FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Absolutely ridiculous





liljp617
I truthfully don't give a damn what party or political viewpoint you latch onto, this is simply ludicrous. In what whacked out state of mind would you have to be in to support this?

Quote:
This week, the Virginia state Legislature passed a bill that would require women to have an ultrasound before they may have an abortion. Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced. Since a proposed amendment to the bill—a provision that would have had the patient consent to this bodily intrusion or allowed the physician to opt not to do the vaginal ultrasound—failed on 64-34 vote, the law provides that women seeking an abortion in Virginia will be forcibly penetrated for no medical reason.


http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/02/virginia_ultrasound_law_women_who_want_an_abortion_will_be_forcibly_penetrated_for_no_medical_reason.html
Ankhanu
I saw this the other day... Utterly despicable violation of person based on political ideology, that's all this is. Disgusting, whether you're pro-choice, pro-life, or just consider people, well... people.
deanhills
Sort of mind boggling that a Bill like this gets passed through State Government. What kind of minds, particularly medical minds, get to support something like that? And why did people not revolt against it?
jmi256
What exactly are you opposed to? Abortions or the standard practice of providing ultrasounds? I don’t like the idea of the government getting in involved in a medical decision between a doctor and patient, but if you are pro-Obamacare I would think you find it hard to reconcile this codifying of standard practice with that stance.

Quote:
Grossly Misrepresenting Virginia's Proposed Ultrasound Law
Ultrasound laws are fairly common in the realm of abortion politics: 22 states already have them on the books.* But the proposed Virginia law--which would require an ultrasound to be performed 24 hours before an abortion and would give the mother the opportunity to view it--has been presented by pro-abortion activists, and even some in the mainstream media, as an unusually invasive regulation imposed on women. Slate's Dahlia Lithwick, for example, wrote that the ultrasound requirement amounted to state-mandated rape. But as Commentary's Alana Goodman reports, "ultrasounds are already part of the abortion procedures at Virginia Planned Parenthoods."

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:

Quote:
“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.
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.”


In other words, a woman seeking an abortion is already required by standard practice to show up for a separate doctor's visit and receive an ultrasound. A woman seeking an abortion would only be affected by this law in one way: the doctor would offer her the chance to view the ultrasound.

It's not just pro-abortion activists who have left out this important context regarding the ultrasound legislation. Bob Lewis of the Associated Press wrote last week that the "ultrasound legislation would constitute an unprecedented government mandate to insert vaginal ultrasonic probes into women as part of a state-ordered effort to dissuade them from terminating pregnancies, legislative opponents noted." But the Associated Press reporter completely failed to exercise due diligence and never noted that Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion practitioner in America, already performs an ultrasound prior to performing an abortion.

Source = http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/grossly-misrepresenting-virginias-proposed-ultrasound-law_631691.html
Ankhanu
The vaginal ultrasound requirement is unnecessary. An ultrasound need not be conducted vaginally.
liljp617
I'm opposed to insertions of objects into individuals without their consent and without medical reasons. I'm opposed to some random legislator who has zero medical knowledge mandating exact medical procedures doctors must carry out on patients regardless of whether doctors or patients consent. I don't care what Planned Parenthood does or does not do regarding the subject. They are a non-profit affiliate of a global non-governmental organization. They are not a state legislature composed of people with minimal medical knowledge. They are not a state legislature attempting to circumvent Roe v. Wade while violating the 4th Amendment and abusing legislative power to do nothing except score political points.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
The vaginal ultrasound requirement is unnecessary. An ultrasound need not be conducted vaginally.

I don’t believe a vaginal ultrasound is a requirement, and ultrasounds can be conducted without vaginal penetration. The author of the article cited in the original post simply took that leap to equate ultrasounds with “rape.”
I am not a doctor, but I would think an ultrasound would make sense, whatever your stance is abortion. Before any invasive medical procedure, I would think it is important to first verify what you are trying to remove is indeed there, and an ultrasound seems the way to go. The bill simply gives women the option of viewing the ultrasound if they want. They can decline if they choose.
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
The vaginal ultrasound requirement is unnecessary. An ultrasound need not be conducted vaginally.

I don’t believe a vaginal ultrasound is a requirement, and ultrasounds can be conducted without vaginal penetration. The author of the article cited in the original post simply took that leap to equate ultrasounds with “rape.”
I am not a doctor, but I would think an ultrasound would make sense, whatever your stance is abortion. Before any invasive medical procedure, I would think it is important to first verify what you are trying to remove is indeed there, and an ultrasound seems the way to go. The bill simply gives women the option of viewing the ultrasound if they want. They can decline if they choose.


I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment. I simply don't understand how people claim to hold the view that minimal government intervention is best, then support legislation of this nature.
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
The vaginal ultrasound requirement is unnecessary. An ultrasound need not be conducted vaginally.

I don’t believe a vaginal ultrasound is a requirement, and ultrasounds can be conducted without vaginal penetration. The author of the article cited in the original post simply took that leap to equate ultrasounds with “rape.”
I am not a doctor, but I would think an ultrasound would make sense, whatever your stance is abortion. Before any invasive medical procedure, I would think it is important to first verify what you are trying to remove is indeed there, and an ultrasound seems the way to go. The bill simply gives women the option of viewing the ultrasound if they want. They can decline if they choose.


I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment. I simply don't understand how people claim to hold the view that minimal government intervention is best, then support legislation of this nature.

I assume you are against Obamacare then?
As noted, the practice is already standard, and the legislation would simply provide women the opportunity to view the ultrasound if they so choose. If they don’t want see it, they don’t have to.
handfleisch
The question:
liljp617 wrote:
In what whacked out state of mind would you have to be in to support this?

The answer:
jmi256 wrote:
What exactly are you opposed to?
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
The vaginal ultrasound requirement is unnecessary. An ultrasound need not be conducted vaginally.

I don’t believe a vaginal ultrasound is a requirement, and ultrasounds can be conducted without vaginal penetration. The author of the article cited in the original post simply took that leap to equate ultrasounds with “rape.”
I am not a doctor, but I would think an ultrasound would make sense, whatever your stance is abortion. Before any invasive medical procedure, I would think it is important to first verify what you are trying to remove is indeed there, and an ultrasound seems the way to go. The bill simply gives women the option of viewing the ultrasound if they want. They can decline if they choose.


I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment. I simply don't understand how people claim to hold the view that minimal government intervention is best, then support legislation of this nature.

I assume you are against Obamacare then?
As noted, the practice is already standard, and the legislation would simply provide women the opportunity to view the ultrasound if they so choose. If they don’t want see it, they don’t have to.


If you want to discuss Obama's health care policies, feel free to start a different thread. Please stop attempting to change the subject. I simply am not interested in your (or anyone elses) games, I've seen them in play in almost every political thread on Frihost. Whether I support, oppose, or am somewhere in the middle with regards to Obama's health care policies is irrelevant to the topic. And no, I will not argue with you about whether it's relevant or not.

Back to the topic...

If the process is already standard, then there is no need for this new legislation. Of course, we both know government-mandated insertions of objects into individuals without their consent is ridiculous and isn't standard. This "all it's doing is giving pregnant women more information" is a nonsense argument. As if the individual wouldn't be allowed to view the results of their ultrasound if they requested it? Doctors are so selfish with their ultrasound results! How many legal cases have there been about a woman giving consent for an ultrasound, then the doctor refuses to allow the woman to see the results?
Ankhanu
handfleisch
News: Under pressure from the sane, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has retreated, saying "No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/mcdonnell-no-woman-in-virginia-will-have-to

He's still pushing the bill forward, though, and still wants it to mandate the unnecessary medical procedure on a woman seeking abortions, but it doesn't have to be something shoved into the woman's vagina, necessarily. Also the bill still stipulates that the mandatory ultrasound has to be done less two hours before the abortion and the woman still has to be shown the results, just to make the emotional suffering that much more sharper.

I have been posting regularly about the far right in the USA going insane. Do you need any more proof?
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
If you want to discuss Obama's health care policies, feel free to start a different thread. Please stop attempting to change the subject. I simply am not interested in your (or anyone elses) games, I've seen them in play in almost every political thread on Frihost. Whether I support, oppose, or am somewhere in the middle with regards to Obama's health care policies is irrelevant to the topic. And no, I will not argue with you about whether it's relevant or not.

I am not changing the subject, but addressing your comments, which are very hypocritical. When you claim “I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment. ” yet then embrace Obamacare, it is very clear that you are not taking a principled stance, but rather making yet another hypocritical attack. And one that you simply are unable to justify, so if you feel the need to run with your tail between your legs, so be it. But if you are really against government involvement in healthcare decisions that are best left between a doctor and his patient and can justify your support for Obamacare, which flies in the face of that, then I would be interested in hearing your case.

liljp617 wrote:
Of course, we both know government-mandated insertions of objects into individuals without their consent is ridiculous and isn't standard.

This has already been addressed. The bill does not mandate “insertions of objects into individuals without their consent” and it is simply a ridiculous claim by the Left Wing author you cited in your initial post to kick up some dust and equate ultrasounds as “rape.” I am not surprised that you would repeat it after it has been shown to be false, however. The usual Left Wing antics, really. If you have some evidence that the bill does mandate “insertions of objects into individuals without their consent”, such as the text of the bill itself please feel free to share it. I have taken a look at the actual bill, and I did not see anything of the sort. In the future I would suggest you actual educate yourself about what you decide to go on a rant about to save yourself some embarrassment. Just saying.
Mr_Howl
Quote:
But if you are really against government involvement in healthcare decisions that are best left between a doctor and his patient and can justify your support for Obamacare, which flies in the face of that, then I would be interested in hearing your case.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought "Obamacare" deals with how to pay for healthcare, not actual healthcare decisions?

Also, I am curious: what would you support instead of "Obamacare"?

Anyway, regarding the actual bill, apparently a newer version does not require the invasive procedure: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion

An ultrasound is still required, but it does not need to be an internal, "rape-by-instruments" one.
menino
Its great to hear that the lawmakers in Virginia have backed off the invasive procedure.
The initial procedure passed by them is quite disturbing to say the least.
I always thought that the ultrasound was done on the surface of the woman's tummy, but I may be mistaking that term with sonography, but I would not know the difference really.

Anyways, I am against abortions in general, but in certain cases where women are raped, I am still unsure of how to deal with those kind of situations.
Hello_World
I'm glad it was repealed. Repeating the key argument here, doctors know much better than government what is required.

Fail to see a link between 'Obamacare' and unneccessary medical procedures? How does 'Obamacare' overpass doctors assessments on patients?
Ankhanu
Mr_Howl wrote:
Quote:
But if you are really against government involvement in healthcare decisions that are best left between a doctor and his patient and can justify your support for Obamacare, which flies in the face of that, then I would be interested in hearing your case.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought "Obamacare" deals with how to pay for healthcare, not actual healthcare decisions?

Also, I am curious: what would you support instead of "Obamacare"?


Oh geez, please don't feed him!
JMI, please answer this in a PM, and keep this one on topic.
jmi256
Mr_Howl wrote:
Quote:
But if you are really against government involvement in healthcare decisions that are best left between a doctor and his patient and can justify your support for Obamacare, which flies in the face of that, then I would be interested in hearing your case.


Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought "Obamacare" deals with how to pay for healthcare, not actual healthcare decisions?

Obamacare does get the government involved in healthcare decisions, while also increasing premium costs (the CBO projected Obamacare to increase premiums by double digits, around 11%, but we have seen them skyrocket even higher, around 16%), adding a layer of bureaucracy that adds additional cost, corruption and mismanagement, and funneled money into the pockets of Obama and the Democrats’ campaign contributors, the health insurance industry.


Mr_Howl wrote:
Also, I am curious: what would you support instead of "Obamacare"?

I believe Obamacare is fundamentally unconstitutional, and I can’t find where in the US Constitution the federal government is given the authority to force individuals to buy private products and services. If you find it, let me know. To actually tackle the issue of rising healthcare costs instead of what Obama and the Democrats forced down our throats, however, I would look at powers actually provided to the federal government. This includes regulating interstate commerce and allowing insurance carriers to compete across state lines so that a person living in one state (say California) can shop around and find the best plan and rates in any state (even if it is in another state, such as Pennsylvania). This competition will bring down prices and give consumers more freedom of choice in selecting a healthcare insurance provider. Another good idea also put forward by Republicans and shot down by Obama and the Democrats is tort reform. Right now doctors spend way too much on their own insurance due to frivolous lawsuits, and this cost is passed on to the consumer. In addition, to avoid their premiums going up even more, doctors often prescribe unnecessary and costly tests, treatments and follow-up visits, which further increase costs that are passed on to consumers. I am not saying that legitimate claims of malpractice should be stopped, and I think any doctor who is incompetent or negligent should suffer repercussions for their actions, but the current kneejerk reaction of adding thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars to what would otherwise be a small bill is ridiculous.


Mr_Howl wrote:
Anyway, regarding the actual bill, apparently a newer version does not require the invasive procedure: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/22/10479427-virginia-lawmakers-back-off-requiring-invasive-ultrasound-before-abortion

An ultrasound is still required, but it does not need to be an internal, "rape-by-instruments" one.

The bill never did “require the invasive procedure” but simply stated that an ultrasound, which abortionists claim they are already doing, was required and that women would be given the choice to view that ultrasound if they wanted to. As pointed out several times, there is no “rape-by-instruments” included in the bill, and that was a claim made by some Left-Wing “journalists” to fan some flames.



menino wrote:
Its great to hear that the lawmakers in Virginia have backed off the invasive procedure.
The initial procedure passed by them is quite disturbing to say the least.
I always thought that the ultrasound was done on the surface of the woman's tummy, but I may be mistaking that term with sonography, but I would not know the difference really.

Ultrasounds are available that require no penetration at all and they are not “invasive.” Again, the bill never said that a vaginal ultrasound was required.


Hello_World wrote:
I'm glad it was repealed. Repeating the key argument here, doctors know much better than government what is required.

First of all, it was not “repealed.” I agree that the federal government does not have the authority, nor should it get in between the decisions made between a doctor and a patient, but if you truly hold that view and are against Virginia’s bill on those grounds, you can’t honestly say you are for Obamacare, which does exactly that.


Hello_World wrote:
Fail to see a link between 'Obamacare' and unneccessary medical procedures? How does 'Obamacare' overpass doctors assessments on patients?

I would leave it up to a medical professional to decide what is necessary and unnecessary, and in the case of the Virginia bill, the medical professionals (the abortionists) have already said that they do an ultrasound as part of their “services.” Obamacare is such a mess, but just to lightly touch on your second question, as liljp617 pointed out, “I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment.” yet Obamacare is the epitome of politicians making medical decisions, such as what coverage an individual might want or whether he even wants to buy a private service from that politican’s campaign contributors.
Bikerman
Some rewriting of history occurring....
The original bill, sponsored by Vogel DID require vaginal (invasive) ultrasound. It was only when the protests got going and in particular when Sntr Bob McDonnel saw which way the wind was blowing and withdrew his support that the bill was pulled and substitute voted on.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-22/virginia-governor-mcdonnell-abortion-ultrasound/53213156/1
http://www.ocregister.com/news/bill-159367-ocprint-invasive-procedure.html
http://www.newser.com/story/140295/virgina-waters-down-abortion-ultrasound-bill.html
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/va-house-waters-pre-abortion-ultrasound-bill-15768790#.T0aD0PUkSSo
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Some rewriting of history occurring....
The original bill, sponsored by Vogel DID require vaginal (invasive) ultrasound. It was only when the protests got going and in particular when Sntr Bob McDonnel saw which way the wind was blowing and withdrew his support that the bill was pulled and substitute voted on.

Wrong again (BTW, McDonnel is not a senator, but the governor of Va). Instead of relying on Left Wing sources to spoon feed false claims, it would be best to look at the actual source. Here is the actual bill that was introduced. Please tell me where it requires a vaginal ultrasound as you claim it does:

Quote:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
11 1. That § 18.2-76 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
12 § 18.2-76. Informed written consent required; civil penalty.
13 A. Before performing any abortion or inducing any miscarriage or terminating a pregnancy as
14 provided in §§ 18.2-72, 18.2-73 or § 18.2-74, the physician shall obtain the informed written consent of
15 the pregnant woman. However, if the woman has been adjudicated incapacitated by any court of
16 competent jurisdiction or if the physician knows or has good reason to believe that such woman is
17 incapacitated as adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, then only after permission is given in
18 writing by a parent, guardian, committee, or other person standing in loco parentis to the woman, may
19 the physician perform the abortion or otherwise terminate the pregnancy.
20 B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an
21 abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct
22 supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and
23 auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of
24 determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice
25 in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external
26 members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall
27 be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the
28 community in determining gestational age. When only the gestational sac is visible during ultrasound
29 imaging, gestational age may be based upon measurement of the gestational sac. A print of the
30 ultrasound image shall be made to document the measurements that have been taken to determine the
31 gestational age of the fetus.
32 C. The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B
33 shall offer the woman an opportunity to view and receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and
34 hear auscultation of fetal heart tone and shall obtain from the woman written certification that this
35 opportunity was offered and whether or not it was accepted. A printed copy of the ultrasound image
36 shall be maintained in the woman's medical record at the facility where the abortion is to be performed
37 for the longer of (i) seven years or (ii) the extent required by applicable federal or state law.
38 D. For purposes of this section:
39 "Informed written consent" means the knowing and voluntary written consent to abortion by a
40 pregnant woman of any age, without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or
41 other form of constraint or coercion by the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent. The
42 basic information to effect such consent, as required by this subsection, shall be provided by telephone
43 or in person to the woman at least 24 hours before the abortion by the physician who is to perform the
44 abortion, by a referring physician, or by a licensed professional or practical nurse working under the
45 direct supervision of either the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician;
46 however, the information in subdivision 5 may be provided instead by a licensed health-care
47 professional working under the direct supervision of either the physician who is to perform the abortion
48 or the referring physician. This basic information shall include:
49 1. A full, reasonable and comprehensible medical explanation of the nature, benefits, and risks of and
50 alternatives to the proposed procedures or protocols to be followed in her particular case;
51 2. An instruction that the woman may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the performance of
52 the procedure;
53 3. An offer for the woman to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion so that he
54 may answer any questions that the woman may have and provide further information concerning the
55 procedures and protocols;
56 4. A statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed
57 and that fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed prior to the abortion to confirm the gestational
58 age; and
59 5. An offer to review the printed materials described in subsection D F. If the woman chooses to
60 review such materials, they shall be provided to her in a respectful and understandable manner, without
61 prejudice and intended to give the woman the opportunity to make an informed choice and shall be
62 provided to her at least 24 hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least 72 hours before the
63 abortion by first-class mail or, if the woman requests, by certified mail, restricted delivery. This offer for
64 the woman to review the material shall advise her of the following: (i) the Department of Health
65 publishes printed materials that describe the unborn child and list agencies that offer alternatives to
66 abortion; (ii) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care,
67 and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed
68 materials published by the Department; (iii) the father of the unborn child is liable to assist in the
69 support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, that assistance in
70 the collection of such support is available, and that more detailed information on the availability of such
71 assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department; and (iv) she has the right
72 to review the materials printed by the Department and that copies will be provided to her free of charge
73 if she chooses to review them. Where the woman has advised that the pregnancy is the result of a rape,
74 the information in clause (iii) above may be omitted.
75 The information required by this subsection may be provided by telephone without conducting a
76 physical examination of or tests upon the woman, in which case the information required to be provided
77 may be based on facts supplied by the woman and whatever other relevant information is reasonably
78 available to the physician. If a physical examination, tests or the availability of other information to the
79 physician or the nurse subsequently indicates, in the medical judgment of the physician or the nurse, a
80 revision of the information previously supplied to the woman, that revised information may be
81 communicated to the woman at any time prior to the performance of the abortion or in person.
82 CE. The physician need not obtain the informed written consent of the woman when the abortion is
83 to be performed pursuant to a medical emergency. "Medical emergency" means any condition which, on
84 the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a
85 pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for
86 which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
87 function.
88 DF. On or before October 1, 2001, the Department of Health shall publish, in English and in each
89 language which is the primary language of two percent or more of the population of the
90 Commonwealth, the following printed materials in such a way as to ensure that the information is easily
91 comprehensible:
92 1. Geographically indexed materials designed to inform the woman of public and private agencies
93 and services available to assist a woman through pregnancy, upon childbirth and while the child is
94 dependent, including, but not limited to, information on services relating to (i) adoption as a positive
95 alternative, (ii) information relative to counseling services, benefits, financial assistance, medical care
96 and contact persons or groups, (iii) paternity establishment and child support enforcement, (iv) child
97 development, (v) child rearing and stress management, and (vi) pediatric and maternal health care, and
98 (vii) public and private agencies and services that provide ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal
99 heart tone services free of charge. The materials shall include a comprehensive list of the names and
100 telephone numbers of the agencies, or, at the option of the Department of Health, printed materials
101 including a toll-free, 24-hour-a-day telephone number which may be called to obtain, orally, such a list
102 and description of agencies in the locality of the caller and of the services they offer;
103 2. Materials designed to inform the woman of the probable anatomical and physiological
104 characteristics of the human fetus at two-week gestational increments from the time when a woman can
105 be known to be pregnant to full term, including any relevant information on the possibility of the fetus's
106 survival and pictures or drawings representing the development of the human fetus at two-week
107 gestational increments. Such pictures or drawings shall contain the dimensions of the fetus and shall be
108 realistic and appropriate for the stage of pregnancy depicted. The materials shall be objective,
109 nonjudgmental and designed to convey only accurate scientific information about the human fetus at the
110 various gestational ages; and
111 3. Materials containing objective information describing the methods of abortion procedures
112 commonly employed, the medical risks commonly associated with each such procedure, the possible
113 detrimental psychological effects of abortion, and the medical risks commonly associated with carrying a
114 child to term.
115 The Department of Health shall make these materials available at each local health department and,
116 upon request, to any person or entity, in reasonable numbers and without cost to the requesting party.
117 EG. Any physician who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be subject to a
118 $2,500 civil penalty.

Source = http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB462+pdf
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Some rewriting of history occurring....
The original bill, sponsored by Vogel DID require vaginal (invasive) ultrasound. It was only when the protests got going and in particular when Sntr Bob McDonnel saw which way the wind was blowing and withdrew his support that the bill was pulled and substitute voted on.

Wrong again (BTW, McDonnel is not a senator, but the governor of Va). Instead of relying on Left Wing sources to spoon feed false claims, it would be best to look at the actual source. Here is the actual bill that was introduced. Please tell me where it requires a vaginal ultrasound as you claim it does:
Source = http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB462+pdf


Happy to oblige. Please see starting at line 22:
Quote:
a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and
23 auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of
24 determining gestational age.


Gestational age is determined by the invasive ultrasound procedure.
http://www.newser.com/story/140295/virgina-waters-down-abortion-ultrasound-bill.html
Quote:
House lawmakers decided that only a regular, non-invasive ultrasound should be mandatory, although that procedure does not determine the age of the fetus, opponents noted.


The lengths the far right will go in the USA to insist up is down and black is white is why I submit that the right in the USA is going insane. JMI256, you are aware that Republican Gov. McDonnell did a full retreat and changed the bill so the invasive procedure is no longer in it, aren't you? And in so doing he admitted the bill called for the invasive procedure. You know that, right?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-22/virginia-governor-mcdonnell-abortion-ultrasound/53213156/1
Quote:
McDonnell, a Republican who opposes abortion and is mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate, came out against the measure in the face of anger among some women and ridicule by late-night comedians.

Requiring women to have an ultrasound in which a wand is inserted into the vagina "is not a proper role for the state," McDonnell said. "No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure."

McDonnell asked the General Assembly to amend the legislation to "address various medical and legal issues which have arisen" and "to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily."


Are you aware you called the Orange County Register and USA Today "left wing"? Opposed to your solid news sources like www.abovetopsecret.com, I guess.
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
If you want to discuss Obama's health care policies, feel free to start a different thread. Please stop attempting to change the subject. I simply am not interested in your (or anyone elses) games, I've seen them in play in almost every political thread on Frihost. Whether I support, oppose, or am somewhere in the middle with regards to Obama's health care policies is irrelevant to the topic. And no, I will not argue with you about whether it's relevant or not.

I am not changing the subject, but addressing your comments, which are very hypocritical. When you claim “I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment. ” yet then embrace Obamacare, it is very clear that you are not taking a principled stance, but rather making yet another hypocritical attack. And one that you simply are unable to justify, so if you feel the need to run with your tail between your legs, so be it. But if you are really against government involvement in healthcare decisions that are best left between a doctor and his patient and can justify your support for Obamacare, which flies in the face of that, then I would be interested in hearing your case.


You do not know my position on Obamacare. You assume I have undying support for it regardless of the implications it presents, because, as you have shown time and again on these forums, you find it very difficult to refrain from pigeonholing people into political corners to win your little "Internet battles." Kindly take the topic to another thread if you want to discuss it, I honestly do not mind. This thread has no relation to Obamacare. I am here to discuss the legislation in Virginia which is the topic of the thread. If you wish to discuss other things, you are as free to and capable of hitting the New Thread button on the previous page.

I don't think this is an unreasonable request.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
[Happy to oblige. Please see starting at line 22:
Quote:
a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and
23 auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of
24 determining gestational age.


Gestational age is determined by the invasive ultrasound procedure.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. The age can be determined from a non-vaginal ultrasound, and the text of the actual bill shows it does not require a vaginal ultrasound. Try again.


handfleisch wrote:
JMI256, you are aware that Republican Gov. McDonnell did a full retreat and changed the bill so the invasive procedure is no longer in it, aren't you?

*facepalm*
As the actual bill shows, there is no requirement of a vaginal ultrasound. As the bill clearly states below, the decision is left to the abortionist and his/her patient. Left Wingers have been pretty successful in getting their base (which apparently is unable to look at the bill themselves and understand what it actually says) heated up by making wild claims that the bill requires “rape-by-instruments” so that now, instead of leaving medical decisions about procedures up to doctors and their patients, they want to insert language that would MANDATE that certain procedures defined by politicians, not doctors, be followed. As liljp617 objected to, the Left now basically has “some random legislator who has zero medical knowledge mandating exact medical procedures doctors must carry out on patients regardless of whether doctors or patients consent”.

Quote:
The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice
25 in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external
26 members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall
27 be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the
28 community in determining gestational age.



liljp617 wrote:
You do not know my position on Obamacare. You assume I have undying support for it regardless of the implications it presents, because, as you have shown time and again on these forums, you find it very difficult to refrain from pigeonholing people into political corners to win your little "Internet battles."

I did not assume anything, but when you claimed “I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment.” I asked you “I assume you are against Obamacare then?” This is a very relevant political discussion here, because if you really do object to the Virginia bill on those grounds, it would be hypocritical to support Obamacare, which is a clear violation of that principle. I can understand that you do not want the hypocrisy shown for what it is and that it might embarrass you, but if you continue to make hypocritical claims like this, you must expect to be challenged on them. If you object to your claims being shown as hypocritical, then make your case.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

*facepalm*
As the actual bill shows, there is no requirement of a vaginal ultrasound.


Face palm back atcha: Are you actually saying that Republican Gov. McDonnell changed the bill for no reason? Is he part of the left wing conspiracy that you are alleging?

In his press release McDonnell very clearly states that he is changing the bill to remove the possibility of mandatory invasive ultrasound. Here, I will help you with bold letters:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=1148
Quote:
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. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. 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.

For this reason, I have recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to this bill. 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.


So the order of events:

1. Republican Gov. McDonnell sponsors a bill mandating invasive ultrasound (and other unnecessary things designed to humiliate and shame) for women seeking abortions.
2. There is huge outrage among all decent people in the USA
3. In response, right wing websites and fake news outlets try to say the bill says no such thing
4. McDonnell changes the bill to remove this part, and clearly says that is why he is amending the bill.
5. The right wing says "oops" and/or doubles down in denial
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
So the order of events:

1. Republican Gov. McDonnell sponsors a bill mandating invasive ultrasound (and other unnecessary things designed to humiliate and shame) for women seeking abortions.

Once again, where in the bill does it mandate a vaginal ultrasound? This ridiculous claim has already been proven to be false, and by continuing to parrot it you are lying again.


handfleisch wrote:
2. There is huge outrage among all decent people in the USA

I agree there has been outrage against “rape by instrument”, but as shown this has simply been sleight of hand by Left Wing commentators with the ignorant Left Wing base to claim that a vaginal ultrasound is mandated in the bill, which it clearly has not.


handfleisch wrote:
3. In response, right wing websites and fake news outlets try to say the bill says no such thing

Ummm… I posted the bill itself from the Va. House. Please, show me where it mandates vaginal ultrasounds. Please. If it is as clear as you say, it should not be that hard, and you wouldn’t have to resort to what are clearly lies to make your case.


handfleisch wrote:
4. McDonnell changes the bill to remove this part, and clearly says that is why he is amending the bill.

How was something “removed” that was never there? You fail again, handfleisch.



Take this sidebar for what you will, but it really does amaze me how stupid and malleable people (and particularly on the Left) have become. Instead of relying on principles and due diligence to guide their opinions and stances, all it takes is some poorly crafted lies and propaganda to its uniformed and lazy base to spring them into action (action in this case being just spewing nonsense). It is quite easy to simply look up the bill and make a decision yourself if what a pundit says is there is really there, but some would rather not do that simple and easy step and just react without contemplating what they are parroting. It is really sad to see.
handfleisch
@jmi256: Jimmy, Jimmy, let's take this one step at a time. You haven't answered the simple question. Why did the Republican Governor who sponsored the bill just amend the bill?
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
@jmi256: Jimmy, Jimmy, let's take this one step at a time. You haven't answered the simple question. Why did the Republican Governor who sponsored the bill just amend the bill?

Actually, I have answered many, many questions. You claim it was removed, but how does one remove something that was never there? But how about we try something different for a change and you back up one of your claims instead of making stuff up as you go. I am still waiting for you to show where in the bill it explicitly mandates a vaginal ultrasound as you say it does and what the Left Wing likes to refer to as “rape by instrument.” Or you can just admit that it is another lie and that this feigned concerned about government getting involved in patient-doctor decisions is just more smoke and mirrors, and it casts light on the Left’s hypocritical stance of opposing this bill while embracing the failure known as Obamacare. I am willing to bet you aren’t honest enough to do so.
handfleisch
@jmi256: Jimmy, Jimmy, are you denying that the Governor changed the bill?
liljp617
jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
You do not know my position on Obamacare. You assume I have undying support for it regardless of the implications it presents, because, as you have shown time and again on these forums, you find it very difficult to refrain from pigeonholing people into political corners to win your little "Internet battles."

I did not assume anything, but when you claimed “I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment.” I asked you “I assume you are against Obamacare then?” This is a very relevant political discussion here, because if you really do object to the Virginia bill on those grounds, it would be hypocritical to support Obamacare, which is a clear violation of that principle. I can understand that you do not want the hypocrisy shown for what it is and that it might embarrass you, but if you continue to make hypocritical claims like this, you must expect to be challenged on them. If you object to your claims being shown as hypocritical, then make your case.


I did not make a claim regarding Obamacare. I'm being hypocritical by "making claims" that I did not make? Crafty logic. Refraining from taking part in the pissing game you bring into every political thread is not equivalent to me showing positive support for Obamacare. I know making the assumption that I do support Obamacare makes it much easier for you, but I stated quite clearly I'm not interested in the silly games of you or anyone else. I've watched these political forums for a long time...I know how the shit goes down here.

I will not object to any hypocrisy between my claims about the Virginia legislation and Obamacare -- there's no hypocrisy to object to considering I have not made claims about Obamacare. You made a claim for me, which I guess is cool if it helps you sleep better at night. Simply baseless assumptions and leaping to conclusions on your end so you could create an argument that doesn't exist. Now that I think about it, I think there's a name for that tactic...ohh it's on the tip of my tongue.

If you want to discuss my stance on Obamacare, feel free to start a new thread or even PM me. No problem.
Bikerman
The bill that was voted on was, as I said in my original post, a substitute which did not contain the controvertial requirement for vaginal ultrasound. The original proposed bill, introduced by Vogel, DID contain that requirement.
I'm not very familiar with US news ownership so I don't know if ABC new are 'left wing', nor do I know if the OC Register and USAToday are left-wing. From what I DO know, ABC is owned by Disney, and the version of ABC News we get here is far from left-wing.
It doesn't actually matter, since ANY reputable news source that covered the story has the same story. You might find different versions on right-wing blogs, but I think I'll take the BBC over tea-party sources any day of the week....
Or you can even go to our right-wing media if you like:
For example, the Telegraph (widely known as the ToryGraph for right-of-centre editorial)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9099958/Virginia-approves-bill-requiring-ultrasound-checks-before-abortions.html
As I said, McDonnell (who is indeed Governor, not Senator - my mistake) effectively scuppered the original and the bill that was introduced was the watered-down version that you quoted.
This is a matter of public record - even McDonnell himself was clear about it:
Quote:
“Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. 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.


Clear now?
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
The bill that was voted on was, as I said in my original post, a substitute which did not contain the controvertial requirement for vaginal ultrasound. The original proposed bill, introduced by Vogel, DID contain that requirement.
I'm not very familiar with US news ownership so I don't know if ABC new are 'left wing', nor do I know if the OC Register and USAToday are left-wing. From what I DO know, ABC is owned by Disney, and the version of ABC News we get here is far from left-wing.
It doesn't actually matter, since ANY reputable news source that covered the story has the same story. You might find different versions on right-wing blogs, but I think I'll take the BBC over tea-party sources any day of the week....
Or you can even go to our right-wing media if you like:
For example, the Telegraph (widely known as the ToryGraph for right-of-centre editorial)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9099958/Virginia-approves-bill-requiring-ultrasound-checks-before-abortions.html
As I said, McDonnell (who is indeed Governor, not Senator - my mistake) effectively scuppered the original and the bill that was introduced was the watered-down version that you quoted.
This is a matter of public record - even McDonnell himself was clear about it:
Quote:
“Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. 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.


Clear now?


So one week later, there's no answer to this after the usual far right tactics by JMI: call people liars, talk about left wing conspiracies, distract by bringing up and blaming Obama, claim the opposite of reality, ignore obvious facts and overwhelming proof, disappear when proven wrong. Return for next issue, repeat. The US is becoming pretty bizarre, politically.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
The bill that was voted on was, as I said in my original post, a substitute which did not contain the controvertial requirement for vaginal ultrasound.

I have provided the bill that was introduced in its entirety for you (or anyone else) to show where it mandates a vaginal ultrasound. If you are saying the bill from the Virginia site is not the real bill, then feel free to post what you say is the bill that was introduced. But it is very clear that the Left-Wing lemmings have once again been whipped up into a frenzy about something that simply wasn’t true. This whole brouhaha was instigated by the Left and its Useful Idiots who have claimed that the bill that was passed mandated vaginal ultrasounds, but you seem to be backtracking from that claim. You specifically haven’t made that claim, but it is quite clear that the Left-Wing commentators have used their base’s blind loyalty and laziness to create the controversy (the bill is available right on Virginia’s site; how hard could it be for someone to actually read the thing they are screaming about before parroting the Left’s talking points?). I think you were right when you said there is some rewriting of history occurring by the Left, though. They raised this stink AFTER the bill, which clearly does not say a vaginal ultrasound or “rape by instrument” is mandated, was passed by the VA legislature, and they have continued to make this ridiculous claim that is easily debunked by simply looking at the bill. Now to save face there is a new claim that perhaps there was some language in a document somewhere that wasn’t even voted on or considered that just maybe had some language like that in there - somewhere, but I have yet to see any proof. If you have such a bill, feel free to post it and link to the bill.


Bikerman wrote:
The original proposed bill, introduced by Vogel, DID contain that requirement.

Bikerman wrote:
This is a matter of public record

Fine. Then show us the bill that you say contains a mandate for vaginal ultrasounds.
I have provided the bill that was introduced, and I could not find any reference to any requirement that forced women to have a vaginal ultrasound or mandated “rape by instrument,” and handfleisch did his usual face plant in his attempt to twist the language to mean things it clearly does not say. But if you have access to a version of the bill that says otherwise or you want to take a turn at falling on your face, please feel free to post it.


Bikerman wrote:
Clear now?

I was – and continue to be – quite clear. The bill that was introduced, voted on and was approved by the Virginia legislature contains no requirements of vaginal ultrasounds or “rape by instrument” as the Left and its Democratic base have continued to claim over and over. It is also becoming clearer and clearer that the Left has an easy job in whipping up its base when it sees fit, and it is sad to see people manipulated in such an easy fashion. The facts and reality are of no consequence when the left-wing commentators are able to fabricate a “crisis” by simply lying and twisting facts, and they can rely on the hardcore Democratic base to not take the simple step of considering what they are parroting or even verifying what is being claimed. I have to wonder, how many of the posters here bothered to look at the bill before commenting on what it did or did not say? Although the bill did not contain any mandate of vaginal ultrasounds or “rape by instrument”, Virginia is now considering adding language that would explicitly prohibit something that it never mandated thanks to the fake crisis the Left was able to fabricate. And never mind the fact that opponents of the bill claim things similar to “I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment.” but then call for politicians to explicitly make that very assessment, instead of leaving that assessment between a doctor and his patient. Or the fact that they claimed they are against this bill because it is an instance of government getting involved in healthcare, but are unable to reconcile their support for Obamacare, which is the epitome of government involvement in healthcare here in the US, with this hypocritical opposition. It is truly sad.



Now to handle this troll:
handfleisch wrote:
So one week later, there's no answer to this after the usual far right tactics by JMI:

Some of us (BTW, fewer and fewer of us under Obama) have jobs, and I just haven’t had time to respond. But to address your rant:

handfleisch wrote:
call people liars

Simple: stop lying. When you continue to make claims over and over that have been shown to be false, then you have crossed the line from ignorance to lying and you should be called out on it. Again, just stop lying and I won’t have to call you out on it.


handfleisch wrote:
talk about left wing conspiracies,

I did not say it is a conspiracy, but rather I was lamenting how sad it is that the Left is able to whip up its base so easily and with nothing more than a few sound bites and bits of twisted truth. I have plenty of opinions on why the Left finds it so easy to whip up its base, but I don’t think I need to get into that here.

handfleisch wrote:
distract by bringing up and blaming Obama,

I brought up Obamacare, but I did not “blame Obama” for anything. I just pointed out that if you are against this bill on the grounds that politicians should not be making healthcare assessment, and that it should be left to doctors and medical professional, then you simply cannot at the same time support Obamacare as it does inject the federal government in healthcare decisions. It simply does.


handfleisch wrote:
claim the opposite of reality, ignore obvious facts and overwhelming proof, disappear when proven wrong.

What “proof?” I am still waiting for you to show me where in the bill it mandates a vaginal ultrasound or “rape by instrument.” I even did 90% of the work for you* and all you have to do is copy/paste the passage. I’m still waiting.


*I know, I know. As a typical Left Winger, you couldn’t be expected to actually do the work yourself but have to rely on others to do it for you.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
The bill that was introduced, voted on and was approved

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The bill was introduced, CHANGED, and then voted on. This CHANGE was, as has been pointed out to you countless times, as follows, ACCORDING TO THE BILL'S SPONSOR Republican Gov. McDonnell, quote:
Quote:
“Over the past days I have discussed the specific language of the proposed legislation with other governors, physicians, attorneys, legislators, advocacy groups, and citizens. It is apparent that several amendments to the proposed legislation are needed to address various medical and legal issues which have arisen. It is clear that in the majority of cases, a routine external, transabdominal ultrasound is sufficient to meet the bills stated purpose, that is, to determine gestational age.

Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done. 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.


Now that everyone has answered your questions, why don't you finally answer one you've been avoiding and avoiding and avoiding: If you claim the original bill never contained the objectionable parts, why did the governor change it, saying/admitting/announcing for the whole world that he removed those objectionable parts from the bill?

Really, you're like the Japanese soldier hiding in the cave for twenty years after the end of World War 2, ignorant of the fact the war is over and you've lost.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The bill that was introduced, voted on and was approved

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The bill was introduced, CHANGED, and then voted on.


How many times to I have to explain it to you? The bill does not and has not contained a requirement for a vaginal ultrasound or “rape by instrument” as those on the Left have continued to say it does. I have provided the text of the bill from Virginia’s site that was introduced way back in the beginning of January (it clearly says “INTRODUCED” on it several times in all caps and in bold, so I can’t understand how you can actually miss it, but I suspect you might be lying if you claim you do not), but I will add it (again) below. Please show me where it mandates a vaginal ultrasound or “rape by instrument.” You have already fallen on your face trying once, but feel free to take another crack at it. If you want to claim there is some phantom bill floating around that contained the language, then, please show it. Simple as that. You have made that claim, and it is your responsibility to back it up with the bill that you say contains the language. It is very simple. I have provided the actual bill that was introduced, and I have already addressed the action of the VA legislature to add additional text to the bill now after the fact that explicitly defines procedures an abortionist would have to do, moving the very medical assessment that the Left claims they want to keep in the abortionist’s hands into the hands of politicians.


jmi256 wrote:
I was – and continue to be – quite clear. The bill that was introduced, voted on and was approved by the Virginia legislature contains no requirements of vaginal ultrasounds or “rape by instrument” as the Left and its Democratic base have continued to claim over and over. It is also becoming clearer and clearer that the Left has an easy job in whipping up its base when it sees fit, and it is sad to see people manipulated in such an easy fashion. The facts and reality are of no consequence when the left-wing commentators are able to fabricate a “crisis” by simply lying and twisting facts, and they can rely on the hardcore Democratic base to not take the simple step of considering what they are parroting or even verifying what is being claimed. I have to wonder, how many of the posters here bothered to look at the bill before commenting on what it did or did not say? Although the bill did not contain any mandate of vaginal ultrasounds or “rape by instrument”, Virginia is now considering adding language that would explicitly prohibit something that it never mandated thanks to the fake crisis the Left was able to fabricate. And never mind the fact that opponents of the bill claim things similar to “I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment.” but then call for politicians to explicitly make that very assessment, instead of leaving that assessment between a doctor and his patient. Or the fact that they claimed they are against this bill because it is an instance of government getting involved in healthcare, but are unable to reconcile their support for Obamacare, which is the epitome of government involvement in healthcare here in the US, with this hypocritical opposition. It is truly sad.




The bill as introduced:
Quote:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
11 1. That § 18.2-76 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted as follows:
12 § 18.2-76. Informed written consent required; civil penalty.
13 A. Before performing any abortion or inducing any miscarriage or terminating a pregnancy as
14 provided in §§ 18.2-72, 18.2-73 or § 18.2-74, the physician shall obtain the informed written consent of
15 the pregnant woman. However, if the woman has been adjudicated incapacitated by any court of
16 competent jurisdiction or if the physician knows or has good reason to believe that such woman is
17 incapacitated as adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction, then only after permission is given in
18 writing by a parent, guardian, committee, or other person standing in loco parentis to the woman, may
19 the physician perform the abortion or otherwise terminate the pregnancy.
20 B. Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 hours before the performance of an
21 abortion a qualified medical professional trained in sonography and working under the direct
22 supervision of a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and
23 auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of
24 determining gestational age. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice
25 in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external
26 members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall
27 be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the
28 community in determining gestational age. When only the gestational sac is visible during ultrasound
29 imaging, gestational age may be based upon measurement of the gestational sac. A print of the
30 ultrasound image shall be made to document the measurements that have been taken to determine the
31 gestational age of the fetus.
32 C. The qualified medical professional performing fetal ultrasound imaging pursuant to subsection B
33 shall offer the woman an opportunity to view and receive a printed copy of the ultrasound image and
34 hear auscultation of fetal heart tone and shall obtain from the woman written certification that this
35 opportunity was offered and whether or not it was accepted. A printed copy of the ultrasound image
36 shall be maintained in the woman's medical record at the facility where the abortion is to be performed
37 for the longer of (i) seven years or (ii) the extent required by applicable federal or state law.
38 D. For purposes of this section:
39 "Informed written consent" means the knowing and voluntary written consent to abortion by a
40 pregnant woman of any age, without undue inducement or any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or
41 other form of constraint or coercion by the physician who is to perform the abortion or his agent. The
42 basic information to effect such consent, as required by this subsection, shall be provided by telephone
43 or in person to the woman at least 24 hours before the abortion by the physician who is to perform the
44 abortion, by a referring physician, or by a licensed professional or practical nurse working under the
45 direct supervision of either the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician;
46 however, the information in subdivision 5 may be provided instead by a licensed health-care
47 professional working under the direct supervision of either the physician who is to perform the abortion
48 or the referring physician. This basic information shall include:
49 1. A full, reasonable and comprehensible medical explanation of the nature, benefits, and risks of and
50 alternatives to the proposed procedures or protocols to be followed in her particular case;
51 2. An instruction that the woman may withdraw her consent at any time prior to the performance of
52 the procedure;
53 3. An offer for the woman to speak with the physician who is to perform the abortion so that he
54 may answer any questions that the woman may have and provide further information concerning the
55 procedures and protocols;
56 4. A statement of the probable gestational age of the fetus at the time the abortion is to be performed
57 and that fetal ultrasound imaging shall be performed prior to the abortion to confirm the gestational
58 age; and
59 5. An offer to review the printed materials described in subsection D F. If the woman chooses to
60 review such materials, they shall be provided to her in a respectful and understandable manner, without
61 prejudice and intended to give the woman the opportunity to make an informed choice and shall be
62 provided to her at least 24 hours before the abortion or mailed to her at least 72 hours before the
63 abortion by first-class mail or, if the woman requests, by certified mail, restricted delivery. This offer for
64 the woman to review the material shall advise her of the following: (i) the Department of Health
65 publishes printed materials that describe the unborn child and list agencies that offer alternatives to
66 abortion; (ii) medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and neonatal care,
67 and that more detailed information on the availability of such assistance is contained in the printed
68 materials published by the Department; (iii) the father of the unborn child is liable to assist in the
69 support of her child, even in instances where he has offered to pay for the abortion, that assistance in
70 the collection of such support is available, and that more detailed information on the availability of such
71 assistance is contained in the printed materials published by the Department; and (iv) she has the right
72 to review the materials printed by the Department and that copies will be provided to her free of charge
73 if she chooses to review them. Where the woman has advised that the pregnancy is the result of a rape,
74 the information in clause (iii) above may be omitted.
75 The information required by this subsection may be provided by telephone without conducting a
76 physical examination of or tests upon the woman, in which case the information required to be provided
77 may be based on facts supplied by the woman and whatever other relevant information is reasonably
78 available to the physician. If a physical examination, tests or the availability of other information to the
79 physician or the nurse subsequently indicates, in the medical judgment of the physician or the nurse, a
80 revision of the information previously supplied to the woman, that revised information may be
81 communicated to the woman at any time prior to the performance of the abortion or in person.
82 CE. The physician need not obtain the informed written consent of the woman when the abortion is
83 to be performed pursuant to a medical emergency. "Medical emergency" means any condition which, on
84 the basis of the physician's good faith clinical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of a
85 pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death or for
86 which a delay will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily
87 function.
88 DF. On or before October 1, 2001, the Department of Health shall publish, in English and in each
89 language which is the primary language of two percent or more of the population of the
90 Commonwealth, the following printed materials in such a way as to ensure that the information is easily
91 comprehensible:
92 1. Geographically indexed materials designed to inform the woman of public and private agencies
93 and services available to assist a woman through pregnancy, upon childbirth and while the child is
94 dependent, including, but not limited to, information on services relating to (i) adoption as a positive
95 alternative, (ii) information relative to counseling services, benefits, financial assistance, medical care
96 and contact persons or groups, (iii) paternity establishment and child support enforcement, (iv) child
97 development, (v) child rearing and stress management, and (vi) pediatric and maternal health care, and
98 (vii) public and private agencies and services that provide ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal
99 heart tone services free of charge. The materials shall include a comprehensive list of the names and
100 telephone numbers of the agencies, or, at the option of the Department of Health, printed materials
101 including a toll-free, 24-hour-a-day telephone number which may be called to obtain, orally, such a list
102 and description of agencies in the locality of the caller and of the services they offer;
103 2. Materials designed to inform the woman of the probable anatomical and physiological
104 characteristics of the human fetus at two-week gestational increments from the time when a woman can
105 be known to be pregnant to full term, including any relevant information on the possibility of the fetus's
106 survival and pictures or drawings representing the development of the human fetus at two-week
107 gestational increments. Such pictures or drawings shall contain the dimensions of the fetus and shall be
108 realistic and appropriate for the stage of pregnancy depicted. The materials shall be objective,
109 nonjudgmental and designed to convey only accurate scientific information about the human fetus at the
110 various gestational ages; and
111 3. Materials containing objective information describing the methods of abortion procedures
112 commonly employed, the medical risks commonly associated with each such procedure, the possible
113 detrimental psychological effects of abortion, and the medical risks commonly associated with carrying a
114 child to term.
115 The Department of Health shall make these materials available at each local health department and,
116 upon request, to any person or entity, in reasonable numbers and without cost to the requesting party.
117 EG. Any physician who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be subject to a
118 $2,500 civil penalty.

Source = http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+ful+HB462+pdf
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
The bill that was introduced, voted on and was approved

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The bill was introduced, CHANGED, and then voted on.


How many times to I have to explain it to you? The bill does not and has not contained a requirement for a vaginal ultrasound or “rape by instrument”


Dear Japanese soldier living in a cave in Guam for 20 years:

Please see the bill starting at line 22:
Quote:
a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and
23 auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of
24 determining gestational age.

Gestational age is determined by the invasive ultrasound procedure. THEREFORE the bill MANDATED invasive ultrasound procedure, which is why the GOVERNOR CAVED IN AND CHANGED THE BILL.
http://www.newser.com/story/140295/virgina-waters-down-abortion-ultrasound-bill.html
Quote:
House lawmakers decided that only a regular, non-invasive ultrasound should be mandatory, although that procedure does not determine the age of the fetus, opponents noted.

Or from the GOVERNOR HIMSELF on why he is removing the language from his bill:
Quote:
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. Determining gestational age is essential for legal reasons, to know the trimester of the pregnancy in order to comply with the law, and for medical reasons as well. Thus, having looked at the current proposal, I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done.
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/news/viewRelease.cfm?id=1148

There. Your proof, in the bill, and from the Governor himself, which you refuse to accept. Oh, and WW2 is over, the good guys won.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
How many times to I have to explain it to you? The bill does not and has not contained a requirement for a vaginal ultrasound or “rape by instrument”


Please see the bill starting at line 22:
Quote:
a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and
23 auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of
24 determining gestational age.

Gestational age is determined by the invasive ultrasound procedure. THEREFORE the bill MANDATED invasive ultrasound procedure, which is why the GOVERNOR CAVED IN AND CHANGED THE BILL.

It looks like you are caught in yet another lie handfleisch. The bill clearly does not mandate a vaginal ultrasound or “rape by instrument” as the Left has claimed. Even Ankhanu points out the fallacy in your claim:

Ankhanu wrote:
An ultrasound need not be conducted vaginally.


The bill that was introduced left the assessment up to the abortionist, and below is the part that you left out in your quote and which shines more light on your attempt to lie about what is mandated in the bill:

Quote:
24The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice
25 in the community
, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external
26 members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall
27 be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the
28 community in determining gestational age.




I had already addressed your attempt at lying about a mandate for a vaginal ultrasound or “rape by force” existing in the bill previously. I guess if you’re hoping that if you repeat your lie often enough maybe someone will eventually believe it:

jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
[Happy to oblige. Please see starting at line 22:
Quote:
a physician licensed in the Commonwealth shall perform fetal ultrasound imaging and
23 auscultation of fetal heart tone services on the patient undergoing the abortion for the purpose of
24 determining gestational age.


Gestational age is determined by the invasive ultrasound procedure.

As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about. The age can be determined from a non-vaginal ultrasound, and the text of the actual bill shows it does not require a vaginal ultrasound. Try again.


handfleisch wrote:
JMI256, you are aware that Republican Gov. McDonnell did a full retreat and changed the bill so the invasive procedure is no longer in it, aren't you?

*facepalm*
As the actual bill shows, there is no requirement of a vaginal ultrasound. As the bill clearly states below, the decision is left to the abortionist and his/her patient. Left Wingers have been pretty successful in getting their base (which apparently is unable to look at the bill themselves and understand what it actually says) heated up by making wild claims that the bill requires “rape-by-instruments” so that now, instead of leaving medical decisions about procedures up to doctors and their patients, they want to insert language that would MANDATE that certain procedures defined by politicians, not doctors, be followed. As liljp617 objected to, the Left now basically has “some random legislator who has zero medical knowledge mandating exact medical procedures doctors must carry out on patients regardless of whether doctors or patients consent”.

Quote:
The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice
25 in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external
26 members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall
27 be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the
28 community in determining gestational age.
handfleisch
last *facepalm*. The Governor changed the bill for a reason. Like Birthers who still see a forgery in Obama's birth certificate, JMI will never admit how ludicrously wrong he is.

BACK ON TOPIC:

The Republican Governor who started this whole thing has now called out riot people on peaceful protesters who were demonstrating about the ultrasound bill. Full riot gear for a rally on women's rights. PLUS: Even without the invasive ultrasound mandate which has now been removed, the bill is still designed to punish women who seek abortions. Is there a Republican war on women going on?????????? Scenes from Governor McDonnell's Virginia:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2012/mar/03/21/womens-rights-protestors-rally-capitol-grounds-abo-ar-1737914/
Bikerman
Just to put this to bed once and for all, lest anyone still think that JMI has a point:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+SB484+pdf

The relevant passage is :
Quote:
Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 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. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community in determining gestational age.
JMI seems to think that this does not mandate transvaginal untrasound and that the less invasive transabdominal ultrasound would be OK.
He is wrong.

Transabdominal ultrasound can be used where the foetus is older than 7 weeks, but even then it is unreliable until the foetus is 8-12 weeks old and it is completely useless where the foetus is less than 6 weeks old. In most cases abortions are performed with a foetus less than 12 weeks old - and I believe that is a good thing, since 12 weeks is long before the central nervous system is formed.

The standard method of ultrasound for foetuses less than 12 weeks is transvaginal*, and it is the ONLY method for foetuses less than 7 weeks old.

Additionally the original bill called for the 'auscultation of fetal heart tone'. Transabdominal ultrasound CANNOT be used for this on any foetus less than 7-8 weeks old (it just doesn't work). Transvaginal ultrasound is the ONLY method available for such foetuses. (The requirement was dropped in the amended version of the bill).

Since the bill mandated the use of 'standard medical practice' then it was, de-facto, mandating transvaginal ultrasound in any case where the foetus is 1-7 weeks old.

* From the British Medical Association handbook:
Quote:
Transabdominal ultrasound cannot reliably diagnose pregnancies that are less than 6 weeks gestation. Transvaginal ultrasound, by contrast, can detect pregnancies earlier, at approximately 4 ½ to 5 weeks gestation.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Just to put this to bed once and for all, lest anyone still think that JMI has a point:

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?121+ful+SB484+pdf

The relevant passage is :
Quote:
Except in the case of a medical emergency, at least 2 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. The ultrasound image shall be made pursuant to standard medical practice in the community, contain the dimensions of the fetus, and accurately portray the presence of external members and internal organs of the fetus, if present or viewable. Determination of gestational age shall be based upon measurement of the fetus in a manner consistent with standard medical practice in the community in determining gestational age.
JMI seems to think that this does not mandate transvaginal untrasound and that the less invasive transabdominal ultrasound would be OK.
He is wrong.

More typical BS and trying to squirm out of the Left’s lies. The claim made by the Left Wing has been that the bill mandated a vaginal ultrasound, or what they have been calling “rape by instrument”, and it is clear from the language in the bill introduced that it does not and never has. You can use whatever twisted logic you want to claim that, but the bill as introduced left the determination up to the abortionist. An ultrasound before an abortion seems to be standard (Planned Parenthood claims to do it), and the bill focused on giving women the opportunity (not obligation) to view the ultrasound if they wanted to. As you can see in the bill as well, they can decline if they wish. Even the abortionists at Planned Parenthood say they do an ultrasound, so are you claiming that they are performing “rape by instrument”? From Planned Parenthood:

Quote:
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.
Medical abortions generally require three visits. [size]At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound.[/size] 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


As liljp617 said “I trust medical professionals to make the assessment concerning if/when it's necessary infinitely more than I trust a politician with clear vested interests to make that assessment.”, yet the Left wants to put that assessment right in the hands of politicians rather than the abortionists. Typical Left Wing hypocrisy.


Bikerman wrote:
The requirement was dropped in the amended version of the bill).

Again, you make these claims with no proof. As has been pointed out several times, there was never a mandate for a vaginal ultrasound/rape by instrument, yet the Left Wing was able to whip its base, which didn’t bother to actually read and think about what the bill actually says, into a frenzy. Because of the faked crisis the Left was able to fabricate, the VA legislature has considered going in and ADDING language to explicitly mandate the medical assessment in the bill by prohibiting/mandating which procedure an abortionist can use.



Bikerman wrote:
Since the bill mandated the use of 'standard medical practice' then it was, de-facto, mandating transvaginal ultrasound in any case where the foetus is 1-7 weeks old.

Again, the bill left the assessment up to the abortionist using his expertise and knowledge, rather than a politician’s opinion.



Bikerman wrote:
* From the British Medical Association handbook:
Quote:
Transabdominal ultrasound cannot reliably diagnose pregnancies that are less than 6 weeks gestation. Transvaginal ultrasound, by contrast, can detect pregnancies earlier, at approximately 4 ½ to 5 weeks gestation.

First of all, before I can even respond to this, given your habit of making up sources and/or claiming they say things they do not, you must realize we are going to need some proof/link to this.
handfleisch
@JMI: THANK YOU for continuing your ultrasound birtherism. Your continuing atomization of your own credibility could be valuable in the research on subatomic particles.
jmi256 wrote:
Because of the faked crisis the Left was able to fabricate, the VA legislature has considered going in and ADDING language to explicitly mandate the medical assessment in the bill by prohibiting/mandating which procedure an abortionist can use.
BTW, what the heck are you talking about now? The legislature hasn't just "considered" changing the bill, they DID change the bill, to REMOVE THE INVASIVE ULTRASOUND MANDATE, and you have refused to even admit that they changed the bill and that Gov.McDonnell made an explicit statement about why the bill was changed (to remove the mandate). Hello, JMI?
Quote:
The bill sparked national debate last week over a provision that would have required many women to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds, which opponents decry as medically unnecessary and physically invasive. After McDonnell requested that mandate be stripped, the Virginia House of Delegates passed a revised version that allows women to "reject" the recommendation of a transvaginal ultrasound.[/size]
Virginia Democrats and women's health advocates continue to decry the measure despite the changes, arguing that ultrasound mandates in general are politically motivated and aimed at whittling away abortion rights.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57387040-503544/virginia-senate-passes-controversial-ultrasound-bill/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

jmi256 wrote:
First of all, before I can even respond to this, given your habit of making up sources and/or claiming they say things they do not, you must realize we are going to need some proof/link to this.
DEFINITELY! Because Bikerman could be making up his own standard medical procedures and passing it off as the BMA handbook!

JMI, what's the latest from abovetopsecret.com?
Ankhanu
handfleisch wrote:
JMI, what's the latest from abovetopsecret.com?

Is it really necessary to keep bringing that site up every chance you get? JMI's rep here is developed through his behaviour here; no need to keep bringing up his use of other sites.
handfleisch
Ankhanu wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
JMI, what's the latest from abovetopsecret.com?

Is it really necessary to keep bringing that site up every chance you get? JMI's rep here is developed through his behaviour here; no need to keep bringing up his use of other sites.
I respect you saying that. But c'mon, JMI constantly accuses people of using the "left wing" media, so I figure that every time he mentions the "left wing" media, he should be reminded that he used a UFO conspiracy site for his info. At least until he acknowledges it.

But he never will, so out of respect for you, I won't mention it for awhile.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
First of all, before I can even respond to this, given your habit of making up sources and/or claiming they say things they do not, you must realize we are going to need some proof/link to this.
DEFINITELY! Because Bikerman could be making up his own standard medical procedures and passing it off as the BMA handbook!

I don’t know if he made it up or not, and I did not say he did. I just asked for a link/proof before I responded. I rather look at the source before I respond, which is why I looked at the bill rather than rely on Left Wing talking points to formulate my opinions and views. If you look at the bill (I provided it for you several times), you will see that there is not language mandating “rape by instrument” or whatever inflammatory language Left Wing commentators have said were there to get a rise from their base, which seems to be incapable or unwilling to think for themselves. I have to wonder why Left Wingers seem to be allergic to any critical thinking for themselves.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:

If you look at the bill (I provided it for you several times), you will see that there is not language mandating “rape by instrument” or whatever inflammatory language Left Wing commentators have said were there to get a rise from their base, which seems to be incapable or unwilling to think for themselves. I have to wonder why Left Wingers seem to be allergic to any critical thinking for themselves.
Welcome back and thanks for the continuing stream of entertaining nonsense. And congrats on your new gloss for your never-ending Flat-Earth-Society of constant denial that you're wrong. Now you say that because the "inflammatory language" was not in the bill, then the thing itself in other words was not in the bill. Hilarious. That's like a stalker writing "a bomb will be placed in your car" and then claiming they never threatened anyone because they never wrote "I will kill you".
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

If you look at the bill (I provided it for you several times), you will see that there is not language mandating “rape by instrument” or whatever inflammatory language Left Wing commentators have said were there to get a rise from their base, which seems to be incapable or unwilling to think for themselves. I have to wonder why Left Wingers seem to be allergic to any critical thinking for themselves.
Welcome back and thanks for the continuing stream of entertaining nonsense. And congrats on your new gloss for your never-ending Flat-Earth-Society of constant denial that you're wrong. Now you say that because the "inflammatory language" was not in the bill, then the thing itself in other words was not in the bill. Hilarious. That's like a stalker writing "a bomb will be placed in your car" and then claiming they never threatened anyone because they never wrote "I will kill you".

You make as much sense as Yoda. Drunk. (And a little brain damaged.)
deanhills
Great to see both of you posting again. Politics is buzzing again Cool
coolclay
Quote:
Great to see both of you posting again. Politics is buzzing again Cool
I know right! It was actually nice, and peaceful with logical discussions here for a little while.
Ankhanu
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
Great to see both of you posting again. Politics is buzzing again Cool
I know right! It was actually nice, and peaceful with logical discussions here for a little while.

Very Happy
Thanks for the chuckle!
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
Great to see both of you posting again. Politics is buzzing again Cool
I know right! It was actually nice, and peaceful with logical discussions here for a little while.
I can't quite picture jmi and Handfleisch as illogical, but I guess every one is entitled to their opinion. I just like their characters very much as well as the buzz that comes with their sparring sessions.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
Great to see both of you posting again. Politics is buzzing again Cool
I know right! It was actually nice, and peaceful with logical discussions here for a little while.
I can't quite picture jmi and Handfleisch as illogical,

I'd call it more 'irrational' than 'illogical'.
A subtle difference, yes, but I think it fits better.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
coolclay wrote:
Quote:
Great to see both of you posting again. Politics is buzzing again Cool
I know right! It was actually nice, and peaceful with logical discussions here for a little while.
I can't quite picture jmi and Handfleisch as illogical,

I'd call it more 'irrational' than 'illogical'.
A subtle difference, yes, but I think it fits better.
Some times maybe. But sometimes irrational can be good as well. Too much rational can sometimes be too rational. Needs an offsetting something somewhere to make it real.
silverdown
wow it funny how every new voting is about destroying human rights.
ocalhoun
silverdown wrote:
wow it funny how every new voting is about destroying human rights.

Nothing funny about it...
Related topics
science vs. religion
Censorship Sucks...
Pirated Software : What if we can't afford original ones
Our technology addiction is outta control...
If you have AIDS, will you attempt suicide?
Airline Safety........Yes you need to worry
Stun Guns
how often do you format your hard drive?
Online Privacy
Karma/FeedBack
Absent minded pilots
Paris Hilton begins jail term
Poor customer service: Name & Shame
Must spill! <3
What do you think about Scientology?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.