Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
it does not stop a woman from getting an abortion it does not stop the doctor from performing an abortion it does allow the patient to see what the procedure will effect. The law in no way stops the woman from choosing.
I would think that anyone looking to get an abortion knows very well what the procedure does and what it affects. It's for the very simple reason that women know what it does and what it affects, that they seek to get an abortion and not a colonoscopy.
Other states are enacting similar laws, including Florida. Did you take a look at the link I posted earlier?
Also, while I am against this law, I don't think the "slippery slope" argument is necessarily valid here. Courts have ruled that states can only regulate medical procedures such as abortion where there is a "compelling state interest" and they've ruled that, as far as abortion, there's a "compelling state interest" in protecting "potential life." While that reasoning may be far fetched, it's unlikely it would apply to situations like the examples you mentioned earlier.
Florida is trying, but we'll see. It is likely an over step of state power to mandate that you buy something in order to buy something else, it is in my opinion. I am not a constitutional lawyer or a judge, and their opinions will matter more. One court decision does not the end of debate on this subject mean.
I don't care if they contain it to medicinal needs. That could go as far as Tylenol etc. Its over reach of state powers, in my opinion, and many others.
Florida is trying, but we'll see. It is likely an over step of state power to mandate that you buy something in order to buy something else, it is in my opinion. I am not a constitutional lawyer or a judge, and their opinions will matter more. One court decision does not the end of debate on this subject mean.
I don't care if they contain it to medicinal needs. That could go as far as Tylenol etc. Its over reach of state powers, in my opinion, and many others.
I agree with you that this law is not something the state should be doing, but I disagree with the slippery slope logic.
The Florida legislation was signed into law. I'm not sure of the status of it in the court's system (obviously it was challenged, I can say this without looking it up).
What's really interesting is that the original judge ruled against the Texas law on First Amendment grounds claiming that it violated doctors' and patients' rights to free speech, not based on anything relating to medical procedure itself.
I wish Texas would just secede already. You already had your Sodomy laws refuted by the USSC a few years ago when some cops were watching two men having sex in their own apartment through their window. Now you want doctors to humilate their female patients if they want to abort. If you do secede perhaps you can make Rick Santorum your President! Pathetic!
While I disagree with you on this subject, I think it's very interesting that MiamiRob is saying Texas is so backwards for this when his state enacted very similar legislation. Essentially, he's conceding that Florida is very backwards too.
While I disagree with you on this subject, I think it's very interesting that MiamiRob is saying Texas is so backwards for this when his state enacted very similar legislation. Essentially, he's conceding that Florida is very backwards too.
Florida is backwards, a lot of rednecks here.
Likely to be overturned though, I'll look up the law here. It may be different, I wasn't aware it had passed.
Florida's law does not mandate that they must see the ultrasound, but it mandates that they must be able to see a ultrasound if they want one before hand.
"The bills (HB 1127) would allow women a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child before an abortion so they can receive information about the development of their baby that abortion businesses normally do not provide."
It isn't mandated that they have to see it. The doctor has to give the choice.
I would think that anyone looking to get an abortion knows very well what the procedure does and what it affects. It's for the very simple reason that women know what it does and what it affects, that they seek to get an abortion and not a colonoscopy.
Again, then what is it for?
If they know then why does looking at a sonogram hurt?
If they know then why does looking at a sonogram hurt?
looking at the sonogram isnt' the issue, nobody has to physically look. It's the point that one has to be scheduled, waited on, performed (it can be uncomfortable btw), and paid for.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
