Trouble in Paradise
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
s/o Reproductive rights
Apparently the Virginia House is planning to shelve the mandated pre-abortion vaginal ultrasound bill for an indefinite period of time. I've heard conflicting reports that they're still working on a compromise and that it'll die in committee (heh).
I'm about as pro-choice as it gets, but the language calling the bill "state-sanctioned rape" really irks me. Hyperbole gets you headlines, but it's also a big turnoff for people.
This is my siggy.
Re: s/o Reproductive rights
Really? Ugh. So far the u/s bill is getting the most attention. WTF is wrong with Virginia?
This. The last thing that a rape victim needs is to have a dildo shaped wand shoved into her vagina.......what exactly is the point in it?
So you can see the fetus and want to keep it. Or make you feel crushing guilt and shame for your decision to abort.
Yup. They are trying to do everything they can to make it more difficult to get an abortion. Methods other states have used are waiting periods, specific language that the nurses are required to say to the patient, and I thought there was a state or two that requires the patient to undergo (and watch) an ultrasound, though not intravaginal, before an abortion is performed. It's all to make abortion a more difficult process to undergo.
That lawmakers could regulate medical procedures is just ridiculous. This is why we have doctors. To concern themselves with appropriate medical procedures.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you. My Blog
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my experience that you get an u/s to make sure that there's actually something there/something else isn't wrong and you get another one after all is said and done to make sure everything's all cleared out. They use the dildo cam because you're not far along enough yet to use the belly wand. (Love my technical jargon there)
I understand that it's going to be traumatizing for rape victims. I don't really think it's a huge deal to see it (I saw both the aborted fetus and my current pregnancy at 7ish weeks and was like "hmm, a blob"), but I think it's silly to force a woman to do so.
Bottom line: I think it makes sense to get an u/s. I don't think the government should be forcing laws up my hooha.
The Princess of Anything is Coming!
Had a dream I was queen.
Woke up. Still queen.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted and used against you. My Blog
Yes, if a doctor says that an ultrasound is necessary, then you do it (although you do not have to watch or hear the heartbeat or anything else if you choose not to), and if a doctor says that one way is preferable over the other for reasons 1, 2, and 3, then you accept that, but a senator or congressman has no right and no basis to regulate that.
So, yes, I agree with your bottom line.
I was just about to post this exact same thing. I was pissed when I heard this was passed.
I think it is very intrusive, unnecessary and potentially emotionally scarring to have to use the dildo cam on someone requesting an abortion.
Odds are if the woman has thought it through, and had the guts to come into the office that she is sure about what she wants. I hate it that they try to make it harder on the woman. Its hard enough already, for many women, adding any guilt/shame/etc. by making them see/hear the fetus is just cruel in my opinion.
I could see monitoring the internal organs for an ectopic, tumor or something like that. Then there would be no requirement to SEE the screen or hear the heartbeat. I don't like abortion (though I don't know anyone that is like YAY ABORTION), and I'm not sure I could go through with it myself. However, I'm not going to ask a woman to take the dildo cam, and experience something she never wanted in the first place.
My government scares me with all of this shyt.
I believe that we should trust women. Trust them to know what is right for them, right for their families and right for their bodies. Honestly, do politicians think that a woman who goes into a medical facility for an abortion hasn't thought about it first?
Politicians don't have the right to tell a woman that she has to die because they have outlawed abortions even in order to save the life of the mother. Are they going to go the house of the grief stricken husband and kids left behind after Mommy's death and say "Well, yes, you lost your mother and your baby sibling, but we were protecting the sanctity of life."
BFP #4 It's a BOY!
CP: July 2011
BFP #3: 11/3/2011 M/C 12/12/11
We miss you and love you always, little firecrackers!
Google slut shaming.
Well ,yes, I see that - I certainly think it's anti-woman and slut shaming. I meant more the stated or acknowledged (by proponents) reason behind it that women should have more knowledge about their decision to abort. I don't see it working the way the anti-choice movement claim they intend and if their goal is to eliminate the choice of abortion, it seems like an effectual distraction more than a legitimate win for the movement.
BFP #4 It's a BOY!
CP: July 2011
BFP #3: 11/3/2011 M/C 12/12/11
We miss you and love you always, little firecrackers!
Actually, ineffective IS the entire goal.
I truly believe that.
Given the times that the 'power' has been held, pretty firmly, by one side or the other (both houses + presidency, etc), I think there's overwhelming evidence that if they really wanted to make a change, the would have.
But they don't.
what they WANT is to incite outrage, wave their hands and pretend to do stuff, and create the issue to be as polarizing and vote-getting as possible.
(note, I don't believe ONE side does this. I think one side may do it more, but I think both sides do)
They don't want abortion to change--if it did, then what would they have to scream about and get people to the polls with?