Replies

It requires a person to have a medical procedure, therfore, it does force that person to have that procedure. Forcing a person to have a medical procedure goes beyond the abortion question. This law doesn’t affect you so it’s okay with you for the state to require someone else to have a medical procedure. When the state requires YOU to have “x” medical procedure, your opinion will change.

Personal liberty can be taken away by Democrats or Republicans. I do not want the state of Texas or the US government to force me to have “x” medical procedure done, neither do I want them to refuse to give me “x” medical procedure if my doctor says it is necessary.

I am pro life and always have been - that is not the issue. This law begins a slippery slope to take away your liberty relating to your medical decisions.

I am pro life and always have been - that is not the issue.

The Hell it ain't.

This law begins a slippery slope to take away your liberty relating to your medical decisions.

Bullsh*t. The law in question mandates that COMPLETE diagnostic information be provided to the patient prior to the ACTUAL medical procedure. A sonogram is non-invasive, and in the context of this law it very likely may save lives, i.e., the lives of the unborn that you claim to be in support of. Give your head a shake about this. The Fifth Circuit smackdown of that injunction was a very good thing, and you should be applauding it if your concern about the unborn is anything more than lip service.

It requires a person to have a medical procedure, therfore, it does force that person to have that procedure.

Do you oppose a woman having a pregnancy test before having an abortion? I mean the State of Texas requires that doctors ensure you are pregnant before commencing an abortion, so should that be removed as well? More importantly, MOST DOCTORS RECOMMEND A SONOGRAM before an abortion, so how is this invasive? This is as invasive as requiring the doctor to perform a pregnancy test before you kill a child - but THIS procedure is "bad law" to you?
These are diagnostic procedures that, according to your thinking, should not be required before a licensed-murderer, err, uh, I mean doctor, performs an abortion.

If anything, you should appreciate this procedure. It will allow the doctor to more easily determine the "lump of mass" in the uterus, help easily locate "it" and should limit the extra step of stabbing "it" in the back of the head to ensure "it" is dead before completely removing that "lump" from a woman.

But apparently you do not believe the unborn child has any rights or protections. At least a Sonogram so that the child can be seen before being murdered is a small means for their protection.