Tony G, Tulsa (10/11/2008 5:23:52 AM)

Personally--I don't care for abortions, but if we outlaw them completely, girls in trouble will go back to coat hanger abortions.
So--as much as I don't care for it, I believe the clinic is correct, we have placed to many obstacles in the way, and this latest law is just some bleeding heart
Christian who overstepped her boundaries.

BMB, (10/11/2008 5:40:40 AM)

I think anyone who demands that someone look at an ultrasound picture under all circumstances is ridiculous! I know a person who has been in a very desperate situation and had to have an abortion. She had always wanted children but not under the circumstances. It would not have been fair to make her look at the child she was having to give up. She now has three happy and healthy children and is trying to put the abortion and the whole situation behind her. This is not fair to women and I agree that it should not be law. Think about the women that really do care but have no choice!!!

diamond jim, (10/11/2008 8:35:42 AM)

righton,should gwb be tried for murder,you must love for your government to tell you what you can do with your body,what would you like for them to decide what else you can or cannot do with your body.

KWH, TULSA (10/11/2008 8:57:15 AM)

How nice, an abortion provider wanting to prevent a customer from making a completely informed decision.

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/11/2008 9:14:09 AM)

Wow!!!!!!!! The ignorance exhibited by the right wingers is astounding. People, it is not murder. Reread the Fourteenth amendment. Then read Roe v. Wade. Only persons BORN or naturalized have the legal protections that you cite. The Supreme Court has never recognized a "right to life" for a fetus. If it did, it would be guilty of the "judicial activism" that you supposedly despise. The Court correctly balances the woman's right to be left alone by the state to make her own reproductive decisions with the state's interest in the life of the fetus. If you wish to create a "right to life" for the fetus, then I suggest that you start the process to amend the Constitution to say "All persons born or unborn, or naturalized.....".

KWH: What does the woman need to know from an ultrasound when she has made a legally protected decision to have an abortion? We both know that you want to use the image as an emotional appeal to convince her to not have an abortion. It is not YOUR body, buddy. It is HER body.

KWH, TULSA (10/11/2008 9:26:03 AM)

Dim, why do you want to decide what she needs to know?
Oh ya, your socialist ideology decides what everyone NEEDS!

YAYTulsa, Catoosa, OK (10/11/2008 10:14:56 AM)

I used to respect the right of these anti-choice nuts to have their own opinion. Then I went to the Women's Health March in DC and lost every shred of respect for the raving lunatics. I can't even begin to tell you how insane they are, all lined up along the march route campaigning against womens health! They screamed things at ME! As if I had already had or was considering an abortion, they didn't know me from eve! I was there for a completely different reason. They drove a truck around with a mutilated fetus parts billboard on it. They can never make an argument from logic or science (see Sarah Palin and the "raped by her father" question.) Come to think of it, they're the best argument for abortion I've ever seen, if someone had just had the foresight.

j9g478, (10/11/2008 10:21:38 AM)

You say its not murder for a mother to abort her unborn child but, if someone were to kill that pregnant mother they would be charged with two counts of murder which includes the unborn fetus. Make up your mind either it is a person or not. I say it is and I was raped and had my child because it was a part of me and I love all my children.

Graychin, Eucha (10/11/2008 10:32:57 AM)

It is a very new legal doctrine that a person who harms a fetus while injuring the pregnant woman is guilty of a second crime. The doctrine is entirely product of anti-abortion legislators who want to provide a basis for the very argument made n the previous comment.

It isn't the pro-choice community that can't make up its mind.

Harvester3, Broken Arrow (10/11/2008 10:40:45 AM)

I worked briefly for a retired and somewhat cynical Baptist minister some years ago, a good southern democrat. During one of our frequent Saturday morning catch ups he told me, "You can't legislate morality buddy"...
I had no idea what that meant.
While it's true someone with the intention of removing an unborn baby from their body most likely won't be swayed one way or the other by the opportunity to actually see it, I'm puzzled by the opposition to this legislation. The fact is, to deny such an important piece of medical information to an individual apparently because the proceedure is "too expensive" seems very short sighted. Th fact that a large portion of these proceedures performed in this state are paid for with tax dollars (i.e. yours and my contributions to the government) leads one to conclude socialized medicine (I'm quite sure I'm using the term correctly) might not be the best approach if we're going to provide services based on how much said services will cost, etc.
To say more information is a good thing, especially when discussing a medical situation, is an understatement. To view the information an ultrasound provides as "unnecessary" is at least ignorant, if not a distortion of facts to suite one's ends.
This debate will, I'm sure, continue to rage on... that it exists at all is a testiment of how far our country has travelled in the last hundred years.
The frogs are boiling...and we are they.
Thanks

Democrat, Tulsa County (10/11/2008 10:43:31 AM)

KWH:

I don't think that either I nor YOU should decide what she needs to know. That decision should be for HER to make. If her doctor feels that she should have an ultrasound, she would be wise to listen to his/her advice. The rest of us have no business taking care of her business. BTW, I am not the dim one. And you are not a true conservative.

Thanks to my friends for defending me while I was running some errands. Back after the OU-Texas game.

Harvester3, Broken Arrow (10/11/2008 10:47:40 AM)

In response to Another Reasonably Prudent Per, I must tell you, no one is forcing anyone to "have unwanted pregnancies". I'm quite sure the pregnancy part of the equation took only two people, no right wing freaks necessary.
Posts such as yours are good arguments for that which you argue. Visceral hate... gotta love it.

YAYTulsa, Catoosa, OK (10/11/2008 10:49:16 AM)

Harvester, my opposition is the "required" part. I'm all for legislation that she be OFFERED the choice of seeing an ultrasound but making a law that a woman MUST look at a picture is silly. And where did my swimming pool post go?

Harvester3, Broken Arrow (10/11/2008 10:58:53 AM)

Graychin, the "legal doctrine" of treating an unborn baby as same in cases where the mother is also murdered is recent if the lsat 150 years are considered recent, at least in this country. Thanks

YAYTulsa, Catoosa, OK (10/11/2008 11:00:01 AM)

You have to be kidding... it filtered it because it had a word in it that sounds very much like the word used for a large structure used to hold back water. Seriously? Ok.. what I said was:
J9, thank you so much for being here to show us the light. We now realize that every situation is exactly like yours and if you can do it, so can everyone else. In other news: Tom Sietas can hold his breath for 9 minutes 8 seconds. If you would be so kind as to meet me at the pool I will be happy to assist you in demonstrating the point that because one human being can accomplish something, so can everyone else.

Bullhead, Stilwell (10/11/2008 11:02:14 AM)

IF YOU WON'T WANT A KID, DON'T GET PREGNANT. Simple. Unless it's rape, the only sensible thing is don't get pregnant. There are so many ways to stay unpregnant, it's almost criminal if a woman gets preganat when they don't want a child. I just don't understand the need for aborting an unwanted chiild when you don't have to be in that situation except by rape... or maybe the life of the mother being in danger.

YAY, someone at the paper probably got a whiner complaining about your post. They've done that to several of mine lately. And I don't feel any of mine are objectionable. Oh well.

k345, (10/11/2008 11:02:13 AM)

To be perfectly honest, I was in this situation a few years ago. 18 and pregnant... I went to a local abortion clinic, had an ultrasound and it totally changed my mind. I was out of there within 5 minutes of getting that ultrasound. When the ultrasound was being preformed, I asked to see the screen.. and she wouldn't show me. She was extremely rude, and when I told her I had changed my mind she said "you have got to be kidding me". It's like they wanted me to get a abortion. It was a really awful experience and I am so glad I didn't go through with it. I have a happy, healthy beautiful 4 yr old little girl that my husband and I are more than able to provide for now.. But on the other hand I am still pro-choice.. because there are people out there that aren't able to provide for their children, accidents happen and women should have the right to choose.

YAYTulsa, Catoosa, OK (10/11/2008 11:12:08 AM)

Bullhead, the problem is these anti-choice zealots will go after birth control next. Not even next, these same people are the ones pushing "abstinence only" sex ed in schools. Then they're surprised when their 17 year old daughters get pregnant! I agree that if we teach women and girls how to prevent unwanted pregnancy it will largely be a non-issue but we're not dealing with rational people trying to solve a problem. We are dealing with religious zealots who are only interested in spewing legislation to force the rest of the world into an idea of "right" based on their particular interpretation of someone else's interpretation of some writings that some ancient someone may or may not have implied were inspired by god.

fisherwoman, (10/11/2008 11:30:37 AM)

How many lines in the sand we have crossed to get to this point debating, still, whether the moving/maternal-blood-fed/heart-beating/sex determined pregnancy is or is not life to be decided sustainability politically. Surgery is done on the baby even in-utero or open-utero, if those are the correct terms, to save the....what?....life, isn't it? Heroic efforts....by medically trained persons, support persons. The dichotomy of the polemics of whether the pregnancy event is welcomed or not is defined by such finite issues as economics, age of mother or health of the mother or mental stability of the mother, circumstances of the meeting of egg and sperm, community acceptance of its appropriateness, legality determined by many issues like state laws. Those who speak to the issue of "life" conveniently can't agree that this IS life. Or, if it IS life, whether or not to bother about consideration of what goes into the definition OF life....and what separates THIS life from, say, puppy dog life. Well, anyone who reads and posts here is bright enough to separate those definitions. What has been lost over the years of modernization and sophistication is what was ever so clear to hundreds of years of predecessors and that was the clear, never questioned source of wisdom and power as to which eggs/sperm become a child and which die natural death....they KNEW that there was a Power Greater than We Are Who was involved and brought into fruition a tiny embryo and from that point, unless otherwise changed by hands/minds who chose to disregard this critical starting point, it WAS A LIFE FROM THE GIT-GO and no matter if there was a marriage, enough food, some disgrace from the community, it WOULD go forward because life was NOT disposable. That the culture of death has such a leg up on our culture is the harbinger of disasters greater than any mere mortals can fathom. And, yes, the argument about the ultrasound being costly is specious when one sees how much money changes hands outside of that examining, "procedure" room over this business...yes, it is very much a business. My vote is for Sen. Peterson's bill and courage.

fisherwoman, (10/11/2008 11:40:03 AM)

And, by the way, this is NOT "just a woman's issue" because there IS a man involved in every single event and we call him a dad, a father which are better than the sperm-donor moniker used by many in the business of abortion. It is about time we speak to the father's part in all of this, from inception-conception to support without the condemnation of the community and as much "help" to HIM as is offered to "single-mothers"/"problem pregnancies". And, even though the pregnancy may not have been planned by the male/female components, both mother AND father are impacted by it and BOTH should be encouraged in every possible way to uphold the value of this new LIFE and go forward in courage and belief that no matter what, this life will prevail.

Harvester3, Broken Arrow (10/11/2008 11:58:01 AM)

Fisherwoman; well put. However, I'm sure even such a well stated argument will draw fire from the more militant here.
The fact is, we've been a long time coming to this place. The very term "fetus" (which I refuse to utilize) is used in place of "baby", to offer a more sterile, clinical view. The role of the traditional (oops, I said traditional) father has been downplayed and beaten down to the point that today's masculine is, well, not very. Rugged individualism? John Wayne? Not here. Not anymore.
And so, who will fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Maybe we'll get a community organiser to show us the way.
Your independent friend

YAYTulsa, Catoosa, OK (10/11/2008 12:02:03 PM)

Fisherwoman, I have no issue with saying it IS a life, just as an acorn IS an oak tree. Your argument, though, hinges on the premise that “life is sacred.” There is no sacred in government. Religion gets to make broad judgments about what “god thinks, god says, god wants,” but government has to be troubled with such things as logic and common sense. Government may not consider what “god wants” because then it would have to decide who’s god got to want. Can you prove that MY god isn’t all for abortion? Can you prove that MY god isn’t for stoning young women for getting pregnant out of wedlock? Unfortunately, god isn’t available for comment and his “disciples” all have something different to say. Government must take accountability not only for the question “is it life” but also for the question “is it allowed to live a parasitic existence inside my body without my permission?” And, the answer is overwhelmingly no, it is not. If it can survive outside my womb without relying on me to sustain it, it is more than welcome to. And if you want to bring dad into it, then he will have equal vote as to whether or not the baby should be born. You think that will decrease abortion?

KWH, TULSA (10/11/2008 12:14:37 PM)

How typical of the socialist dimocrats deciding for the people what is best for us and what our needs our. Why in the world would we as intellectual people NEED to think, do, act, & decide with complete information when we have the socialist dimocrats doing it for us? Let us just hand all of our informed decision making, responsibility and risk for our own benefit taking to the Democrat Party, so they, the SOCIALIST, can make for us according to, as they define, our own NEEDS.
Greychin, I suggested once before, you should educate yourself on what socialism is rather than the narrow deflecting indoctrination the Socialist Democrat Party define for you according to your need of spewing more Socialist Propaganda. Apparently your thinking capacity has diminished beyond retrieval as you reflect only that which the socialist have programmed.
.
Once again.
How nice, an abortion provider wanting to prevent a customer from making a completely informed decision.

HDCStillwater, (10/11/2008 12:22:18 PM)

Here's a crazy thought-what if we just put it to a vote of the people if it's so controversial?

YAYTulsa, Catoosa, OK (10/11/2008 12:23:52 PM)

KWH, assuming I am an abortion provider, I can offer fully informed choice as such: "Before we begin the procedure, I want to offer you the opportunity to have an ultrasound and have the results explained. Studies have shown that having an ultrasound within one hour of this procedure may affect your decision, would you like to have one?" Informed consent is already the law, or didn't you know? Did you also not know that as a patient I am allowed to refuse ANY procedure? Clearly it is not "informed consent" that is being required, it is the right to refuse a procedure that is being stripped.