Fire with fire, goose / gander, what goes around . . .

I love this woman. All hail Janet!

To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.

13 responses to “Fire with fire, goose / gander, what goes around . . .

  1. I love it. Clever and provocative.

    Like

  2. This makes me so happy.

    Like

  3. a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion

    So, I knew a dood who had a terminal brain tumor; the same tumor that took Senator Kennedy in fact. About 16 months into his 24 month life expectancy, the doctors asked him if he would like to undergo a procedure that might add about 3 months to his life. He answer, “of course.”

    The the doctors had a very lengthy conversation with him. They explained that it was not without risk, would include significant pain for nearly a week, may not work and would, perhaps, only extend his “technical life”. That is, the time spend on respirators and other life saving machines; it may not add to his months of quality time remaining.

    He didn’t have the surgery.

    I’m afraid the pro-abortion crowd is blind. This has turned into a Crusade. And, indeed, for many on the right the same is true. But you are without reason in this regard. It is entirely reasonable to discuss the ramifications of the decision, the risks, both present and future, to the mother.

    Carry on.

    Like

    • They gave your guy the choice to have a procedure or not. The legislation makes the ultrasound mandatory.

      As for discussing the ‘ramifications’, that assumes the woman is ignorant or has not given any thought to what it means to her. And by the way pino, aboritons are much safer than childbirth, so what are the ‘risks’ to the mother? Should we issue warnings to women about the risks if they become pregnant? Or if they are considering actually carrying to term and giving birth? It is, after all, much more dangerous. Maybe we should mandate a ‘discussion’ with the doctor so she can make an ‘informed’ decision, especially about future ramifications – like the costs of food, shelter, education. Big decision, not to be made lightly.

      I’m being sarcastic here because I feel strongly about this inappropriate and intrusive paternalism from our legislators.

      Like

      • I’m with you, Moe. Unfortunately, here in Texas they’ve already passed this law, with the additional filip of requiring the doctor make the woman listen to the fetal heartbeat and describe to her what is on the sonogram screen, whether she wants to hear/see it or not. Currently it’s being challenged in the courts.

        I think what some men miss in this whole thing is that the sonogram isn’t the kind where they put some goo on the woman’s belly and roll the transducer around. No. It’s done transvaginally—where they stick it up the woman’s vagina and move it around. I have had one of these done prior to my hysterectomy and it was a distressing experience. But mine wasn’t FORCED on me like these are. This is a violation of a woman’s right to control what happens to her body.

        It really frosts my cake that the Texas bill was brought before the legislature by Gov. Perry as legislation requiring “emergency” action right after his re-election in 2011. Right after doing this, he started campaigning for president under the pretense of getting rid of “governmental intrusion” in our lives. I guess that only applied to some of us.

        Like

    • This has turned into a Crusade.

      You mean the right for women to be fully autonomous is not worth crusading for? Of course, I’d (we’d all)love to hear about the depth of your commitment to fetus fetishism, but rather than troll a good thread you took your leave. Commendable.

      Great find Moe. Funny how the malefolk get all uncomfortable and squeamish once it is suggested the state has the right to prod *their* private parts.

      Like

  4. Way to go, Janet!

    Like

  5. This is awesome! Thank you! Love it. LOVE. IT.

    Like

  6. Pingback: Good ‘Enuff’ for the Goose? Then Good ‘Enuff’ for the Gander! | GoodOleWoody's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s