Skip to comments.
Supreme Court turns down appeal over abortion counseling
Associated Press / SFGate
Posted on 02/24/2003 8:02:18 AM PST by RCW2001
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
1
posted on
02/24/2003 8:02:18 AM PST
by
RCW2001
To: RCW2001
Opponents of the Indiana law pointed to research in Mississippi and Utah that showed abortion rates dropped by about 10 percent after those states required similar in-person counselingAh, the horror of keeping some babies out of the abortuaries.
2
posted on
02/24/2003 8:04:51 AM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: RCW2001
I guess that the USSC figures that since they get away with un-Constitutional gun laws, now they can start dictating how and when we do things to our bodies.
Very bad precedent.
3
posted on
02/24/2003 8:08:11 AM PST
by
wcbtinman
To: wcbtinman
I wonder if they will begin telling women how studies are showing the link from abortion to breast cancer?
To: RCW2001
A lower court judge had found that the requirement would deny abortions to an estimated 10- to 12 percent of women who wanted them. The article was written by LYING SWINE.
5
posted on
02/24/2003 8:12:01 AM PST
by
the_doc
To: wcbtinman
I guess that the USSC figures that since they get away with un-Constitutional gun laws, now they can start dictating how and when we do things to our bodies. Spoken like someone that is already born.
6
posted on
02/24/2003 8:13:08 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: princess leah
Actually, I am hoping that they will next make a Sonogram part of "Informed consent".
7
posted on
02/24/2003 8:13:56 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: RCW2001
Informed consent, BTW, is an important part of medical/surgical procedures. But the pro-death folks don't want women to be informed.
8
posted on
02/24/2003 8:13:58 AM PST
by
the_doc
To: RCW2001
I hope SCOTUS is enjoying the fruits of an activist Court. What they tried to take out of politics and from the people now pollutes not only the courts but the whole political system. Probably more than any decision Roe/Wade resulted in a politicization of the judicial system that reverberates through many other venues now.
To: RCW2001
I hope SCOTUS is enjoying the fruits of an activist Court. What they tried to take out of politics and from the people now pollutes not only the courts but the whole political system. Probably more than any decision Roe/Wade resulted in a politicization of the judicial system that reverberates through many other venues now.
To: RCW2001
**The law requires abortion providers to tell women about medical risks and alternatives to abortion at least 18 hours before the procedure, and to give the information in person.**
Sounds good to me.
11
posted on
02/24/2003 8:23:20 AM PST
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: RCW2001
The high court has not considered requirements like Indiana's, which abortion providers and women's organizations said is particularly unfair to poor women and those who must travel from rural areas. What's that supposed to mean? The court did consider them, and turned down the appeal because such "requirements" do not stop any woman who wants an abortion from having one.
To: wcbtinman
Abortion Party talking points.
13
posted on
02/24/2003 8:25:03 AM PST
by
onedoug
To: hobbes1
**Actually, I am hoping that they will next make a Sonogram part of "Informed consent".**
Amen!
14
posted on
02/24/2003 8:25:09 AM PST
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: wcbtinman
I guess that the USSC figures that since they get away with un-Constitutional gun laws, now they can start dictating how and when we do things to our bodies. 48 days ago, my wife delivered twins that were premature by 11 weeks. These babies were about 3 and a 1/3 lbs each. At that age, they are just beyond the point where they could be legally aborted, barely into the third trimester. Either twin could put their hand into my size 13-1/2 wedding band.
The twins were not the earliest kids in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The baby in the Isolette (which is basically a crib with a plexiglas shell to keep out germs and to stabilize air temperature) was just over 1 pound.
Fifteen years ago, my twins probably would have been delivered, and then passed on. Five years ago, the technology was barely there to rescue the one pounder.
Now, right now my twins have rights as living people. They have since come home, now around 6 lbs. Our "neighbor" has living rights as a living person, even though he is still on life support. What I can't fathom is that now that is he outside, in the "cold cruel world", he is safer legally than if he were on the inside of someone's uterus.
48 days ago, when they put the ventilator on my second twin, she cried, and she struggled. It was obvious that she had an opinion, and she didn't like being on the ventilator. Who could blame her?
Please consider whether or not that "fetus", "baby", "etc", is truly just another part of a woman's body. My direct evidence from my own twins disagrees with that supposition.
I wish you a good day.
15
posted on
02/24/2003 8:32:54 AM PST
by
CanisMajor2002
(Annoy a liberal...judge them by the content of their character)
To: CanisMajor2002; RCW2001; Saundra Duffy; WarSlut
Did you catch that story last week here on FR about the baby born at 10 or 11 1/2 ounces that SURVIVED? That baby's twin did die, but as the baby survived at under 1 lb birth weight, I agree with you Canis 1000%.
Also... from the article:
which can be difficult for any woman who would have trouble explaining her absence to an employer, husband or boyfriend.
Yes, let's be sure and divide families and society and SEXES further by NOT forcing a woman to INFORM her spouse or boyfriend that she is carrying his child. How progressive.
16
posted on
02/24/2003 9:06:51 AM PST
by
cgk
(the Mrs half)
To: CanisMajor2002
And congratulations on your babies. You are truly blessed. :) Our baby is almost 6 months now and we thank God for her every day.
17
posted on
02/24/2003 9:08:14 AM PST
by
cgk
(the Mrs half)
To: RCW2001
Not even one positive reason was mentioned for the right of women to have information before consenting. The consumer would have more protections if she wanted to purchase Avon products then what the writer thinks she should have if she purchased an abortion.
18
posted on
02/24/2003 9:30:30 AM PST
by
VRWC_minion
( Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
To: CanisMajor2002
My 2-pound-9-ounce son born at 32 weeks will be 15 years old this year :)
19
posted on
02/24/2003 9:32:32 AM PST
by
TxBec
(Tag! You're it!)
To: CanisMajor2002
I have a confession to make. Since the birth of my daughter 27 months ago I've become a baby junkie. Give those precious little ones gentle kisses for me.
My wife just underwent surgery to correct her epilepsy (7 weeks seizure free!!!!) so maybe I'll be able to talk her into having another little one.
20
posted on
02/24/2003 10:50:36 AM PST
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson