Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reply The Pro-life Guild
Tie vote kills ultrasound abortion bill in Senate Goto Page: 1 2 3 [>] [»|]

Quick Reply

Enter both words below, separated by a space:

Can't read the text? Click here

Submit

people counter
  +1
View Results

ryokomayuka

Familiar Member

10,400 Points
  • Team Edward 100
  • Gaian 50
  • Happy Birthday! 100
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 12:10 pm


http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/8785.article
Quote:
Tie vote kills ultrasound abortion bill in Senate
By JAMES A. SMITH SR
Executive Editor
Published May 8, 2008



For related coverage, click image.
TALLAHASSEE (FBW)—In a 20-20 tie vote, the Florida Senate defeated April 30 a bill requiring women seeking an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy to have an ultrasound.

The unusual result, eliciting gasps from opponents and supporters when the vote was announced, came after an emotional debate which lasted almost 90 minutes, following two previous discussions about the bill by senators.

Final consideration was delayed several times as behind-the-scenes lobbying targeted a few wavering senators.

Only a few hours after defeating the bill sponsored by Sen. Daniel Webster (R-Winter Garden), the Senate honored the retiring senator in a farewell ceremony in which several senators who led the opposition to his bill heaped praise on Webster for his character.

The bill, SB 2400, was opposed by seven Republican senators: Jim King (Jacksonville), Burt Saunders (Naples), Dennis Jones (Seminole), Mike Bennett (Bradenton), Paula Dockery (Lakeland), Lisa Carlton (Sarasota) and Evelyn Lynn (Daytona Beach).

One Democrat, Gary Siplin from Orlando, voted for the measure.

Florida Baptist Convention legislative consultant Bill Bunkley told the Witness the close defeat was “very painful.”

“In my many years of working Tallahassee, only the Terri Schiavo vote was more dramatic,” Bunkley said.

Current law already requires an ultrasound before an abortion in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and Webster’s bill included an opt-out provision allowing women and girls to decline to view the image.

In passionate closing comments by Webster in the atypically still chamber, the longtime member of First Baptist Church of Central Florida in Orlando implored senators to allow women considering an abortion to have access to the ultrasound image in the hope that some women may decide to keep their unborn child.

Webster told the story of University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow whose mother twice declined doctors’ advice to abort him due to feared birth defects.

Tebow, who recently visited the Legislature to be honored as Heisman Trophy winner, illustrates that doctors are not “infallible,” Webster said.

“There may be other Timmy Tebows that if just the mom could just see the ultrasound—that’s all we’re doing, we’re offering information that doesn’t exist today and is not shown today. That’s all we want. And maybe there’ll be one more Timmy Tebow who grows up to become quite a man,” he said.

Webster strongly rejected the claim of some senators that his bill interfered with the doctor-patient relationship.

“This is not her physician. Come on! A patient-physician relationship that gets done in about 15 minutes—she will see this person one time. She’ll meet him when he walks through the door. She won’t ever see him again, probably. That’s a relationship?” he asked.

Explaining the bill would simply add one more item in a checklist abortion clinics must go over with patients, Webster said, “And I don’t understand why that’s such a restrictive measure, because if you remember, good medical practice dictates screening. That’s what we require.”

Moderate Republican senators played a prominent role debating against the measure.

Jim King, who had publicly lobbied against the bill for weeks, told the Senate, “I’m really sorry that we’re here now doing this.”

Echoed later by other male and female senators, King said men should not create public policy related to abortion.

“My personal feeling is unless you ovulate or have ovulated we have no business as males interfering with your female decision on reproduction,” said the former president of the Florida Senate.

He joined the Republican Party many years ago because it stood for “less government, more freedom,” King said. “But folks, this is not less government. This is more government. It’s government intrusion.”

Burt Saunders said he had three concerns about the bill— impact on the poor; affect on victims of rape, incest and trafficking; and impact on the doctor-patient relationship. Without declaring how he would vote, Saunders said he wanted to hear Webster’s response to those concerns in his closing comments.

Saunders invoked the Senate’s 2005 debate about Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman who Webster sponsored legislation to try to save, only to have it defeated by a similar coalition of moderate Republican senators.

Although he said there isn’t “really any relationship between this matter and the Terri Schiavo matter,” he also said, “I think in some respects this is very similar.”

As long as Roe v. Wade is the “law of the land” providing a constitutional right to abortion, “it’s a mistake for the Legislature to start talking about ways to restrict that when it comes to the doctor-patient relationship,” Saunders said.

Dennis Jones told senators the Florida constitution gave citizens the right to privacy, asking, “My Lord, you look at this bill, where did that right to privacy go?”

Citing her sponsorship of parental notice and abortion clinic regulation bills, Paula Dockery told senators that she was a “very proud pro-life woman,” but opposed the bill.

“This is the United States of America,” Dockery said. “We talk about freedom, but little by little we give our freedoms away. This is not a pro-life or pro-choice issue. This is a freedom issue and we should not be telling the women of the state of Florida what they need to do with their bodies.”

Appealing to the theoretical case of a terrified college girl impregnated at a “wild frat party,” Mike Bennett said pro-life Republicans could join him in voting to “kill this bill” because “it’s about an unfunded medical mandate that interferes with a woman’s choice.”

Joining the moderate Republicans against the bill was every Democrat senator, except Siplin.

Dave Aaronberg (D-Greenacres) said that although there are no biblical passages that explicitly address abortion, there are 178 dealing with the poor, urging senators, “Don’t turn your back on poor women.”

Nan Rich (D-Sunrise) said, “I actually consider myself pro-life, though I’m pro-choice,” and opposed the bill because it’s “probably” an unconstitutional burden on women’s right to abortion.

“Personally, I believe this is blatant government interference and it’s insulting to women who should be the ones responsible for making decisions with their lives and their bodies,” she said.

Republicans who spoke in favor of the bill included Steve Oelrich (Gainesville), Ronda Storms (Brandon), and Alex Diaz de la Portilla (Miami).

Oelrich urged senators not to forget the unborn: “I’m telling you that the unborn is in there squirming, and so are we.”

Referring to comments by Sen. Rich, Storms said she was also pro-life and pro-choice.

“This bill is a pro-choice bill. It gives the women the choice for informed consent so that she can choose whether to see that ultrasound or not…. This empowers the woman to make her own health decisions.”

Storms said opponents were fearful of how women will respond to seeing their unborn child in an ultrasound.

“What is it that we might be afraid of? ... Oh, I don't know, could it be that in the ultrasound that she might see the baby, the unborn, putting his thumb to his mouth and sucking his thumb before she has the abortion? Could that be what we're afraid of— so we think she won’t have it? When is it good for her to see that, after she’s had one or two abortions?”

Diaz de la Portilla told senators it was their duty to sometimes make difficult, uncomfortable decisions.

Saying that he hopes the bill could reduce Florida’s 95,000 annual abortions, de la Portilla added, “If this bill would eliminate just one abortion in this state, it would make me proud.”

The Florida House of Representatives approved a similar ultrasound bill, HB 257, on April 2, although it also contained other pro-life measures.
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 5:07 pm


How is it, in any way, harming a woman's decision? If more information can change their decision, then what is the problem? Giving them less information so they make an uniformed choice is better? And I like the sexits ad hominem about ovulation. And did she forget that many of the original feminists were pro-life? Do they have no say either, since they are obviously mysoginists who hate women's rights?

It seems that in this case, the choicers are the ones who dislike facts.

Seriously, rediculous.

OH MY GOD, NEW INFORMATION! OW, MY DECISION MAKING ABILITIES!

divineseraph


Naztakuan

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 5:51 pm


I should think that as much as people want kids to learn every gratuitous detail about sex, that they would divulge everythin pertaining to abortion. Have toou been to planned parenthoods teen site. Thet talk about abortion like it's an abstravt procedure. No pictures, not real information about what happens to your body..NOTHING scream
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:33 pm


divineseraph
How is it, in any way, harming a woman's decision? If more information can change their decision, then what is the problem? Giving them less information so they make an uniformed choice is better? And I like the sexits ad hominem about ovulation. And did she forget that many of the original feminists were pro-life? Do they have no say either, since they are obviously mysoginists who hate women's rights?

It seems that in this case, the choicers are the ones who dislike facts.

Seriously, rediculous.

OH MY GOD, NEW INFORMATION! OW, MY DECISION MAKING ABILITIES!


That's the problem, they are angry cause they say we are trying to force them to not get an abortion by using emotional appeal (really we are just showing them what it looks like to make sure they won't have any regrets and to make sure if there isn't any problems).

If they really believe that a fetus is really just of cells and they don't think abortion is wrong they this shouldn't be making such a big deal about it(they would ignore it and still go through with abortion).
When people make a big deal about, I believe that deep down that they know that they are wrong but they don't want to feel quilty so they put the blaim on us instead.

But yeah, it's annoying that they say we don't like facts when some of them ignore abouts about issues surrounding abortion and ultrasounds.

Naztakuan-PP is baised, they are pro-choice and support abortion, if they give too much info about it, less people would abort and less money PP would make (They did interviews and investigations on them and clearing PP don't really care about girls/females as they claim, just money).

PP really needs to change and start caring more.

rweghrheh


divineseraph

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 6:55 pm


sachiko_sohma
divineseraph
How is it, in any way, harming a woman's decision? If more information can change their decision, then what is the problem? Giving them less information so they make an uniformed choice is better? And I like the sexits ad hominem about ovulation. And did she forget that many of the original feminists were pro-life? Do they have no say either, since they are obviously mysoginists who hate women's rights?

It seems that in this case, the choicers are the ones who dislike facts.

Seriously, rediculous.

OH MY GOD, NEW INFORMATION! OW, MY DECISION MAKING ABILITIES!


That's the problem, they are angry cause they say we are trying to force them to not get an abortion by using emotional appeal (really we are just showing them what it looks like to make sure they won't have any regrets and to make sure if there isn't any problems).

If they really believe that a fetus is really just of cells and they don't think abortion is wrong they this shouldn't be making such a big deal about it(they would ignore it and still go through with abortion).
When people make a big deal about, I believe that deep down that they know that they are wrong but they don't want to feel quilty so they put the blaim on us instead.

But yeah, it's annoying that they say we don't like facts when some of them ignore abouts about issues surrounding abortion and ultrasounds.

Naztakuan-PP is baised, they are pro-choice and support abortion, if they give too much info about it, less people would abort and less money PP would make (They did interviews and investigations on them and clearing PP don't really care about girls/females as they claim, just money).

PP really needs to change and start caring more.


Exactly. An ultrasound isn't propoganda or an emotional appeal.

It's like saying "We can't show people with broken bones x-rays of their injuries, or else they may change their mind in how to fix it!" or "We can't let people see the blueprints to their houses when they hire a carpenter!" or "We can't let people know the ingredients to thier food! It may force them into a choice against ******** stupid. It's not even going into the procedure. It's just showing a fact the way a food wrapper states ingredients. It's a form of mind control to NOT show them, actually, intentionally giving them less information. What do they have to hide?
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:16 pm


This isn't about allowing women to see an ultrasound, it's about requiring them to do so.

Which is stupid.

Of all the things the government can force people to do, they want women to look at ultrasounds?

Has it not occurred to them that some women who feel ambiguous about aborting a fetus will look at an ultrasound and react by screaming "EWWW!! OMG KILL IT!! KILL IT!!!"

La Veuve Zin

Rainbow Smoker

5,650 Points
  • Mega Tipsy 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Ultimate Player 200

I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 7:24 pm


La Veuve Zin
This isn't about allowing women to see an ultrasound, it's about requiring them to do so.

Which is stupid.

Of all the things the government can force people to do, they want women to look at ultrasounds?

Has it not occurred to them that some women who feel ambiguous about aborting a fetus will look at an ultrasound and react by screaming "EWWW!! OMG KILL IT!! KILL IT!!!"
Um... The idea is that she's already planning on getting an abortion. In which case, the only possibilities are that she'll go through with it, as she would have if there were no such requirement, or she'll realize, "Hey, that's a living human being" and not go through with it.
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:49 am


I.Am
La Veuve Zin
This isn't about allowing women to see an ultrasound, it's about requiring them to do so.

Which is stupid.

Of all the things the government can force people to do, they want women to look at ultrasounds?

Has it not occurred to them that some women who feel ambiguous about aborting a fetus will look at an ultrasound and react by screaming "EWWW!! OMG KILL IT!! KILL IT!!!"
Um... The idea is that she's already planning on getting an abortion. In which case, the only possibilities are that she'll go through with it, as she would have if there were no such requirement, or she'll realize, "Hey, that's a living human being" and not go through with it.


Exactly, it is more information. Even if they don't care, it doesn't matter. It doesn't change teir plan anyway. But if it does, then their mind was changed NOT on propoganda or an emotional appeal, but in light of new factual information.

divineseraph


La Veuve Zin

Rainbow Smoker

5,650 Points
  • Mega Tipsy 100
  • Forum Sophomore 300
  • Ultimate Player 200
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:46 pm


But forcing them to see it?

What are they going to do, prop their eyes open like in A Clockwork Orange?

And then there's the whole backlash factor. Oh, so they're trying to make me care about the fetus? I hate fetuses even more now! talk2hand

You know, like if a vegetarian tells you meat is murder, and because of that you decide instead of the fettucine alfredo you're going to have a big rare steak.

Same thing. What if every time you wanted to eat meat, someone forced you to look at videos of a slaughterhouse? Yes, some people would change their minds, but others would just feel more contempt for those trying to change their minds.
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:33 pm


True. And I do feel like, realistically and legally, as long as abortion is legal this sort of law makes no sense. Legally it's not a person, but I have to see it anyways before I kill it? I mean, looking at it from a Pro-Choice, legalized abortion standpoint, I may enjoy a nice steak, but I don't want to go see the cow as they slaughter it.

I.Am
Captain

Quotable Tycoon

7,825 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Signature Look 250
  • Forum Regular 100

lymelady
Vice Captain

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:34 pm


It's not about forcing it, is it?

Quote:
Current law already requires an ultrasound before an abortion in the second and third trimester of pregnancy, and Webster’s bill included an opt-out provision allowing women and girls to decline to view the image.


As long as there's an opt out, I really don't see the problem, besides it being an extra step in the process. Looking is something women may choose to do, but the bill is about requiring them to have an ultrasound, not view it, from what I can tell.

Then again, it's very early in the morning, and I'm still rather sick, so I may be reading it incorrectly.
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:53 pm


As long as there's an opt out, I have to agree with Lymelady.

But also, I mean, honestly, I see where Zin is coming from too-- We don't want the choicers hating us anymore than they do, and from their point of view, we seem like evil lifers trying to guilt women out of abortions, but that's not it.

I'd like them to consider it with a little bit more thought than might be usually given, I'd like them to talk about other options, I'd like them to consider the idea that maybe pregnancy isn't a punishment, it may be an opportunity?

I just want people to understand where we're coming from, and I don't feel like they do. I really am concerned that laws like this make us come off as uncaring towards the woman, and I don't want to be that kind of a b***h.

However, I don't feel like this law would constitute as some kind of punishment towards the woman in any way (the choicer's guild has a thread on it where they discuss it in regards to Ohio, and it requiring mandatory Ultrasounds, which the girls from Ohio didn't mind). It's not guilting the woman into anything, because she's already going through with it.

To throw the choicers' words back in their faces, if she can't handle an ultrasound, how can she handle an abortion?

McPhee
Crew

Friendly Elocutionist

8,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Flatterer 200
  • Popular Thread 100

divineseraph

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:46 am


La Veuve Zin
But forcing them to see it?

What are they going to do, prop their eyes open like in A Clockwork Orange?

And then there's the whole backlash factor. Oh, so they're trying to make me care about the fetus? I hate fetuses even more now! talk2hand

You know, like if a vegetarian tells you meat is murder, and because of that you decide instead of the fettucine alfredo you're going to have a big rare steak.

Same thing. What if every time you wanted to eat meat, someone forced you to look at videos of a slaughterhouse? Yes, some people would change their minds, but others would just feel more contempt for those trying to change their minds.


No, it's not like forcing. It is like requiring. And there would be, again, NO propoganda about it. It wouldn't be a seminar on how the abortion is done, or how cute feti are, or how they wil be people too one day. It would just be a medical explanation- This is what is inside you, this is what you want done. This is another fact for you to think about. The fetus, as shown, is NOT a tri-celled blob, NOR is it a miniature, fully formed baby complete with a rattle and pacifier.

I'm not sure, are they required to show cancer patients xrays of their tumors before they operate, or are the patients just supposed to take their word for it that it's a big sucker?

And also, as for meat, I wouldn't really be against a seminar on meat and the processing of it. I think it is valuable for people to be comfortable with their actions- the TRUTH of their actions, and not simply look away or pretend it's a happier thing. This is not to say that I am a vegetarian, but I want to know that if I eat meat, then I have no problem killing my own, skinning, gutting, and preparing it, or at least know the process.
PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 10:37 am


divineseraph


And also, as for meat, I wouldn't really be against a seminar on meat and the processing of it. I think it is valuable for people to be comfortable with their actions- the TRUTH of their actions, and not simply look away or pretend it's a happier thing. This is not to say that I am a vegetarian, but I want to know that if I eat meat, then I have no problem killing my own, skinning, gutting, and preparing it, or at least know the process.

See, and if I were to become a vegetarian it would be specifically BECAUSE of that process. That an the health benefits. biggrin

I'm not the kind of person who would kill an animal for feeding purposes-- Grocery meat is weird looking enough without me thinking about it too hard.

McPhee
Crew

Friendly Elocutionist

8,150 Points
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Flatterer 200
  • Popular Thread 100

Lady Ironarm

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 2:51 pm


So, basically, it seems as if the pro-choicers have the tiniest bit of guilt in them. They refuse to admit that abortion is murder and fill their heads with lies, and they are afraid of the truth.

Does this article not prove that? Pro-choicers have proved it themselves.
They WANT to be filled with lies. They cling onto statements made by PP and snarl at pro-lifers who point out abortion facts, calling them lies, saying there's no proof. But they know that an ultrasound would provide proof.

It kinda saddens me. I was happy when I learned the bill was passed, but now it was voted out? I can't see any reason why it should be! sweatdrop
Reply
The Pro-life Guild

Goto Page: 1 2 3 [>] [»|]
 
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum