No, and it's revealing that you haven't reasoned why I'm wrong without the use of an analogy.

If everyone, everywhere, used a car exactly as it was designed at all times, there would be no car accidents.

If everyone, everywhere, used birth control exactly as it was designed, breast cancer risk still goes up. It's part of the nature of the product.

That means your analogy is wrong.

How about if I change it to suit you? "PP sells cancer-causing products, lifestyle choices, and services."

[Edited on February 4, 2012 at 11:41 PM. Reason : a]

2/4/2012 11:39:46 PM

Birth control would be used at the same rate with or without PP. Any cancers that occur due to birth control would occur at the same rate with or without PP.

2/4/2012 11:48:22 PM

Yes, but then I'd just point at other folks and not PP, if PP didn't exist. It's irrelevant.

That doesn't change the fact that PP sells products, services, and lifestyle choices that increase breast cancer risk.

Funding an organization whose primary services cause cancer is a bad idea for a cancer foundation.

2/4/2012 11:52:16 PM

If the existence of PP has no bearing on cancer rates, your whole schtick of PP sells cancer is deceptive and irrelevant.

Out of morbid curiosity, what should SGK be spending money on?

2/5/2012 12:01:27 AM

PP has no bearing on cancer rates. But BC does. And so does delaying or avoiding child-bearing.Therefore, I'm going to point at anyone who sells or encourages those choices, especially if they aren't honest about the risks those things bring. PP does that, so I point at them.

Is that a serious question? Fighting breast cancer. Research, awareness, education, etc on breast cancer and its prevention and treatment.

PP doesn't do those things. Plus they lie about it.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm

Quote :

"You may have heard claims linking the pill to breast cancer. The most recent medical literature suggests that the pill has little, if any, effect on the risk of developing breast cancer."

[Edited on February 5, 2012 at 12:18 AM. Reason : k]

2/5/2012 12:16:32 AM

Quote :

"With the millions upon millions of BC recipients from PP, even a ludicrously low rate of increased breast cancer risk would exceed the cancer they help detect by their relatively rare, basic breast cancer checks and subsequent referrals. Their primary clients are in the 18-35 range, or close to it, and their breast cancer rates at that age (which would be detected at their PP visit) are terribly low. "

This is making a lot of ASSumptions.

I'm not sure you know how science and statistics work...

You're taking a disease that has been decreasing in incidences, that has a myriad of risk factors both known and unknown, and using one risk factor that's only tenuously studied and verified, and asserting that one single dispenser of this alleged risk factor has is solely and definitively responsible for giving people cancer.

If you applied this same logic to everything else, you would be calling for the dismantling of most corporations and industries and institutions. GG.

2/5/2012 12:21:36 AM

You hit the nail on the head.

When you chose your username.

2/5/2012 12:24:47 AM

^lol

2/5/2012 12:23:11 PM

"Planned Parenthood creates breast cancer."
-TULIPlovr

2/5/2012 1:11:16 PM

I can agree that waiting until much later (after 30) to have children is a risk factor. There are no hard facts on anything, though. Researchers have suggested that having fewer lifetime menstrual cycles may reduce the risk of breast cancer -- meaning having more pregnancies, one would say. But there are BC options that stop your cycle (Depo shot).

It may also be that having more children means you're breastfeeding more, which could decrease the risk of breast cancer. It's my understanding that PP promotes breastfeeding, not formula feeding. If anything, we should target WIC for funding formula, right???!!! (how dare they!)

Quote :

""PP sells cancer-causing products, lifestyle choices, and services.""

Not true. Prove to me that BC *causes* cancer.
Prove to me that the lifestyle choices PP offers *cause* cancer.
Prove to me that the services PP provides *cause* cancer.
If these things are true, let's kill it with fire! But you can't prove it. Your statement is false. A more accurate statement would be:
"PP sells products, offers lifestyle choices, and provides services that may increase your risk of contracting breast cancer."

2/5/2012 1:12:26 PM

But if you think of the amount of children that won't be born because of birth control, that would never grow up to get cancer, they've clearly reduced the incidences of breast cancer. by tuliplovr's count, at least.

2/5/2012 1:17:30 PM

INCONCEPTION

2/5/2012 1:19:54 PM

Consider the source but...

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/775558/$5_million_per_year:_outrageous_salary_for_komen_ceo_nancy_brinker/#paragraph3

http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/13309

Even non-profits are being run for-profit these days... at the expense of health care.

2/5/2012 3:06:36 PM

Quote :

"and asserting that one single dispenser of this alleged risk factor has is solely and definitively responsible for giving people cancer."

WRONG. beautiful strawman, though.

Quote :

"Not true. Prove to me that BC *causes* cancer. Prove to me that the lifestyle choices PP offers *cause* cancer. Prove to me that the services PP provides *cause* cancer. If these things are true, let's kill it with fire! But you can't prove it. Your statement is false. A more accurate statement would be: "PP sells products, offers lifestyle choices, and provides services that may increase your risk of contracting breast cancer.""

potato, potahhto. It's almost impossible to ever point to what caused a particular person's cancer. As a result, the two scenarios you gave are almost entirely the same.

2/5/2012 5:22:10 PM

Great documentary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASrFufnMNDg

It's well worth the time (a little over 2 hours).

2/5/2012 7:58:55 PM

"The film argues that abortion is an attempted genocide or maafa of black people"

Yeah...

2/5/2012 8:36:53 PM

Yeah....the only problem is that it's true.

2/5/2012 8:41:41 PM

no it is not

2/6/2012 11:47:32 AM

Did you watch the documentary?

2/6/2012 1:27:43 PM

Quote :

"Even non-profits are being run for-profit these days... at the expense of health care."

non-profit is the biggest misnomer in the world

2/6/2012 1:53:05 PM

yea I couldn't get through it all, but I did watch a similar one in it's entirety.

2/6/2012 2:29:10 PM

Quote :

"non-profit is the biggest misnomer in the world"

...how?

2/6/2012 3:42:00 PM

fail

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM. Reason : not a good post]

2/9/2012 11:32:10 PM

^^I'm generally not a fan of non-profit which some places use, or non-governmental organization which other places use, to mean much the same thing. One means not-private-sector, the other means not-public-sector.

And neither one is accurate. Because governmental organizations usually aren't run for profit, so non-profit doesn't descriptively distinguish from them. Businesses are non-governmental too, so NGO is a bad descriptor as well. Also, non-profits can make a lot of profits, there are just regulations on how they can use those profits (usually pushing those funds to be used to enhance their missions rather than line the pockets of the people running the organization, and even then there are ways to kind of get around that).

I'd prefer a positive term be used to describe such organizations, rather than negative ones that only define them as "not public sector" or "not private sector." Civic sector or 3rd sector or terms I've heard too that I like better. [/non-abortion related rant]

2/10/2012 12:28:51 AM

Quote :

"Did you watch the documentary?"

How about instead you tell us what you learned from it and form a cogent argument that we should also learn from it. Otherwise I've got thousands of hours of youtubes for you to watch.

2/10/2012 9:07:49 AM

Quote :

"Also, non-profits can make a lot of profits, there are just regulations on how they can use those profits (usually pushing those funds to be used to enhance their missions rather than line the pockets of the people running the organization, and even then there are ways to kind of get around that)."

The problem is the definition of "profit", not the definition of a non-profit.

What you describe isn't normally taken to be a profit. Yes, I understand that companies reinvest their profits, and unless we're in a huge depression, they reinvest far more than what they pay out. But every dollar of profit a corp makes is a dollar that a shareholder is entitled to, one way or the other.

There isn't entitlement to the dollar that the NGO takes in over its expenses. Generally, money exists so it can be consumed. Once capital goes into a non-profit, then the donator has committed firmly to not spend it on themselves.

2/10/2012 9:25:15 AM

Quote :

"How about instead you tell us what you learned from it and form a cogent argument that we should also learn from it. Otherwise I've got thousands of hours of youtubes for you to watch."

I had planned to do exactly that, but a small thing came up - my wife giving birth. Much to Sanger's chagrin, I passed on my genes despite earning below the median.

A basic fact to begin: Sanger founded the American Birth Control League (1921), and edited its publications, including Birth Control Review, until 1929.

Remember, as any liberal here should easily acknowledge, references to the unfit, the degenerate, the criminal, the feeble-minded, etc. regarding eugenics and sterilization were mere niceties to refer to all, or most, of the black population, with a few whites and others thrown in for good measure.

Some quotes, with sources, in no particular order:

Quote :

"The eugenic and civilizational value of Birth Control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent.....The campaign for Birth Control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal, with the final aims of Eugenics......Birth Control is not advanced as a panacea by which past and present evils of dysgenic breeding can be magically eliminated. Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism."

- Birth Control Review, Oct. 1921, 5 , Margaret Sanger Microfilm S70:913.

Quote :

"More children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief aim of birth control."

—Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, May 1919 (vol. III, no. 5); p.12.

Quote :

"The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

— Margaret Sanger, letter to Clarence Gamble, Dec. 10,1939. - Sanger manuscripts, Sophia
Smith Collection, Smith College.

Quote :

"Before eugenists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for Birth Control. Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end but they lay emphasis upon different methods. …"

—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." Birth Control Review,
February 1919, (vol. III, no. 2); p. 11.

Quote :

"Today, however, civilization has brought sympathy, pity, tenderness …. We are now in a state where our charities, our compensation acts, our pensions, hospitals, and even our drainage and sanitary equipment all tend to keep alive the sickly and the weak, who are allowed to propagate and in turn produce a race of degenerates."

—Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Women's Health." Birth Control Review,
December 1917, (vol. I, no. 12); p. 7.

Quote :

"It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant."

Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, p. 117

Quote :

"If the Negro is to be eliminated, he must be eliminated slowly, so as not to hurt any living individual Negro....The only possible way of decreasing Negro population is by controlling population....Birth Control facilities could be extended relatively more to Negroes than to Whites, since Negroes are more concentrated in the lower income and education classes."

An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944), a study by Gunnar Myrdal, funded by the Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

This book was published by Cass Canfield at Harper and Bros., who later became the President of Planned Parenthood.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________

I could go on, and on, and on, with screenshots and more damning testimony from PP's own founders and leaders. My post doesn't even scratch the surface - there is plenty of praise directly from Hitler's own hand-written letters regarding Eugenics, Birth Control, and Race Studies, to KKK headlines welcoming Sanger as a guest speaker. But I don't need to show all that. The documentary already did that. So watch it.

Given that Planned Parenthood is the leading cause of death among American blacks (not meaning abortion everywhere - just Planned Parenthood by itself leads all other causes), I would think this would be relevant stuff. When you look at abortion as a whole, it is greater than all other causes of death among black Americans put together.

That means add up every Black cancer case, every heart disease case, every everything, and abortion takes more Black lives than all those put together.

I think the modern PP is more passively racist than actively, but the foundation of the organization is absolutely, undeniably repulsive in every possible respect. Even into the 70s and 80s, they were giving lifetime achievement awards to the great Eugenicists of the early 20th century who were dying at that time.

So, yes, I have a problem with abortion, and Klanned Parenthood in particular.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASrFufnMNDg

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM. Reason : a]

2/12/2012 12:07:25 AM

I'll ignore the blatant quote mining and even grant that Sanger was a Eugenicist and at least a little racist, though she clearly helped many black people and set up black clinics in a time where pretty much everyone white was a Eugnecist and a racist.

Even if the organization's founder was a stark raving racist, how do you conclude:

Quote :

"Given that Planned Parenthood is the leading cause of death among American blacks (not meaning abortion everywhere - just Planned Parenthood by itself leads all other causes), I would think this would be relevant stuff. When you look at abortion as a whole, it is greater than all other causes of death among black Americans put together. That means add up every Black cancer case, every heart disease case, every everything, and abortion takes more Black lives than all those put together. "

How is it the leading cause of death among American blacks? Or are you counting abortion as murder and just poisioning the well from the get-go? If these are the conclusions you're getting from a 2 hour "documentary" I'll pass.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside but totally related to the topic, I'm planning on organizing a regular Saturday morning trip to a local abortion clinic to heckle the hecklers and reassure women that they know what's best for themselves. PM if interested.

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 1:49 AM. Reason : .]

2/12/2012 1:46:19 AM

I'm not sure how relevant it is that PP was started by pro-eugenics people.

As i'm sure you know, the state of NC supported Eugenics laws that were only recently stricken from the books.

It's kind of silly to condemn them on these grounds based on quotes from almost 100 years ago.

And the fact that blacks seek abortions at a higher rate isn't due to the existence of Planned Parenthood (i feel like we've went over this in this thread...). Eliminating PP would likely have no discernible effect in blacks (or anyone) getting abortions.

This is clearly a function of economics, and I'm curious to know what actual policies you support to help the economic conditions of the poor, to reduce their abortion levels...?

Because if your goal is to reduce abortions, you'd be dumb to attack this from the angle of shutting down PP, making abortions illegal, or limiting access to birth control (not saying you want this, but the Catholics paradoxically do).

The fact of the matter is that abortion has been upheld as legal on numerous occasions, and the research shows banning abortion creates more problems (similar to prohibition-type laws).

The best way to reduce abortion rates is to eliminate the conditions that cause people to want to get abortions, which Conservatives/Republicans are often staunchly against. You can't have your cake and eat it too, as they say.

2/12/2012 1:54:53 AM

News events over the past several years have enlightened me as to the priority given, in the liberal mind, to their favorite groups.

It seems the case is pretty clearly that it goes: gays, then women, then racial minorities.

Here we have liberals openly acknowledging that this pioneering organization of women's so-called liberation was founded exclusively for the purpose of eliminating the black (and other oppressed) populations, and it barely gets a "whatever, doesn't matter."

All the way through the Civil Rights era and Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood was possibly more radical, and definitely far more successful, than the Klan, and that's not newsworthy in the liberal mind. It was worth denying, of course, until evidence is presented. Then it doesn't matter.

2/12/2012 2:29:22 AM

It doesn't matter, because there's no evidence this is how they operate currently or in recent memory, at all.

No one here is fooled by your crocodile tears for poor blacks.

2/12/2012 2:50:22 AM

Is Roe v. Wade in recent memory?

That was 1973. Let's look at who won the Margaret Sanger Award handed out by Planned Parenthood during that time. First, it should be noted that PP names its primary award for someone determined to exterminate the black race. If you wish to disregard that, fine:

In 1972, PP gave the Margaret Sanger Award to Alan Guttmacher. His name should ring a bell from the institute named for him. Perhaps less known is his role as Vice President of the American Eugenics Society before being President of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

In 1975, PP gave the Margaret Sanger award to Cass Canfield, who is mentioned in my post above, as the publisher of An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, which argued for the Negro to be eliminated slowly, by controlling their population with overly-represented "Birth Control Facilities" in black neighborhoods.

PP still follows that plan to this day, with a strong majority of its locations in black neighborhoods. This was not designed to be service, and it was not meant to be compassion. Sanger herself said compassion only helps lower life forms propagate themselves, and burdens the good stock. There is a reason they were put there, and whether knowingly or not, PP continues Canfield's work to this day.

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 3:23 AM. Reason : d]

2/12/2012 3:21:42 AM

So you would support opening up new PPs in middle and upper class neighborhoods to keep things fair?

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/politics-policy-issues/ppfa-margaret-sanger-award-winners-4840.htm

And here's a list of who was given awards and why, straight from the horses mouth.

You can see how their ethos has developed over time.

And there literally appears to be ZERO evidence that your characterization of An American Dilemma is remotely accurate.

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 3:36 AM. Reason : ]

2/12/2012 3:27:36 AM

No, I want all murder to be illegal.

Yeah, they gave it to Canfield for his efforts to expand birth control use to 'developing nations.' That is exactly what I would expect him to want to do, given his publishing history.

They say that Guttmacher worked to end discrimination in medical care based on class or race. He was the Vice President of the American Eugenics Society. Can they possibly be serious?

In 1976, the award was given to John Rock, who led the clinical trials for the oral contraceptive, the funding for which was arranged by Sanger herself. And we know exactly why she wanted it to exist, from her own writings.

PP's bio of Sanger, of course, completely whitewashes everything meaningful about her worldview and motivations. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-we-are/history-and-successes.htm

Yeah, they say she was so nice to set up birth control clinics for poor immigrants and oppressed people. And she did that at the same time she was proposing an organizational merger between her American Birth Control League and the American Eugenics Society. Hmmm, why did she want to help them have fewer babies?

In short, they lie. And they lie badly. They lie when the documents against them are overwhelming in number and clarity.

2/12/2012 3:44:13 AM

So what you're saying is that your criticism of PP on the basis that they hate blacks is completely disconnected from your hatred of PP.

You attempt to point out that they exist more predominantly in poorer neighborhoods as evidence for their racism, but seem to ignore the fact that's where a charitable health organization is most likely to exist anyway-- do middle class and upper class neighborhoods need free clinics?

You attempt to use the fact that Sanger believed in eugenics, a buzz word that a very large amount of early 20th century people used, as evidence that Planned Parenthood, 100 years later, actively supports this goal. You ignore the fact that the term "eugenics" had a different connotation then from what he know now, you ignore the fact that PP/Sanger has since then supported many leaders and activists who weren't eugenics, and who were against the modern-day concept of eugenics. You apparently grossly mischaracterized a book about race relations in an attempt at your obfuscation.

And you still have yet to point out any operational, intrinsic, systemic, or implicit eugenics behavior in any aspect of PP's actions.

And regarding this statement...

Quote :

"No, I want all murder to be illegal. "

I take this to mean you want to also ban the death penalty, and all wars?

Don't bother with whatever rationalization or equivocation you have for why you are not in fact really against "all murder," i've heard it before.

You don't hate PP because they, as one of their smallest budget items, facilitate abortion. You hate them because they are associated with progressive ideals, and serve to help provide health care to poor and undeserved, partially through gov. funding.

You view removing avenues for women in poor communities to get health care that wealthier communities have as somehow being more equal.

And I find it interesting that you insist that a tenuous connection a founder might have with wanting to eliminate the black community is so meaningful that it must be the main goal of planned parenthood today (but have yet to show evidence of this), but you would likely be very hesitant to attribute post civil war oppression, societal racism, Jim Crow laws, institutionalized racism, social prejudices post Civil Rights act, and various, mostly Conservative, policies up to the past decade as being one of the largest factors for so many in the black community being poor, even with the mounds of studies and evidence indicating this.

The sad thing is that if we were to make all abortion illegal tomorrow, you would probably never peep another word about the REAL unfair treatment of the black community over the centuries, when your manufactured unfair treatment of the black community by planned parenthood was no longer poignant .

If you were honest with yourself, you'd admit that the best method for reducing abortions isn't to attack liberalism, it's to support fair economic policies, good health education including promoting access to birth control.

2/12/2012 4:14:52 AM

Well, that post should clarify things for the viewers.

2/12/2012 4:22:05 AM

It doesn't help your case that you are well-known around these parts for your racism against blacks.

I was going to find some choice quotes, but I figured i'd post this link and let people explore for themselves:

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_search.aspx?type=posts§ion=4&searchstring=blacks&username=TULIPlovr (I especially love when you attack even the educated and wealthy black people, LOL)

Your racism is so rampant, you can pretty much click anything there and find solid examples.

I of course was aware of this as soon as I saw your name. I would recommend next time you make an argument, don't try framing it as a race issue, it doesn't work in your favor...

2/12/2012 4:26:43 AM

can you imagine if some conservative foundation had a major award named for a white supremacist, TULIP? Imagine the outrage that moron and his liberal ilk would froth daily about it. Meanwhile, you show that PP has essentially the same thing, and they are tripping over themselves trying to ignore it. PP might not be super racist today, but they sure as fuck aren't trying to clean that past up by celebrating their racist founder's legacy and whitewashing the hell out of it

2/12/2012 1:24:37 PM

^ lol

It's well known that racism against blacks was rampant among white Americans through the civil rights era. Most of the Founding Fathers were slave owners for chrissake.

We'd have to disown the institution of America itself if the goal is to shut down any organizations started by racists.

But the goal is to reduce the intent of oppression, which regressive tax policies promote, but Planned Parenthood does not.

There does appear to be many disgustingly racist things attributable to Sanger, just like Ayn Rand, and Henry Ford, but there's still nothing to demonstrates PP as a racist organization, and it's not like this would even matter to TULIPlovr anyway, since he would be against them under any circumstance.

2/12/2012 4:48:38 PM

Who is chrissake?

2/12/2012 5:19:35 PM

Quote :

"We'd have to disown the institution of America itself if the goal is to shut down any organizations started by racists."

didn't say that PP should be shut down. but it'd be nice if they would publicly distance themselves from blatant and heinous racists. instead, they celebrate and praise a notorious one with an award named in her honor and whitewash her disgraceful past on her bio page. would you give the same free pass to a conservative organization? of course not. I, personally, wouldn't want a "Nathaniel Bedford Forrest Leadership Award" at my high school, were he an alumnus there.

moreover, if an organization was founded by her for the express purpose of furthering her racist ideals, no matter what the organization stands for today, if I were a member of that organization, I sure as fuck would want to distance myself from her so that there could be no doubt as to the purpose of said organization. that's not to say that PP is thereby racist because they don't, but I would think they would want to disavow her connection instead of celebrate it and bring attention to it.

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM. Reason : ]

2/12/2012 5:59:34 PM

just figured i'd pop in to say equally insane things.....I think PP should treat Sanger and the like just how the Christians treat the "old" testament and the nasty bits in the "new" just tell people its a metaphor or its just how people acted back then and all will be well.

[Edited on February 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM. Reason : ...]

2/12/2012 6:33:37 PM

PEEEEEEEEE DRANKIN!!!

2/12/2012 6:42:45 PM

Quote :

"Who is chrissake? "

It's a japanese drink.

2/12/2012 8:53:05 PM

i don't care who you are, that's funny

2/12/2012 9:08:13 PM

Like you give a shit aaronburro. As soon as a black baby is born you couldn't care less if it dies hunger in the cradle, your sudden sympathy for the black population is 100% a rhetorical device that you think will fool some liberal because, in your mind, liberals are vulnerable to any narrative that victimizes blacks. Nevermind that you can't even explain why PP is doing the black community any harm whatsoever by providing abortions to people who voluntarily request them. You hate PP because it's generally progressive in its goals and as you've proven everywhere else on here that fact is the ultimate decider of what side you come down on. So please just stop faking this shit and have a pair for once in your pathetic, miserable life.

2/14/2012 12:50:50 PM

^ well said, minus

Quote :

"So please just stop faking this shit and have a pair for once in your pathetic, miserable life."

2/14/2012 12:56:21 PM

aaand, right on cue, Str8Foolish plays the race card and proves my point at the same time. That means I won.

2/14/2012 4:26:57 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/virginia-ultrasound-bill-republican-abortion-lifestyle-convenience_n_1276799.html

Quote :

"State Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Woodstock) made the comment midday Tuesday as the House of Delegates took up consideration of the ultrasound bill. The bill -- which then passed the House 63 to 36 -- would require any woman seeking an abortion in the state to receive an ultrasound first. As an external ultrasound is not able to produce a necessary picture early in pregnancy, a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be needed to produce an image of the fetus."

2/16/2012 9:04:50 AM

^ I agree with that so long as the women are given options to pay for that ultrasound, most of the women in these positions do not have a lot of money and if they are forced to pay for expensive procedures they think are 'unnecessary' then they will seek unhealthy ways to abort.

Abortion happens whether you personally agree with it or not.

2/16/2012 10:41:25 AM