Smart, Intelligent Rght Wingers....

S

Satchel

2,500+ Posts
.... who hope for a future in presidential politics, apparently know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em.

Governor McDonald of Virginia has seen the light (or made the proper political calculation) and reversed course on his state's attempt to manage the vaginas of Virginia women: Here is the Governor's new position:

"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"

While the women of Virginia appear to be the obvious winners, the women of Texas are not so fortunate. They still must involuntarily submit to state mandated transvaginal probes unrelated to a medical purpose. And just to make sure the rest of the country understands that Texas don't take no stuff, we've doubled down on the GOP's war on women. We bad:

Kaiser Health News
Texas on Thursday passed regulations barring Planned Parenthood clinics and other ... from participating in the state's Medicaid program starting March 14, ...
 
And I could give a rat's *** about what you missed. I am, however, interested in your take on the GOP's war on women. You can throw the Girl Scouts in there if you like.
cool.gif
 
this is the sort of issue that we need the ability to have a national referendum vote on. I would love it if we could have one national referendum item per national election. we could finally have a majority rule, vote on these sort of issues and put policy in line with the majority view rather than having politicians screwing around manipulating us with these issues. I'm so tired of the far left and the far right tossing this subject around and getting no where.
 
My postition is that abortion should be safe, legal and rare, I wouldnt urge it for anyone where I would be in a position of influence, but I don't want abortions handled by butchers using clothing hangers bent into primitive tools as ocurred back in the 1960s..
 
That no person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.

You got it now?
 
The laws I've seen don't do any of those things. They require that a patient either do it or sign a waver stating that they refused it.

Are you in favor of Planned parenthood forcing all women who want an abortion to undergo a sonogram - and if they don't elect to do it, PP refuses to do the procedure? You don't seem to have an issue with that.
 
I stand corrected - the waver is for viewing, not undergoing the procedure.

So again, do you think PP should be forced to abandon its current practice of requiring a sonogram before all abortion procedures? You don't seem interested in answering that question and I don't know why - it would seem to be pretty straight-forward from what you've said so far.
 
Of course not, because unlike the Texas law, PP performs the probe as a precondition to another medical procedure.

What else you got?
 
So how do you define a "precondition"? A precondition would seem to me to mean "we will only do this procedure if you allow this procedure first." It would seem that's what the law in question does.

If you mean that the distinction has to do with performing it as a medical necessity in perfoming the procedure as opposed to doing it for the purpose of disclosing information to the patient, that's fair enough, but clearly PP believes that it IS something that is a medical necessity. Otherwise, why would they be performing it and requiring it of all patients?
 
Satchel
so do you think PPH goes ahead with an abortion if the woman does not sign the PPH cosent form and allows an utlrasound?
 
I'm not wading in the weeds at all. You made a statement that would appear to me to be contradictory. The law would appear to require the procedure as a precursor to another procedure, just as planned parenthood requires it. I'm asking where you draw the distinction. If you think that one is and one is not, then I'd like to know how you're distinguishing the two. That seems to me to be a pretty fair question.

As is the case in a lot of these arguments, it seems to me that the confusion is in how a word or term is being used. So rather than using that ambiguity as a club to try and make other people look stupid, why not simply explain what you mean, and that way we can actually get to the issue at hand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top