m imagining things……

    Like

  17. Rick Santorum’s Frothy Shakes

    I missed that the first time. All I can say is (from the guy who included the ancient Japanese fart scrolls): eeeewwwwww!

    Like

  18. Apparently the fear of government’s overreach only applies in certain circumstances.

    Well, I think in these sorts of circumstances, some on the right (not Scott necessarily, but maybe) regard it as those on the left being hoisted by their own petard, which perhaps they might feel justifies some small level of schadenfreude.

    I don’t think Scott has indicated that he feels the government actually ought to be mandating additional, and unnecessary, medical procedures. Only that they can, and perhaps that doing so is not philosophically inconsistent with the left’s view on the governments right and ability to obligate the citizenry towards certain behavior in other arenas.

    Like

  19. BTW, and ultrasound, if the woman has not had one, like any medical exam, is probably a good idea before a medical procedure such as a DNC, especially if the woman had not had one recently. Of course, so are pap smears and I don’t think they’re mandating those before a woman can have an abortion.

    Like

  20. lms:

    I haven’t been following the ultrasound story, even though it has cropped up here in FL too. Who pays for the ultrasound? Would it be covered under health insurance?

    Or is the government forcing a certain segment of their population to buy a service that they don’t necessarily want? (snark)

    Like

  21. ScottC: The constitution is not a mysterious document comprised of words understandable only to an anointed few.

    I take it then that you, too, have seen all the penumbras and emanations. It can mean anything we want!

    Like

  22. Or is the government forcing a certain segment of their population to buy a service that they don’t necessarily want?

    It’s an individual ultrasound mandate. Is that constitutional?

    Like

  23. Kevin

    Irony is still irony. It reminds me of the deficit debate, I guess it depends how you increase the deficit not whether it increases just as it depends whose rights are being infringed, not that they’re being infringed.

    Like

    • I would tend not to support legislative controls over medical procedures in general, although that is an entirely different question than their constitutionality. But this is also a case where the pointing finger of hypocrisy has four pointing back. Liberals support wide-ranging and intimate regulation of just about everything in our lives, with health care being a primary example. I can’t quite fathom how some imagined right to “bedroom” privacy should stand in the way of regulating the undertaking of a medical procedure as consequential and serious as abortion.

      On the consitutionality, Griswold and Roe are a constitutional fraud. They simply don’t have any basis in the document. I’ve just gotten to the point where I don’t have much patience for given the argument more due than that. Not trying to be obnoxious but simply to underscore that this is a case of the emperor’s new clothes.

      Like

  24. qb, specifically, to what liberal-supported government-mandated medical procedures targeted solely at one gender do you refer?

    Like

    • qb, specifically, to what liberal-supported government-mandated medical procedures targeted solely at one gender do you refer?

      To what reference are you referring?

      Like

  25. I guess it depends how you increase the deficit not whether it increases just as it depends whose rights are being infringed

    True. When in the senate, Obama himself voted against raising the debt ceiling. Of course, many of the Republicans in the senate now refusing to raise the debt ceiling and voted to do just that under Bush, several times.

    Like

  26. okie,

    The left has supported numerous intrusions into the lives of citizens, for the common good, thus helping to establish that mechanism (and vice-versa). While the specifics may be different, the precedent of arbitrarily requiring x if you’re going to do y is well-established.

    Of course, the real effort here is the humanize the fetus for a pregnant woman before they get an abortion, in a hope that it discourages abortion. That might be a more straight-forward approach, to call it out for what it is. I’m not sure the invasiveness of ultrasounds, a very common and safe procedure, is a good argument against the law. While not fun, of the two medical procedures involved, the ultrasound is physically less invasive and less traumatic than the actual abortion. And is a safer screen for potential complications from the procedure, and other possible medical conditions, than an X-ray.

    However, the slippery slope argument applies to those advocating an ultra sound requirement. Why not also require a mandated amniocentesis of all pregnant women?

    Like

  27. Also, doesn’t the ACA requirement of prenatal coverage, and amniocentesis coverage, constitute a government mandated benefit targeted solely at one gender? Is that acceptable, if a requirement for a medical screening targeted solely at one gender is not?

    Like

  28. On the consitutionality, Griswold and Roe are a constitutional fraud. They simply don’t have any basis in the document.

    It’s those nebulous penumbras from the 14th and 9th Amendments which just can’t be nailed down. Whereas Dred Scott was a clear-cut case of property rights (and lack therof). Amirite?

    Like

    • It’s those nebulous penumbras from the 14th and 9th Amendments which just can’t be nailed down. Whereas Dred Scott was a clear-cut case of property rights (and lack therof). Amirite?

      What exactly is your point, yello. And please spell it out with precision. Your habit of drive-by spitballing while not coming right out and saying what you mean is one I recognize very well at this point.

      So say what is on your mind. I think everyone here can see what you are implying. Say it clearly. Then I’ll respond. Come on. Be a man.

      Like

  29. Mike, it’s unclear to me who will pay for the procedure but the presumption seems to be that in the seven states who have already passed similar legislation, it will be up to the women to figure that out. I imagine the manufacturers of this nifty device will be thrilled however. Virginia even added a new wrinkle to their legislation that states that doctors who observe women refusing to look at the images, will duly note such in their medical file. VA had a vote scheduled yesterday but postponed it due to a rather large “silent” (per VA rules) protest outside the Capitol Building. They’re also voting on a separate fertilized egg as personhood bill. Neither bill is supported by a majority of voters.

    Like

  30. Kevin

    a requirement for a medical screening

    You’re kidding right? Forcing women and doctors to participate in this farce is hardly a medical screening.

    Like

  31. It’s not a medical screening as no diagnostic or therapeutic action is taken. It is solely a proselytization effort against the procedure.

    Like

  32. You’re kidding right? Forcing women and doctors to participate in this farce is hardly a medical screening.

    No, not kidding. Of course, I’m not a woman, but I suspect most of us have been through hoops at the doctors office that mystify us as to the real benefit. I’ve been poked, prodded, blood drawn, peed in cups, had electrodes stuck to me, exposed to X-rays, and lets not get into the prostate exams. Because of arbitrary schedules of when a person is supposed to do such things, and the requirements of various insurers. If a ultrasound before an operation that directly involves the bits and pieces being looked at isn’t a medical screening, then none of that is. The motivation behind the legislation no doubt involves moral convictions or political maneuvering that is not motivated by medical concerns, but if I can’t call it a medical screening because people don’t like the “why”, then it makes it very hard to call lots of things what they are.

    Neither bill is supported by a majority of voters.

    State legislators might want to pay attention, then. BTW, what is up with modern ultrasounds? Are they all vaginal? We had several ultrasounds when my wife was pregnant with our oldest daughter, and none of them involved getting something shoved up your woohoo. So imagine our mutual surprise when we went in for an ultrasound during the next pregnancy about 6 years later, and the woman said it was time for the ultrasound and–you’re putting the what in the where now? Heellllooooo!

    And old fashioned ultrasound (which looked, to me, no different than the much more personal modern ultrasound-on-a-stick) might do something to counteract the invasiveness charge.

    Like

  33. It’s not a medical screening as no diagnostic or therapeutic action is taken.

    Are you suggesting that there is no diagnostic value to seeing the area your about to operate on in greater detail, or that if an anomaly showed up on the ultrasound that could represent some other medical condition it would be ignored?

    I’ve had dozens-upon-dozens of tests, many of them involving sticking me with needles or parting with my precious bodily fluids, or exposing me to x-rays, or gluing electrodes to me, very few of which have ever led to any additional therapeutic action. Those aren’t medical screenings?

    Or are there no illegitimate reasons to have a medical screening (or we don’t want to think there are), thus we are unwilling to use a perfectly accurate and semantically correct term because we don’t like the context (due to the motivations of the people sponsoring certain legislation)?

    Like

  34. Kevin, as most abortions occur in the first trimester the option of the “jelly on the belly” ultrasound is not available, hence the more invasive one. Generally speaking this procedure is not advocated by the medical profession as a pre-op screening and is being forced on women and their doctors. You can call it the same thing as other medical screenings if you want, but normally inserting something into a woman’s vagina against her will is called something else, whether she’s sexually active or not, or contemplating abortion or not.

    And now I’m out…………………..getting stitches removed today………yay

    Like

  35. Whereas Dred Scott was a clear-cut case of property rights (and lack therof). Amirite?

    You are incorrect. Even more so that Roe or Griswold, Dred Scott was bad law (or adjudication, if we’re to be picky). The court found that Scott nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and this was the basis for his inability to bring the suit. I would challenge you to find that in any emanation or penumbra. In fact, Dred Scott shows the possibly unaddressable problem of courts attempting to legislate from the bench, as it were, by making things up and making dubious claims of constitutional justification.

    There is no basis for the legality of slavery in the Constitution, nor anything to justify the idea that one man can own another. Slavery is not mentioned in the Constitution until the 13th, making it illegal.

    I say all that as a layman. Mark and QB are welcome to correct my analysis.

    Like

  36. Or are there no illegitimate reasons to have a medical screening (or we don’t want to think there are), thus we are unwilling to use a perfectly accurate and semantically correct term because we don’t like the context (due to the motivations of the people sponsoring certain legislation)?

    It’s not a screening because they aren’t testing for anything. I thought this was where definitions went to be parsed until they died, but calling a procedure the doctor has no reason to perform and does not alter in the least his direction of care is not a ‘screening’ in any sense of the word. It’s an unnecessary hurdle devised entirely to be burdensome to the patient.

    Like

  37. And now I’m out…………………..getting stitches removed today………yay

    Best of luck with that! I hate going to the doctor under the best circumstances.

    You can call it the same thing as other medical screenings if you want

    If I hit a person with a hammer, or hit a nail with a hammer, the hammer is still a hammer and we still call it “hitting”, but they remain very different things. I don’t have to say that it’s a hammer when I’m hitting a nail, but is not still a hammer when it is used to hit a person. If the legislation specifically forbid follow up screenings or therapeutic procedures upon the discovery of complications or anomalies, then perhaps it would not be a medical screening.

    Thus far, 95% of the medical screenings I have been through have been worthless, and contraindicated by me, who felt in robust health at the time and saw no point in having someone stick their finger up the back end. They’re still medical screenings. That’s all I’m a sayin’.

    As I may have mentioned before, I am personally pro-life, but legally pro-choice. I’m 100% behind the morning after pill, as I think it helps involve the progressively more difficult moral quagmire of abortion, after implantation and development. Thus, I do not support either legal effort.

    Like

  38. Say it clearly. Then I’ll respond. Come on. Be a man.

    I’m saying that the Supreme Court makes bad decisions all the time and it can be very costly to correct them. Gore vs. Bush comes to mind.

    Like

    • I’m saying that the Supreme Court makes bad decisions all the time and it can be very costly to correct them. Gore vs. Bush comes to mind.

      That’s what you meant by implying that I must think Plessy was correctly decided as a clear-cut case of property rights, huh?

      Everyone knows that I think the Supremes make wrong decisions.

      Like

  39. It’s an unnecessary hurdle devised entirely to be burdensome to the patient.

    In other words, 95% of medical screenings. If you add “and an additional billable item” to the list, at least.

    Like

  40. It’s not a screening because they aren’t testing for anything.

    The status of the fetus or embryo? If they saw an anomaly, they wouldn’t do anything?

    My chest X-rays aren’t testing for “anything”, except anomalies. They’re still medical screenings. Unless the doctor is going to ignore any medically relevant data obtained from the ultrasound, if any, they are still medical screenings. Again, back to the hammer: if I’m swinging a hammer around randomly because I’m mentally ill, or if I’m using it to build a house, the hammer is still a hammer.

    Why are we even calling it an ultra sound? It’s not an ultrasound. It’s a invasive harassment.

    Like

  41. I’m saying that the Supreme Court makes bad decisions all the time and it can be very costly to correct them. Gore vs. Bush comes to mind.

    While I agree that the Supremes made a bad (and a WTF) decision in that case, the actual outcome of the election, had they made the correct decision (IMHO), would have been exactly the same. The Florida SC would have been told to butt out, and the electors would have been awarded by the Florida State Legislature, controlled by Republicans, to George W. Bush, and Bush is again selected, not elected.

    Or it would have eventually gone national, to the Republican controlled house, which, no doubt, would have chosen Gore. 😉

    Legal-beagles welcome to correct my layperson’s analysis.

    Like

  42. “It’s all about making exercising a constitutional right as onerous as possible.”

    Onerous can be construed as subjective. 3 day waiting periods to purchase handguns are designed to discourage the purchase of firearms. Any complaints on that?

    Like

  43. QB: What exactly is your point, yello. And please spell it out with precision. Your habit of drive-by spitballing while not coming right out and saying what you mean is one I recognize very well at this point.

    I’d be curious what you think about Dred Scott, as an actual lawyer. I think it was a clear example of legislating from the bench, and either ignoring the constitution or finding some basis that wasn’t in there. I just don’t at all see the constitutional basis for the decision. But . . . I never went to law school.

    Like

    • I’d be curious what you think about Dred Scott, as an actual lawyer. I think it was a clear example of legislating from the bench, and either ignoring the constitution or finding some basis that wasn’t in there. I just don’t at all see the constitutional basis for the decision. But . . . I never went to law school.

      I haven’t looked at it closely in a long time. It didn’t have any apparent basis in the Constitution.The opinion, but the facts and legal issues are actually rather obscure and impentrable to modern eyes. I don’t think 1 in 100 people who talk about it have ever actually read the opinions. They are murky.

      Like

  44. 3 day waiting periods to purchase handguns are designed to discourage the purchase of firearms.

    We shouldn’t call it a waiting period, we should call it what it really is. A naked attempt to strip citizens of their explicit constitutional rights!

    The fact that it is actually a period, and that you wait during that period, not withstanding. We should call it something else because I don’t like it! 🙂

    Like

  45. BTW, I never thought my comment about ancient Japanese fart scrolls would lead to such a vigorous discussion! 😉

    Like

  46. qb@7:24am: “Liberals support wide-ranging and intimate regulation of just about everything in our lives, with health care being a primary example.” I am asking specifically what government-mandated and invasive health care procedures satisfy this statement.

    kevin, I ask the same question of you. What government-mandated and invasive “medical screening” have you undergone? I can think of a number of highly medically recommended routine screenings, but as far as I know nobody says I cannot opt out of them.

    Like

    • okie,

      I didn’t claim there are government-mandated and invasive health care procedures. I made a general point that progressives seem to have a double standard around abortion in the face of their support for comprehensive government regulation and mandates generally.

      But, let’s think about that. In many states and localities vaccinations are required despite being opposed and believed dangerous by many. That’s one that comes quickly to mind.

      But I think a more important response is that you are framing the issue unrealistically and inaccurately. A woman seeking an abortion is already seeking an invasive medical procedure. Requiring an ultrasound can just as easily be characterized as regulating the procedure, and that is how I would expect it to be treated in a judicial analysis.

      Again, I’m not even saying I support it. I honestly have not even read about this flap. But I certainly don’t feel a sense of outrage at it. The outrage seems to me to be more a result of the idea that women should be forced to see what they are doing than the idea that an ultrasound device is inserted before knives and forceps are inserted.

      Like

      • The outrage seems to me to be more a result of the idea that women should be forced to see what they are doing than the idea that an ultrasound device is inserted before knives and forceps are inserted.

        I obviously don’t speak for okie (or anyon eles for that matter), but I have never been particularly upset at the counseling sessions or the information that is required to be given to women choosing an abortion. There seems a rather obvious difference between seeing what they are doing via pictures, descriptions counseling etc vs. an unwanted phycial touching.

        I would be interested in a physician’s perspective on this. Is it even ethical to perform an ultrasound under those circumstances? I suppose you can draft an informed consent form that includes the ultrasound, but there are some messy ethical issues out there.

        One last thing on this. I think it’s important for pro-choicers to recognize where pro-lifers are coming from. To Scott, QB and many others, we’re talking about murder, so no constitutional right to privacy is going to be enough even if they agree it exists. And there will never be enough hoops to jump through for women to get an abortion. I’m not saying I agree with those positions, but understanding their perspective helps explain how Scott or QB does not see this as an “big government” etc. It also explains why I usually don’t participate in these discussions. If Scott thinks it’s murder, what possible compromise could exist? None.

        Like

        • Kevin ashot:

          If Scott thinks it’s murder, what possible compromise could exist? None.

          I think I have mentioned before that I am much more adamant about the issue being settled at the state level than I am about what the ultimate settlement should be. I am most certainly open to compromise, which is why I advocate for the issue to be settled by legislatures rather than judicial fiat.

          Like

        • Kevin: If Scott thinks it’s murder, what possible compromise could exist? None.

          I believe that was ashot. I tend to agree, I would prefer the issue be settled at the state level. Failing that, a clear federal law, which should hold constitutional muster as the constitution seems to suggest nothing specific about abortion whatsoever, penumbras not withstanding. Then Roe wouldn’t be rendered functionally irrelevant.

          I am also open to compromise, because while I would conduct myself in a pro-life manner, and understand where the pro-life folks are coming from, it’s a complicated issue that deserves thoughtful responses and a clear legal framework, not judicial legislation, or the Virginia law, either.

          Like

        • I am most certainly open to compromise, which is why I advocate for the issue to be settled by legislatures rather than judicial fiat.

          That was my quote. Anyway, I don’t mean to imply that you would somehow refuse to recognize a legislative or electoral decision. I think there your compromise is a legal compromise as opposed to a moral compromise. In your view the Constitutions gives the states the right to make their own decision on the abortion issue. As I recall, you don’t have a particular problem with the individual mandate at a state level (ie Massachusetts). That isn’t to say you agree with the policy, but if states want to go that route, you see them as having the authority to do so. The same with abortion.

          Like

        • ashot:

          That was my quote.</b.

          Sorry…fixed it.

          I think there your compromise is a legal compromise as opposed to a moral compromise.

          Well, not really. While I do think that the issue properly belongs to the state and will therefore be more accepting of a state decision with which I disagree, as my comment below to bsimon suggests, I am open to compromise even on what the proper decision should be.

          Like

        • I am open to compromise even on what the proper decision should be.

          I’ve always struggled with this issue given my religious beliefs, but always felt like agreeing to a compromise is a bit of a cop out. How do you justify a compromise on murder?

          Like

  47. I can think of a number of highly medically recommended routine screenings, but as far as I know nobody says I cannot opt out of them.

    I hate to play both sides here, but many states require a blood test to obtain a marriage license. Not that they are of equal order of magnitude in invasiveness.

    Like

  48. That of course is to screen for STDs, so there are consequences to ‘failing’ the test.

    Like

  49. yello, there is a medical reason for the blood test, and it is not restricted to just the female. I do appreciate your not trivializing the invasiveness issue though.

    Like

  50. What government-mandated and invasive “medical screening” have you undergone?

    Blood test when I got married. Also when I applied for my current public sector job, that might count. In any case, I could arguably opt out of any number of medical screenings I’ve been subjected to (as well as other invasions of my privacy), if I was willing to forgo employment and insurance. Which aren’t government mandated, but as to the opting-out of them, there’s not any difference.

    As regards to the government, state or local, having a legal basis to mandate people who want to do x then have to do y first, there are plenty of them. Licensing, training, car insurance mandates, zoning restrictions, building codes, user fees, etc.

    I hope the liberals win this argument, however. I think they should, and it will set a structural precedent when the right, once again, wants to resist some onerous piece of for-our-own-good legislation from the left.

    Like

  51. Won’t the individual mandate in the ACA amount to a possibly invasive (but gender neutral) obligatory medical exam for the purposes of obtaining insurance? You have to get the insurance, and they have to give it to you, but a medical screening in order to receive insurance is par for the course, is it not? You do not have a choice to opt out (unless you want to pay the penalty for being uninsured), correct? Or am I missing something?

    Like

  52. Blood test when I got married. Also when I applied for my current public sector job, that might count.

    The key here is that in each case they are testing for something. There is no medical reason for the hoohah probe whatsoever.

    Like

  53. Or am I missing something?

    With universal single payer there would be no screening needed. It’s only to allow insurance companies to cherry pick their risk pool that testing is needed. The consequences are being dumped into the high-risk co-op. Even now with employer based group coverage, tests are not only not required, they aren’t allowed once the pre-existing condition window passes. I’m certain there are processes I’m not familiar with, but as an employee I’ve never taken an exam before being covered.

    Like

  54. Kevin, “[l]icensing, training, car insurance mandates, zoning restrictions, building codes, user fees, etc.” I was discussing invasive medical procedures in the context of VA legislation, and you seem to be comparing it to zoning restrictions. I’ll have to think that one over. (You had to have a blood test for employment that females did not? And another for what kind of insurance that females did not?)

    I’ll quit nit-picking and see you guys later.

    Like

  55. The key here is that in each case they are testing for something. There is no medical reason for the hoohah probe whatsoever.

    As long as we aren’t still arguing about what definitionally constitutes a medical screening, I’ll agree. 😉

    I think it sets a poor precedent to attempt to force unnecessary medical screenings, on anybody, in order to accomplish a political goal, through the legislature. Arguably, this happens on a much lesser scale with unnecessary screenings obligated by ass-covering motivated by a lack of tort limitations on malpractice suits, but that’s a tertiary consequence, not an intent of legislation.

    Again, I would hope such efforts fail. If successful, I suspect they will backfire as regards their intent. Some things meant to soften hearts may harden them instead. Or, as they (you know, they) often say: a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.

    Like

  56. There is no basis for the legality of slavery in the Constitution, nor anything to justify the idea that one man can own another.

    I had to double check that and sure enough, you are right. The word ‘slavery’ does not appear anywhere in the Constitution until the 13th Amendment, but they sure use plenty of euphemisms to dance around it. They are unmistakably assuming its existence since they stop the slave trade in so many words. But since property laws were a state issue, laws regulating slavery would not be necessarily expected to be mentioned except for counting them as 3/5 of a person for determining representation.

    Like

  57. okie: I was discussing invasive medical procedures in the context of VA legislation, and you seem to be comparing it to zoning restrictions.

    I wasn’t exclusive discussing invasive medical procedures. We could limit the discussion to those, but I was discussing the broader context of the governments ability to require that you do X before you are permitted to do Y. It’s pervasive, and I don’t believe the medical field is immune. But, even if there are no examples of a government requirement that a person receiving a certain medical treatment do something else prior or after (I don’t believe this is the case), or no example of the government outright requiring some form of medical screening (the justification behind which not withstanding), unless there is a clear argument that explains why the government has the power in other fields, but cannot in the case of medical procedures (or, at least, medical procedures targeted solely at one gender), then the government seems, to me, clearly in it’s purview to require X procedure before Y, irrespective of burden or invasiveness, because it’s ability and role in doing so is long established. Thus, challenging the law on the basis of the government’s right to pass such a law seems weak, to me, and other challenges would arguably be more appropriate.

    You had to have a blood test for employment that females did not? And another for what kind of insurance that females did not?

    I’ve said repeatedly that I can’t think of any mandated exams that discriminate on the basis of gender. I don’t imagine there are any, or at least not many. Would you find this type of government mandate of invasive medical procedures of questionable benefit acceptable if it subjected both men and women to the same type of procedure? If so, why?

    I return to the ACA, which mandates that insurance companies must cover prenatal care and pregnancy specific coverage, including things like amniocentesis. Alas, being a man, I cannot benefit from the availability of this coverage. Is that government mandated discrimination, or just a natural occurrence because men do not pregnant?

    Does WIC cover single fathers equally? Are all the same benefits available to fathers as women under our social safety net? If not (I do not know, though I am fairly sure if it is now, that did not used to be the case), is this type of gender discrimination by our government acceptable?

    I think a better argument is that just because a certain group thinks that you doing something is a good idea is not a good basis for passing laws that make those people do that thing. Because, at some point, the same mechanism used to have the government mandate that they do something that they do not want to (but you want them to) will be used to make you do something. Either the principle is sound (that the government that governs least, governs best) or it’s not. I’d prefer we err on the side of the government that governs least, governs best. Props to Thomas Jefferson.

    Like

  58. lms:

    Apparently the fear of government’s overreach only applies in certain circumstances.

    To some degree this is true, but it is hardly ironic or inconsistent.

    I worry much more about government abuse of power at the federal level than at the state level, because the former is much less more pervasive and much more less easily escaped than the latter. As qb pointed out the other day with his Madison quote, one of the benefits in vesting power in the states, and limiting the sphere of power held by the federal government is that the negative effects of bad ideas/laws is limited.

    Believe me, I would care much, much less about Obama’s leftist inclinations if he was governor of California or mayor of Berkeley than I do with him as president of the whole nation.

    (Updated to fix the former/letter mixup)

    Like

  59. But since property laws were a state issue, laws regulating slavery would not be necessarily expected to be mentioned except for counting them as 3/5 of a person for determining representation.

    And they were specific to count Other Persons (not slaves, but Other Persons, which is a clear acknowledgement that slaves (and Indians, though less directly) were Persons, not property. The ongoing existence of slavery, in my opinion, ignored the constitution, as there was simply no constitutional basis for it.

    Of course, those opposed to slavery wanted to neuter the south by not counting slave population in the apportionment of representation at all. The 3/5ths clause was the compromise that gave the south enough representation at the Federal level to protect that peculiar institution even as the rest of the Western world was abolishing it. Those opposed to slavery reasoned that there would be other ways to whittle away at slavery, and there were, which eventually led Dred Scott, southern states in rebellion, the civil war and the Emancipation Proclamation. I’m not sure if the compromise was worth it. Certainly, counting any number of the population that had no representation (and that the constitution acknowledged as being persons, not beasts of burden) should not have been used to apportion representation to states that used their representation to help prolong such oppression.

    Still, the Dred Scott decision struck me (a lay person) as a clearly unconstitutional decision at the time, pre-13th.

    Like

  60. yello:

    It’s not a medical screening as no diagnostic or therapeutic action is taken. It is solely a proselytization effort against the procedure.

    That is probably true. But since the supremes have prevented states from restricting/reducing the incidence of abortion via straightforward and politically negotiable legislation, such efforts as these are one of the few means left available to them. As I have said in the past, the continued authority of Roe v Wade is the single biggest reason why abortion remains the politically contentious and polarizing issue that it is today.

    It’s those nebulous penumbras from the 14th and 9th Amendments which just can’t be nailed down.

    Fanciful notions can be tough that way..

    Like

    • As a matter of terminology, a procedure does not have to be intended to lead to treatment in order to be a screening procedure. Rather, what clinical epidemiology generally says is that if screening does not lead to treatment/therapy, it should not be done–for clinical purposes. The USPSTF, for example, only rates screening procedures as effective if they lead to effective interventions. (This is part of how I won some medical monitoring class actions for clients. Yes, courts and lawyers have tried to invent their own world of medical science with something called “medical monitoring.”) But people to postulate reasons to want screening other than treatment. “It is just good to know!”

      One clinical epi book I have defines screening simply as a “the identification of an unrecognized disease or risk factor” by some procedure (history taking, testing, exam). Screening actually is “not intended to be diagnostic.” Fletcher et al, Clinical Epidemiology: The Essentials (3d Ed. 1996).

      Like

      • QB: One clinical epi book I have defines screening simply as a “the identification of an unrecognized disease or risk factor” by some procedure (history taking, testing, exam). Screening actually is “not intended to be diagnostic.”

        Thanks! That’s what I was trying to say, only you said it better. And with citations!

        Like

  61. Kevin:

    I’m not sure if the compromise was worth it.

    Without it there would have been no United States. Whether that makes it all worthwhile or not is, I suppose, still debatable. But it should be clear why the compromise was made/

    Clearly the founders kicked the can down the road with regard to slavery.

    Like

  62. Scott: It’s clear why the compromise was made, although there might have been a United States without it. And a Confederate States down south. And battles over who annexed the West. I don’t guess there was anyway to avoid slavery being ongoing for the indefinite future, or bloodshed and war between the states, in either case.

    Like

    • Kevin:

      I don’t guess there was anyway to avoid slavery being ongoing for the indefinite future, or bloodshed and war between the states, in either case.

      I think that is right.

      Like

      • “Because, at some point, the same mechanism used to have the government mandate that they do something that they do not want to (but you want them to) will be used to make you do something”

        Progressives blew the door off the commerce clause a long time ago. I chalk this up to “be careful what you wish for.” You want big government, here it is.

        The below is from a comment thread over at reason from a couple of months ago:

        sarcasmic|11.8.11 @ 2:55PM|#

        The abridged Constitution:

        “General Welfare… regulate commerce… necessary and proper”

        There you go. Seven words. That’s all the government needs.
        The rest of the document might as well not exist, for those seven words give the government unlimited power.

        Enjoy Every Sandwich|11.8.11 @ 2:59PM|#

        Except over abortion, of course. ‘Cause that’s different.

        Like

  63. Kevin:

    BTW, on this:

    There is no basis for the legality of slavery in the Constitution, nor anything to justify the idea that one man can own another.

    The constitution as originally conceived and written was designed to establish the obligations and realm of power of the federal government. It was not designed to establish a basis for the legality of anything apart from federal government action. The silence of the constitution on the issue of slavery was all the justification a state needed to allow it as a legal practice.

    Like

  64. nova:

    That does just about sum it up.

    Like

  65. ” A woman seeking an abortion is already seeking an invasive medical procedure. Requiring an ultrasound can just as easily be characterized as regulating the procedure, and that is how I would expect it to be treated in a judicial analysis.”

    I wonder if this justification would be posted when the gov’t began requiring a prostate ultrasound before allowing invasive procedures to remove prostate cancers. I’d expect conservatives to argue in favor of deregulation & leaving the decision up to the patient & their doctor.

    Like

    • bsimon:

      I’d expect conservatives to argue in favor of deregulation & leaving the decision up to the patient & their doctor.

      qb is not making an political argument in favor or against of the law. He is making a legal argument about how he would expect the law to be treated as a constitutional issue, particularly (I think) within the constitutional framework generally advocated by liberals.

      Like

    • I wonder if this justification would be posted when the gov’t began requiring a prostate ultrasound before allowing invasive procedures to remove prostate cancers. I’d expect conservatives to argue in favor of deregulation & leaving the decision up to the patient & their doctor.

      If the government requires I have insurance and the insurance company decides to start requiring a prostate ultrasound before paying for an surgery related to the prostate cancer, and if I opt out I don’t get the surgery (or have to pay out of my own pocket), is this functionally different?

      BTW, any one aware of presumably non-evangelical conservatives arguing against the Virginia law as too much big government? It seems a natural position.

      BTW, I imagine some conservatives would argue a distinction in the above scenario, citing that, from their point of view, prostate surgery doesn’t end a nascent human life. Thus they’re government overreach is justified, as it’s “fighting fire with fire”. Of course, mandating arbitrary prostate ultrasounds by liberal politicians could also be seen as “fighting fire with fire”, so it’s entirely possible that the madness will never end.

      Like

  66. That’s what you meant by implying that I must think Plessy was correctly decided as a clear-cut case of property rights, huh?

    I didn’t say you thought it was correctly decided. I was being sarcastic. But since I don’t use smileys, it doesn’t always show.

    I was basing my tongue-in-cheek argument on this passage from the Constitution:

    No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

    The ambiguity decided by the Supreme Court was whether a slave was property or a citizen. As Kevin noted above, the decision was over-reach in not only declaring that Scott was property, but that NO slave or former slave could EVER have standing as a citizen.

    Under the Constitution, this interpretation had the imprimatur of the Supreme Court until the 13th, 14th, and 15th explicitly contradicted it. But for a long time plenty of people thought it made sense.

    BTW, despite your mention of it, I was using as an example the Dred Scott case not Plessy, but I’d be glad to discuss Plessy v. Ferguson if that is still controversial. Hint: I think that was also decided wrongly. No sarcasm.

    Like

    • But since I don’t use smileys, it doesn’t always show.

      Exactly! I’m glad you’ve finally manned up and admitted your irrational discrimination against smileys as an enlightened form of modern emotional communication.

      🙂

      Like

    • but I’d be glad to discuss Plessy v. Ferguson if that is still controversial. Hint: I think that was also decided wrongly.

      I tend to agree, but I find it difficult to see the decisions as being unconstitutional or extra-constitutional, at the time. It seemed to point to a need or additional legislation, or constitutional amendments, to address the issue separately. Again, as a layperson. There doesn’t seem to me to be anything limiting states, or even the federal, government from making arbitrary distinctions (or allowing individual companies, etc) to discriminate against people based on almost anything.

      Arguably, the decision undermines itself, as “separate but equal” was largely a fiction. Thus, I would think the decision would be subject to attack that separate makes it impossible to guarantee equal access. So, as you say, wrongly decided, I think.

      Like

    • The ambiguity decided by the Supreme Court was whether a slave was property or a citizen. As Kevin noted above, the decision was over-reach in not only declaring that Scott was property, but that NO slave or former slave could EVER have standing as a citizen.

      I think that is basically correct. The history of the case is convoluted, and, from memory, it can be hard to identify what the judges really thought they were deciding at various points, but that is essentially right.

      BTW, despite your mention of it, I was using as an example the Dred Scott case not Plessy, but I’d be glad to discuss Plessy v. Ferguson if that is still controversial. Hint: I think that was also decided wrongly. No sarcasm

      Yes, I mixed up names there; too much multitasking. I think Plessy was wrongly decided, although the way it was overruled is a different argument. It should have been more straightforward. I.e., I think criticisms of the reasoning like Clarence Thomas’s have merit. And that’s a good example of why I find denigration of Thomas odd.

      Like

  67. QB,
    Thanks for your 11:45 a.m. I knew someone would eventually reach for a dictionary. I have no idea whether your commentary supports my interpretation of the word or Kevin’s but it’s good to know someone has figured it out.

    Like

  68. It appears the issue of forced Trans-Vaginal Ultra Sounds just isn’t that compelling to most of the men here. I suppose that’s understandable to some degree but I think as women, the three of us who remain somewhat regular commenters at ATiM deserve more of a hearing on the matter than comparing it to either a chest X-Ray, a three day waiting period to purchase a gun, or a blithely stated comment about what could be more invasive than an abortion. And then of course the argument that oh well, it’s really a matter for the states and doesn’t affect the constitutionality of the right to abortion. We’re just adding more restrictions and limiting access on a state by state level at the same time we try to force out the one organization in many states that provides access, move along, nothing to worry about here.

    It seems clear, to me anyway, that these new regulations will be headed to the courts at some point in the future, which I’m sure was the point, a challenge to Roe v Wade in the guise of concern for “our” well-being. Sorry, we’re just not that dumb. It’s a challenge to the confidentiality between a woman and her doctor which was one of the cornerstones of Roe. Forcing not only women but their doctors to succumb to this interference will certainly force the issue in the courts.

    I found it especially interesting how blame was switched to progressives here by the simple fact that we opened the door, all Republicans are doing is walking through. It sounds vaguely familiar to other issues, such as unwanted pregnancies, which are apparently largely the fault of women for having sex in the first place. If you think I’m exaggerating read the comments from the Legislators in some of these states. That’s what made me angry enough to comment in the first place last night.

    Like

    • Forcing not only women but their doctors to succumb to this interference will certainly force the issue in the courts.

      Agreed.

      I found it especially interesting how blame was switched to progressives here by the simple fact that we opened the door, all Republicans are doing is walking through.

      Not sure who has done that (somebody, I’m sure), though I have argued that precedent is well-established for this kind of legislative invasion of privacy, so I don’t think it’s likely to be defeated on basis of lack of precedent, or that it’s outside of the scope of the government to impose such regulations on how something is done. Big Government types cross the political spectrum, from left to right, although the differ on where the government should encroach and who should be encroached upon, I suppose. My argument is that there is established, largely bipartisan, precedent for such government encroachment, so other arguments in opposition will probably prevail.

      If you think I’m exaggerating read the comments from the Legislators in some of these states.

      That’s what elections are for! Folks get the representation they vote for.

      the three of us who remain somewhat regular commenters at ATiM deserve more of a hearing on the matter than comparing it to either a chest X-Ray

      Well, I did not do that, and I think I’m the only person who brought up chest X-rays. As regards what defines a medical screening, not in regards to the why of something, the motivation for something, the relative impact or severity of something, or anything else. If I was not clear, I apologize.

      Like

    • lms:

      I think as women, the three of us who remain somewhat regular commenters at ATiM deserve more of a hearing on the matter than comparing it to either a chest X-Ray, a three day waiting period to purchase a gun, or a blithely stated comment about what could be more invasive than an abortion.

      You can have as much of a hearing as you desire, lms. But, while abortion certainly can be an emotional and passionate issue, there is no reason to think that principles of law that apply to other, less emotional, issues are not also applicable to abortion.

      And then of course the argument that oh well, it’s really a matter for the states and doesn’t affect the constitutionality of the right to abortion.

      If this is meant to be a reference to anything I said, you are either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing my arguments.

      We’re just adding more restrictions and limiting access on a state by state level at the same time we try to force out the one organization in many states that provides access, move along, nothing to worry about here.

      As you are surely aware, many people (including many women, BTW) oppose legal abortion. So for them, yes, there is nothing to worry about here. If you are merely agitated that not everyone agrees with your strong feelings about a given issue, well…welcome to the club.

      It seems clear, to me anyway, that these new regulations will be headed to the courts at some point in the future, which I’m sure was the point, a challenge to Roe v Wade in the guise of concern for “our” well-being. Sorry, we’re just not that dumb.

      It’s not a question of anyone being “dumb”. Abortion opponents are using the political system in the only way available to them to achieve their political goals. You may not like their goals, but that doesn’t make their methods questionable or condemnable. Since the inability to regulate abortion as states see fit is founded on Roe, those states which want to regulate abortion as they see fit must necessarily bring challenges to Roe.

      I found it especially interesting how blame was switched to progressives here by the simple fact that we opened the door, all Republicans are doing is walking through. It sounds vaguely familiar to other issues, such as unwanted pregnancies, which are apparently largely the fault of women for having sex in the first place.

      Uh, no. To demonstrate that principles of law championed by progressives can be used to inhibit progressive causes in no way whatsoever are similar to blaming an unwanted pregnancy “largely” on women. The two have virtually nothing in common.

      Like

  69. lms:

    Thanks for the info way up above. I’m going to have a look to see what the law is here.

    Like

  70. ” qb is not making an political argument in favor or against of the law.”

    And I wasn’t really commenting on qb’s post; i was using it as a vehicle to build the image of a prostate examination with the ultrasound wand in the pic lms posted upthread.

    Like

  71. lms:

    In FL, women have to pay for the ultrasound they undergo before having an abortion. The exceptions are for rape, domestic violence, and sex trafficking where no ultrasound is required. I think the FL Legislature is conjuring up more restrictions to abortion right now, but I don’t know what they are.

    Like

  72. ” f I opt out I don’t get the surgery (or have to pay out of my own pocket), is this functionally different?”

    It is having the option of paying out of pocket that makes your example functionally different.

    Like

  73. For Constitutional scholars so inclined, here is the entire Dred Scott decision. It is pretty inpenetrable, running 98 pages in the original, with long passages on the history of slavery in each state. Even just skimming it there are some amazing portions. It explicitly rule the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and states that the laws of free states can’t negate the property laws of slave states. Also somewhere in there are long discussions of the definitions of ‘citizen’ vs ‘inhabitant’ and the like. Seems like stuff perfect for the ATiM’s penchant for splitting hairs.

    Like

    • Ah, my memory wasn’t failing me. It is almost 100 pages of often impenetrable 19th century legalese.

      Judicial opinions from the era tend to read that way.

      This actually raises an interesting thought. We were talking about infotainment, the loss of literacy, and the dumbing down of people at PL the other day, where I gave Liam my obligatory shout to to Neil Postman. I do think Postman was on to something. People today generally can’t read and write and sustain thought the way they did in the founders’ era.

      But what on earth explains the way judges often wrote in the 19th century? Good heavens. I’ve never really explored this.

      Like

    • It explicitly rule the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and states that the laws of free states can’t negate the property laws of slave states.

      Then, conversely, it should seem that the property laws of slave states shouldn’t be able to negate the anti-slavery laws (if such existed) of free states. So a state should reasonably have been able to pass a law freeing any slave that set foot inside their borders, and have that be just a valid is the law saying the slave was property in the other state.

      Like

  74. Exactly! I’m glad you’ve finally manned up and admitted your irrational discrimination against smileys as an enlightened form of modern emotional communication.

    I still hold that smileys are the crutch of people who cannot get their meaning across with just words. Of which, I seem to be one. ;-b

    Like

  75. Scott@1:13pm, I with reason disagree with almost everything in this comment. My BS meter is working overtime. I do not believe I have read a more condescending comment on ATiM. Admittedly a little unfair since I am not inclined to further discussion at this moment.

    ashot, as far as I am concerned WE HAVE A BINGO with “[t]here seems a rather obvious difference between seeing what they are doing via pictures, descriptions counseling etc vs. an unwanted phycial touching.” Especially since some of us consider this particular “unwanted physical touching” to be equivalent to rape.

    Like

    • I do not believe I have read a more condescending comment on ATiM.

      mcurtis? yellojkt? Or my own good, now absent, friend Nathaniel? There have been a few, IMO.

      ashot, as far as I am concerned WE HAVE A BINGO with “[t]here seems a rather obvious difference between seeing what they are doing via pictures, descriptions counseling etc vs. an unwanted phycial touching.” Especially since some of us consider this particular “unwanted physical touching” to be equivalent to rape.

      I think this is a good argument as to why conservatives ought not want any government, at any level, to be playing this role. In some ways, it hearkens back to the eugenics era and forced sterilization.

      As for it’s efficacy as a legal argument against such a law, I’m a little more dubious about that.

      Like

    • okie:

      I with reason disagree with almost everything in this comment.

      Well, I made essentially 9 claims.

      1) lms can have as much hearing as she wants.
      2) Legal principles apply to abortion no less than other issues.
      3) lms has either misunderstood or mischaracterized my argument.
      4) many people, inlcuding women, oppose legal abortion, and for them there is nothing much to worry about in what lms is worried about.
      5) The legal strategy of passing laws regulating abortion has nothing at all to do with thinking anyone is “dumb”.
      6) Abortion opponents are using the political system in the only way available to them.
      7) lms’ distaste of their goals does not make their political strategy questionable.
      8) As Roe prevents states from restricting abortion, states which want to restrict abortion must challenge Roe.
      9) Demonstrating that progressive principles of law can be used to thwart progressive desires is not remotely the same as saying unwanted pregnancies are largely the fault of women for having sex.

      I can, I suppose, imagine some small disagreements here or there, but I confess I am shocked that you disagree with “most” of these. Perhaps you can tell me what exactly you disagree with.

      I do not believe I have read a more condescending comment on ATiM.

      I’m sure I must have been much more condescending at some point in the past. I wasn’t even trying.

      Admittedly a little unfair since I am not inclined to further discussion at this moment.

      Yes, perhaps just a little.

      Like

      • Scott: 4) many people, inlcuding women, oppose legal abortion

        In fact, almost as many women as men (practically the same in some polls, rarely more than a 7% gap). Thus, if it is a war against women, then it is, at least in part, a civil war. And compared to many of the ladies in the pro-life movement, I’m practically pro-abortion, forget pro-choice. 😉

        I’m sure I must have been much more condescending at some point in the past. I wasn’t even trying.

        While I do not know any of the ladies here to presume this has any relation whatsoever, I will observe, having been with my wife for a very long time now, I’m apparently condescending any time I disagree with her. If I have a reason for disagreeing with her, then I’m being very condescending. If I continue to disagree, or don’t apologize for disagreeing, then I’m just being a dick. I think this is, to some degree, a difference between communication styles, or how we perceive our communication styles vs. others, both between genders and between individuals.

        I, personally, don’t consider sarcastic ripostes or the vigorous use of deconstructive rhetorical devices to be condescending. But I know my wife does! 😉

        Like

        • Looking over the recent comments on this, the lesson I now draw is that to do other than to unconditionally condemn the Virginia bill on moral and legal grounds is to justify state-mandated rape.

          Glad I wasted my time responding to questions about it (not).

          Addendum:

          Perhaps it would be an apropos time to invoke an abortion survivor’s testimony to declare opposition to the bill an effort to justify murder.

          Good talk.

          Like

        • Looking over the recent comments on this, the lesson I now draw is that to do other than to unconditionally condemn the Virginia bill on moral and legal grounds is to justify state-mandated rape.

          Well, that would be one. I also hear a lot of: guys don’t get to talk about this. While that might actually be good advice, I found your thinking out loud comment on the subject to be the epitome of candid and thoughtful discussion, and exactly the sort of stuff I come here for. However, it’s a sensitive issue for a lot of people, and I think it’s easy for things to seem to casual, dismissive, or condescending (or justifying) when they aren’t. Even if they don’t mean to be, on some subjects I think people are more easily offended or incensed or more prone to negative interpret comments (I certainly can be), because of the importance of the issue to them, and the sorts of arguments they have run up against before. It’s easy to see people through the lens of previous experience as to “those sorts of people”, which has some value (as generalizing and stereotyping always does), but also inhibits accurate perception and communication. At least, that’s what I think. I could totally be a bonehead.

          Like

        • I could totally be a bonehead.

          How did I miss the most cogent remark on the whole thread?

          Updated: : )

          Like

        • How did I miss the most cogent remark on the whole thread?

          I am nothing if not self-aware.

          Like

  76. This is the last statement I have for this issue today……………….talk about complicated, my life right now and this issue.

    My original comment had to do with the fear the right has that Obama is some sort of neo-marxist and trying to steer the country into some collectivist state and I was countering that with an issue that strikes fear into the heart of some of us on the left. And that is the conservative pre-occupation with intimidating women into submission at the state level and in some cases by men who have designs on the WH as well. Dismissing those fears for whatever reason, many have been cited, does not further your cause. This statement is in general and not directed to any specific person. I am a woman, wife and mother first, and a left/liberal/marxist/whatever second.

    Like

    • lms,

      Ducking back in after a few hours out.

      I haven’t tried to dismiss you or anyone or anything in this discussion. I responded to various points and questions made. You are entitled to all the hearing you want, as far as I am concerned. I certainly didn’t say anything to the contrary. Not even close. As I’ve said, I probably don’t even support this kind of law. But we are here to debate and examine issues, arent’ we?

      Perhaps a better way to make a point I made would be to say that it seems to me more the purpose of the invasion than the invasion itself that is the source of objection. Indeed, that seems almost a truism to me. If the invasion were exactly the same but had what you deem a medically appropriate purpose, I gather you wouldn’t object. So then the question is, what is the purpose?

      I’m not sure what is offensive, either, about pointing out that there is framing of the issue going on here. This happens all the time in legal and rights arguments, and, if I dare say so, the framing and reframing is probably more often a tactic of the progressive side. I could take you through just about any rights controversy we have debated and make that case. The right to abortion itself is a product of vigorous reframing, in my opinion. Penumbras are framing. Calling a procedure conducted in a clinic a matter of privacy is framing. Arguing that gays are denied the right to marriage is an exercise in reframing and literally redefining language.

      I’ll close with two other provocative points.

      First, I think you have again invoked the privilege of gender on the issue. I’m fine with that. Nothing wrong with your position. But there is also a counter to the argument women have privileged status as the only one of the sexes who experiences pregnancy: it makes them interested rather than objective. I don’t think either argument is actually correct, but both are out there.

      Second, it occurs to me that doctors are required to obtain “informed consent” to treatment, and the law ultimately determines what information must be provided to “inform” the patient. Drug and medical device companies are similarly required to provide warning and other precautionary information to consumers (and physicians). What, therefore, would make it inappropriate for the law to require a medical provider to give a woman seeking an abortion specific facts about her baby that the state deems relevant to her consent decision? If nothing, then what about showing her an image? And if showing her an image could properly be required, what about obtaining an image? What about obtaining an image without any further “invasion”? What about minimal additional invasion?

      I’m just thinking out loud here and stirring up trouble (and showing how conservatives, too, can break down rational arguments one brick at a time). : )

      Like

      • the framing and reframing is probably more often a tactic of the progressive side

        I may be incorrect, but I don’t think it’s true any more, I think it’s pretty balanced. Both sides (especially the public faces, pundits, etc) engage in near-equal amounts of framing for the purpose of controlling the narrative and nurturing certain positive or negative emotional associations with an issue. I’m still not sure the right is nearly as good at it as the left is, but elections and polls tend to indicate my impression of competence does not translate into winning much more in the arena of ideas, or at the ballot box.

        Like

      • If nothing, then what about showing her an image? And if showing her an image could properly be required, what about obtaining an image? What about obtaining an image without any further “invasion”? What about minimal additional invasion?

        As an abstract question: if a comprehensive image of the fetus (something that will probably be possible in the not-too-distant future, at a feasible cost, though it may not be now) could be provided with no invasiveness (about as intimate as Dr. McCoy passing his tri-corder over the area of your abdomen) could be provided without any invasiveness, would this law be acceptable?

        I’d still argue no, but a great deal of certain arguments seem to hinge on the invasiveness of the procedure, not the image produced, or the counseling provided. If that is addressed, is the law then acceptable?

        Like

      • Perhaps a better way to make a point I made would be to say that it seems to me more the purpose of the invasion than the invasion itself that is the source of objection. Indeed, that seems almost a truism to me. If the invasion were exactly the same but had what you deem a medically appropriate purpose, I gather you wouldn’t object. So then the question is, what is the purpose?

        Your logic makes sense to me, but I’m just not sure how you can separate the two things. Obviously people agree to invasions of privacy without objection under certain circumstances. Whether they agree to the invasion depends on both the purpose of the invasion and the extent of the invasion. Okie’s agreement with my prior post seems to back that up. By the way, I hate this term invasionn in this context. I don’t have a better alternative at this moment though.

        Second, it occurs to me that doctors are required to obtain “informed consent” to treatment, and the law ultimately determines what information must be provided to “inform” the patient.

        Again there is some appeal to this argument, but at least in Michigan, what constitutes informed consent is largely left up to physicians. So having the legislature meddle in this is inconsistent. At some point we are also corrupting what informed consent was supposed to be. Informed consent was not intended as a way to deter people from making a choice. Is there any question that the intent of this law is to do exactly that?

        Like

        • Informed consent was not intended as a way to deter people from making a choice. Is there any question that the intent of this law is to do exactly that?

          I don’t think it’s there to deter people from making a choice, I think the intent is to prejudice the patient towards a preferred choice. Otherwise it would be made available to the patient, not mandated.

          Like

        • I think the intent is to prejudice the patient towards a preferred choice.

          Prejudice…deter? What exactly is this difference in this context? And would you agree that it seems to be a corruption of the intent of informed consent laws?

          Like

        • And would you agree that it seems to be a corruption of the intent of informed consent laws?

          Yes. Informed consent might insist certain options be available and the patient be aware of them, but would not mandate options that the patient and doctor feel are unnecessary.

          Like

        • Ashot,

          What I meant by the law ultimately determines what is informed consent is that if there were a dispute over it a court would decide, as always. If a court can decide that a doctor did not provide a patient with all the relevant information (and it can), I don’t see a principled difference between that and a statute that says a doctor must give a patient X information.

          I don’t really buy your distinction between informing to deter and informing for consent. I think it is a matter of degree or, to put my progressive critical theory hat on, spin and characterization. Informed consent exists to ensure that a patient has the information to understand the procedure and say “No” if that information leads her to that conclusion. The ultrasound law can be accurately described the same way.

          This objection always leads, moreover, to the point that, if it is the purpose of deterring women from choosing to proceed that is objectionable, then the objection really is to the fact that some women might not choose to proceed. This sounds begins to sound a lot like the objection is about making sure that women have abortions and are not presented with information that might lead them not to. It brings to mind the outrage over people showing photos of fetuses and aborted fetuses, and the Silent Scream film. Outrage over what exactly? Well, it’s sensational, emotional, etc. But really it is just factual imagery.

          Like

        • If a court can decide that a doctor did not provide a patient with all the relevant information (and it can), I don’t see a principled difference between that and a statute that says a doctor must give a patient X information.

          Ahh…that makes more sense. Some states do have laws that require information, but I think they are written more generally ie…risks, alternatives, potential outcomes etc. I just think justifying it under the concept of informed concept is corrupting the purpose of informed consent.

          Informed consent exists to ensure that a patient has the information to understand the procedure and say “No” if that information leads her to that conclusion. The ultrasound law can be accurately described the same way.

          So could a law that requires a physician to inflict physical harm (cutting her with a knife or some other) on a woman seeking an abortion for the purported purpoose of informing the woman what the fetus or baby feels during an abortion. I wonder if a state legislature would support such a law. Your description is accurate, albeit, incomplete.

          then the objection really is to the fact that some women might not choose to proceed.

          No. I think, as articulated by the 3 ladies here, the objection is having an ultrasound wand put in a woman’s vagina.

          This sounds begins to sound a lot like the objection is about making sure that women have abortions and are not presented with information that might lead them not to.
          I assure you, I would object (and I suspect the ladies here would as well) to a proposal that encouraged women to have abortions if the proposal involved physicians performing an ultrasound or otherwise touching women who had not consented to such an action.

          Like

        • No. I think, as articulated by the 3 ladies here, the objection is having an ultrasound wand put in a woman’s vagina.

          While trying to avoid further debate on the subject, I do want to interject that the above described procedure seems objectionable, to me, on general principal. Can’t medical science come up with something less invasive?

          Like

  77. And that is the conservative pre-occupation with intimidating women into submission at the state level and in some cases by men who have designs on the WH as well.

    I suspect you’ll get some disagreement with how you are couching the issue here, but my comment about perspective as it applied to Scott’s perspective equally applies to lmsinca.

    I will also note that these issues and comments by Rick Santorum were largely laughed off by conservative posters here. Since that time, Santorum won additonal primaries and flew to a big lead in Michigan (although he has since lost that lead), Oklahoma pushed a personhood bill and Virginia is pushing the bill we are discussing here (apparently Florida already has this in place). Santorum is not likely to win the nomination, but what if he ends up as VP? At some point simply dismissing concerns about a broader “attack” on women is unreasonable, particularly in light of (as lmsinca points out) concerns over Obama’s Marxism.

    Like

    • ashot: At some point simply dismissing concerns about a broader “attack” on women is unreasonable, particularly in light of (as lmsinca points out) concerns over Obama’s Marxism.

      I also dismiss concerns over Obama’s Marxism. Also, roughly 50% of the attack on women is being conducted by women (perhaps mores on the grass roots level than in the legislatures, but women have a presence there as well, playing as vigorously as any man for the anti-choice team), so I think it will have to be modified as an attack on progressive women, or attack on sane women, or something.

      Like

  78. Ashore writes
    “I’ m not saying I agree with those positions, but understanding their perspective helps explain how Scott or QB does not see this as an “big government” etc. It also explains why I usually don’t participate in these discussions. If Scott thinks it’s murder, what possible compromise could exist? None.”

    what if the argument is being improperly framed? In the context of the rights to speech & bearing arms, we’re acknowledging that we don’t necessarily agree with how others will exercise those rights. Some will burn flags. Some will protest at funerals. Some will shoot themselves or others. But we accept those negative outcomes rather than infringing our rights. Is there a valid argument for abortion along those lines? Innocent lives are lost to gun violence every day, but we’re told that’s the price we pay for living in a free society. Is aborting any different?

    Like

    • bsimon:

      Is there a valid argument for abortion along those lines? Innocent lives are lost to gun violence every day, but we’re told that’s the price we pay for living in a free society. Is aborting any different?

      The main reason it is different is that the right to bear arms is indeed a constitutional right. The right to abortion is not.

      Having said that, I do actually agree somewhat with what you are saying, which is why I am open to compromise on the issue. Although I am, by force of logic, compelled to conclude that human life begins at conception, I realize there are competing interests at play, and those interests cannot be dismissed out of hand. How those competing interests are weighed is a matter or prudence, which is precisely why I think the issue needs to be decided by voters via their legislatures, according to the prevailing notions of the community, not by the order of 5 men sitting in a courtroom in Washington.

      Like

  79. So a state should reasonably have been able to pass a law freeing any slave that set foot inside their borders, and have that be just a valid is the law saying the slave was property in the other state.

    But the court decided the exact opposite. One state can’t ‘take’ (my word, not theirs) property just because one crosses a state line with a slave. They then ruled that since Scott was still a slave, he had no standing to sue in court. Reading the Wikipedia article on the case, it seems Louisiana had a rule like you propose but Scott did not know to take advantage of it.

    I do like a line in the Wikipedia article that says scholars don’t debate whether it was wrong, but how it was wrong. Amazingly, it carried 7-2 in the court.

    Like

  80. I’m sure I must have been much more condescending at some point in the past. I wasn’t even trying.

    And that is your defining talent. 😉

    Like

  81. Scott, bottom line is I personally define rape as anything not consensual being inserted in my vagina. I have been raped twice, once a date rape via surreptitious drugs and once violently at gunpoint. I have now read all day while a group of men justified state-sanctioned rape. Nuff said.

    Like

    • I have now read all day while a group of men justified state-sanctioned rape. Nuff said.

      I don’t think anybody here has said that. I’m opposed to this law in particular, and I haven’t seen much from Scott or QB that suggests they support this law in particular. Though our group lacks any conservative women, they do exist out there. Would their actual defense of ultrasound laws (can’t find it at the moment, but I’m pretty sure Kathryn Jean Lopez has given her full-throated endorsement to ultrasound laws, everywhere) be more palatable than a group of neanderthal males mulling over the legal basis for such laws, comparing it to aspects of the ACA, and contemplating the role of some progressive uses of activist government as laying the groundwork?

      Like

    • okie:

      I personally define rape as anything not consensual being inserted in my vagina. I have been raped twice, once a date rape via surreptitious drugs and once violently at gunpoint. I have now read all day while a group of men justified state-sanctioned rape. Nuff said.

      I will respond to this later, after considering my words carefully.

      Like

  82. I, personally, don’t consider sarcastic ripostes or the vigorous use of deconstructive rhetorical devices to be condescending. But I know my wife does! 😉

    Not to mention promiscuous use of smileys. 😉

    Like

  83. I have been staying away all day because Scott’s very most original comment–about a woman who is requesting an invasive procedure shouldn’t object to yet another invasive procedure–struck me as flippant and, yes, condescending. So your argument sounds to me like you’re saying “Well, you’ve had something in your vagina already or you wouldn’t be needing an abortion, so what’s a little more invasion between friends?”

    I also made the mistake of assuming, because of lms’s comment and then the follow-ups to that, that you had all been following this issue as closely as I have for the last week, so here’s a little nugget of information that evidently you don’t have: this ultrasound will be done without the woman’s consent. That’s right–no consent. In fact, a Democratic Delegate introduced an amendment to the bill to simply require that the woman give consent, and it was voted down along party lines 64 – 34. So not only is she going to be invaded vaginally, with no legitimate medical need, but against her consent. That is rape, guys, no other word for it.

    And did you know that VA has already passed a personhood bill as well, and the Governor has promised to sign it? That also passed on party lines.

    Right now all of you Republicans can kiss my ass, because the people your Party is putting into office are most definitely trying to throw women’s rights back into the nineteenth century. And cry me no rivers about female Republicans in office; they’re possibly even more despicable as far as I’m concerned.

    Like

    • Right now all of you Republicans can kiss my ass

      Well, then. It’s been fun, but, while I can’t speak for my fellow Republicans, I think I’ll drop out of this conversation now.

      The new Bits & Pieces should be up. Let’s talk about Climate Change!

      Like

    • Right now all of you Republicans can kiss my ass, because the people your Party is putting into office are most definitely trying to throw women’s rights back into the nineteenth century. And cry me no rivers about female Republicans in office; they’re possibly even more despicable as far as I’m concerned.

      Good talk.

      Glad someone asked us to discuss it.

      Like

  84. qb, ” [T]he lesson I now draw is that to do other than to unconditionally condemn the Virginia bill on moral and legal grounds is to justify state-mandated rape.”

    YES. How do you characterize it otherwise? Every one of us should be opposed to this particular legislation, regardless of how we feel about abortion. I happen to agree with Kevin in that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I do not believe in making the choice for somebody else. (Obviously paraphrasing and hoping I am not misrepresenting/misunderstanding.)

    I truly appreciate your attempt to discuss. But there are noninvasive ways for those who are anti-abortion to apply state-sanctioned means to attempt to change the decision. Thus my grudging agreement to mandated counseling, pictures and other protocols. My bright line is the invasiveness of the VA legislation. I do not take the same absolute stand on other discussions of abortion or other state sanctioned means of attempting to influence against it. But required invasive procedure IMO crosses the line.

    Like

  85. I think the point is this.

    Q: Why should abortion be immune from the regulatory state that touches every aspect of our lives?
    A: I don’t know, but if you have answer, I’d like to apply it elsewhere.

    Medical licenses are a limited commodity, reflecting an artificial shortage created by government. It’s not a big jump to start dictating the how those practitioners use that license. Government was already in that exam room. I’m not surprised it has overstayed (or is attempting to) its welcome.

    Like

  86. Scott, careful is good right now. Kiss Kiss.

    Like

  87. Michi, for the record, this is what Scott wrote: “BTW, my understanding of the law in question requires the procedure only for women who are already requesting to have an invasive medical procedure performed on them.”

    He was talking about the D&C, not the act that led to to pregnancy.

    Like

  88. McWing–yes, I know he was referring to the D&C. It still sounded flippant and condescending to me.

    Like

  89. I doubt you’ll find a single one of the three of us who would object to or deny women the right to a full understanding of what abortion means or even the possible consequences of making such a decision. I don’t object to waiting periods or any other factual information being discussed or considered, but the idea of forcing women to undergo and their doctors forced to perform an unnecessary medical procedure that feels very much like a violation is completely abhorrent, period, full stop. That there are now 7 states who have passed such measures as well as others contemplating it, is frightening to some of us as women.

    Okie, I’m so sorry about what happened to you, it’s a testament to your fortitude that you can even discuss this issue. You’re a strong and brave woman.

    Also, as an aside, my youngest had one of these tests the first time at 26, nothing to do with abortion but rather a medical condition and she had no choice as it was medically indicated. She asked me to go with her the first time and I stood next to her head and held her hand…………………….she cried the entire time. A little perspective might be in order here.

    I think some of you guys do understand the issue now……so there’s that.

    Like

  90. ascot@3:17pm, don’t speak for all the girls but probably am representative in saying I agree overall. “[T]he objection is having . . . [anything] put in a woman’s vagina.”

    Like

  91. While trying to avoid further debate on the subject, . . .

    Valiant effort. 🙂

    Like

  92. qb@3:16pm: “Glad someone asked us to discuss it.” Heh, we know you were pretending to work all day,)-:

    So what would you add to the argument?

    Like

    • I have spent the last half hour catching up on this thread and I have had an education from the women. I did not know that vaginal intrusions were involved in ultrasounds and I did not know leges were making them non-consensual. I understand now that what seemed to me to be no big deal 45 minutes ago is a BIG DEAL. If I were an MD or a female patient or the father of a female patient or the husband of a female patient I would be outraged if faced with this situation, as I now understand it. I am guessing many men in the general public are as ignorant as I was fifty minutes ago. Thanks.

      Like

  93. ashot:

    How do you justify a compromise on murder?

    While I wouldn’t phrase it quite this way (I think murder has a specific meaning not necessarily applicable here) I think this is a great (and difficult) question, and every person who claims to be personally against abortion but in favor of “choice” should seriously wrestle and come to terms with it.

    I think that the whole debate unnecessarily conflates the right of a woman to be physically free of the human life that resides inside of her with a right to destroy that life.  The existence of the former (which I agree a woman has) does not imply the latter (which I don’t think a woman has, any more than a woman has a right to destroy her 2 week old newborn).  Once this distinction is recognized, then it becomes possible to see how the rights of the unborn can be, at least theoretically, reconciled with the rights of the mother.  The unborn simply needs to be removed without it being destroyed, much like the mother of a two week old newborn can rid herself of the burden of her child but cannot legitimately destroy it.  This is obviously possible, but in the instance that the unborn literally cannot survive outside the body of the mother, there is no effective difference between simple removal and intentional destruction (ie abortion).  Since there is no effective difference, I think abortion can be justified until that point.

    Like

  94. Mark- Not all ultrasound are transvaginal, but based on the discussion, I’m assuing the Virginia law requires a transvaginal ultrasound.

    lmsinca- My wife and I had a little trouble getting pregnant and then there was some concern over a placenta previa after she was pregnant. In short, she had a lot of transvaginal ultrasounds. My wife squeezed my hand everytime. That’s all I need to know about how invasive it is.

    Scott- Thanks for your perspective. It is a question I have struggled with considerably and I imagine I will continue to struggle with it.

    Like

  95. abc, glad you’re here. I have started “Suite Harmonics” but am not far enough into it to discuss. Are you planning to join us mid April?

    Like

  96. Re “Suite Harmonics”, according to my Kindle I am about 9% into the book. Right now the family and the town of Harmony are awaiting word of the fate of their men.

    Like

  97. “The main reason it is different is that the right to bear arms is indeed a constitutional right. The right to abortion is not.”

    Ah, but that squishy constitution ties the right to bear arms to organized militia (a clause the courts have ignored for decades, if not centuries). Meanwhile, nowhere is money to be found in the bill of rights, yet the courts equate money with speech. You can argue that the courts decided Roe v Wade wrongly, but it is still the law of the land.

    Like

    • bsimon:

      I missed this from last night.

      Ah, but that squishy constitution ties the right to bear arms to organized militia

      No, I don’t think it does. There are different grammatical interpretations of the 2nd amendment, but at most the militia clause provides a reason for granting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not a condition qualifying the right.

      You can argue that the courts decided Roe v Wade wrongly…

      Thanks. That is exactly what I am arguing.

      …but it is still the law of the land.

      No one, least of all me, has ever claimed otherwise.

      Like

  98. “based on the discussion, I’m assuing the Virginia law requires a transvaginal ultrasound.”

    Per an earlier post, first trimester ultrasounds do not offer enough detail when done through the belly; thus the ‘trans vag*’ (as we call it in our house) is required.

    * not my term, but that of an ultrasound tech.

    Like

  99. Hi Mark, thanks for reading the thread and understanding our point. I am completely comfortable with strict restrictions and guidelines as well as counseling and waiting periods, in my mind abortion is and should be an outlying solution to an untenable situation that many young women find themselves in. As a practical matter we should not legislate against it state by state as it’s on the books now as a legal right and the alternative is unsafe and deadly. The theory that legislators can shame, humiliate or force women into submission through these kinds of maneuvers is a very dangerous game in my opinion.

    Thanks for keeping an open mind. Also, according to the poll I saw last night when I was looking into the VA bill, over 65% of the population disapproves of it.

    Like

  100. ashot:
    “If Scott thinks it’s murder, what possible compromise could exist? None.”

    scott responded:
    “I think I have mentioned before that I am much more adamant about the issue being settled at the state level than I am about what the ultimate settlement should be. I am most certainly open to compromise, which is why I advocate for the issue to be settled by legislatures rather than judicial fiat.”

    Per the earlier discussion regarding freedom & liberty, the most local solution is the obvious answer: the woman and her doctor. Yes, there are people who will choose abortion at offensively late points in their terms perhaps well beyond viability outside the womb. As distasteful as that may be, that is a preferable outcome to the opposite extreme. The difficulty of finding that middle ground (when does life begin?) and opening our bedrooms and personal behaviors to the state is the greater evil. Much like our legal system is biased in favor of the defendant (it is better to let a murder go free than to convict an innocent man), and much like our other rights sometimes produce outcomes that are offensive to the majority (Rev Phelps; flag burners; gun violence); we have to err on the side of allowing a woman the freedom of choice to make the painful decision for herself.

    Like

    • bsimon:

      Per the earlier discussion regarding freedom & liberty, the most local solution is the obvious answer: the woman and her doctor.

      I’m not sure which freedom and liberty discussion you mean, but this is not at all an “obvious” solution to me. The logic behind leaving the decision of how to regulate abortion to more local levels of government does not lead, indeed cannot lead, to the “most local” level of the woman and her doctor. The regulation of abortion is premised on the notion that 1) the unborn have rights and 2) the wider community has some interest in protecting those rights. Yours is simply a rejection of these two premises, not a “solution” to the question that the premises present.

      As distasteful as that may be, that is a preferable outcome to the opposite extreme.

      It may be for you, but it certainly is not for many others. Which is why the decision needs to be settled via elected representatives and not imperial judges.

      Like

  101. shit. kids are late for bed.

    Like

  102. shit. kids are late for bed.

    You get caught up in the conversation, and time just flies. 🙂

    Like

  103. Can’t medical science come up with something less invasive?

    To the writers of the law, that is a feature, not a bug. The point is to make it as objectionable, expensive, and humiliating as possible so as to discourage abortions.

    Like

  104. “The regulation of abortion is premised on the notion that 1) the unborn have rights and 2) the wider community has some interest in protecting those rights.”

    Interesting. This is the inverse of the argument that qb makes against same sex marriage.

    Like

    • Mich:

      Since it seems that the men here at ATiM are not allowed to hold opinions on these types of “women’s” issues that differ from yours without getting condemned and told to kiss your ass, perhaps you should consider not bringing them up here.

      Like

  105. RICHMOND, Va., Feb. 22 (UPI) — Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell backed off his unqualified support for a bill requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion, his office said.

    At the same time, state lawmakers worked behind the scenes to soften the measure, The (Norfolk) Virginian-Pilot and The Washington Post reported.

    McDonnell, who campaigned as an opponent of elective abortion, initially said he would sign the measure if it made it to his desk. He now will no longer make that commitment, his office said.

    “Our position is: If the General Assembly passes this bill the governor will review it, in its final form, at that time,” spokesman Tucker Martin said in a statement cited by the Post.

    Martin declined to explain the reason for McDonnell’s change. The governor can sign, veto or amend the legislation.

    The state House and Senate approved their versions of the bill. But the House Tuesday postponed a final vote on the legislation for the second day in a row.

    The Virginian-Pilot said the measure may be revised following an uproar due to a provision requiring that a probe be inserted into women’s vaginas.

    The Post said lawmakers and the governor’s staff met Tuesday night to strike a compromise after learning some ultrasounds could be more invasive than first thought.

    The Virginia legislation has become part of the broader national debate over reproductive rights.

    Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/02/22/Va-governor-backs-off-ultrasound-bill/UPI-99291329895800/#ixzz1n6tqK99k

    Like

  106. Here’s a pdf of the kinds of laws requiring or offering ultrasounds from the various states that have been passed. VA hasn’t made the list yet and a couple of the laws are tied up in the courts. It’s not completely clear to me in which states the trans-vaginal equipment would be required. Apparently it depends on the level of detail required by the specific bill. As I said, 7 states require ultra-sounds now, 2 are being contested in the courts and VA hasn’t passed their version yet.

    Like

  107. okie:

    I spent the night pondering how best to respond to your last to me yesterday. There is much I would like to say, and points I would like to make, but upon consideration I think that your comment effectively shuts down any possible further discussion. I don’t know if that was your intent, but it is the effect. And I think it is unfortunate.

    Like

  108. Scott, I’m sorry to hear that my comment “effectively shuts down any possible further discussion.” That was not my intent, although I obviously feel strongly about the issue. I would welcome elucidation of your points.

    Like

    • okie:

      I would welcome elucidation of your points.

      OK.

      I don’t think it is at all fair or legitimate to claim that anyone here has “justified state-sanctioned rape.”

      In the first place, no one here has attempted to justify the substance of the law at all. I don’t think anyone here has expressed support for what the law requires. All some of us have said is that, within the legal framework under which we currently operate, and for which liberals themselves have strongly advocated, there is nothing legally or constitutionally objectionable about it.

      Second, I think it is wrong to characterize the requirement as “state-mandated rape”. If that is an accurate characterization, then by the same logic, for example, any tax is “state-mandated theft”. Afterall, I define theft as the taking of property against the owner’s will, and I do not consent to many of the taxes I have to pay as a legal requirement for activities in which I want to engage (for example, earning a living or buying things). I have not accused those of you who actually do advocate for more or higher taxes as justifying state-mandated theft, much less have I made the accusation against anyone who simply points out that laws raising taxes are constitutionally acceptable within our legal framework. So I don’t actually think your accusation against us is either accurate or in the goodwill/good faith spirit of discussion here at ATiM.

      Like

  109. Ah, yes, and the Republican agenda just gets more female-friendly.

    As a parent of two girls, I’m not sure I’d approve of where the Girl Scouts may be going as an organization, irrespective of any affiliation with Planned Parenthood, if what they’re saying is true. I wouldn’t see a progressive sex education as the kind of thing I’d be looking to an organization like the Girl Scouts to provide. I’m also not sure that expressing concerns over pamphlets that discuss alternatives to vaginal and anal sex is unfriendly towards females.

    Like

    • I wouldn’t see a progressive sex education as the kind of thing I’d be looking to an organization like the Girl Scouts to provide.

      Kevin, I do not know what the phrase progressive sex education means. Seriously.

      When I was 13, the YMCA-YWCA had published a Teenagers’ Guide to Sex. I thought it was great. Cleared up some misconceptions I had from my familarity with how animals did it on the farm. Made points which seemed obvious in retrospect. Stressed respect of others, and kindness, and friendships. Made clear that masturbation was normal and harmless to the palms of the hand. Was it “progressive”? I dunno.

      Thing is, why would GS be less likely to be a comfortable go-to source for a kid than would be the Y?

      Or does “progressive” indicate something more than factual and kind?

      Like

  110. The point is made: the supposedly clear constitution is not always so clear. It certainly doesn’t equate money with speech, though SCOTUS says otherwise. So perhaps patients do have rights to medical procedures that some think they should not – despite the lack of a clear statement to that effect.

    Like

    • bsimon:

      So perhaps patients do have rights to medical procedures that some think they should not – despite the lack of a clear statement to that effect.

      It is not the lack of a “clear” statement to that effect which is the problem. It is the lack of any statement to that effect which is the problem.

      Which statement in the constitution do you think, in its lack of clarity, might establish a right to abortion?

      Like

  111. I don’t think it is at all fair or legitimate to claim that anyone here has “justified state-sanctioned rape.”

    I don’t support the law, and I don’t think either you or QB has said it’s an awesome law is this is exactly the sort of stuff the government should be mandating, even if we agree that requiring ultrasounds before an abortion is the same as state-sanctioned rape, which seems a stretch to me, but clearly not to others.

    The Weekly Standard says that the Virginia law has been “grossly misrepresented. From the article:

    According to a recording from Planned Parenthood’s abortion hotline, a doctor will perform an ultrasound on a woman prior to performing a surgical or a medical (i.e. drug-induced) abortion:

    “Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

    So are the Virginia Planned Parenthoods already performing non-state sanctioned rapes? If so, where was the outrage before the Virginia law came up? Indeed, the PP offices do it twice:

    Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”

    The frequency with which ultrasounds are performed before abortions, in Virginia and possibly elsewhere, hasn’t been mentioned much in the debate. I do not know if multiple ultrasounds before an abortion are necessary or clinically indicated (it would seem at least some Planned Parenthood providers think they are), but, if they do, it would seem a relevant part of the debate.

    Like

  112. The frequency with which ultrasounds are performed before abortions, in Virginia and possibly elsewhere, hasn’t been mentioned much in the debate.

    The quick response to the WS article is….if this happens already, why the need for the laws?

    The longer rebuttal is that the WS article makes no mention of how the ultrasound is generally performed vs how Virginia has mandated it be performed. It also does not address whether informed consent is obtained for the other ultrasound whereas no consent is apparently needed under the Virginia law. In short, the WS article fails to address the two largest objections to the Virginia law.

    If the standard of care requires ultrasounds to be performed prior to an abortion and a physician is not performing them, the state should go after the physician’s license. A physician requiring a patient to undergo an ultrasound and getting consent to do so prior to an abortion is obviously rather different than the state telling the physicianto do so and not requiring the physicianto obtain consent.

    Like

    • ashot:

      A physician requiring a patient to undergo an ultrasound and getting consent to do so prior to an abortion is obviously rather different than the state telling the physicianto do so and not requiring the physicianto obtain consent.

      I don’t understand how it is different.

      If a doctor says to a patient, “If you want an abortion, I need to do X, Y, and Z to you. Do you consent?”, and the patient says yes, then consent has been given. The basis for the “need” to do X, Y, and Z, whether it is medical or legal, seems irrelevant to me.

      Like

      • If a doctor says to a patient, “If you want an abortion, I need to do X, Y, and Z to you. Do you consent?”, and the patient says yes, then consent has been given.

        Someone earlier said they don’t have to obtain consent. So there would be no “yes”. I agree with you otherwise.

        Like

        • ashot:

          Someone earlier said they don’t have to obtain consent.

          I think that was just a semantic way of framing the law in an objectionable manner. The law doesn’t actually mandate doctors to search out pregnant women and force them to undergo an ultrasound against their will. It simply makes consent to an ultrasound a necessary pre-condition to getting an abortion. If you don’t want the ultrasound, no one is going to force you to have one. You just won’t be allowed to get an abortion otherwise.

          Like

        • If you don’t want the ultrasound, no one is going to force you to have one. You just won’t be allowed to get an abortion otherwise.

          That makes considerably more sense and is what I suspected anyway. I still think a scenario where a PP doctor offers an ultrasound and a woman refuses but still ends up getting an abortion is probably a scenario that presently occurs. If not, there is no reason to pass the law unless it’s to mandate a transvaginal vs. abdominal ultrasound. It remains unclear what the current practice is.

          Like

        • ashot:

          I still think a scenario where a PP doctor offers an ultrasound and a woman refuses but still ends up getting an abortion is probably a scenario that presently occurs.

          I suspect you are right. You may even be right that it isn’t even an invasive ultrasound that they perform.

          Like

        • ashot:

          I don’t know if you followed Kevin’s link to WS, but it provided a link to a Commentary post by Alana Goodman, which touches on some of the points you’ve made.

          And let’s be honest. The main reason pro-lifers support the Virginia ultrasound bill isn’t out of medical necessity — not if these scans are already standard operating procedure at clinics.

          This fight, like virtually all abortion law fights, is about how much of a role religion and morality should play in regulating these procedures. Pro-choice activists seem to have no problem with ultrasounds, as long as they’re done for medical reasons. But the fact that ultrasounds tend to already be part of abortions isn’t enough for pro-life activists. They want the main purpose for the scans to be promoting the “culture of life.” The Virginia law would mandate doctors to display and describe the ultrasound to the patient. And the image could end up dissuading many women from going ahead with the abortion.

          Like

        • The Virginia law would mandate doctors to display and describe the ultrasound to the patient. And the image could end up dissuading many women from going ahead with the abortion.

          Event that is different from what the WS claims, which is that the bill requires physicians to ask women if they want to see the images. I should really go look at the bill if I am going to focus on the specifics of the bill. But right now I need to draft a motion.

          Like

        • http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+SB279+pdf

          I saw okie’s earlire question to me, but I choose not to discuss this any further. Feel free to have at it, though.

          Like

        • qb:

          Is this the final bill? I ask only because in your link, some language has been crossed off in favor of other language, so I wonder if this is just a draft. In any event, this was interesting:

          6. A notice that an ultrasound shall be performed at the time of the appointment for the abortion procedure to more accurately determine gestation age and further protect the health of the mother; and
          7. An offer to view the ultrasound image at the appointment for the abortion procedure. If the woman chooses to view the ultrasound image, it 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.

          Two notable things here. First, the woman is not required to view the ultrasound image, but must only be offered the opportunity to view it.

          But more notably, the language seems to me to only require that the patient be informed that an ultrasound will be performed, not that it actually be performed. This seems to me to leave room for a woman to object, and for it not to be performed if the doctor is comfortable proceeding without doing so.

          Also, there is no mention of transvaginal ultrasound, only ultrasound, so it seems that a non-invasive ultrasound would fulfill the mandate.

          Like

        • Scott and Kevin-
          Also, there is no mention of transvaginal ultrasound, only ultrasound, so it seems that a non-invasive ultrasound would fulfill the mandate.

          Based on the language we’ve seen, the bill is a codification of the current practice? So why again is this needed?

          The only argument that I can see that a transvaginal ultrasound is required is the “more accurately determine gestation age” and “further protect the health of the mother.” That seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I suppose those requirements could be interpreted to require a transvaginal ultrasound depending on the ability of abdominal ultrasounds to accurately accomplish those two things.
          Looks like I’m not the only one who has interpreted that language in that way.
          Apparently, the bill also requires the physician to document whether or not the woman looked at the ultrasound.

          Like

        • ashot:

          Based on the language we’ve seen, the bill is a codification of the current practice? So why again is this needed?

          Well, it is clearly not “needed”. It is desired (by some, but not Kevin, just to be clear), probably for political reasons. But, in any event, codifying standard practices in a given industry is hardly unheard of, no? If the info we have is correct, PP basically already does this, but that doesn’t mean all providers do. So if (note: if) the law is simply taking PP practices and saying everyone should follow them, PP supporters should presumably be pleased, not outraged.

          the bill also requires the physician to document whether or not the woman looked at the ultrasound

          I can’t find that requirement in the bill linked by qb.

          Like

        • ashot:

          BTW, what do you think of the point that the language seems to require only that the patient be told that an ultrasound will be performed, not that it actually be performed? Too strict a reading, or a loophole?

          Like

        • But, in any event, codifying standard practices in a given industry is hardly unheard of, no?
          Certainly not. My point on this front is really two fold. First, it makes me suspicious that it will be interpreted or implemented in a way that requires more than meets the eye. Second, it’s a total waste of political capital. Inadvertantly, they are showing the PP makes women jump through a series of hoops and is anything but some abortion factory selling abortions on demand. While nobody here has made those type of accusations against PP, I think that is a perception that some conservative groups are trying to perpetuate.
          I can’t find that requirement in the bill linked by qb.

          I do see that requirement here.

          **added later…the requirement that a doctor document if the woman looked at the ultrasound is mentioned in the summary, but not in one of the pdfs. There is also an amendment where it looked like someone proposed that if possible, they avoid a transvaginal ultrasound. I can’t tell if that passed or not.****

          Like

        • ashot:

          it’s a total waste of political capital.

          Probably.

          they are showing the PP makes women jump through a series of hoops and is anything but some abortion factory selling abortions on demand.

          Well, neither the politicians nor the legislation are highlighting this as a codification of PP’s standards, so I am not sure they are showing what you suggest. Pundits who defend the legislation by comparing it to PP’s standard practice might be doing so.

          And, as an aside, I don’t think there is any doubt that PP is selling abortion on demand. But the comparison does suggest, I think, that PP takes the quality and safety of what it sells seriously.

          Like

        • And, as an aside, I don’t think there is any doubt that PP is selling abortion on demand. But the comparison does suggest, I think, that PP takes the quality and safety of what it sells seriously.

          Fair enough.

          BTW, what do you think of the point that the language seems to require only that the patient be told that an ultrasound will be performed, not that it actually be performed? Too strict a reading, or a loophole?

          That language is in the definition of informed consent, right? But above that the bill says “Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 24 hours before the performance of an abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of determining gestational age.”

          I don’t see any wiggle room there. At first I thought it was weird that the provision that physician be required to perform a procedure is included in the “informed consent” law. Maybe it’s not weird as the law also requires certain materials be provided so this is a logical progression of sorts.

          One impact of the bill that we haven’t addressed and I have not seen mentioned is that this does prevent PP from making exceptions to the general practice that an abortion occur after a couple of visits. Based on the WS article it seems like most of the time multiple visits occurred, but that exceptions were made. This bill requires the ultrasound be performed 24 hours before the abortion so the leeway to perform a same day abortion is gone. Obviously that poses additional hardship for women who have trouble getting to a clinic for any number of reasons.

          Like

  113. Mark,

    Perhaps I’m just an old fuddy-duddy. But:

    A Girl Scouts of America training program last year used the Planned Parenthood sex education pamphlet “Happy, Healthy, and Hot.” The pamphlet instructs young girls not to think of sex as “just about vaginal or anal intercourse.”

    I’m not sure how that is scouting related. Certainly, I don’t consider it misogynistic to object to it, but perhaps I’m a fossil.

    Like

  114. Which statement in the constitution do you think, in its lack of clarity, might establish a right to abortion?

    If you condition that life does not begin at conception, and that, until some point, it’s just a potential life and there is no obligation to protect it, per se, then rather than in a penumbral right to privacy, I think that would fall under the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. As there is only one individual consider: the pregnant woman.

    Like

    • Kevin:

      If you condition that life does not begin at conception…

      Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. This makes the same point that I have tried to make many times in the past. What is at issue in the abortion debate is not what rights a woman has, but rather the status of the thing inside her that she wants to destroy. So, yes, if we assume that the thing inside the woman is not a human life, then there is no question…a woman has the right to do as she pleases with it. But the question of the moral/life status of the thing inside her is the question that is in dispute, and neither the constitution nor a clear and overwhelming consensus provides an answer. That is precisely why the issue is properly left to legislatures to decide, rather than the Supreme Court.

      Like

  115. The longer rebuttal is that the WS article makes no mention of how the ultrasound is generally performed vs how Virginia has mandated it be performed.

    Perhaps I’m unclear, I thought the vaginal ultrasound was necessary because of the small size of the fetus or the insufficient resolution of external ultrasounds. Would they be doing it with an old fashioned ultrasound?

    A physician requiring a patient to undergo an ultrasound and getting consent to do so prior to an abortion is obviously rather different than the state telling the physicianto do so and not requiring the physicianto obtain consent.

    If Planned Parenthood would perform the abortion without doing an ultrasound, then this is true. If the patient doesn’t consent, and then PP doesn’t go ahead with the abortion, then this seems to me a distinction without a difference. It’s just PP instead of the state government making the call. Presumably, if it’s PP, there is still the alternative of getting a surgical abortion rather than a medical abortion, which I believe is chemical inducement of miscarriage rather than a surgical procedure, and the story does not indicate whether or not surgical abortions require an ultrasound in the Virginia Planned Parenthoods.

    Like

    • Kevin,
      The bottom line is that the article from the WS is so lacking in relevant details that we simply don’t know the answer to some of these questions. Maybe I’m being naive in thinking that this law that has women here so riled up is actually something more than the codification of what already occurs. That’s essentially what we’re discussing at this point.

      Warning what I am about to say is speculation. The reason I think a PP may use an abdominal ultrasound is because all you really need confirmed by the ultrasound is that the woman is pregnant and the fetus/baby is still alive. Obviously you do not need to perform an abortion if the woman is pregnant or a miscarriage is going to occur because the baby died in utero. An abdominal ultrasound or sonogram would be sufficient to accomplisth that. However, if you want the woman to see the baby and the little heart beating, in the hopes of changing the woman’s mind, you would need to do a transvaginal ultrasound.

      There is also the possibility where a woman can go to PP where she is offered an ultrasound…she then refuses…which leads the doctor to counsel her on any additional risks that her refusal creates. I don’t think that scenario is possible under the proposed Virginia law.

      Like

  116. Someone earlier said they don’t have to obtain consent. So there would be no “yes”. I agree with you otherwise.

    It may be worth taking a pause to discuss the consent question. If PP requires an ultrasound for a medical abortion, and will not perform it unless you consent, then they are “obtaining your consent”—but, if you don’t, you don’t get the abortion. If they perform the abortion without consent for an ultrasound, then that’s a non-issue.

    However, if they don’t perform the abortion absent consent on the ultrasounds, then I don’t see the difference in that and the Virginia law. In both cases, you would either consent and receive the abortion, or not consent and then not receive the abortion. Unless I am missing something, which is always possible.

    Like

  117. Looks like the protests have put some doubts into McDonnell’s mind about signing the bill.

    Virginia governor no longer fully supports ultrasounds before abortions

    Like

  118. Thanks QB. The pertinent part seems to be:

    6. A notice that an ultrasound shall be performed at the time of the appointment for the abortion procedure to more accurately determine gestation age and further protect the health of the mother; and

    7. An offer to view the ultrasound image at the appointment for the abortion procedure. If the woman chooses to view the ultrasound image, it 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.

    Nowhere in the bill is a intravaginal ultrasound specified, nor are any specific requirements made as to resolution or detail of the fetus, so it would seem that the typical ultrasound offered and indicated by Planned Parenthood in Virginia for medical abortions would be sufficient to comply with the law.

    Again, stressing, I’m just seeking clarity (and have not yet become exhausted by the process) and am not endorsing the law.

    I’ve read comments that indicated that the bill specifically required intravaginal ultrasounds, but that does not seem to be the case. It doesn’t say what kind of ultrasound is required, or what type of resolution is provided (and I saw a traditional external ultrasound of my thumbnail-sized daughter very early on in the pregnancy, and it was fine in 1997) . . . in any case, it would seem any reasonable reading of the law would allow for external ultrasounds. Again, this is not an endorsement of the law or an indication of support.

    Like

  119. The Virginia law would mandate doctors to display and describe the ultrasound to the patient. And the image could end up dissuading many women from going ahead with the abortion.

    The bill indicates that this would be optional, and that the woman could refuse to view the ultrasound. She would have to receive an ultrasound (and it appears to me that an external ultrasound would be sufficient to comply with the law), but could refuse to view the ultra sounds and proceed with the abortion. So it doesn’t mandate that the woman view the ultrasound or endure a description of it. It’s not clear if the woman has to be informed of the probably gestational age of the fetus, or if that could be refused as well.

    Like

  120. Scott: Corked you again!

    No mention in the law of definitional detail, so an external ultrasound would, as you say, certainly fulfill the mandate.

    [disclaimer: this is not an endorsement of the law, which I do not support]

    Like

  121. I wish you would stop being so evasive and cryptic about whether you support and endorse this law.

    It appears that when you discuss certain issues, raising points of information that aren’t overtly hostile to the subject matter constitutes a tacit endorsement. So, I’m trying my best to be ultra-clear that while I question many of the points made in opposition to the Virginia law, that does not mean I support the government’s continued and growing micromanagement of all fields of individual life, and that includes this one. Thus, I do not support this law. Similarly, I do not support the ACA (disclaimer: not supporting the ACA does not mean that I think it was evil or that Obama is a communist or that I want old people to die in the street).

    [disclaimer: this communication should not be seen as an endorsement of ScottC]

    🙂

    Like

  122. Thanks, all, for the additional information. Due to press of work, I cannot respond until this evening.

    Like

  123. “that does not mean I support the government’s continued and growing micromanagement of all fields of individual life”

    that’s really the issue here. seems this week everyone’s outraged at state overreach. it’s nice.

    Like

    • nova:

      seems this week everyone’s outraged at state overreach. it’s nice.

      Everyone is outraged at state “overreach” almost by definition, no? It’s what puts the “over” in “overreach”. The trouble is agreeing with the principle that defines it. I don’t think we (not you and I we, but ATiM we) are any closer to agreeing on that than we were last week.

      Like

      • I appreciate what you’re saying. In my view this is just yet another example of the state meddling where it doesn’t belong and is not surprising at all.

        Like

  124. Statement by Gov. McDonnell disavowing involuntary transvaginal ultrasounds prior to having an abortion.

    Like

  125. BTW, I’m not quite sure how to read the VA legislative history, but it looks like the VA House rejected the VA Senate bill yesterday.

    Like

  126. From Mike’s link:

    Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

    He then says he supports amendments to make this explicit within the bill which leads one to believe the bill as originally written was at best ambiguous.

    Like

    • He then says he supports amendments to make this explicit within the bill which leads one to believe the bill as originally written was at best ambiguous.

      It’s ambiguous in that consent for the ultrasound is, to some extent, assumed based on consent for the abortion. It wasn’t clear that the patient would have to explicitly consent to the ultrasound standing alone, but I’m not sure that is necessary based on my understanding of informed consent.

      Like

  127. I meant ambiguous as to what type of ultrasound was necessary. To quote again:

    It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bill’s stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age. I have come to understand that the medical practice and standard of care currently guide physicians to use other procedures to find the gestational age of the child, when abdominal ultrasounds cannot do so.

    {snip}

    I am requesting that the General Assembly amend this bill to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily. I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age.

    Like

  128. the bill as originally written was at best ambiguous.

    They clearly didn’t hire QB to write that bill.

    Like

  129. I don’t think there is any doubt that PP is selling abortion on demand.

    To be fair, that would be in the same way in which an medical procedure is on demand. I suppose Johns Hopkins sells heart transplants on demand, but we don’t normally speak of it that way. 😉

    Like

    • Kevin:

      To be fair, that would be in the same way in which an medical procedure is on demand.

      To some extent, perhaps.

      I suppose Johns Hopkins sells heart transplants on demand, but we don’t normally speak of it that way.

      Actually, I’m guessing they don’t if for no other reason than there aren’t enough heart donors to fulfill the demand. But, anyway, we don’t normally talk about being morally opposed to heart transplants while wanting them to be legal, either. Clearly abortion is not just any other medical procedure, even for proponents of it, and our language reflects a lot of unstated premises about it.

      Like

      • Clearly abortion is not just any other medical procedure, even for proponents of it, and our language reflects a lot of unstated premises about it.

        I just averred that it was fair. It didn’t seem significant enough to fight about. I see the bigger difference that a heart transplant is medically necessary while an abortion generally is not. So in that sense an abortion is requested or demanded rather than medically needed.

        Like

  130. It didn’t seem significant enough to fight about. I see the bigger difference that a heart transplant is medically necessary while an abortion generally is not.

    Okee-dokee. Do we talk about vasectomies on demand? I suppose someone does.

    Like

  131. Looks like my objection to the VA legislations is pretty much moot now.

    Scott@7:38am

    I don’t think it is at all fair or legitimate to claim that anyone here has “justified state-sanctioned rape.

    Fair enough, as far as it goes. Yup, I was emotional and may have misread the perceived trivializing. You are correct that nobody explicitly supported the legislation being discussed. But apparently you do not agree that it is rape (see below), and I must disagree with that..

    Second, I think it is wrong to characterize the requirement as “state-mandated rape”. If that is an accurate characterization, then by the same logic, for example, any tax is “state-mandated theft”.

    First, any object in my vagina without my consent is rape. Period. Stop. Do you really disagree with that?

    Second, I look at crimes against persons and property crimes distinctly. I do not think they are a worthwhile comparison.

    So I don’t actually think your accusation against us is either accurate or in the goodwill/good faith spirit of discussion here at ATiM.

    Well the “accuracy” part is verifiable, no? The part about “in the goodwill/good faith spirit of discussion here at ATiM” is subjective, and I dispute it.

    Like

    • okie:

      First, any object in my vagina without my consent is rape. Period. Stop. Do you really disagree with that?

      No. But the law, even as we apparently misunderstood it yesterday, does not require or allow anyone to insert anything into your vagina without your consent. The law simply requires your consent in order for the abortion to be performed. If a woman does not give her consent to an ultrasound, it will not be performed. This is not even close to being rape.

      Second, I look at crimes against persons and property crimes distinctly. I do not think they are a worthwhile comparison.

      I wasn’t comparing them. I was simply using the logic that you used with regard to characterizing one law and applied it to another law. The logic of your claim is as follows:

      If X is Y, and law Z requires X, then law Z is state-mandated Y.

      There is no reason to think that, if this logic is valid when X=inserting an object into a vagina without consent, Y=rape, and Z equals the Virginia law, it isn’t also valid when X=taking property from someone without consent, Y=theft, and Z equals a sales tax law. At least, I see no reason why it isn’t also valid, and you have not provided any. Simply pointing out that there are distinctions between crimes against persons and crimes against property does not invalidate the logic.

      The part about “in the goodwill/good faith spirit of discussion here at ATiM” is subjective, and I dispute it.

      Fair enough.

      Like

  132. Scott, you have the last word. That does not mean I agree.

    Over and out.

    Like

  133. Scott

    This is not even close to being rape.

    Number one, you’re not in charge of deciding that and number two, I watched you guys flailing around yesterday trying to get to the bottom of the bill and it’s “true” meaning, not very successfully I might add. Maybe we should just take the Governor at his word, he’s one of yours.

    Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

    Apparently the women of Virginia have a louder voice than the women here, they got him to back down.

    Like

    • Lms, I am guessing that Scott is not being purposely obtuse and insulting. “Rape” can be accomplished by duress as well as by force, of course, and the terror of bodily invasion is surely not assuaged by having it made the price for obtaining a lawful medical procedure, for the patient. In fact, it probably adds insult to injury. But I don’t think Scott has a feel for this, and I hope he does not try to continue to define this proposal as relatively benign.

      The observation Scott made about something else closely related is worth a discussion, I think. YJKT echoed it. This procedure is designed to make it more difficult to obtain an abortion. It makes sense that anti-abortion absolutists will continue to push to make abortion more difficult to obtain. Those true observations lead me to the question:

      How is a political response to be mounted by the majority of persons who do not agree with the absolutists, when they also do not agree with each other?

      This question presupposes that there is not universal agreement about line drawing among those of us who could be characterized by absolutists as “pro-choice”. I think that if there were, the majority position would have won the day in the VA Legislature.

      Like

      • mark:

        I am guessing that Scott is not being purposely obtuse and insulting.

        Certainly not purposely. Nor, I think, at all.

        “Rape” can be accomplished by duress as well as by force, of course, and the terror of bodily invasion is surely not assuaged by having it made the price for obtaining a lawful medical procedure…

        It is relevant, however, that the “duress” in this situation has not being introduced by the law. It exists as a result of the pregnancy itself, for which, in all but the most extreme cases, the woman herself bears some responsibility and, in any event, the state bears none at all. This matters.

        Also, I raised this yesterday in a different context, but it bears repeating. If a woman goes to a doctor and requests an abortion, and the doctor says “OK. In order for me to give you an abortion, I have to do X, Y, and Z, where Y and Z involves inserting something into your vagina.” The woman says “I don’t mind Z, but I really don’t want you to do Y.” And the doctor replies “Sorry, unless you allow me to do Y, I will not perform the procedure.” So the woman finally consents. Would you seriously contend that the doctor has “raped” the woman? Does the reason for insisting on doing Y in order to perform Z, ie whether it is a medical or legal reason, matter to the determination? I don’t think so.

        I don’t think Scott has a feel for this, and I hope he does not try to continue to define this proposal as relatively benign.

        Objecting to the definition of something as “rape” is not the same as defining it as “relatively benign”.

        How is a political response to be mounted by the majority of persons who do not agree with the absolutists, when they also do not agree with each other?

        The first step must be to eliminate Roe, which will then put the issue back in the political realm where it belongs, and where political compromise can be achieved. The political debate over abortion is being waged largely via proxy battles over tangential issues like the one in Virginia for the single reason that the Supreme Court has disallowed it from being waged directly. If the majority of people in various communities were allowed to negotiate with each other, via their elected representatives, over reasonable (to them) restrictions on the practice and timeline of abortion, then absolutists on either side (there are pro-abortion absolutists, too) would mostly be relegated to the fringe and would have little power at all, except in those communities where the absolutists did indeed comprise a majority.

        Like

    • lms:

      Number one, you’re not in charge of deciding that…

      Who is? You? Or perhaps okie? How about this woman? (Yes, lms, a woman.)

      “But the rape comparisons are fundamentally dishonest and insult the intelligence of the public they’re trying to win over.”

      Your claim has as much relevance to me and my claim as it does to okie and her’s. If you want to disagree with me, fine. If you want to counter my claim with a rational argument, even better. But telling me that I’m not in charge of “deciding” is just silly. Sorry if that sounds condescending, but I’m not sure how else to respond to this kind of comment.

      I watched you guys flailing around yesterday trying to get to the bottom of the bill…

      If by “flailing around” you mean having a rational, unemotional, objective investigation into and discussion about the bill, then yes, I suppose we were flailing around.

      Apparently the women of Virginia have a louder voice than the women here, they got him to back down.

      In the first place, the governor is a politician making political calculations about what he needs to say and do to maintain his political viability. I’m not, and I don’t think anyone else here is. So why you would expect us to behave similarly to him is a bit of a mystery to me.

      But beyond that, is that really what you think constitutes having a voice here at ATiM, getting someone who disagrees with you to “back down”? If that is what constitutes having a voice here, then I for one am pretty close to being a mute. However, I was under the impression that ATiM was about something more than getting one’s opposition to “back down”.

      Like

  134. How is a political response to be mounted by the majority of persons who do not agree with the absolutists, when they also do not agree with each other?

    That’s a tough question mark. Clearly there are absolutists on both sides of the issue. I don’t happen to be one of them. Many of us pro-choice men and women are more than happy with numerous restrictions on abortion and realize of course in hindsight that Roe v Wade was not the perfect solution or ruling to define the terms of abortion. We’re more than happy, some of us, to discuss or entertain compromise.

    Unfortunately, the pro-life movement, IMO, and I’ve heard it expressed by at least one other commenter here, will not be happy or claim victory until abortion is always illegal. Much of what the more conservative states appear to be doing is working toward that ideal. Although McDonnell backed down on the worst aspect of the bill, they’ve still added another state sanctioned impediment to women who are really only exercising their legal right. I think you’ll find that those of us who are pro-choice, pro-birth control, pro women’s autonomy will now be coming out of the wood works to counter the worst of this slide backwards.

    Another aspect to this discussion that always colors the debate is that many of us have actual real life experiences with birth control, rape, abortion, child birth and many of the issues that we seem to be losing control over. We won’t remain in the background and no one can expect to understand us if they won’t try.

    Like

    • LMS, then it comes down to an issue by issue fight?

      For example, here, I could have been “enlisted” once I knew that an invasive procedure was envisioned, rather than an external scan. Say I knew that at a time I could testify to a legislative committee. When the committee asked me whether I opposed non-invasive scans [apparently what PP and most docs do now that I have read more] I would have said “no problem”. That means engaging me is done very specifically.

      That means the watchdogs on this type of legislation – you who have actual real life experiences with birth control, rape, abortion, child birth and many of the issues
      have to pick and choose your allies for each fight, I think.

      Like

  135. scott

    Perhaps you could simply have asked michi why she was upset with your comment in the first place and some of the hardening of positions here would have been avoided. I personally tried to be very careful in the framing of my comments as I believe the record will indicate.

    Honestly, I regret bringing the subject up in the first place, it’s clearly a taboo subject for ATiM.

    Like

    • lms:

      Perhaps you could simply have asked michi why she was upset with your comment in the first place

      Perhaps she could have told me she was upset.

      Seriously, I didn’t even know Mich was upset until she weighed in with her “kiss my ass” comment. Looking back on it, it is now obvious that her “I am out of here for a few days” announcement on Sunday was an expression of anger at my post, but at the time it wasn’t at all obvious to me, especially since what I said seemed (and still seems) to me entirely inoffensive, not to mention true. I just assumed that, like me from the previous week, she was going to be away from the board for a while, and was announcing it. Hence my retort was intended as nothing more than friendly, jesting banter, not a provocation. I had no idea she was upset, and only started to get an inkling the next day. (I can forward you e-mails that will prove the evolution of my awareness, if you don’t believe me.)

      Perhaps this is an example of that age-old and stereotypical problem of communication between men and women. My wife, too, often expects me to know what she is thinking without her actually telling me. And I often frustrate her with my cluelessness to her pissed-off signals. All I can do is offer you and Mich the same advice I offer her. If you are mad at me and want me to know it, tell me. Waiting for me to discover it is only going to make you angrier.

      Like

  136. The observation Scott made about something else closely related is worth a discussion, I think. YJKT echoed it. This procedure is designed to make it more difficult to obtain an abortion.

    Let’s make it clear that Scott and I agree on the motivation but not on whether that is a worthy goal or even a particularly valid tactic.

    Like

  137. have actual real life experiences with birth control, rape, abortion, child birth and many of the issues

    I would like to be clear that I am not only talking about women here. Men, doctors, and clergy also have very intimate experiences with these issues.

    I don’t know Mark, but yes I think you’re right, and perhaps I’m wrong on this but I always thought the relationship between a woman and her doctor was really one of more clearly beneficial aspects of whatever progress women, in particular, have realized in this aspect of their lives…………………and now I’m out.

    Like

  138. I watched you guys flailing around yesterday trying to get to the bottom of the bill and it’s “true” meaning, not very successfully I might add

    Well, we seemed to get somewhere, I thought. Having the actual text of the bill clearly helped, as did the governors statement.

    Honestly, I regret bringing the subject up in the first place, it’s clearly a taboo subject for ATiM.

    I don’t know that it’s true. If we avoid discussing everything that it’s difficult or emotional to communicate about, we may not have much left.

    Apparently the women of Virginia have a louder voice than the women here, they got him to back down.

    I’m not sure what the governor said is appreciably different than what any of us here have actually said, by and large, at least as an end result: no one (I don’t believe) is saying that the law requires, or should, an invasive ultrasound.

    Like

    • Honestly, I regret bringing the subject up in the first place, it’s clearly a taboo subject for ATiM.

      I can see how lmsinca, michi and okie could be offended by the nature of our conversation. It was largely unemotional and a bit blunt at times. I would hope that there could be some understanding that we were not intending to ignore the emotional and personal aspects of this debate or the bill. I chose the route I did because I cannot even begin to fathom what it would be like to have to make that choice. That choice being do I keep this baby or not which after the VA law would include agreeing to a painful and possibly humiliating, unnecessary procedure. As I could never experience such a scenario, I thought it was better to focus on precisely what the bill said and required. I can see how that would make it looke like we were ignoring other aspects of the bill. To the extent that I ignored those issues, it was not because I am dismissive of them, but because I cannot speak to them intelligently.

      no one (I don’t believe) is saying that the law requires, or should, an invasive ultrasound.
      Well, I did point out language I felt could support such an interpretation. And yelo pointed out that the governor admitted the law, as passed by the House (I believe) was ambiguous. I do think everyone agreed there is no reason that the transvaginal ultrasound should ever be required of women prior to getting an abortion.

      Like

  139. Mark: and I hope he does not try to continue to define this proposal as relatively benign.

    I think a portion of the discussion that may be getting missed is that the law required an ultrasound, but did not specifically require an invasive ultrasound. The argument may be more than the proposal is more benign than it is being portrayed, because it does not seem to require (as far as I can tell) the invasive ultrasound that it is said to be requiring. [disclaimer: this is in no way to be construed as an endorsement or support of the law, as originally written or even as modified, as I think the answer, whatever it may be, is less of this government micromanagement, not more, whether its a codification of existing practices or not].

    Like

  140. Mark:

    have to pick and choose your allies for each fight, I think

    As the house RINO, I’d have to second this observation. More than once I’ve run into situations where my help isn’t wanted, or I’m subject to rhetorical attack, because I ask questions, or am for or against the right somethings for the wrong reasons.

    Like

  141. or even a particularly valid tactic

    Well, it’s a valid tactic in the sense that it tends to be how both sides play the game, depending on the issue and the options available (for example, this clearly wouldn’t be an option if they had no hope of getting the votes in the legislature, or the support of the governor). In a more general sense, it would certainly be my preference that folks sway hearts and minds and pursue other directions, but when any given group sees no chance of overturning an objectionable law, for example, there are going to be enough people on one side or other who feel the ends justify the means. As the entire debate illustrates: both the law, and the opposition, have practiced tactical strategies centered at accomplishing a specific goal, rather than getting to the truth of the matter. Because such tactical approaches are more likely, I expect, to get results.

    Like

  142. Thanks ashot

    Scott

    Does the reason for insisting on doing Y in order to perform Z, ie whether it is a medical or legal reason, matter to the determination? I don’t think so.

    Here’s where the debate was, which you did not seem to realize, or maybe you did but just didn’t agree. What goes on between a woman and her doctor or health provider and what is required is a completely different scenario than a quasi legal decision by a conservative legislature whose main goal is to shame or force women to go through another layer of difficulty in order to pursue a legal termination of pregnancy. That this could also force them to undergo an invasive procedure that in some cases is unnecessary added a very controlling factor to the episode. As most of us realize rape is also a control/force issue. Personally, I was insulted for all women that there was so little sensitivity to the perception of our views, at least those of us for whom this matters.

    Like

  143. scott

    I’m on my way out and will be away for a few days at least. It is both in the form of re-evaluating my position and interest here at ATiM and because I am personally dealing with real constraints on the time I have available for commenting. Perhaps the person you should be discussing this with is Michi, not me.

    Like

    • lms:

      Perhaps the person you should be discussing this with is Michi, not me

      I am happy to discuss it with her if she wants. But obviously I was responding to you since you brought it up.

      Like

  144. My wife, too, often expects me to know what she is thinking without her actually telling me.

    Me too. Hate it, hate it, hate it. [Warning: I’m going OT]. But the thing is, apparently, they give out clues that are generally (not always, but enough so that it builds the expectation, and leads to offense to other women who are also not receptive) apparent to other women, so it’s like there are subtitles that they can see, and most other women can see, so why can’t you see them? Obviously, you are seeing them (because they are perfectly plain), and you’re ignoring them because you’re a jackass. 😉 And the conversations goes down from there.

    Also, they see subtitles when we’re talking, that we also don’t see, and often have only a passing resemblance, if any at all, to the secret man thoughts they think they’re receiving. It makes communication very difficult, especially about certain subjects. I suspect we could create a Venn diagram that illustrates the accuracy of male/female communication. That is, certain subjects and conversations are 100% clear, others are 80% clear, and some are 20% clear or less–where both mouths are moving and words are coming out but there is almost no accuracy to the communication that is occurring.

    As with any generalization, there are exceptions. These are the women who don’t see, or choose not to read, the subtitles in male speech, and don’t believe men can read their subtitles, so don’t depend on them for any real communication. There are also men who can read all the subtitles perfectly well, with all sorts of women, and they ruin it for everybody else. Every woman who has worked with, dated, or even been enemies with such a man develops and expectation that every man reads their subtitles with similar accuracy, and that they perceive the subtitles in mail conversation with accuracy.

    So, when you say: “Man, I’m so tired of those guys at work.” And your wife reads the subtitles that say something like: “You’re a lazy bitch, why don’t you get a job where you make more money?” (royal you), and because of other experience she’s dead certain that her reading of the subtitles is accurate, it’s no different, to her, than if you have actually, explicitly, said just those words. Of course, you didn’t, and guys tend to get pissed off when they’ve had a long day and now they are getting in trouble for something they obviously didn’t say, and . . .

    This is very tangential, but I should attempt to be clear and say that I see this as a natural conflict of communication styles, where we have important differences (not easily codified) between men and women, differences that are hard sometimes to get either party to acknowledge exist, and is not a “problem” with how either men or women communicate, but just (in my anecdotal experience) an observable fact. That is equally frustrating to both parties.

    BTW, after years, I’m very good and picking up the pissed off signals from my wife (they don’t seem subtle to me at all, now, but I know there was a time when they did, but I can barely remember). But there are other things I still don’t pick up on, but my biggest problem tends to be my subtitles. I’m always saying things that get me in trouble that I, personally, didn’t actually say with my mouth, or think with my brain, but were somehow part of my communication, nevertheless. 😉

    Like

  145. “Perhaps the person you should be discussing this with is Michi, not me.”

    I’m interested in what you (or others ) think Scott’s end of the conversation should look like?

    Like

  146. Look you guys I’m actually trying to be reasonable here, I tried really hard to explain how if felt to me to have our concerns trivialized or compared to other unrelated medical testing or even waiting periods for the purchase of guns. I also attempted to keep a cool head and generally non-explosive demeanor (in the interest of ATiM rules). I don’t expect any of you to agree with me or necessarily even understand my position but I did try to explain it. I even tried again above and instead of discussing what I said you’re questioning me about matters that are somewhat tangential but slightly irrelevant. Like I said, it’s not a topic I’ll bring up again anytime soon. I’m also trying not to put words in either Michi or Okie’s mouths, hence my friendly, I thought, suggestion that you discuss these issues with them.

    I know, I’m leaving, really. Temporarily at least.

    Like

  147. Scott:

    If a woman goes to a doctor and requests an abortion, and the doctor says “OK. In order for me to give you an abortion, I have to do X, Y, and Z, where Y and Z involves inserting something into your vagina.” The woman says “I don’t mind Z, but I really don’t want you to do Y.” And the doctor replies “Sorry, unless you allow me to do Y, I will not perform the procedure.” So the woman finally consents.

    In this scenario, having the doctor require the woman to have Y done before Z seems to me to be a form of coercion. And I think it is this coercion is what grates at pro-choice people. Verbal coercion can be sufficient in a court of law for non-consensual sex to be termed rape (e.g., “date” rape).

    Yes, many things the government does can be considered coercion, but paying taxes for example doesn’t have the same feeling of personal violation as having something stuck into you. IMO.

    Like

  148. “Yes, many things the government does can be considered coercion, but paying taxes for example doesn’t have the same feeling of personal violation as having something stuck into you. IMO.”

    With the coming IPAB under Obamacare, those types of coercion are going to used quite frequently. For you, as a patient, to get Y, the HHS will require A-X in that order. Not following that algorythim will result in no Y for the patient. It will be interesting to see how the courts come down on the concept of verbal coercion then.

    Like

  149. “even waiting periods for the purchase of guns.”

    That was mine and the point I was, and am trying to make, is that even with a right expressly articulated in the Constitution, the State still attempts (wrongly, in this case) to impose restrictions on actions. In my opinion, it was done for the express purpose of making it harder to exercise that right so that fewer people who are legally allowed to exercise that right do so. Everybody perceives onerousness and suffering differently. How does this in any way trivialize what anybody else wrote or feels?

    Like

    • How does this in any way trivialize what anybody else wrote or feels?

      Wouldn’t it have made far more sense to compare the waiting period for guns to the waiting period for an abortion? The law expressly requires 24 hours between the ultrasound and the subsequent abortion. So there was an apples to apples comparison available but you chose to compare a gun waiting period to possible vaginal penetration. A better comparison would be if the government required you to be shot before you bought a gun. As long as you knew that was required going in, it’s cool. It’s probably unfair to assume you chose the comparison you did simply to trivialize what the bill required, but I don’t think it’s completely out of line. It’s not as if lmsinca or michi or okie are unaware that the government imposes restrictions on actions for the express purpose of making it hard to exercise that right. As I recall, a couple of them indicated they had no objection to required counseling and other measures already in place around the country.

      Like

  150. ” It’s probably unfair to assume you chose the comparison you did siply to trivialize what the bill required, but I don’t think it’s completely out of line.”

    I guess I still don’t get it. All perceived suffering is relative, obviously. The only way it could be construed as trivializing would be to assume I wrote it in bad faith.

    Like

    • The only way it could be construed as trivializing would be to assume I wrote it in bad faith.
      Not necessarily. Lmsinca never accused anyone of purposely trivializing the concerns. So maybe your comments made her feel trivialized despite your best efforts to avoid doing so. No bad faith was required. Is it really that baffling to you that the comparison would bother her?

      Like

      • OT: I started a health care update post. There are no stories about abortion or guns.

        Like

        • Lame. Looks like a great post, NoVa. I went to a talk on Tuesday where the CFOs of 3 large local hospitals spoke candidly for about 2 hours. I’ll add some thoughts from that to the post.

          Like

  151. Let me try one more time McWing. Being laid on your back, with your feet in stirrups and having someone probe you in the hopes of finding tiny little organs and extremities (yes I read the bill) with the express purpose of changing your mind, regardless that there is absolutely zero evidence it works as a deterrent, and then documenting whether you were willing or not to look at the image, is not the same thing as waiting three days to purchase a gun. Women undergo all sorts of tests like this all the time but they are generally out of medical necessity, not at the whim of a conservative legislature who then makes comments that this really shouldn’t matter as number one they’ve already been probed (I guess that’s one term for sex) and number two they are willing to undergo another medical procedure that is even worse (never mind they won’t remember that one). That the missing ingredients of willingness and medical necessity are apparently irrelevant [slight edit], or were until McDonnell backed down, is of great importance to at least some women.

    Can we call this one done yet?

    Like

  152. Troll:

    With the coming IPAB under Obamacare, those types of coercion are going to used quite frequently.

    I thought with the IPAB, there would just be no Y, regardless of A-X. (snark)

    Like

    • I thought with the IPAB, there would just be no Y, regardless of A-X. (snark)

      It will all come down to whether or not you know anyone on the Death Panel. Between his pile of money and being able to influence who is on the death panels, nova is in the driver’s seat.

      Like

  153. no need to panic people. you will all have a chance to be gouged.

    Like

  154. Between his pile of money and being able to influence who is on the death panels, nova is in the driver’s seat.

    Heck, just give me NoVA’s pile of cash and I won’t have to worry about Death Panels anymore.

    Like

    • Between his pile of money and being able to influence who is on the death panels, nova is in the driver’s seat.

      I would love to see a Roman Genn caricature of this. (Of course, we would need a photo of Nova.)

      Like

  155. Ha. if you’re looking for my cash, start with my son’s daycare provider.

    Like

  156. “Ha. if you’re looking for my cash, start with my son’s daycare provider.”

    with 2 we’re spending 20% of gross. public school starts for the elder in 6 months…

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: