« High Drama: The Idaho Bill on Ultrasound and Abortions - an example of a "two edged scalpel". | Main | When the black and white world of the 1930"s and 40's really wasn't. »

March 21, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834530c9c69e20168e9169f47970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The political "obituary" on Idaho's ultrasound bill may be a bit "premie".:

Comments

Dennis Mansfield

Stu,
Your logic is flawed. We are talking about humans conceived over a total of 39 year period of time, not live births. Your numbers are too static, too tied to a fully reportable constant (live births). The tides of time and birthrates overlap, the decades pass with young men and women becoming more sexually active at younger ages. At issue here is the rate of conception and the expanding bracket of women who do conceive.

The figures are not Right to Life's - they come from state reporting agencies, year after year. These are the ones that ARE reported on a state level. There are many abortion providers who simply did not report (in the early years) or do not currently report the full set of annual numbers. So, if anything, the numbers may indeed be low. Think of that...

The shock and disbelief you exhibit is understandable.. As a practicing Jew, it is hard for you to believe that such mass numbers of death could be imaginable, once more. This is why there is such a fire in the belly of folks who stand for those unable to stand for themselves.

Den

Stuart Davis

This post of yours Den has turned me into an expert on population growth statistics. Simply put, you cannot get to 52 million deaths between 1973 and 2012. There is not enough live births to support the contention. Surprisingly, the number of births seems to be somewhat stable, with small predictable growth from 3 million per year in 1973 and 4 million a year in 2012. So, the total of al births in the United States since 1973 is around 122 million. Your friend indicates that 52 million abortions have been performed. To see if this pans out, we should see a dramatic drop in population growth post 1973, vs pre 1973. In other words, the predictable graph showing growth would be altered if the number of abortions had been occurring that has been postulated…unfortunately, there is no drop off, in fact 20,000 MORE children were born in 1974, and in fact, you cannot postulate a reliable statistical graph that supports the absurd claim of 52 million. So again, your dude Rich is full of shit, and an example of what hurts your movement. Being Jewish, I am somewhat offended when society can dictate, against my will, a procedure like this. I wonder back in Germany in 1936, if this is how the pogrom's started, with "little" medical procedures like this one. If society is comfortable with this, what is next. I would hope it would be colonoscopies, because then your friend Rich might be able to find his car keys, glasses, and comb.

Connie Merrill

Dear Den,
Amazing comment, "poltical theater of war". Is waging war on Women really what you want to do? Also, please note that the ultrasounds that dear Brandi's technicions grandstanded for the Idaho Legislators were abdominal, not invasive vaginal procedures SB1387 would require.
Sincerely,
Con

Dennis Mansfield

Ron,
Thanks for linking to my site.

I'll post some more thoughts about what's happening in a few days.

I think you'd agree that the more information people have on critical issues, the more society benefits.

Den

Dennis Mansfield

Sheri, I'm sorry that something deeply painful has hurt you. I'm thankful for your passion and yet passion born out of pain has taken me in wrong directions over my life and to wrong conclusions. May it not be so with you. Den

Ron Rhodes

For those who care, we now have a Blog that summarizes media accounts on SB1387 and related issues, on behalf of the nonpartisan Idahoans United in opposition to the ultrasound bill. It's at http://idahoans-united.blogspot.com/

sheri thomas

Oh, one other thing. I was educated enough without an ultrasound to know what my decision was about. To assume that we are not educated is yet another point of view that has "Animal Farm" tendencies.

sheri thomas

To the Men who seem to always make the decisions regarding woman's rights. Could I please cut off a man's testicles if he rapes, could I please also cut them for acts of incest? If a woman under 18 gets pregnant is it only her responsibility? Let us look at prevention and retention. Who will pay for the costs associated with the child? Who is looking at shaken baby syndrome deaths or dumpster dumping of infants? Who's rights are we subjecting to extra fees and unnecessary treatment. Leave the rights of the human body to the humans who need to make the decisions. Humans have evolved enough to be big girls and boys and to play fair, so let these individuals make the decision and live with it.

Dennis Mansfield

Stu,
Your response is exactly how I would have responded, if I had not been involved in this terribly difficult issue, year after year. But, as you know, I have. Start here with Right to Life in 2008: http://www.nrlc.org/news/2008/NRL01/LiveLost.html Next move to 2010: http://www.lifenews.com/2010/11/26/nat-6891/ By 2012,54,559,615 abortions had happened http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/23/54559615-abortions-since-roe-vs-wade-decision-in-1973/
Your shock at the sheer "supposed" magnitude of abortions that have happened in the US since 1973 is what I have lived with every decade. So far, it is 9 times the amount of those lost in the Holocaust. Think of that in terms of economic/work force problems as America ages. Rest assured that as constitutional as a woman's right to an abortion is, watch and see how the nation's right to euthanasia will eventually become... the logic of one issue follows the other.

Stuart Davis

52 Million abortions? Since 1973? And your source for this would be, what? The national enquirer? Are you freaking kidding me Rich? Does your Mom know you quit taking your meds….The FACTS…..the leading cause of death in the last 40 years, year after year…is cardio vascular disease…heart failure. It kills around 600,000 people a year….and for 40 years would be 24 million. You can tell us then, that in the same period, twice as many people dies from abortion than heart disease? Please Dennis, institute some parental controls, or make these idiots take an IQ test...

Tom von Alten

Furthermore, if your process speculation is accurate (and it wouldn't surprise me if it is), how sad that our democratic process is being hijacked by the majority party and hidden in closed-door caucuses instead of being conducted in the light of day, and with the people supposedly represented able to observe who argues what, and who votes how.

Tom von Alten

I appreciate your good will, but you remain willing to use semantics to deny the plain reality of the bill. It coerces an unnecessary medical procedure to satisfy someone other than the doctor's and woman's sense of morality.

It's not "receive information," it's administer a medical procedure.

The ends do not justify the means.

Rich Wilson

I think there could be hope for a bill that requires the physician to offer an ultra sound in that each woman should have access to the information to make an informed decision. There may even be a form that the patient has been offered an ultra-sound or additional counseling and has declined. Although I am very pro-life and understand the impact of seeing your baby, I also understand what the state should and shouldn't force.

However, I support a repeal of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) in that it is unconstitutional for our courts to rule on this matter period. There have been over 52 million reported (not to mention unreported) abortions since it's inception.

Many economists agree that it's not the baby boom that has hurt our nation's economy as much as the baby bust. The current problems with Social Security and lack of economic growth are largely due to the fact that we have eliminated the people who should be sharing the load.

Dennis Mansfield

Tom,
I stand by my statement.
If educating a patient and having them (your words, "coercing them") sign off that they received the information is too difficult a thing to have happen, how do you dismiss the many times SHALL is used in Idaho law demanding certain actions be taken before a desired result can occur. Take for example in qualifications for graduation - Education law in Idaho demands (via SHALL) that students SHALL do something or that their teachers SHALL do something else. In Idaho's laws regulating medicine (and even alternative medicine) the use of SHALL is everywhere. Why, Tom, must you immediately default to impugning a person's integrity by the use of the word "dishonest"? I believe your/my collective years of blogging/commenting together demand a more civil response, don't they? Most angry people on this issue seem to be that way because they REALLY don't want to see a child's body, head and eyes come into view via the ultrasound. I know that is not your case, but still... c'mon, my friend.

Tom von Alten

The issue has never been to "force" a person into something?! You must not be talking about the same S1387 I've read. That one says the physician SHALL perform, SHALL sign and date a statement, patient SHALL initial each point, the statement MUST be at least 12 pt, bold print.

No air quotes. You can understand the proponents of the bill all you like, but the LETTER OF THE LAW that has been proposed, and passed by the Idaho Senate is about COERCION.

There are far too many semantic games used in this debate, Dennis, but playing down the fact that this is about legal coercion of an unnecessary medical procedure is past disingenuous and all the way to dishonest.

The comments to this entry are closed.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Google AdSense