Pro-Lifer doesn’t get why forced transvaginal ultrasounds are controversial, “I got pregnant vaginally”

February 21, 2013
By

Wash, rinse, repeat. A Pro-life activist can’t seem to comprehend why a woman wouldn’t want a mandatory forced trans-vaginal ultrasound prior to receiving medication to induce abortion, and then another one in a follow-up two weeks after the procedure. In fact, some do not understand that if the pregnancy is not wanted, there might be a really, really good reason. Hint: There always is a good reason.

TransVag

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RN Reality Check reports:

Indiana Right to Life legislative director Sue Swayze, who yesterday joined in with a number of Indiana Right to Life members to testify in favor of restrictions on RU-486 that would require the Lafayette, Indiana Planned Parenthood clinic to rebuild and reclassify as a surgical abortion center in order to continue providing medication abortions.

Swayze is now responding to critics who claim the multiple unnecessary probings are invasive.

Saying “she doesn’t understand the problem with the procedure,” Swayze told Brandon Smith of WBAA, “I got pregnant vaginally. Something else could come in my vagina for a medical test that wouldn’t be that intrusive to me. So I find that argument a little ridiculous.”

“Something else could come in my vagina for a medical test”? This is why lobbyists should not be writing medical policy.

Well shit. Ms. Swayze doesn’t read the news. Some women are raped and do not wish to carry her rapist’s baby. To force a victim to undergo this invasive procedure not once but twice, is highly insensitive. Meaning, the rape victim didn’t want the man’s penis in her vagina to begin with. Go figure! I can’t believe we have to have this discussion in 2013. The party that wants the Gubbermint out  of their lives, want it right up our vaginas — twice. And we’ve only touched on one reason for an unwanted pregnancy. There’s poverty, teenage pregnancy and a host of others.

Image: Under the Mountain Bunker

Tags: , , , , ,

  • LibertarianAtheist

    First and foremost, I am pro-choice. As a libertarian, I believe it is not my place to tell some one what to do with their body, and tell them how to run their life, as long as they aren’t infringing on my liberty.

    So, I post this question to you, being also pro-choice.

    You tell Republicans “You don’t like abortions? Don’t have one!” Yet, why can you not apply that same logic to guns? Arguably, abortion is murder. I still believe it’s a woman’s choice to do what she wants with something growing inside of her body. So, when you justify to take away guns from 99.99% of law abiding citizens because less than .01% of people use them for evil murders is completely hypocritical. If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one.

    Next, you have Democrat Joe Salazar tell women that they can pee themselves, puke, or wear a tampon to avoid getting raped as an excuse to not let women arm themselves for protection. How is this any worse than the above statement you just posted about? Both are very ignorant recommendations done by people who want to tell you what is best for your life.

    So, why can’t a woman use a gun to protect herself from a rapist? It’s the ONLY defense tool that puts a 115 pound woman on the same ground as a 250 pound mugger.

    • thinks

      I don’t see anyone asking that all weapons be taken away. Do you? That is a classic straw man however, I hope you stop using it now that you are. People are asking for stronger background checks and the standard response from pro-gun people is often the kind of straw man tactic you used. Please respect the truth a little more and stop using those false and deceptive tactics, and please stand up when others use them in the future. Thanks.

      • http://FreakoutNation.com Anomaly 100

        I don’t know what vaginas and guns have in common anyway. The comparison was simply a deflection.

        • http://www.facebook.com/george.post.5 George Post

          I don’t know what guns and penises have in common, either, yet all the anti-gun people try to make that comparison in an attempt to belittle gun-owners, which, since the anti-gun people are projecting their own insecurities, they only wind up belittling themselves.

      • LibertarianAtheist

        No. Because the absurdly defined “Assault” Weapons ban and the magazine bands aren’t attempting to take away guns. And not to mention you have idiotic advocates like Piers Morgan out there. My question was an attempt to prove a philosophical inconsistency with being pro choice and anti gun and especially the right to carry a gun for protection. and it seemed to work since you can’t give me an answer to why this inconsistency exists.

Related Posts