"Indiana Senate backs requiring ultrasound for "abortion pill" use"
INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - The Indiana state Senate on Tuesday approved Republican-backed legislation to require women seeking to end pregnancies through use of the so-called abortion pill to have an ultrasound examination.
If it becomes law, the proposal would make Indiana the ninth state to require an ultrasound prior to an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
Senators voted 33 to 16 to approve the measure, advancing it for consideration by the state House of Representatives, which like the Senate is controlled by a Republican super-majority.
Republican Governor Mike Pence, a former U.S. congressman who strongly opposes abortion and championed federal attempts to cut off funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood, is expected to sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk.
The bill, as first introduced by Republican state Senator Travis Holdman, would have required two ultrasounds before a woman could obtain a prescription for the abortion pill, officially known as RU486. It was amended to allow the doctor providing the drug to decide if a second exam was needed.
"It is a matter of the mother's health," said Holdman. It is dangerous to administer RU486 in some cases, such as if the fertilized egg implants outside the womb of the woman.
The bill as passed also would require clinics where RU486 medication is dispensed to meet the same standards as a facility that performs surgical abortions, a provision opponents said could force an Indiana clinic to close.
The two-pill abortion medication called RU486 has been legally available in the United States since 2000. By 2008 it accounted for about one-fourth of U.S. abortions performed before nine weeks of gestation, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
As approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the two drugs - mifepristone and misoprostol - are dispensed by prescription directly from a physician. They are not available in pharmacies. The medication is generally prescribed for ending pregnancies of less than eight weeks.
Opponents of the bill said it would effectively require women seeking an RU486 prescription to undergo an invasive transvaginal ultrasound probe, because that is the only exam capable of providing the information mandated by the bill during early stages of pregnancy.
The bill language does not specify the type of ultrasound required, and Holdman said a normal ultrasound would suffice.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana President Betty Cockrum said the new licensing requirements could force a Lafayette, Indiana, clinic that provides non-surgical abortion services to close.
"It's politics, pure and simple," Cockrum said, adding that requiring the clinic to meet surgical standards would not improve patient safety.
Oklahoma May Deny Women Affordable Birth Control Because It ‘Poisons Their Bodies’
By Tara Culp-Ressler on Feb 22, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Oklahoma already prevents women from using their insurance plans to help cover abortion services, but Republicans aren’t stopping there. One state lawmaker wants to continue stripping insurance coverage for reproductive health services, advancing a measure that would allow employers to refuse to cover birth control for any reason — based solely on the fact that one of his constituents believes it “poisons women’s bodies.”
Under State Sen. Clark Jolley (R)’s measure, “no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees.” According to the Tulsa World, Jolley’s inspiration for his bill came from one of his male constituents who is morally opposed to birth control, and wanted to find a small group insurance plan for himself and his family that didn’t include coverage for those services:
Jolley said the measure is the result of a request from a constituent, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, an Oklahoma City cardiologist who describes himself as a natural family planning medical consultant and women’s health researcher. [...]
Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, Pedulla said.
“Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother,” Pedulla said. “They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn’t bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies.”
The bill has already cleared a Senate Health committee and now makes it way to Oklahoma’s full Senate. It is unlikely that either Jolley and Pedulla themselves rely on insurance coverage for hormonal contraceptive services — but if the measure becomes law, the two men could limit the health insurance options for the nearly two million women who live in Oklahoma.
Of course, contraception does not actually poison women. The FDA approved the first oral birth control pill in 1960, and that type of contraception is so safe that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends making it available without a prescription, as it is in most other countries around the world. Furthermore, considering that over 99 percent of women of reproductive age have used some form of birth control, the Oklahoma women who rely on insurance coverage for their contraception would likely disagree with Pedulla’s assertion that it “suppresses and radically contradicts part of their own identity.”
In reality, access to affordable birth control is a critical economic issue for women. When women have control over their reproductive choices, it allows them to achieve economic goals like completing their education, becoming financially independent, or keeping a job. But birth control can carry high out-of-pocket costs, and over half of young women say they haven’t used their contraceptive method as directed because of cost prohibitions. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly pushed measures to allow employers to drop coverage for birth control.
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
Oklahoma May Deny Women Affordable Birth Control Because It ‘Poisons Their Bodies’
By Tara Culp-Ressler on Feb 22, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Oklahoma already prevents women from using their insurance plans to help cover abortion services, but Republicans aren’t stopping there. One state lawmaker wants to continue stripping insurance coverage for reproductive health services, advancing a measure that would allow employers to refuse to cover birth control for any reason — based solely on the fact that one of his constituents believes it “poisons women’s bodies.”
Under State Sen. Clark Jolley (R)’s measure, “no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees.” According to the Tulsa World, Jolley’s inspiration for his bill came from one of his male constituents who is morally opposed to birth control, and wanted to find a small group insurance plan for himself and his family that didn’t include coverage for those services:
Jolley said the measure is the result of a request from a constituent, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, an Oklahoma City cardiologist who describes himself as a natural family planning medical consultant and women’s health researcher. [...]
Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, Pedulla said.
“Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother,” Pedulla said. “They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn’t bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies.”
The bill has already cleared a Senate Health committee and now makes it way to Oklahoma’s full Senate. It is unlikely that either Jolley and Pedulla themselves rely on insurance coverage for hormonal contraceptive services — but if the measure becomes law, the two men could limit the health insurance options for the nearly two million women who live in Oklahoma.
Of course, contraception does not actually poison women. The FDA approved the first oral birth control pill in 1960, and that type of contraception is so safe that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends making it available without a prescription, as it is in most other countries around the world. Furthermore, considering that over 99 percent of women of reproductive age have used some form of birth control, the Oklahoma women who rely on insurance coverage for their contraception would likely disagree with Pedulla’s assertion that it “suppresses and radically contradicts part of their own identity.”
In reality, access to affordable birth control is a critical economic issue for women. When women have control over their reproductive choices, it allows them to achieve economic goals like completing their education, becoming financially independent, or keeping a job. But birth control can carry high out-of-pocket costs, and over half of young women say they haven’t used their contraceptive method as directed because of cost prohibitions. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly pushed measures to allow employers to drop coverage for birth control.
:fp: Unbelievable. Yet, none of us should be surprised after reading the rest of the thread...
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
Totally agree. I really wonder how anyone can defend a group of old white men interested only in helping out other old white men, while shitting on everyone else.
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
yeah, you're smack dab in the center! :crazy:
Why can't someone who needs help, help themselves? It's a crazy idea? Why it is the government’s responsibility to help everyone? For the record, who is going to pay for all of this help....? Maybe the corporations and their evil profits! They are also the ones who create jobs for everyone so they can make a living. The government has made taxes so high that we are lucky that any corporations are still in America. I don't know when "profit" became such a dirty word. If you owned a business, wouldn’t you want to maximize your profit? Or would you just want to make enough to barely get by, and turn the rest over to “help” others? The demonization of success by the left is slowly killing this country.
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
Totally agree. I really wonder how anyone can defend a group of old white men interested only in helping out other old white men, while shitting on everyone else.
So again, you show that you really believe that the Republican strategy is to alienate everyone but old white men... Really!?!?! :fp:
Where is your anger at Joe Salazar and the Democrat's treatment of women in Colorado?
A new Pew Research poll out Tuesday finds that 62 percent, including 36 percent of Republicans, think the GOP is out of touch with Americans. After the 2012 elections, a sensible segment of the party expressed a willingness to combat that perception. But within the party, there’s resistance, and that tension reflects the ongoing battle for the direction of the Republican Party.
Here are some of the key issues causing the great GOP schism:
1. Gay Marriage
A group of prominent former Republican officials argued this week that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, filing a brief in support of a Supreme Court challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage. But the flip side is another case before the Supreme Court, a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriages for the purposes of receiving federal benefits. Since the Obama administration announced in February 2011 that it would no longer defend the law in court, House Republicans elected to continue on in its stead, and have spent $3 million taking up the reins.
And though public opinion is shifting toward legalizing gay marriages, this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference is adhering to its previous policy of shutting out gay Republican groups like GOProud.
2. Gun Control
After the Newtown school shootings, a number of Republicans said they’d be open to broadening the background check system, and some have even tentatively expressed support for universal background checks. “Universal background checks is something that there could be consensus on,” said Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who worked on John McCain’s 2008 campaign. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., has said universal background checks are “a reasonable step forward.” Even a coalition of House Republicans have indicated they’d be open to expanding the program.
But the NRA has been doing its best to paint any attempt at background check expansion as an effort by the Obama administration to register gun owners, for the purposes of eventually confiscating all guns. Then there’s Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, who has suggested that he would file articles of impeachment against President Obama if he takes executive action on gun control. And on the state level, Republican legislators have been finding creative ways to block any gun laws from being implemented, like proposing legislation to make it a felony to enforce federal gun control laws.
3. Immigration
A bipartisan group of senators rolled out a plan for immigration reform earlier this year, which included a pathway to citizenship. Among the senators were Republicans Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and John McCain, R-Ariz., two key players in the immigration debate. Though there is some daylight between the Senate’s plan and the Obama administration’s (and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., called Rubio “nuts” for supporting the plan), the real challenge, as always, is going to come from House Republicans, who have been painting a pathway to citizenship as “amnesty.”
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who will eventually oversee whatever House legislation gets drafted, said that a pathway to citizenship is a non-starter. “People have a pathway to citizenship right now: It’s to abide by the immigration laws, and if they have a family relationship, if they have a job skill that allows them to do that, they can obtain citizenship.” Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said in a recent statement: ”By granting amnesty, the Senate proposal actually compounds the problem by encouraging more illegal immigration.” And Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., agreed. ”It’s very difficult for me to support something that allows that type of amnesty,” he told Newsday.
4. The Sequester
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said this week of tax hikes: “I’m willing to raise revenue. I’m willing to raise $600 billion of new revenue if my Democratic friends would be willing to reform entitlements.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on the other hand, said he believes that if House Speaker John Boehner “caves” on tax hikes, ”I don’t quite honestly believe that Speaker Boehner would be speaker if that happens. I think he would lose his speakership.”
The Tea Party already came after Boehner for the deal he made to avert the “fiscal cliff” back in January, which passed without much support from conservatives. Boehner wound up holding onto his speakership by just a handful of votes, though many of the defections were symbolic.
5. Karl Rove
Karl Rove’s attempt to bolster mainstream, establishment candidates in the 2014 primaries has made a lot of conservatives unhappy. Rove’s initiative, called the Conservative Victory Project, is an effort to enlist GOP mega-donors to crush Tea Party candidates before they have a chance to prove unelectable in the general election.
The initiative evoked an unsurprising amount of ire from conservatives and Tea Party groups, who described Rove’s move as bullying, among other things. Even Newt Gingrich said he thinks Rove’s plan is going to backfire. But some of the battle lines have been drawn even thicker: Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a potential Senate candidate in 2014 and a named target of Rove’s group, is both aligning himself with the Tea Party Patriots to shore up support for his run, and fundraising off of Rove’s designs on his prospective campaign.
62% of Americans believe that the GOP is out of touch. With Karl Rove on one side and the Tea Party on the other that is no surprise.
...
4. The Sequester
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said this week of tax hikes: “I’m willing to raise revenue. I’m willing to raise $600 billion of new revenue if my Democratic friends would be willing to reform entitlements.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on the other hand, said he believes that if House Speaker John Boehner “caves” on tax hikes, ”I don’t quite honestly believe that Speaker Boehner would be speaker if that happens. I think he would lose his speakership.”
The Tea Party already came after Boehner for the deal he made to avert the “fiscal cliff” back in January, which passed without much support from conservatives. Boehner wound up holding onto his speakership by just a handful of votes, though many of the defections were symbolic.
I saw a Pew poll that only 18% of Americans are aware of the sequester and understand it. :fp:
62% of Americans believe that the GOP is out of touch. With Karl Rove on one side and the Tea Party on the other that is no surprise.
...
4. The Sequester
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said this week of tax hikes: “I’m willing to raise revenue. I’m willing to raise $600 billion of new revenue if my Democratic friends would be willing to reform entitlements.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on the other hand, said he believes that if House Speaker John Boehner “caves” on tax hikes, ”I don’t quite honestly believe that Speaker Boehner would be speaker if that happens. I think he would lose his speakership.”
The Tea Party already came after Boehner for the deal he made to avert the “fiscal cliff” back in January, which passed without much support from conservatives. Boehner wound up holding onto his speakership by just a handful of votes, though many of the defections were symbolic.
I saw a Pew poll that only 18% of Americans are aware of the sequester and understand it. :fp:
he is their only shot at winning the white house because he is the only one who can peel away democratic voters. i guess because he happened to praise obama for the sandy response and the fact that he recently accepted medicaid expansion as part of obamacare, apparently his future in the gop does not look very bright. and it is a sad, sad thing.
the guest speakers at CPAC are people who recently got rejected by voters, romney, allen west, and everyone's favorite, sarah palin.
if this does not suggest that they are out of touch, nothing does.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I think they are doing Chris Christie a favor he's perfect where he is...
I really like him.
Both parties need to reel in their far sides,
moderation the key to common sense and compromise.
I think they are doing Chris Christie a favor he's perfect where he is...
I really like him.
Both parties need to reel in their far sides,
moderation the key to common sense and compromise.
are you saying CPAC is an example of moderation and compromise?
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I think they are doing Chris Christie a favor he's perfect where he is...
I really like him.
Both parties need to reel in their far sides,
moderation the key to common sense and compromise.
are you saying CPAC is an example of moderation and compromise?
I think they are doing Chris Christie a favor he's perfect where he is...
I really like him.
Both parties need to reel in their far sides,
moderation the key to common sense and compromise.
are you saying CPAC is an example of moderation and compromise?
i think it is just a matter of time before christie changes party affiliation. if CPAC is an example of the leaders of the party, there is no place for christie. he would have to go as an independant or a blue dog style democrat.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
he is their only shot at winning the white house because he is the only one who can peel away democratic voters. i guess because he happened to praise obama for the sandy response and the fact that he recently accepted medicaid expansion as part of obamacare, apparently his future in the gop does not look very bright. and it is a sad, sad thing.
the guest speakers at CPAC are people who recently got rejected by voters, romney, allen west, and everyone's favorite, sarah palin.
if this does not suggest that they are out of touch, nothing does.
Interesting that he's not invited. So all moderate republicans aren't invited? (not that there's many of them, but anyway...)
Childish people retaliate. Some foolish Republicans are angry with Christie for his
'relationship' with our President and criticism towards his own party after Sandy.
He also has snubbed a previous invite, I believe.
Christie is a Governor first and foremost. His loyalties not to a party
but to all the people of his state. It surprises me that the GOP would not embrace this
fact and use it to their benefit.
We would be fortunate to have a President like him but for his own sake,
his states sake and to keep a really great guy from being compromised, I hope he
does not consider the office of Presidency. He's one cool real dude there though
and would have my vote.
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
Totally agree. I really wonder how anyone can defend a group of old white men interested only in helping out other old white men, while shitting on everyone else.
Okay.... just wondering why this "old white men" phrase gets a pass on not being raciest and bigoted, oh and lets not forget hate monger and just plain haters? WTH? :?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
i think it is just a matter of time before christie changes party affiliation. if CPAC is an example of the leaders of the party, there is no place for christie. he would have to go as an independant or a blue dog style democrat.
People said the same thing about John McCain in 2000. Things change as time passes.
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
Totally agree. I really wonder how anyone can defend a group of old white men interested only in helping out other old white men, while shitting on everyone else.
Okay.... just wondering why this "old white men" phrase gets a pass on not being raciest and bigoted, oh and lets not forget hate monger and just plain haters? WTH? :?
As an "old white man" I can not only recognize the GOP as the party of old white men I can easily use the term old white men
Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?
seriously, how is "old white man" racist or hate? it's no different than saying the democratic party is full of young black people. is the term "young black people" racist or hateful to you, or is it a factual depiction of a certain group?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
They all take your money..Rich guys are always in power. Obama is half white isn't he? And he is old by most peoples definition..... so it makes no sense to use race to find out who is the liar and thief. I am sick of all the colors of humans taking my money and WASTING it.
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
yeah, you're smack dab in the center! :crazy:
Why can't someone who needs help, help themselves? It's a crazy idea? Why it is the government’s responsibility to help everyone? For the record, who is going to pay for all of this help....? Maybe the corporations and their evil profits! They are also the ones who create jobs for everyone so they can make a living. The government has made taxes so high that we are lucky that any corporations are still in America. I don't know when "profit" became such a dirty word. If you owned a business, wouldn’t you want to maximize your profit? Or would you just want to make enough to barely get by, and turn the rest over to “help” others? The demonization of success by the left is slowly killing this country.
Part of being a part of society is contributing to common causes such as defense, roads, education (do you want to live in a country full of idiots?), and also to protection of natural resources for all of us. And to help those who need help. I am quite sure that not everyone on public assistance is a lazy bum. I don't want to live in a third world country where the "haves" huddle in guarded estates, greedily hanging on to their money and profits while others suffer in the streets, like in Central and South America and elsewhere. This is where we are heading, if the Republicans have their way. BTW, I do own a business (I am a partner in a medical practice). And we don't maximize profit at the expense of others. We could easily hire workers at low wages and without benefits, and cut corners, but we don't, because that would be WRONG. We are doing fine, and adequately rewarded for our efforts, at least for now. I don't believe in doing the wrong thing so I can make a few more bucks. Unfortunately, most big corporations do not share my beliefs. Sure, they provide jobs, unfortunately a lot of these are in China and India, so they can maximize profit. This does not give them the right to run our government for their own benefit. And the tax rate here is not high. The corporations hardly pay any taxes.
Lower taxes would be great for me, but I won't support the Republicans unless they convince me that they are concerned about my civil rights, the environment, appropriate regulations on businesses to protect workers and the environment, etc. And convince me that they are not trying to restrict my liberties based on their bible. At the end of the day, I'd rather have clean water, clean air, and a decent safety net than a few more dollars in my pocket, or a more expensive car or bigger house. That said, I'm more libertarian than anything. I don't think the Democrats are much better. Both are for big government, they only differ in who they would benefit with my tax dollars
Well if you are an old white man you can use the term....but if you are not and old white man how is this not raciest or just plain hate speech?
seriously, how is "old white man" racist or hate? it's no different than saying the democratic party is full of young black people. is the term "young black people" racist or hateful to you, or is it a factual depiction of a certain group?
Using it in a derogatory way is hateful.....are we not supposed to be moving on to unity and stop using the color of someones skin.
would it be okay to say
But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists
“We the people are the rightful masters of bothCongress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
I'm not republican or democrat because I don't see much difference in them, honestly. But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich white male would vote for a party full of bigots and mysogynists who talk about small government and individual liberties, but only apply these principles to corporations. the democrats may take more of my money, but at least they'll MAYBE give it someone who needs help instead of exxon/mobil or a defense contractor.
They all take your money..Rich guys are always in power. Obama is half white isn't he? And he is old by most peoples definition..... so it makes no sense to use race to find out who is the liar and thief. I am sick of all the colors of humans taking my money and WASTING it.
Totally agree. Both parties are for big government and both are wasting our money AND driving up the deficit. But I can't abide the republican desire to turn women's rights back 40 years, install a christian theocracy and demonize science (teaching creationism in the schools, abstinence only sex ed,etc), or let corporations regulate themselves and plunder our natural resources
Comments
INDIANAPOLIS (Reuters) - The Indiana state Senate on Tuesday approved Republican-backed legislation to require women seeking to end pregnancies through use of the so-called abortion pill to have an ultrasound examination.
If it becomes law, the proposal would make Indiana the ninth state to require an ultrasound prior to an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
Senators voted 33 to 16 to approve the measure, advancing it for consideration by the state House of Representatives, which like the Senate is controlled by a Republican super-majority.
Republican Governor Mike Pence, a former U.S. congressman who strongly opposes abortion and championed federal attempts to cut off funding for abortion provider Planned Parenthood, is expected to sign the bill into law if it reaches his desk.
The bill, as first introduced by Republican state Senator Travis Holdman, would have required two ultrasounds before a woman could obtain a prescription for the abortion pill, officially known as RU486. It was amended to allow the doctor providing the drug to decide if a second exam was needed.
"It is a matter of the mother's health," said Holdman. It is dangerous to administer RU486 in some cases, such as if the fertilized egg implants outside the womb of the woman.
The bill as passed also would require clinics where RU486 medication is dispensed to meet the same standards as a facility that performs surgical abortions, a provision opponents said could force an Indiana clinic to close.
The two-pill abortion medication called RU486 has been legally available in the United States since 2000. By 2008 it accounted for about one-fourth of U.S. abortions performed before nine weeks of gestation, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
As approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the two drugs - mifepristone and misoprostol - are dispensed by prescription directly from a physician. They are not available in pharmacies. The medication is generally prescribed for ending pregnancies of less than eight weeks.
Opponents of the bill said it would effectively require women seeking an RU486 prescription to undergo an invasive transvaginal ultrasound probe, because that is the only exam capable of providing the information mandated by the bill during early stages of pregnancy.
The bill language does not specify the type of ultrasound required, and Holdman said a normal ultrasound would suffice.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana President Betty Cockrum said the new licensing requirements could force a Lafayette, Indiana, clinic that provides non-surgical abortion services to close.
"It's politics, pure and simple," Cockrum said, adding that requiring the clinic to meet surgical standards would not improve patient safety.
By Tara Culp-Ressler on Feb 22, 2013 at 3:50 pm
Oklahoma already prevents women from using their insurance plans to help cover abortion services, but Republicans aren’t stopping there. One state lawmaker wants to continue stripping insurance coverage for reproductive health services, advancing a measure that would allow employers to refuse to cover birth control for any reason — based solely on the fact that one of his constituents believes it “poisons women’s bodies.”
Under State Sen. Clark Jolley (R)’s measure, “no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees.” According to the Tulsa World, Jolley’s inspiration for his bill came from one of his male constituents who is morally opposed to birth control, and wanted to find a small group insurance plan for himself and his family that didn’t include coverage for those services:
Jolley said the measure is the result of a request from a constituent, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, an Oklahoma City cardiologist who describes himself as a natural family planning medical consultant and women’s health researcher. [...]
Women are worse off with contraception because it suppresses and disables who they are, Pedulla said.
“Part of their identity is the potential to be a mother,” Pedulla said. “They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn’t bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies.”
The bill has already cleared a Senate Health committee and now makes it way to Oklahoma’s full Senate. It is unlikely that either Jolley and Pedulla themselves rely on insurance coverage for hormonal contraceptive services — but if the measure becomes law, the two men could limit the health insurance options for the nearly two million women who live in Oklahoma.
Of course, contraception does not actually poison women. The FDA approved the first oral birth control pill in 1960, and that type of contraception is so safe that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends making it available without a prescription, as it is in most other countries around the world. Furthermore, considering that over 99 percent of women of reproductive age have used some form of birth control, the Oklahoma women who rely on insurance coverage for their contraception would likely disagree with Pedulla’s assertion that it “suppresses and radically contradicts part of their own identity.”
In reality, access to affordable birth control is a critical economic issue for women. When women have control over their reproductive choices, it allows them to achieve economic goals like completing their education, becoming financially independent, or keeping a job. But birth control can carry high out-of-pocket costs, and over half of young women say they haven’t used their contraceptive method as directed because of cost prohibitions. Nonetheless, Republican lawmakers have repeatedly pushed measures to allow employers to drop coverage for birth control.
:fp: Unbelievable. Yet, none of us should be surprised after reading the rest of the thread...
Totally agree. I really wonder how anyone can defend a group of old white men interested only in helping out other old white men, while shitting on everyone else.
Amen!
yeah, you're smack dab in the center! :crazy:
Why can't someone who needs help, help themselves? It's a crazy idea? Why it is the government’s responsibility to help everyone? For the record, who is going to pay for all of this help....? Maybe the corporations and their evil profits! They are also the ones who create jobs for everyone so they can make a living. The government has made taxes so high that we are lucky that any corporations are still in America. I don't know when "profit" became such a dirty word. If you owned a business, wouldn’t you want to maximize your profit? Or would you just want to make enough to barely get by, and turn the rest over to “help” others? The demonization of success by the left is slowly killing this country.
So again, you show that you really believe that the Republican strategy is to alienate everyone but old white men... Really!?!?! :fp:
Where is your anger at Joe Salazar and the Democrat's treatment of women in Colorado?
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/26/gun_con ... g_the_gop/
A new Pew Research poll out Tuesday finds that 62 percent, including 36 percent of Republicans, think the GOP is out of touch with Americans. After the 2012 elections, a sensible segment of the party expressed a willingness to combat that perception. But within the party, there’s resistance, and that tension reflects the ongoing battle for the direction of the Republican Party.
Here are some of the key issues causing the great GOP schism:
1. Gay Marriage
A group of prominent former Republican officials argued this week that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, filing a brief in support of a Supreme Court challenge to Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage. But the flip side is another case before the Supreme Court, a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans same-sex marriages for the purposes of receiving federal benefits. Since the Obama administration announced in February 2011 that it would no longer defend the law in court, House Republicans elected to continue on in its stead, and have spent $3 million taking up the reins.
And though public opinion is shifting toward legalizing gay marriages, this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference is adhering to its previous policy of shutting out gay Republican groups like GOProud.
2. Gun Control
After the Newtown school shootings, a number of Republicans said they’d be open to broadening the background check system, and some have even tentatively expressed support for universal background checks. “Universal background checks is something that there could be consensus on,” said Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who worked on John McCain’s 2008 campaign. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., has said universal background checks are “a reasonable step forward.” Even a coalition of House Republicans have indicated they’d be open to expanding the program.
But the NRA has been doing its best to paint any attempt at background check expansion as an effort by the Obama administration to register gun owners, for the purposes of eventually confiscating all guns. Then there’s Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, who has suggested that he would file articles of impeachment against President Obama if he takes executive action on gun control. And on the state level, Republican legislators have been finding creative ways to block any gun laws from being implemented, like proposing legislation to make it a felony to enforce federal gun control laws.
3. Immigration
A bipartisan group of senators rolled out a plan for immigration reform earlier this year, which included a pathway to citizenship. Among the senators were Republicans Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and John McCain, R-Ariz., two key players in the immigration debate. Though there is some daylight between the Senate’s plan and the Obama administration’s (and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., called Rubio “nuts” for supporting the plan), the real challenge, as always, is going to come from House Republicans, who have been painting a pathway to citizenship as “amnesty.”
Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who will eventually oversee whatever House legislation gets drafted, said that a pathway to citizenship is a non-starter. “People have a pathway to citizenship right now: It’s to abide by the immigration laws, and if they have a family relationship, if they have a job skill that allows them to do that, they can obtain citizenship.” Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said in a recent statement: ”By granting amnesty, the Senate proposal actually compounds the problem by encouraging more illegal immigration.” And Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., agreed. ”It’s very difficult for me to support something that allows that type of amnesty,” he told Newsday.
4. The Sequester
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said this week of tax hikes: “I’m willing to raise revenue. I’m willing to raise $600 billion of new revenue if my Democratic friends would be willing to reform entitlements.”
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on the other hand, said he believes that if House Speaker John Boehner “caves” on tax hikes, ”I don’t quite honestly believe that Speaker Boehner would be speaker if that happens. I think he would lose his speakership.”
The Tea Party already came after Boehner for the deal he made to avert the “fiscal cliff” back in January, which passed without much support from conservatives. Boehner wound up holding onto his speakership by just a handful of votes, though many of the defections were symbolic.
5. Karl Rove
Karl Rove’s attempt to bolster mainstream, establishment candidates in the 2014 primaries has made a lot of conservatives unhappy. Rove’s initiative, called the Conservative Victory Project, is an effort to enlist GOP mega-donors to crush Tea Party candidates before they have a chance to prove unelectable in the general election.
The initiative evoked an unsurprising amount of ire from conservatives and Tea Party groups, who described Rove’s move as bullying, among other things. Even Newt Gingrich said he thinks Rove’s plan is going to backfire. But some of the battle lines have been drawn even thicker: Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a potential Senate candidate in 2014 and a named target of Rove’s group, is both aligning himself with the Tea Party Patriots to shore up support for his run, and fundraising off of Rove’s designs on his prospective campaign.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I believe it. :(
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
he is their only shot at winning the white house because he is the only one who can peel away democratic voters. i guess because he happened to praise obama for the sandy response and the fact that he recently accepted medicaid expansion as part of obamacare, apparently his future in the gop does not look very bright. and it is a sad, sad thing.
the guest speakers at CPAC are people who recently got rejected by voters, romney, allen west, and everyone's favorite, sarah palin.
if this does not suggest that they are out of touch, nothing does.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I really like him.
Both parties need to reel in their far sides,
moderation the key to common sense and compromise.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think she is saying Christie is.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Interesting that he's not invited. So all moderate republicans aren't invited? (not that there's many of them, but anyway...)
'relationship' with our President and criticism towards his own party after Sandy.
He also has snubbed a previous invite, I believe.
Christie is a Governor first and foremost. His loyalties not to a party
but to all the people of his state. It surprises me that the GOP would not embrace this
fact and use it to their benefit.
We would be fortunate to have a President like him but for his own sake,
his states sake and to keep a really great guy from being compromised, I hope he
does not consider the office of Presidency. He's one cool real dude there though
and would have my vote.
Okay.... just wondering why this "old white men" phrase gets a pass on not being raciest and bigoted, oh and lets not forget hate monger and just plain haters? WTH? :?
People said the same thing about John McCain in 2000. Things change as time passes.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
As an "old white man" I can not only recognize the GOP as the party of old white men I can easily use the term old white men
Probably because... for the most part... it is true.
Hail, Hail!!!
seriously, how is "old white man" racist or hate? it's no different than saying the democratic party is full of young black people. is the term "young black people" racist or hateful to you, or is it a factual depiction of a certain group?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
They all take your money..Rich guys are always in power. Obama is half white isn't he? And he is old by most peoples definition..... so it makes no sense to use race to find out who is the liar and thief. I am sick of all the colors of humans taking my money and WASTING it.
Part of being a part of society is contributing to common causes such as defense, roads, education (do you want to live in a country full of idiots?), and also to protection of natural resources for all of us. And to help those who need help. I am quite sure that not everyone on public assistance is a lazy bum. I don't want to live in a third world country where the "haves" huddle in guarded estates, greedily hanging on to their money and profits while others suffer in the streets, like in Central and South America and elsewhere. This is where we are heading, if the Republicans have their way. BTW, I do own a business (I am a partner in a medical practice). And we don't maximize profit at the expense of others. We could easily hire workers at low wages and without benefits, and cut corners, but we don't, because that would be WRONG. We are doing fine, and adequately rewarded for our efforts, at least for now. I don't believe in doing the wrong thing so I can make a few more bucks. Unfortunately, most big corporations do not share my beliefs. Sure, they provide jobs, unfortunately a lot of these are in China and India, so they can maximize profit. This does not give them the right to run our government for their own benefit. And the tax rate here is not high. The corporations hardly pay any taxes.
Lower taxes would be great for me, but I won't support the Republicans unless they convince me that they are concerned about my civil rights, the environment, appropriate regulations on businesses to protect workers and the environment, etc. And convince me that they are not trying to restrict my liberties based on their bible. At the end of the day, I'd rather have clean water, clean air, and a decent safety net than a few more dollars in my pocket, or a more expensive car or bigger house. That said, I'm more libertarian than anything. I don't think the Democrats are much better. Both are for big government, they only differ in who they would benefit with my tax dollars
Using it in a derogatory way is hateful.....are we not supposed to be moving on to unity and stop using the color of someones skin.
would it be okay to say
But these days, I can't see why anyone but a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists
Totally agree. Both parties are for big government and both are wasting our money AND driving up the deficit. But I can't abide the republican desire to turn women's rights back 40 years, install a christian theocracy and demonize science (teaching creationism in the schools, abstinence only sex ed,etc), or let corporations regulate themselves and plunder our natural resources
Question: WHY would a rich black male would vote for a party full of bigots and misogynists?
Hail, Hail!!!