here we go again...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...trasound-bill/

So, this Virginia gov. has signed in this intrusive MANDATE that women (who apparently are just too stupid to know what is in their bellies!) must have an ultrasound before having a legal medical procedure.

This is a clear case of government over reach and interference. They are now forcing this unnecessary, intrusive medical procedure on these women. Wow! Talk about over reaching government!

The Republicans do realize women vote, right? Or are our voting rights next on the chopping block? I wouldn't doubt it. They keep talking about 'taking us back' but they never say to what. Well, it ain't rocket surgery. It's becoming pretty apparent 'to where' they wish to take us!

So, you conservatives/republicans on this forum. What say you? Is this gross application of government power? Or is this effective use of government in your opinion? What do you think of this?

It is popular these days to strip the unborn of their humanity through language. The ultrasound image may be the first time some women realize that there's a baby in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

So, you conservatives/republicans on this forum. What say you? Is this gross application of government power? Or is this effective use of government in your opinion? What do you think of this?

---

I'd say the government has no moral authority to tell a woman what she can do with her body. And that women have every moral authority to resist this to the utmost. And the rest of us have an obligation to assist.

I'd say more, but my blood pressure would rise, or they'd drag me off to Gitmo.

Same thing going on here in Texas. Makes my skin crawl to think that men still tell women what to do with their bodies. I think abortion is a horrible thing but this is too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

The ultrasound image may be the first time some women realize that there's a baby in there.

---

THAT is bull****.

If a pregnant woman wants a medical procedure such an ultrasound, she requests one. It's between her & her PCP.

I agree, redfox. It is BS. Most women know what pregnancy is and what it means before they cross the threshold of menses. They know it's a baby in there, ultrasound or no. And if they choose to terminate their pregnancy as per their legal right under the laws of the land, then this invasive procedure is ridiculous.

I agree with bae, here.

Is it true that Planned Parenthood already requires ultrasounds before they will conduct an abortion? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...s-ultrasounds/

Quote:

---

“That’s just the medical standard,” said Adrienne Schreiber, an official at
Planned Parenthood’s Washington, D.C., regional office. “To confirm the
gestational age of the pregnancy, before any procedure is done, you do an
ultrasound.”


According to Schreiber, Planned Parenthood does require women to give signed
consent for abortion procedures, including the ultrasound. But if the women
won’t consent to the ultrasound, the abortion cannot take place, according to
the group’s national standards.

---

Alan, the rest of the story quotes this:

"Johnson pointed out that vaginal ultrasounds are necessary in the cases of early pregnancies. According to Johnson, “90 percent of abortions are performed within the first 12 weeks.” According to Johnson, for North Carolina women, the new ultrasound requirement would not change their experience with ultrasounds at Planned Parenthood clinics, but now all abortion providers in the state would have to abide by that same policy. Johnson stated, “Before the law, if a woman didn’t want to undergo the scan, she could go elsewhere,” but that option would not be available if the currently enjoined section of the law goes into effect."
http://ncfamily.org/stories/120229s1.html

this law takes away that choice. Most women are not too stupid to realize a baby is in there. That is a downright nasty and mean thing to say. Do you think more abortions would be prevented if men were more supportive? I cannot tell you how many women I have known in my life who had a sperm donor who did anything to avoid paying child support as well as paying emotional support to the woman and her child. And women I know who have had abortions did not skip in and say Whoopee!

when I was in nursing school we had a chance to work in an abortion clinic. It was a life changing experience, and I came away with a more pro-abortion stance than I had before. I seriously thought of doing that after nursing school but instead worked in psych (and therefore with some women who had abortions who never got over it). There were older women, young women, mothers, daughters. There is no one description of a women who gets in this situation. Some had errors of judgement, some were forced into sex, some thought it would not happen to them, there are all kinds of stories. Most had such a sadness in their hearts.

It is very demeaning to think that women are too stupid to realize what is happening. Maybe they are the smart ones instead of people who bring children into the world to teach their agenda of hate. Because what we have going on right now is an agenda of hate, humility and shaming largely by the gender who cannot get pregnant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

I'd say the government has no moral authority to tell a woman what she can do with her body. And that women have every moral authority to resist this to the utmost. And the rest of us have an obligation to assist.

I'd say more, but my blood pressure would rise, or they'd drag me off to Gitmo.

---

thank you bae, there are very few men standing up for women these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Is it true that Planned Parenthood already requires ultrasounds before they will conduct an abortion? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...s-ultrasounds/

---

There's a big difference between doing an ultrasound so the medical professional can make sure to do a safe procedure and doing an ultrasound for the purpose of requiring the woman to look at it.

I've had an ultrasound (I'm a guy, so no, I wasn't pregnant) and the ultrasound tech not only didn't make me look at it, he wouldn't let me. And wouldn't answer any questions I had. I had to wait until my follow up with my doc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

It is popular these days to strip the unborn of their humanity through language.

---

It seems popular among some to label a zygote/blastocyst/embryo/fetus as a baby. In medical terms, none of these are "humanity"; labeling these developmental stages thusly is a religious stance. Since reproductive health care is medicine, not religion, the language debate is interesting, can be quite divisive and inflammatory, but is not pertinent to medicine.

I do understand that some feel an abhorrence for abortion. That is why keeping it a private medical decision is good public policy. None should be forced to either carry or terminate a pregnancy, and the literal intrusion of the state in mandating a procedure for women seeking a medical procedure is overreach, to say the very least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

when I was in nursing school we had a chance to work in an abortion clinic. It was a life changing experience, and I came away with a more pro-abortion stance than I had before... There is no one description of a women who gets in this situation. Some had errors of judgement, some were forced into sex, some thought it would not happen to them, there are all kinds of stories. Most had such a sadness in their hearts.

It is very demeaning to think that women are too stupid to realize what is happening. Maybe they are the smart ones instead of people who bring children into the world to teach their agenda of hate. Because what we have going on right now is an agenda of hate, humility and shaming largely by the gender who cannot get pregnant.

---

When I was 42, I got pregnant with my then newish BF, now DH (classic perimenopause pregnancy; day 25ish of my cycle-facepalm!), and the thought of an abortion made me physically ill. That made me more pro-choice than ever as well. I realized quite viscerally how deeply personal an experience and decision abortion is. I would have chosen abortion if the pregnancy I was carrying was a Down's syndrome child, as I knew I could not support a special needs child financially. I miscarried, and while I was sad, so too was I very very relieved. I'd have a nearly 14 year old today, OMG, and though we would have made it work, that miscarriage was a good thing for me.

The utter arrogancy, dehumanization and disrespect being enforced upon women infuriates me. I was 18 when abortion became legal and safe. My mother had a friend who died from septic infection from an illegal abortion. She was on a cruise ship, and did not know she was in danger. She died in the Bahamas, it was 1968, and her family found out about it by reading the story in the newspaper. Her body had been dumped in the ocean. I had friends who did unspeakable things with knitting needles, threw themselves downstairs and broke bones to miscarry.

I was an abortion counselor in the late 70's, assisting women to make what was for some, not all, the hardest decision they had ever made. I listened to stories of the rape of a 14 year old by a family member, and this girl did not realize she was pregnant till her second trimester. I heard a story from a Catholic mother of 5 who was desperate to not have any more children, she was so worn out. I listened to women of every circumstance and age, in mid-Missouri, and referred those who wanted an abortion to the appropriate clinic. Never once did I meet a woman who was cavelier or casual about her decision.

I am nearly 57. I will go to jail, if that is what it takes, to defend safe and legal abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Is it true that Planned Parenthood already requires ultrasounds before they will conduct an abortion? http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...s-ultrasounds/

---

I thought one needed to do an ultrasound to guestimate the age of the fetus, determine it's not an ectopic pregnany and rule out other issues before performing an abortion.

The issue of viability and the related abortion law is valuable to discuss.

Most states assert that abortions are OK up to X week, and after that, must be for a medical reason. This is, of course, a generalization, but that is generally how it rolls out.

The issue is largely of dating to come into compliance with this law. Planned Parenthood -- largely because it is so public about it's activities -- would want to be well above board. They would demand an ultrasound (which they can provide in office) to determine the approximate gestational age of the baby so they wouldn't come under fire (or legal problems) for simply going with the reported age of the pregnancy (by the woman).

Likewise, other doctors or organizations who provide abortions might simply follow the model of reporting rather than going with an ultrasound to determine gestational age.

But, there is a BIG difference between the typical ultrasound and the vaginal ultrasound -- which is not common practice for dating the gestation of the pregnancy.

A vaginal ultrasound is far more intrusive and may put women off (particularly victims of rape, incest, and sexual abuse) -- and if it includes "showing" them the baby, then this may be even more emotionally invasive when women are already making a difficult decision, with many other requirements such as 24-48 hr waiting periods, counseling and other requirements in the process (which are designed to prevent her from going through with the procedure).

So, why is this law important to discuss? Because the procedure is specific.

Instead of saying that ultrasound dating will be the standard method to determine if the abortion is compliant with the law, this law is stating that a particularly invasive form of ultrasound must be used in order to date the pregnancy.

And yet, for the purposes of birthing, a normal sonogram will do, apparently -- those women are not subject to vaginal ultrasound, and why would a doctor use when when a normal ultrasound will do?

A normal ultrasound -- as it is now, an abdominal ultrasound -- can provide the same dating process. Likewise, the ultrasound doesn't need to be shown to the mother at all -- if it's simply there for dating. Why would it?

It's meant, I believe, to create an attachment for the mother, but I never had one -- does that mean I lack attachment to my infant while he was in utero? Definitely not. I knew I was pregnant. I loved my little fish. But, I also wanted him. And that makes the difference -- not seeing an ultrasound of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redfox

Never once did I meet a woman who was cavelier or casual about her decision.

---

I have met such a woman. My own sister. She and her husband were criminals, wanted in multiple states, and hit upon the scheme of "selling" babies to support themselves and assist in hiding from the law. I have more-than-a-few nieces and nephews sold this way. Whenever their plans did not work out, she aborted the child.

I don't take her actions as representative of normal humans.

Quote:

---

I am nearly 57. I will go to jail, if that is what it takes, to defend safe and legal abortion.

---

Let me know when/if you need any help, or need busted out. You probably know where I live :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

... this law is stating that a particularly invasive form of ultrasound must be used in order to date the pregnancy.

---

Let's be clear. This law is the government ordering women to be raped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

I have met such a woman. My own sister. She and her husband were criminals, wanted in multiple states, and hit upon the scheme of "selling" babies to support themselves and assist in hiding from the law. I have more-than-a-few nieces and nephews sold this way. Whenever their plans did not work out, she aborted the child.

I don't take her actions as representative of normal humans.



Let me know when/if you need any help, or need busted out. You probably know where I live :-)

---

My goodness, Bae. I am so sorry to hear about your sister - wow... Definitely Not representative of normal human behavior.

And thank you. Your offer is kind, and very generous. I will let you know, but be warned: I am a hell raiser when needed!

I am hearing you, redfox. I am hearing you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Let's be clear. This law is the government ordering women to be raped.

---

This is particularly inflammatory language, and the term "rape" is extreme in and of itself. I do not want to necessarily classify a particularly invasive procedure as rape because of what rape is.

That being said, since rape is about power, dehumanizing the person being raped, and violence -- this procedure qualifies for at least two of three.

And for women who are survivors of abuse (sexual or otherwise) or rape and incest, this procedure would be particularly difficult and likely cause them more trauma.

This Virginia requirement is mad. I wonder how much this adds to the cost of an abortion procedure?

Edited to add:

While I see that the final Virginia bill does require an ultrasound procedure, a patient can choose to have an abdominal one. This is not the intrusive version, yes? I think that if Planned Parenthood always requires it's less outrageous than I originally thought. I would think that Planned Parenthood would be the target of outrage or at minimum some grumbling, but instead it is universally represented on this SL site as the friend and savior of women.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...a-bit-of-humor

Sperm are people too. Well, okay...a half a person.
But where do you begin defining "life" ? Such an unsolvable puzzle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

This Virginia requirement is mad... I would think that Planned Parenthood would be the target of outrage or at minimum some grumbling, but instead it is universally represented on this SL site as the friend and savior of women.

---

Mad is a great way to describe this! And, yes, PP has been & is a friend & savior to many women; men too. My DSD, myself, and most of my female friends have been able to get very low cost health care and contraception, and including STI/STD testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puglogic

Sperm are people too. Well, okay...a half a person.
But where do you begin defining "life" ? Such an unsolvable puzzle.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

I totally thought of that, too, Bae! LOL

If there are options to get ultrasounds (abdominal vs vaginal), then I can be cool with that. So long as it's for dating the pregnancy and allowing it to follow along the laws (which to me is more about the providers than the women who want the procedure -- making sure that they are out of legal liability, or rather, functioning within the law), then I can go there.

If it's about "showing women their babies!" and trying to convince them otherwise, or simply enforcing a particularly invasive procedure as part of this already difficult process, then. . . well problematic.

Here's a solution to the abortion problem.

What if every man refused to have sex with a woman without a condom and spermacide. condoms are less than $1 apiece at our local walmart. The effectiveness is somewhere in the high nineties when combined with a spermacide and without a spermacide somewhere in the 80's. And they could tell the woman, if we are one of those couples who have an unwanted pregnancy, don't worry. I'll help support you and the baby, be a loving father and life partner. Because that is my responsiblity as a human being and you will never have to get government assistance, or the kids free school lunch because I'll do anything, work two jobs etc. to help you.

Problem solved. Men can hold their head high and beat their chests and yell "no more unwanted pregnancies, we've taken care of it with our half a person." Plus they will solve a lot of the welfare and food stamp problem.

You know, back on the issue of vaginal ultrasound. I've had several due to a medical condition. Not very pleasant but certainly a good diagnostic tool. I would think especially for a young girl who has little sexual experience it is really downright invasive. They have to move the probe around to get good pictures and it is pretty creepy to be honest.

Have appreciated your very rational postings on this, Zoebird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puglogic

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...a-bit-of-humor

Sperm are people too. Well, okay...a half a person.
But where do you begin defining "life" ? Such an unsolvable puzzle.

---

If sperm are half a person then a man should have strict limits on the amount of pills for erectile dysfunction they have access to (either by insurance or by purchasing them out of pocket at the pharmacy). Maybe two or three when a woman is at her peak fertility. Because if you have sex for any other reason than trying to get someone pregnant then you are killing half a person, in fact lots of half a persons. A regular serial killer.

See how ridiculous we can make all these arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

This is a clear case of government over reach and interference. They are now forcing this unnecessary, intrusive medical procedure on these women. Wow! Talk about over reaching government!

---

So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.

That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.

That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?

---

Glad you asked Alan, because apparently you don't get it. PP does an ultrasound strictly to determine the age of the zygote to help the doctor in the abortion. The state of Virginia demands the ultrasound because Virginia women are too stupid, apparently, to know what's in there. You yourself confirmed that suspicion. It's the intent and the reason that is so demeaning to women.
What a doctor does in the course of a medical procedure to preform that procedure is up to him and his patient. Arguing that the state is somehow looking out for women by ordering this mandate is completely absurd and insulting in the suggestion. But, someone who thinks Virginia women are stupid would think all women are stupid.

Gee, I didn't realize the Virginia Government was so CARING and personally involved in specific medical procedures to the point of mandates to specific parts of those medical procedures. I didn't realize the Governor was such an expert on medical procedures, specifically GYN, that he feels comfortable issuing mandates in those procedures. I wonder which other medical procedures he's involved in? Think maybe he has signed a mandate specifying how many stitches and how close they should be in heart surgery? Or maybe his expertise is proctology considering how far 'up there' he likes to be.

I'm not surprised you would defend this Alan. Your blind ideology, in the end, trumps everything, including your own war cry against 'government mandates'. A discussion such as this serves to ferret out the true nature of someones 'convictions' and where those convictions come from.

I have to say though, even though I generally disagree with bae on most things, he has shown a consistent respect for the women in his life, and all women really. In this he follows no ideology but his own conscience and heart. I admire that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.

That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?

---

because it is being decided by lawmakers, not physicians and medical personnel.

Physicians go to school for years and years to specialize in a field. They see things and draw on their experience to develop standards of practice that are often referred to best practices. Some decide not to participate in organizations or practices, or even hospitals that are affiliated with abortions, tubal ligation, or those that perform a vasectomies and distribute birth control and that is their right. Some physicians believe in medical intervention to prevent current and future pregnancies, and some of them in my personal experience believe in God and attend a house of worship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

So, I think we've established the point that an ultrasound is a valid safety and diagnostic procedure for women seeking an abortion. So much so that even Planned Parenthood requires it before they will perform the procedure.

That begs the question, what is it about this mandate that troubles you so? Is it because you feel that there should be no governmental oversight of the medical industry? Or could it be that if an ultrasound is performed, the patient may, in some cases, confuse the image of unwanted tissue with a baby?

---

The Virginia government did redefine the reason for the ultrasound - and it had nothing to do with safety or diagnosis. It does take the argument against government involvement in healthcare and turn it on it's head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

I'm not surprised you would defend this Alan. Your blind ideology, in the end, trumps everything, including your own war cry against 'government mandates'. A discussion such as this serves to ferret out the true nature of someones 'convictions' and where those convictions come from.

---

Actually it's more curiosity than ideology. Sure, I think abortion is wrong at a certain point, but I'm not sure where that point is so would prefer to err on the side of life.

What I find curious is the way this debate is always discussed in such a one sided manner. Lately we've heard lots of talk about "invasive procedures" bordering on "rape" when discussing everyday medical practices. I've read that many in the medical industry are now concerned about their ability to provide care without being accused of rape as a result of the irresponsible language so many are promoting.

I'm also concerned with the long term effects of our failure to address the issue of abortion in a reasonable manner. A group of medical ethicists are now promoting the idea that there is no moral distinction between killing a newborn baby and performing a legal abortion. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1309985.html
In an atmosphere where the only part of the equation you're allowed to talk about is the woman, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but it certainly gives me pause to wonder.

I know it's an election year and the other side absolutely must be criticized and extreme rhetoric must be manufactured and distributed, but is it really worth the damage to society that it brings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flowerseverywhere

because it is being decided by lawmakers, not physicians and medical personnel.

---

Oh, I don't disagree on that point. But let's be consistent in our beliefs. I must purchase an insurance policy that covers pregnancy, abortion services and STD's even though I had a vasectomy over 25 years ago, my wife is past child bearing age and we are faithful to each other. The government mandates it and I must do it simply because they say so. Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?

Government controlled healthcare is sure going to be interesting. Many may find they don't like the power it gives to those in control.

The one saving grace about this issue and all of the discussion about government interference, is that it IS a state doing the legislating. Big Nanny G (the Feds) are not involved and thank god for that. At LEAST the discussion is at the place it should be--the state of Virginia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dmc

Government controlled healthcare is sure going to be interesting. Many may find they don't like the power it gives to those in control.

---

It's been going on for a long time. Standards, regulations, licensing, unfunded mandates (government is why an emergency room has to admit everyone). Should we dump all of it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?

---

As difficult as it is to arrive at a yes or no answer to such a complex issue, I think it would be interesting to treat this as true/false rather than an essay question just to see where it comes out. If pushed, I have to say "yes" precisely because of examples like this. It's interesting Alan, this is one debate where you and I do not share a core belief, but still tend to agree on a desired level of government participation (I think).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alan

Oh, I don't disagree on that point. But let's be consistent in our beliefs. I must purchase an insurance policy that covers pregnancy, abortion services and STD's even though I had a vasectomy over 25 years ago, my wife is past child bearing age and we are faithful to each other. The government mandates it and I must do it simply because they say so. Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?

---

And i must buy insurance that covers motorcycle riders, who WILL eventually have an accident, although I don't ride a motorcycle, and insurance that covers heart issues, even though I don't want to pay for someone else stuffing their faces with twinkies and ho ho's. I don't plan to have a vasectomy but I'm pretty sure insurance covers that too. Welcome to the real world Alan. Each of us has to pay for a lot of things we may not believe in, or plan to personally use, but that's just life in a modern, progressive country. And until you can think of a way to pick and choose all your health care coverage, including all the things that will happen in the future, for you and your wife, then we have to work with what we have. And, oh by the way, no one is asking for FREE birth control pills, GYN or anything. These people pay for insurance, as in coverage.

Ok, you apparently work for an insurance company, or own an insurance company, or invest in one, or maybe your wife does..I get it. Otherwise you wouldn't go so often, consistently to the mat for insurance companies. People of America...bad, insurance companies..good. And I suppose you can justify in your own mind the whole "government is bad, except of course when it's forcing my beliefs'.

Yea, we pretty much see where you are coming from. Not a whole lot of nuance there.:+1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peggy

Ok, you apparently work for an insurance company, or own an insurance company, or invest in one, or maybe your wife does..I get it. Otherwise you wouldn't go so often, consistantly to the mat for insurance companies. People of America...bad, insurance companies..good. And I suppose you can justify in your own mind the whole "governemtn is bad, except of course when it's forcing

---

Where would you get an idea like that?
Let's try discussing instead of throwing out baseless accusations, OK?

Quote:

---

Are you in favor of eliminating all government mandates having to do with health care?

---

Well most people are not such hardcore propertarians (property absolutist) that they believe that having to pay for healthcare they don't use is as bad as being forced to have medical procedures done with their body. I.e. ownership of one's body is at a higher level of ownership than that of property (which isn't necessarily to take the extreme opposite position that all property should be abolished or anything either). So really the only analagous thing we have currently would be vacines and they have strong public health rationale. There's other loose analogies that could be made but none 100%.

Eliminating all government mandates? I'm not sure it would be all bad, though again a few things have public health rational (ie protecting the whole community from contagious disaeses). I guess taken to a libertarian extreme no mandates would also mean no liscensing even. Ok I'm not sure how that would work out, but I'm not absolutely certain it would be bad either. I'm only absolutely sure you have market failures in cases of externalities.

Quote:

---

Ok, you apparently work for an insurance company, or own an insurance company, or invest in one, or maybe your wife does..I get it. Otherwise you wouldn't go so often, consistantly to the mat for insurance companies. People of America...bad, insurance companies..good.

---

Well there is a pretty severe contradiction in the liberal position arguing insurance companies bad therefore .... things that are not currently done through insurance should be done through insurance companies. My personal opinon: insurance companies @#$# everything up and the less things done by them the better.

As for abortion as such: I don't believe it's ok and all fine and dandy or anything, I have some moral problems with it. I just think there is no *legistlative* solution.