Florida House passes Abortion law

[Il Medico]

Florida House Passes Abortion Bill






TALLAHASSEE - They had billed this legislative session as being "all about jobs." But the conservative House spent much of their final day Friday debating one of the hottest and most ideological topics in politics: abortion.
Comparisons to the Holocaust, references to Terry Schiavo and accusations of political pandering flew during fierce debate of more than four hours before the House passed a bill requiring all women seeking elective abortions, even those in the first trimester, to have ultrasounds first.
Prior to having the abortion, a woman would have to view the ultrasound and listen to a doctor's description of it unless they declined in writing to do so, or unless they could prove they were seeking an abortion because of rape, incest, human trafficking or a threat to their health.
The provision expands existing law mandating ultrasounds in the second and third trimesters. Planned Parenthood advocates have argued that early-pregnancy ultrasounds are far more invasive because they must be performed vaginally.
When Democrats also complained that the woman would also have to pay for the ultrasound, regardless of whether she wants it, Republican Rep. Alan Hays fired back, "What price do you put on the life a baby?"
"Pro-choice is the politically correct, warm-fuzzy term that condones killing unborn babies," said Hays, R-Umatilla. "If you want an expression that is the opposite of pro-life, let me suggest an honest term: 'pro-death.'"
Hays spoke after Democratic Rep. Adam Fetterman, D-Port St. Lucie, blasted anti-abortion "fundamentalists" for supporting the murder of abortion doctors.
"Part of me is afraid to leave this chamber today without the protection of the sergeants and Capitol Police, because there are some people out there who would want to harm me and my family because of my beliefs," he said.
Repeatedly, House Speaker Larry Cretul called on both sides to tone down the rhetoric -- and on parents sitting in the audience with children to consider leaving for a while.
Some lawmakers used their own life experiences to make their case during debate, which often turned directly the issue of abortion itself.
Lakeland Republican Kelli Stargel recalled when she was a pregnant 17-year-old faced with the decision of whether to carry her now-grown daughter to term.
"I went to Planned Parenthood when I was 17 years old, and I was told by the counselor there that that baby was going to ruin my life," she said. "That I was going to have to consider that if I went to my senior prom, I'd be doing it eight months pregnant. That if I walked in my high school graduation, I'd be doing it eight months pregnant. That this baby was going to ruin my life…"
That didn't happen, she said, noting that her daughter is now an officer in the U.S. Army serving overseas.
"All we're asking in this bill is that women have the facts. They're going to have an ultrasound which shows them what the facts are. That this is a little baby; that it has a heartbeat; that it's not a tadpole; that it has arms, that it has legs, and that it has a face … Let the facts speak. Why are people afraid of that?"
Orlando Democrat Scott Randolph, who protested that the bill included no exemption for woman choosing to abort for natural reasons -- in particular, when a fetus is dying. He described through tears his and his wife's experience of learning during a routine ultrasound that their unborn child had a severe genetic abnormality.
Fluid was building in the heart, the doctors said, and the fetus would not survive. Their choice, Randoph said, was to terminate the pregnancy or allow the fetus to die, possibly late in pregnancy.
"That ultrasound machine is right next to that bed, where my wife is laying, looking at that fetus," he said "And she began to cry, and demand that that ultrasound machine be turned in the other direction so she couldn't see it anymore. And this bill right here would say, 'no. We're going to demand that one more time, when you … terminate that pregnancy -- because God, fate and nature have told you, not this time, you're not going to have this child this time -- that we demand that you see that ultrasound, that you be told what's on that screen.'"
Democrats argued that wording of the legislation does not exempt a woman who declines to view the ultrasound from having to listen to a doctor describe of it. Republicans disagreed, saying the doctor's narrative is also optional, but refused a request from Democrats to add that legislative intent.
The bill, which passed the Senate on Thursday, passed the House on a near party-line vote of 76-44, with Democrat Leonard Bembry of Greenville voting for it and Republican Ed Homan voting no.
An orthopedic surgeon from Tampa, Homan argued that the legislation intrudes and injects politics into the relationship between doctors and patients. "I am a pro-life Republican, but I respect that other patients, that other people, have different views."
Democrats called on Gov. Charlie Crist to veto the bill. Crist, a moderate conservative, announced Thursday that he was leaving the Republican Party to run for U.S. Senate as an independent.
Rep. Chris Dorworth a Lake Mary Republican, acknowledged the veto possibility but said, "If he vetoes this bill, he's saying that millions of people -- the millions of babies who will be terminated from this … are not people. And I know, that as a man of character, that he won't do that."


Link (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/30/302226/house-sends-abortion-bill-governor/)

[TheSultan]

Glad to hear progress is being made, although it would be ideal if there were no conditions that had to be fulfilled first.

[Il Medico]

Glad to hear progress is being made, although it would be ideal if there were no conditions that had to be fulfilled first.

http://media.fakeposters.com/results/2010/05/09/n7tq9avs0w.jpg

[The Ben G]

Good job Florida! For once im *gulp* proud to live in my state.

[counterblast]

Good job Florida! For once im *gulp* proud to live in my state.

Proud of what?

Another overtly religious legislative hoop for women to jump through to make decisions over their bodies?

Fuck this, and anyone who supports it.

[Foldered]

What the fuck is this shit?

And did anyone except counterblast and thedoctor actually read it? It's ridiculous.

[cska]

What the fuck is this shit?

And did anyone except counterblast and thedoctor actually read it? It's ridiculous.

I read it too. And so did you. :D

I actually do support requiring that the doctor describe the abortion (though not the ultrasound), but I don't think abortion should be singled out for this. It should fall under general medical disclosure laws.

[Foldered]

I read it too. And so did you. :D

I actually do support requiring that the doctor describe the abortion (though not the ultrasound), but I don't think abortion should be singled out for this. It should fall under general medical disclosure laws.
In so far as procedures should be described to patients, yeah. This whole ultrasound deal is a way to basically say that abortion is wrong unless you've been raped.

[manic expression]

This is an outrage for reasons already mentioned. Anyone who thinks women don't agonize over the decision before having an abortion is either an idiot or a sexist. Simple as that. Counterblast put it succinctly, just another stupid obstacle put in place by stupid hacks who hate independent thinking by women.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Anyone who thinks women don't agonize over the decision before having an abortion is either an idiot or a sexist.

While I don't agree with the policy being discussed, I'm not sure about that statement. Then again, I'm not a women. It appears to me that it would be either hormonal and/or social reasons for agonizing over having an abortion.

My theory here is based on the fact that male and female abortion doctors don't all agonize over their decision to perform abortions - to my knowledge. If a doctor shows me how, I'll perform an abortion. Just one to have the experience. It's probably all medical and gross and stuff. I wouldn't agonize over it assuming it's early in the pregnancy and the mother is voluntarily submitting to the procedure while in a healthy mental state.

Why exactly should a women be agonizing over having an abortion? In my view, a women who gets pregnant should think. "Hmm, I can have a kid. I never though about it, but do I want one?" There is no rational reason for an 18 year old women who gets pregnant accidentally and wishes "she was not pregnant" to go through with the pregnancy. She has every right to do so, but it's still absolutely ridiculous as far as I can tell.

I think it's probably the social pressures, primarily. Hormones might be a factor, but sexist ideologies tend to attribute hormones to everything these days. Either way, there is no need for the hoops women go through. Well, depending on what qualifies as a hoop. They obviously need to be sober when they ask for the procedure.

[Foldered]

My theory here is based on the fact that male and female abortion doctors don't all agonize over their decision to perform abortions - to my knowledge.
Doctors of any sort don't agonize over anything that would make people who aren't doctors/surgeons very uncomfortable, to say the least.

[Revy]

Not only does the ultrasound have to be performed vaginally (far more invasive than a regular ultrasound), the woman has to pay for this unnecessary crap, and it's just another way of trying to guilt trip and harass women into not terminating their pregnancies.

[jake williams]

This is an outrage for reasons already mentioned. Anyone who thinks women don't agonize over the decision before having an abortion is either an idiot or a sexist. Simple as that. Counterblast put it succinctly, just another stupid obstacle put in place by stupid hacks who hate independent thinking by women.
There are some women who really do agonize over the decision. There are also lots of women for whom it's a fairly ordinary medical procedure and they're not especially bothered by it. And both are okay. But the latter group is usually afraid to say anything about it, and so we don't hear about it.

[The Ben G]

Disaster has struck! I misread the bill! *Kills him self*

[Il Medico]

Disaster has struck! I misread the bill! *Kills him self*
How could you misread it? It seemed pretty clear cut to me. Force women who want to have an abortion to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound and force them to look at the "baby" or hear it described to them. (in the minds of a Christian rightist this will somehow magically make the foolish woman realize that she is going to kill her innocent baby and go to hell :rolleyes:). And on top of that, make the woman pay for the unnecessary procedure, adding to the expense of the already costly abortion.

[Mumbles]

An orthopedic surgeon from Tampa, Homan argued that the legislation intrudes and injects politics into the relationship between doctors and patients. "I am a pro-life Republican, but I respect that other patients, that other people, have different views."


lolwut?

Did Florida allow abortions before this or is this the clause that allows it?

Either way I agree it's ridiculous to require a woman to have to sit through that shit just to affirm her decision. She's already decided, she doesn't have to decide again...

[The Ben G]

How could you misread it? It seemed pretty clear cut to me. Force women who want to have an abortion to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound and force them to look at the "baby" or hear it described to them. (in the minds of a Christian rightist this will somehow magically make the foolish woman realize that she is going to kill her innocent baby and go to hell :rolleyes:). And on top of that, make the woman pay for the unnecessary procedure, adding to the expense of the already costly abortion.

I'm sorry. My brute idiocy and lack of sleep teamed up and confused me.

[BBKing]

lolwut?

Did Florida allow abortions before this or is this the clause that allows it?

Either way I agree it's ridiculous to require a woman to have to sit through that shit just to affirm her decision. She's already decided, she doesn't have to decide again...


All states allow abortion.

The Supreme Court should strike this down. Roe V Wade distinguishes first, second, and third term abortion. First term abortions can't be interfered with at all. Second term abortions are suceptible to more scrutiny. Third term is open to the state's judgement except in health cases.

[choff]

This is sadistic nonsense. Why further exacerbate an already overwhelmingly emotional ordeal?

[Il Medico]

I slightly better news, it looks as if Crist (our governor) will veto the bill. This is probably a good move politically for him, as Rubio already has the conservative support for the Senate race and Crist will need pro-choice dems and independents to back him if he wants any hope to win the senate race as an independent. So it is likely he will veto this bill for political reasons just like he did the education bill that would have attacked Florida's Teachers. (that bill was a Republican lead effort as well).

[Governor??]

I think your view is that women, and minors, have made a decision to have an abortion before they go to Planned Parenthood. So, you are seeing from the view that this places a hurdle before a woman, or minor, who has already made a decision.

Yet, there are many who go to Planned Parenthood not to make a decision to have an abortion, but to learn if they are pregnant. Free pregnancy testing is available.

Now, when a corporation moves to "sell a product" to a distressed person -- should we not consider that this profit motive may at times "cross the line"??

Let us not forget, abortion has a PROFIT MOTIVE on the parts of capitalists.

In most cases, a woman's, or minor's, choice is pressured by a male partner and a for profit motive on the parts of both Planned Parenthood and other abortionists and clinics.

If a woman has made an independent decision based on facts, the ultrasound is not likely to change that decision. However, if a woman has been pressured by others and is not making an independent decision, the ultrasound may strengthen her will to say, "no". This would be her choice.

What appears a barrier to free choice, may in fact be a barrier to the profit motive of abortionists and a safeguard to give women time to make a truly personal free choice.

(quoted from an article of "stopforcedabortions")

"Coerced Choice ... Taken to the Clinic to Make Sure She Keeps the Appointment A former abortion clinic security guard testified before the Massachusetts legislature that women were routinely threatened and abused by the boyfriends or husbands who took them to the clinics to make sure they underwent their scheduled abortions.7 Many women are also pressured by clinic staff financially rewarded for selling abortions.8"

"In a national study of women, 64% of those who aborted felt pressured to do so by others.1"

[Raúl Duke]

"stopforcedabortions"

I wouldn't trust a source that has a loaded phrase as its title.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think your view is that women, and minors, have made a decision to have an abortion before they go to Planned Parenthood. So, you are seeing from the view that this places a hurdle before a woman, or minor, who has already made a decision.

Yet, there are many who go to Planned Parenthood not to make a decision to have an abortion, but to learn if they are pregnant. Free pregnancy testing is available.

Now, when a corporation moves to "sell a product" to a distressed person -- should we not consider that this profit motive may at times "cross the line"??

Let us not forget, abortion has a PROFIT MOTIVE on the parts of capitalists.

In most cases, a woman's, or minor's, choice is pressured by a male partner and a for profit motive on the parts of both Planned Parenthood and other abortionists and clinics.

If a woman has made an independent decision based on facts, the ultrasound is not likely to change that decision. However, if a woman has been pressured by others and is not making an independent decision, the ultrasound may strengthen her will to say, "no". This would be her choice.

What appears a barrier to free choice, may in fact be a barrier to the profit motive of abortionists and a safeguard to give women time to make a truly personal free choice.

(quoted from an article of "stopforcedabortions")

"Coerced Choice ... Taken to the Clinic to Make Sure She Keeps the Appointment A former abortion clinic security guard testified before the Massachusetts legislature that women were routinely threatened and abused by the boyfriends or husbands who took them to the clinics to make sure they underwent their scheduled abortions.7 Many women are also pressured by clinic staff financially rewarded for selling abortions.8"

"In a national study of women, 64% of those who aborted felt pressured to do so by others.1"


So what does that have to do with the ultrasound law? I don't know why you see this bill as having anything more to do than to abuse the power of the state to pressure the woman to keep the baby - even the authors of the bill would concede this point, though I doubt they'll ever say so openly in public.

[Foldered]

I wouldn't trust a source that has a loaded phrase as its title.
Neither. And just because there may be profit motive behind abortions, doesn't mean that pro-choice (in that you don't need an ultrasound nor do you need to pay for an ultrasound before getting an abortion) means pro-capitalism.
Yes, abortions happen because men pressure women into them and the dirty capitalists brainwash women into it. :rolleyes:Give me a break.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'll remember this during the revolution, that way, before I kill one of these right-winged, christian, capitalist whores, I'll put on the monitor & have them hear & see one of their loved ones suffering as well, that or do what that one guy did on "Law Abiding Citizen". If they want us to suffer when we make decisions, then they'll definitely suffer for the decisions they've already made.

[Governor??]

I'll remember this during the revolution, that way, before I kill one of these right-winged, christian, capitalist whores, I'll put on the monitor & have them hear & see one of their loved ones suffering as well, that or do what that one guy did on "Law Abiding Citizen". If they want us to suffer when we make decisions, then they'll definitely suffer for the decisions they've already made.

If you have a desire to murder others -- than how are you stating that you are going to create a society that has any worthwhile merit? Controlling others through fear and violence is anathema to a just society. Stating that you want to kill people and have their relatives watch. Perhaps you should look in the mirror. You would create a society of murderers, torturers, and cause society to descend into a pit. You could only create a society out of that which is within you -- the motives that compel you to act. You could only create a society of the level image of yourself to which you have arisen on the inside. Frankly, an ultrasound of what is within you -- would not show an image the world needs to see as an example of what a society should look like as an ideal... seems to me.

[Governor??]

Neither. And just because there may be profit motive behind abortions, doesn't mean that pro-choice (in that you don't need an ultrasound nor do you need to pay for an ultrasound before getting an abortion) means pro-capitalism.
Yes, abortions happen because men pressure women into them and the dirty capitalists brainwash women into it. :rolleyes:Give me a break.

Abortion is driven by money - and by the wealthy ruling elite.

Absolutely abortions happen very often because men pressure women into it -- profit motive -- and the plan of the ruling elite.

Anyone who thinks that abortion "empowers women" or "gives power to the poor" -- give me a break.

[Governor??]

So what does that have to do with the ultrasound law? I don't know why you see this bill as having anything more to do than to abuse the power of the state to pressure the woman to keep the baby - even the authors of the bill would concede this point, though I doubt they'll ever say so openly in public.

I think you have a valid point that the State is using power to attempt to "slow down" the decision for abortion.

Do you believe the State should use it's power to attempt to "speed up" the decision for abortion??

How does the State maintain neutrality??

[Governor??]

I wouldn't trust a source that has a loaded phrase as its title.

Everything is loaded relative to abortion. Listening to facts ONLY based on one's own view is bias that blinds to truth.

Listening to opposing views may change a person's mind. But if one's mind is made up and one doesn't want to consider facts -- then, why even listen to someone who doesn't consider facts when making up their minds? That doesn't make sense to me.

[Raúl Duke]

Everything is loaded relative to abortion. Listening to facts ONLY based on one's own view is bias that blinds to truth.
The are pro-choice/pro-life sources that don't have some crazy title on their URL like stopforcedabortions.com or abortionisholocaust.com or abortionsareamazing.com or whatever.

Also, amazing claims require amazing evidence...if forced abortions did happen I would expect some major news coverage since that would make quite an amazing news story. In fact, your site has no links/evidence/sources (or flimsy ones' like book/article published in 1972, the link to the national study refers to a different comparative study, etc) for the news claims in Florida, New York, and Georgia. None of the sources demonstrate that forced abortions are widespeadly done by clinics. Goes to show how gullible you are in accepting something on the net just because it lines up to your beliefs. Looks like what you claimed about me really only applies to you.

Let's assume that forced abortions did occur. That doesn't discredit abortion in itself, just that abortion like many things in capitalism is allegedly being done for profit.

Also, it's obvious that this law has nothing to do with that (alleged forced abortions) since the discourse the Florida politicians used was clearly of the anti-choice "pro-life" variety (and the insane "abortion=holocaust" type; I actually saw some people show up to my uni peddling this) with no mention of forced abortions (surprisingly).

Seeing as you are restricted, I guess our wall-masters have deemed you anti-choice.

[counterblast]

I think your view is that women, and minors, have made a decision to have an abortion before they go to Planned Parenthood. So, you are seeing from the view that this places a hurdle before a woman, or minor, who has already made a decision.

Yet, there are many who go to Planned Parenthood not to make a decision to have an abortion, but to learn if they are pregnant. Free pregnancy testing is available.

Now, when a corporation moves to "sell a product" to a distressed person -- should we not consider that this profit motive may at times "cross the line"??

Let us not forget, abortion has a PROFIT MOTIVE on the parts of capitalists.

In most cases, a woman's, or minor's, choice is pressured by a male partner and a for profit motive on the parts of both Planned Parenthood and other abortionists and clinics.

If a woman has made an independent decision based on facts, the ultrasound is not likely to change that decision. However, if a woman has been pressured by others and is not making an independent decision, the ultrasound may strengthen her will to say, "no". This would be her choice.

What appears a barrier to free choice, may in fact be a barrier to the profit motive of abortionists and a safeguard to give women time to make a truly personal free choice.


Isn't this a better argument for why the husband/wife and parent/child social roles need to be radically altered -- rather than an argument for why women should be forced to view ultrasounds?

And whats worse, is you're using distorted "facts" and the second-hand testimony of ONE abortion clinic SECURITY GUARD (really an expert witness considering his lack of a uterus or medical degree!) to perpetuate really misogynist generalizations of women.

Women, as a group, do not need to be "safegaurded" from abortion because we're supposedly;
-unstable
-indecisive
-over-emotional
-easily manipulated
-man obsessed
-ditzy
-less informed than men


Thanks anyway.

[Foldered]

Abortion is driven by money - and by the wealthy ruling elite.
Well, that's accurate insofar as everything in a capitalist society is driven by capitalism.


Absolutely abortions happen very often because men pressure women into it -- profit motive -- and the plan of the ruling elite.
If you think men pressure women into abortions because of profit motive, I think you're a genuinely sheltered person. The pressure is a result of not wanting to be responsible for a child, unless you're assuming that "man" is synonymous with doctor (and that only men can be doctors), which is fucked up.



Anyone who thinks that abortion "empowers women" or "gives power to the poor" -- give me a break.
Choice is empowerment. Forced abortion is not, but that isn't what inherently happens by having the ability to choose.
What's more empowering, choice or restriction?

[GreenCommunism]

i don't see why a woman would want a children more than a man if there wasn't such social roles. i know that woman usually feel some link with the children in their body but that doesn't mean anything.

also i really doubt any men pressures woman to get an abortion. that woman might get pissed and get the baby specificly because the man pressured her to not have a baby. as chris rock said, all you can say is watchu gonna do.

[Wolf Larson]

I hate independent thinking women. Blind, deaf paralyzed and with nice thighs. Thats my kinda gal. Bad joke.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think you have a valid point that the State is using power to attempt to "slow down" the decision for abortion.

Do you believe the State should use it's power to attempt to "speed up" the decision for abortion??

How does the State maintain neutrality??

It can't. Which is why it needs to be abolished.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

This makes me sick. All of these pro-life people that want to pass legislation like this are only doing it as it allows them to coerce, and cajole women into doing what they want.

God forbid women get control of reproductive rights... :thumbdown:

[Il Medico]

The Governor Vetoed the bill.

[Raúl Duke]

Hmm...
Either way...Florida is really damn reactionary in that "heartland values" sense...

I mean, while other states are allowing medical marijuana, Florida attempted (or succeeded) in getting a law against headshops passed.

[proudcomrade]

One thing about these abortion debates in the US that never ceases to flabbergast me is the way it always ends up with the testifying breaking down into emotionalist hysterics, be it religious references, outright praying right out on the floor, crying, infantile language like "little baby in there", unqualified (and, by & large, uneducated) people like receptionists & security staff from clinics as "experts", etc., etc., etc. The whole thing reminds me of the scene in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest where the psychotherapy session in the hospital just breaks out into a random, crazy melee of everybody emoting and throwing tantrums at nothing in particular, and Nurse Ratched unable to get the scene back under control, thus rapidly losing her own cool. That's what these US abortion-law sessions remind me of; no exaggeration.

The sessions should be led by gynecologists and bioethicists, period- not the peanut gallery. The people's role here should be an auxiliary one as far as presenting testimony of any sort. Hysterical red-faced angry white men and weeping evangelical "I regret my abortion"/do-as-I-say-not-as-I-did women, are not supposed to have carte blanche to hijack a bioethical debate with their own personal theatrics.

...and I say "bioethical" because this is not even a medical debate anymore. Science, modern medicine and even the other two Abrahamic religions are all in a rough consensus over this one already. This is now strictly a matter of Christian zealotry and the utter failure of the USA to educate its populace at large. The very existence of a continued debate, let alone one at a level this emotional, simplistic and scientifically illiterate, never ceases to horrify me. I cannot think of another country on this planet that needs the Revolution sooner.

[GreenCommunism]

the muslims allow abortion?

[Foldered]

also i really doubt any men pressures woman to get an abortion. .
Seriously?

[x371322]

Let us not forget, abortion has a PROFIT MOTIVE on the parts of capitalists.

Umm... so? Everything has a profit motive under capitalism. Letting black people into their restaurants/schools/hospitals/everywhere else in the 60's, had a profit motive. Letting women vote, had a profit motive. Letting gay people get married, has a profit motive. And yes abortion, has a profit motive. Everything, in the eyes of a capitalist, has a profit motive. It doesn't mean we should oppose basic civil rights.