PDA

View Full Version : Civil Liberties: On Mandated Transvaginal Ultrasound?




Wags
03-08-2012, 10:48 PM
Source from washingtonpost (I can't post links yet apparently as I'm new here) said this: "Ron Paul likes limited government interference yet supports state-mandated sonograms"

I'm hoping someone can help me to understand this better as there's only one main source (above) I've encountered that talks about Ron's stance on this subject. Recently Virginia signed into law to have the transvaginal probe as a requirement for women seeking an abortion. Previously these were used to check up on possible irregularities of the reproductive system, sometimes for pregnant women wanting to make sure everything's alright.

Now, if I understand correctly, there was already a mandate in most states to use at least some kind of ultrasound before performing that kind of medical procedure, so that it can be performed as safely as possible. Am I correct? Just that until recently, most abortion clinics would not show images of the ultrasound to the patients, for whatever reasons.

The reasons that have been brought up to require the use this transvaginal ultrasound before an abortion are to due allowing for more safety and due to informed consent. The woman should have a clear idea of the procedure being performed on her, and on the fetus. Though Texas has taken it further and wants to require doctors to show the images of the ultrasound and describe the features of the fetus to the patient. I'm not so sure about that, mainly because it seems reasonable (even though I don't consider abortions to be reasonable) to allow the woman to opt out as opposed to forcing her to look at images and forcing doctors to speak about something that they may not wish to discuss. Plus, again, this ultrasound IS invasive.

But the source claiming that "Ron Paul likes limited government interference yet wants states to mandate a sonogram"only uses the word "sonogram" ... I assume they refer to the transvaginal ultrasound, but that's not entirely clear to me. It seems possible that he's only referring to a regular ultrasound. I have a hard time imagining him supporting something so literally forceful and invasive... as bad as abortion may be. This would only pile one crime on another.

If Ron Paul does support this, what do you make of it? It doesn't seem hypocritical of him in the sense that he still wants to leave these issues to the states. But there's the lingering notion in my head that he would sign to pass the invasive sonogram in his own state (which isn't immediately troubling to me as I live in Florida) and that sort of lessens my view of him. I still believe overwhelmingly that this country needs Ron Paul and needs to hear the ideals he voices, which reflect not only consistency but a strong moral compass. What are your thoughts about his stance on the issue?

specsaregood
03-08-2012, 10:56 PM
./

Feeding the Abscess
03-09-2012, 12:38 AM
If he supports mandated transvaginal ultrasounds, it is a massive contradiction in his philosophy. There is no way to dress it up and make it look nicer.

PursuePeace
03-09-2012, 08:21 AM
It is an abdominal ultrasound.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-07/virginia-abortion-ultrasound-bill/53401720/1



The ultrasound bill initially called for a vaginally invasive form of the examination. After Capitol Square protests, Democratic legislators accusing the bill's GOP backers of sanctioning "state-mandated rape" and being lampooned by Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, McDonnell had his party remove the "transvaginal ultrasound" requirement.

PursuePeace
03-09-2012, 08:22 AM
If he supports mandated transvaginal ultrasounds, it is a massive contradiction in his philosophy. There is no way to dress it up and make it look nicer.

I totally agree.

tod evans
03-09-2012, 08:33 AM
If he supports mandated transvaginal ultrasounds, it is a massive contradiction in his philosophy. There is no way to dress it up and make it look nicer.

Dr. Paul has tried again and again to differentiate between his personal beliefs and his duties as an elected official.

Somehow I can't see him signing legislation that would add more federal government no matter his personal beliefs.

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 08:35 AM
If he supports mandated transvaginal ultrasounds, it is a massive contradiction in his philosophy. There is no way to dress it up and make it look nicer.

Not really. It is only "mandated" if you want to kill a baby in that state. If you want don't want to kill a baby in that state none is required.

luctor-et-emergo
03-09-2012, 08:41 AM
For what I can remember;

As a doctor he advises women that want to get an abortion to get counceling and an ultrasound. And he does not perform abortions himself or assist in, just counseling into changing opinion I believe.
He thinks abortion is a violent crime, violent crimes are dealt with by the states individually, like murder, rape etc.
Ron Paul isn't for federal mandates, so I don't think he would support this. (states issue)

Origanalist
03-09-2012, 08:51 AM
"Changing course after an unwelcome national uproar, the Virginia Senate adopted a revised bill on Tuesday that still requires doctors to perform an ultrasound on women before they have an abortion, but also says that women cannot be forced to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/virginia-senate-passes-revised-ultrasound-bill.html?pagewanted=all

This is a State issue.

Massachusetts
03-09-2012, 08:57 AM
I hate to be so graphic, but how is this:


You will lie down on a table with your knees bent and feet in holders called stirrups. The health care provider will place a probe, called a transducer, into the vagina. The probe is covered with a condom and a gel. The probe sends out sound waves, which reflect off body structures. A computer receives these waves and uses them to create a picture. The doctor can immediately see the picture on a nearby TV monitor.

not a violation of your rights? I thought shoving something inside of a vagina that was not consented to was rape?

And mandating it? How can you pick and choose what is allowed to be mandated and what is not?

Like most other mandates, this mandate arguably had good intentions, but nowhere in the constitution does it say anybody can mandate anybody to have a stick shoved up their vagina.

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 09:04 AM
I hate to be so graphic, but how is this:
not a violation of your rights? I thought shoving something inside of a vagina that was not consented to was rape?
And mandating it? How can you pick and choose what is allowed to be mandated and what is not
Like most other mandates, this mandate arguably had good intentions, but nowhere in the constitution does it say anybody can mandate anybody to have a stick shoved up their vagina.

It isn't a mandate, it is a requirement in order to kill a baby. do you want the pro-life people to be graphic as well? I'd bet they can be more graphic about the abortion process than your description of the sonogram.

tod evans
03-09-2012, 09:04 AM
I'm dead set against legislation period.

However I find it ironic that a "person" who is asking a physician to dilate one of their orifices and scrape and suck out a fetus could complain about the physician exploring the same orifice pre-op.

PursuePeace
03-09-2012, 09:11 AM
I'm dead set against legislation period.

However I find it ironic that a "person" who is asking a physician to dilate one of their orifices and scrape and suck out a fetus could complain about the physician exploring the same orifice pre-op.

Because one is voluntary and the other is forced by the government, perhaps?

Origanalist
03-09-2012, 09:14 AM
Why are people still going on about this in this manner?

1. It is a State issue, not a federal one.
2. The transvaginal ultrasound is NOT being required.
3. Ron Paul has nothing to do with this.

And now the next three posts will go on about it being mandated that women are going to have something shoved up their vaginas.

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 09:15 AM
Because one is voluntary and the other is forced by the government, perhaps?

Incorrect. It is still voluntary. Nobody is forced by govt to get an abortion. No voluntary abortion, no ultrasound.

Massachusetts
03-09-2012, 09:18 AM
It isn't a mandate, it is a requirement in order to kill a baby. do you want the pro-life people to be graphic as well? I'd bet they can be more graphic about the abortion process than your description of the sonogram.

If you want to be graphic with me, feel free. I'm well aware of how an abortion works. My stance on this Transvaginal ultrasound doesn't illustrate my stance on abortion. It doesn't make me pro-abortion. In a perfect world, nobody would ever decide to have an abortion. Unfortunately they do.

I would say that a bigger issue that we need to take proactive steps towards slowing down is the increase in teen pregnancies. I don't have stats to back this up, but I would guess that the majority of abortions happen with the 21 and under crowd. What can we do to slow down teenage pregancies?

If you want my all out stance on abortion, then here it is:

As a male outsider who will never be faced with such a decision and will never be pregnant, I think abortion is wrong. I don't know enough of the facts about when a fetus becomes a living breathing being. I'm not a doctor. It is a very subjective argument that has a variety of opinions: does life begin as a sperm? the formation of the zygote? when the heartbeat starts? What constitutes it as a living being?

Origanalist
03-09-2012, 09:20 AM
Incorrect. It is still voluntary. Nobody is forced by govt to get an abortion. No voluntary abortion, no ultrasound.

Not yet anyway. If the eugenicists have their way that would change.

PursuePeace
03-09-2012, 09:24 AM
Incorrect. It is still voluntary. Nobody is forced by govt to get an abortion. No voluntary abortion, no ultrasound.

Ok, point taken. However, if abortion is legal, why is it ok for government to step in and force a doctor to perform a procedure on a woman that the woman does not want? If something is legal, it's legal. If people want to work to change the laws about the legality of something, fine. But coming up with mandates and more mandates is not the answer.

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 09:26 AM
Ok, point taken. However, if abortion is legal, why is it ok for government to step in and force a doctor to perform a procedure on a woman that the woman does not want? If something is legal, it's legal. If people want to work to change the laws about the legality of something, fine. But coming up with mandates and more mandates is not the answer.

I think they are working to change the laws. in this example they are working to change the law to make it only legal if an ultrasound is performed first. So it sounds like they are doing just as you suggest.

PursuePeace
03-09-2012, 09:31 AM
I think they are working to change the laws. in this example they are working to change the law to make it only legal if an ultrasound is performed first. So it sounds like they are doing just as you suggest.

No, I'm talking about work to change the legality of abortion period.
Not piling on a bunch of laws to try to get someone to decide not to have one. I don't feel that is government's role.


edited to add: Well, let me ask this, what other instances are there of people being forced by the government to undergo one procedure in order to have another procedure? I'm asking this not snarkily, but honestly, because I really don't know. What can this be compared to? Are there other instances where a procedure is forced on a person, before another procedure is to be performed, for the sole purpose of making that person more informed about the medical choice they're about to make? Does anyone know?

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 09:43 AM
No, I'm talking about work to change the legality of abortion period.
Not piling on a bunch of laws to try to get someone to decide not to have one. I don't feel that is government's role.

edited to add: Well, let me ask this, what other instances are there of people being forced by the government to undergo one procedure in order to have another procedure? I'm asking this not snarkily, but honestly, because I really don't know. What can this be compared to? Are there other instances where a procedure is forced on a person, before another procedure is to be performed, for the sole purpose of making that person more informed about the medical choice they're about to make? Does anyone know?

I'd argue that this seems like a reasonable enough compromise concerning a difficult issue.

Feeding the Abscess
03-09-2012, 09:46 AM
Arguing over a flawed premise. The government should not be involved in the relationship between your doctor and you. And it certainly has no right to put a gun to everyone's head and steal money to enforce this provision, nor does it have the right to put a gun to our heads again to pay for these procedures.

Government mandates are wrong. I oppose them.

I should note that I believe the question Ron answered was about a Texas bill, and Ron said something like "it always should have been a state issue".

eduardo89
03-09-2012, 09:53 AM
Arguing over a flawed premise. The government should not be involved in the relationship between your doctor and you. And it certainly has no right to put a gun to everyone's head and steal money to enforce this provision, nor does it have the right to put a gun to our heads again to pay for these procedures.

Government mandates are wrong. I oppose them.

I should note that I believe the question Ron answered was about a Texas bill, and Ron said something like "it always should have been a state issue".

The government does have a mandate to protect life and if this "mandate" saves but one life, I'm fine with it. No one if forcing a woman to get an abortion, if they want to kil their child it should be as excruciatingly difficult and painful (both physically and emotionally) as possible.

Personally I think abortion should be banned outright and there should be the death penalty for all abortion providers.

Massachusetts
03-09-2012, 09:55 AM
The government does have a mandate to protect life and if this "mandate" saves but one life, I'm fine with it. No one if forcing a woman to get an abortion, if they want to kil their child it should be as excruciatingly difficult and painful (both physically and emotionally) as possible.

Personally I think abortion should be banned outright and there should be the death penalty for all abortion providers.

How righteous of you.

Anyways, if the compromise here is that this a state issue, I'm fine with leaving it to the states.

Feeding the Abscess
03-09-2012, 09:56 AM
The government does have a mandate to protect life


death penalty

You should probably square that circle.

Also, you have stated that you agree with abortion if the mother's life is threatened. You're going to need to square that one, too. Can't kill doctors who would perform that, and how are you going to prove that her health wasn't at risk without a massive police force that investigates ALL pregnancies and abortions, as well as laws that decide what is a health risk and what isn't? No chance of corruption or government take over of medicine there. That would also be insanely expensive, and brings it back to my earlier point: you have no right to have someone point a gun in my face and steal money to act on things you wish to have done.

Abortion is never going to be solved by government; the only thing that will happen is more abortions, and greater loss of liberty and wealth.

eduardo89
03-09-2012, 10:11 AM
The death penalty is completely consistent with a pro-life position. I think some of you should look deeper into the issue before you judge that.

tod evans
03-09-2012, 11:54 AM
If the feds are out of the equation then any legislation the state adopts should be much closer to the will of the people.

By out of the equation I mean legally and financially.

Massachusetts
03-09-2012, 11:59 AM
The death penalty is completely consistent with a pro-life position. I think some of you should look deeper into the issue before you judge that.

So you would subject professionally qualified doctors that performed abortions to the death penalty, to protect the life of somebody who has yet to even be born yet. What is the net gain to society?

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 12:03 PM
So you would subject professionally qualified doctors that performed abortions to the death penalty, to protect the life of somebody who has yet to even be born yet. What is the net gain to society?

Implied in your question is if there is a "net gain for society" then it is somehow acceptable to kill... The life that "has yet to be born" may have been the life that came up with a revolutionary replacement for fossil fuels; and your "professionally qualified doctor" might end up killing somebody in a drunk driving accident years later.

Massachusetts
03-09-2012, 12:04 PM
Implied in your question is if there is a "net gain for society" then it is somehow acceptable to kill... The life that "has yet to be born" may have been the life that came up with a revolutionary replacement for fossil fuels; and your "professionally qualified doctor" might end up killing somebody in a drunk driving accident years later.

It's not acceptable to kill obviously..but it's acceptable to kill the doctor?

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 12:05 PM
It's not acceptable to kill obviously..but it's acceptable to kill the doctor?

I didn't say that. You implied that it would be ok if there was a "net gain for society". you straight up said that one life is worth more than another.

Massachusetts
03-09-2012, 12:07 PM
I didn't say that. You implied that it would be ok if there was a "net gain for society". you straight up said that one life is worth more than another.

I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..

specsaregood
03-09-2012, 12:08 PM
I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..

Well I figure he'd say something about "eye for an eye". Personally, I don't think killing is really acceptable in either case; but in this situation the only life that is completely innocent is the fetus.

Wags
03-12-2012, 02:31 PM
Might I suggest we not get on the topic of abortion? I noticed there are already several existing threads on it. We should focus on the issue of the mandate, and on what Ron Paul's stance on that is. If you want to relate views of abortion to the mandate, I see no problems with that. Just don't derail off if you can help it.


Arguing over a flawed premise. The government should not be involved in the relationship between your doctor and you. And it certainly has no right to put a gun to everyone's head and steal money to enforce this provision, nor does it have the right to put a gun to our heads again to pay for these procedures.

Government mandates are wrong. I oppose them.

I should note that I believe the question Ron answered was about a Texas bill, and Ron said something like "it always should have been a state issue".

Well, here's the quote from washingtonpost so that we're clear:
WEST COLUMBIA, South Carolina — When GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul was asked today about Tuesday’s federal court ruling upholding an aggressive new sonogram law in his home state of Texas, the congressman said the requirement that women seeking an abortion first get a sonogram “should always have been a Texas state position.’’

This is why I have a problem. They never used the word transvaginal to describe the sonogram, and all other sources are derived from the washingtonpost site... and those other sources are a lot more biased than that site, trying to perpetuate an image of someone who is allowing his religious beliefs to override what he'd actually do as president. I know that's definitely not the case. To me, it's difficult to tell what's going on without seeing an actual video of him speaking his views. If we are to believe that he is consistent, then I believe he only meant an abdominal ultrasound should be required. But again, it's difficult to tell. They asked him this question in January, around when Texas and Virginia were deliberating on the transvaginal ultrasound to be required for patients seeking abortions.

So even if legislation on the transvaginal ultrasound is left to the states to deal with... that's still government mandating something invasive, is it not? It's just smaller, localized government. I suppose that's the best way to handle it for now... if the people are upset, they can act to overturn it just as soon. Moral issues are left to the states, but I have a hard time dealing with Ron Paul possibly supporting the mandate in his own state. As I said, it would just pile one crime on another. I don't see it as the proper method to discourage women from killing their unborn children. There are better ways to go about that which don't violate someone else's rights.

specsaregood
03-12-2012, 02:38 PM
and those other sources are a lot more biased than that site, trying to perpetuate an image of someone who is allowing his religious beliefs to override what he'd actually do as president. I know that's definitely not the case.

I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

eduardo89
03-12-2012, 02:49 PM
I know you didn't say that. I was responding to Eduardo..


Well I figure he'd say something about "eye for an eye". Personally, I don't think killing is really acceptable in either case; but in this situation the only life that is completely innocent is the fetus.

"eye for an eye" I see as vengeance, which I disapprove of. I do believe in justice, however. I believe that those who premeditatively take an innocent life, as is the case in abortion have lost the right to live. The Bible gives civil authorities (Romans 13) the authority to impose punishment on those who commit evil.

The fact that I believe in the death penalty doesn't mean I take it lightly. I believe in its just and equitable application and, unfortunately, many times that has not been the case. I believe that life is sacred, and that when a person, wantonly and premeditatedly takes the life of another person, they have forfeited their right to continued life. And when they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, they should be executed.


We also are told, in Romans 13:4, that the civil magistrate bears not the sword in vain. In the original Greek language the word used there for “sword” is the same word used for the type of sword used to execute Roman citizens who were found guilty of capital crimes. Clearly, the Apostle Paul, inspired by God’s Holy Spirit, is granting to the civil magistrate the use of lethal force as one of the options available to punish those who do evil--in the case of domestic criminals, the police force, and in war, the military.

Obviously ultimate justice will came after death, but that does not mean imperfect justice should not be doled out on earth.

eduardo89
03-12-2012, 02:50 PM
I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

That's right.


“I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.”

-Ron Paul

Wags
03-13-2012, 08:15 PM
I disagree. His religious beliefs are fundamental to what he would do as president as he would use it as a guide. eg: just because the president can now legally kill anybody he wants without any oversight, he wouldn't do that because his moral compass guided by his religious beliefs say that is wrong.

Let me reword that then. His religious views are not imposing upon his political beliefs, because his political beliefs primarily reflect the constitution. I understand that his beliefs influence his character, but that's not what I was referring to. Whether he believes in evolution or not is irrelevant to what he'd do as president, and you'll never see him pushing his personal beliefs on others. To give a contrast, Santorum wants to ban abortion on the federal level due to his religious beliefs. Though he has to admit that the states deal with moral issues, he is not willing to concede that abortion be handled by the states. He wants a federal ban; states have no say. His religious beliefs would be imposing on his legislation. This is not the same case with Ron Paul.

Straight from the man himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL6CKrIpyTs&feature=related