Connect with us

Abortion Ultrasound Bill: Anti-Choice Activist Twists Facts On Hardball



Last night, Chris Matthews hosted a “Hardball” debate about Virginia’s new bill that would require a woman considering an abortion to have a transvaginal ultrasound. During the debate, Marjorie Dannenfelser, President of the ultra-conservative Susan B. Anthony List, twisted and turned various facts by suggesting that the majority of women support being legally required to have this highly-invasive and expensive procedure, and caught falsely claiming that women only had to have an ultrasound “offered” to her — when the Virginia law would force her to undergo the procedure.

But first, a quick note about who Susan B. Anthony was, via Wikipedia:

Susan Brownell Anthony (February 15, 1820 – March 13, 1906) was a prominent American civil rights leader who played a pivotal role in the 19th century women’s rights movement to introduce women’s suffrage into the United States. She was co-founder of the first Women’s Temperance Movement with Elizabeth Cady Stanton as President. She also co-founded the women’s rights journal, The Revolution. She traveled the United States and Europe, and averaged 75 to 100 speeches per year. She was one of the important advocates in leading the way for women’s rights to be acknowledged and instituted in the American government.

The Susan B. Anthony List, “dedicated to electing candidates and pursuing policies that will reduce and ultimately end abortion,” co-opted Susan B. Anthony’s name, with no clear indiction of what her views on abortion are. Disgusting.

Back to “Hardball.”

First, Dannenfelser was caught in falsifying facts by Matthews when she stated, “all that is involved here is saying that 24 hours ahead of time, that that ultrasound be available and offered to the woman,” according to the MSNBC-provided transcript, below.

Matthews interrupted her, as any quality journalist would have, to clarify that the law requires that ultrasound be performed, not be made available to her, as in, “Would you like a mint?”

Then Dannenfelser told Matthews that “the reason the majority of women in Virginia and across the country support this is that they believe in that vulnerable spot in a difficult place, that more information is better,” also according to the MSNBC-provided transcript, below.

Apparently, Dannenfelser has polling that no one else is privy to, because we have poll after poll after poll that states that a majority of women — and in some polls, men too — do not want the law to be involved in her decision to have an abortion, and certainly do not want the government foxing her to have a medically-unnecessary and invasive procedure, like a transvaginal ultrasound.

Dannenfelser also falsely claimed that having an ultrasound was “vital” for the health of the woman — certainly not true. Were it true, doctors would demand a the procedure and there would be no need for a law.

Even Matthews slams Dannenfelser, asking, “Why are you pushing a bill you don’t understand the ramifications of?”

Of course, Dannenfelser does not support the Obama administration’s mandate to have all employers offer contraception services free of charge. Because as the head of a women’s organization dedicated to eliminating abortions altogether, having contraception — which would reduce the number of abortions desired — is not acceptable. She’s against it.

It’s a woman’s right to choose — not the Republican Party’s right to tell.

Majorie, if you have to twist facts to make your point, you don’t have one. Shame on you. Lord knows Susan B. Anthony is rolling in her grave knowing you represent her good name.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

>;>;>; next door to here in virginia, nearly 1,200 protesters descended on the state capital to protest legislation working its way to the governor that would require a woman to get an ultrasound before having an abortion. legally requiring an ultrasound violates the doctor/patient relationship. the ultrasound is a tool for informed consent before having an abortion. virginia is now the focus of this fight and could join seven other states at least where women are already legally required to have an ultrasound before an abortion. texas, law there states the provider must describe the image. in virginia, the bill as written now would require the ultrasound be done, but not that the woman view it. coming on the heels on access to contraception, is the virginia fight another example of the placing undue burden on women’s care. margeny denifeld joins us. cynthia, you go first. what’s wrong with this legislation requiring an ultrasound before an abortion?

>;>; everything, chris. republicans have been bludgeoning the administration with government intrusiveness. the affordable care act is supposed to be so intrusive. what is more intrusive than man mandating a medical procedure for a woman? one that is not medically e necessary? what is more intrusive of government than getting in the relationship between a woman and her doctor? i can’t imagine an episode of greater government overreach than that.

>;>; margery, your thoughts about why it would be important for the legislature to require this ultrasound before an abortion?

>;>; this is a matter of giving a woman more information that she needs to make a decision that’s fully informed. listen. these ultrasounds are standard procedure. planned parenthood’s hotline in virginia says that as well. all that is involved here is saying that 24 hours ahead of time, that that ultrasound be available and offered to the woman.

>;>; i thought the law said they have to have it.

>;>; the information. you have to have the ultrasound, yes. it’s not true that there’s no medical value in it.

>;>; just so the person watching the show understands the issue here. is the issue whether this is required by law or not?

>;>; this is required by law.

>;>; if you win.

>;>; that is right. if we win. and the actual image is offered to the woman. she doesn’t have to look at it. it’s not true there’s no medical necessity. that’s why it’s a standard procedure.

>;>; what’s the medical advantage of having an ultrasound?

>;>; women have died and had all sorts of complications from abortions when the jes talgs age was not determined.

>;>; hang on a minute. if in fact planned parenthood already does this, why is the law necessary? if a doctor believes that the procedure is medically necessary, a doctor will do it.

>;>; because a woman deserves to see it.

>;>; but if it is not medically necessary, the government has no business telling a doctor he or she must perform this intrusive procedure when it’s not medically necessary.

>;>; the information is vital. there are other standard procedures required by government. this one is certainly vital for her health and her fully-informed decision.

>;>; i’m not going to take cynthia’s side, although i agree this should be a concern that people should have. there ought to be an ownous on the ones that want the law. a woman decides to have an abortion. she makes the decision. it’s legal. under the law in the first trimester. why should you get in the way of that decision once she’s made that decision? why should she be required to jump through hoops to do it?

>;>; the reason the majority of women in virginia and across the country support this is that they believe in that vulnerable spot in a difficult place, that more information is better. and making — one decision is a medical decision. one is about the contentious difficult decision about what’s happening in an abortion. an ultrasound speaks to that. it’s science. it’s a scientific opinion backing up a medical reality.

>;>; what percentage of women decide not to have an abortion after seeing an ultrasound?

>;>; why are you pushing the bill then?

>;>; i understand that women– i know that women think they should have that information. if they want the information, they should have it.

>;>; if women thought —

>;>; they are in a difficult spot. listen. they get all kinds of other information about every other aspect of everything that’s going to happen in a procedure. this is arguably another human being.

>;>; do you think abortion should be outlawed?

>;>; of course, i do. it’s another human being. but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

>;>; is this another way of beginning the process of outlawing it?

>;>; this truly is about giving a woman a fully-informed decision about what’s actually going on.

>;>; cynthia, last thought here. i want to move on to a larger question on women’s health. what do you think this means, cynthia? that this is being pushed.

>;>; it’s harassment. it’s harassment because the groups who are pushing this don’t want women to have the right to decide. it’s extremely condescending to suggest that women have not thought deeply about this. prayed about it, talked to family. if they wanted more information, they could certainly ask the doctor for it.

>;>; why should an abortionist in the first place do it? why should information that he’s going to get not be offered to the woman? that’s all that’s happening in virginia.

>;>; let me ask you a question. the insurance companies are required to carry without co-pay coverage for birth control. isn’t that going to radically reduce the number of abortions in this country? birth control? the fact that poor women, working women will get it free. they will be inclined to provide themselves with birth control and avoid abortions?

>;>; regardless of the answer to that question, the ends don’t justify the means. this is actually what this presidential debate, this is what this freedom of information is about. it’s about freedom. and for —

>;>; so radically reducing the number of abortions in this country is not a good end?

>;>; of course, it’s a good end.

>;>; it could be achieved by birth control.

>;>; but a mandate to require abortions?

>;>; the availability at no cost will encourage women to use it. it would seem to me because it’s free and made available in their insurance programs. won’t that radically reduce the number of abortions?

>;>; no. look. 100% access is what women have now. requiring — mandating that on individuals that don’t believe in abortion causing drugs is a restriction of religious liberty and should not be about it. that’s what we’re talking about. .

>;>; cynthia, thank you for your knowledge and passion as always.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.


Pete Buttigieg Nails Trump for His Ugly Comments About Wounded Vets



During his Sunday morning appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called out Donald Trump over reports he told military leaders he didn’t want wounded vets to be seen by the public while he was president.

In a recent Atlantic profile of General Mark Milley, the retiring military office recounted the former president telling him “no one wants to see” wounded soldiers, with Milley adding he found Trump’s attitude to those serving their country “superficial, callous, and, at the deepest human level, repugnant.”

Buttigieg, who served in Afghanistan during his 8 years while in the Naval Reserve, was asked by CNN host Dana Bash about the former president’s apparent distaste for service members.

“I want to ask you about a new Atlantic profile that says that then President Trump complained to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley after an Army veteran who lost a leg in combat sang at an event at the Pentagon,” Bash prompted her guest. “Trump reportedly told Milley, ‘Why do you bring people like that here, no one wants to see that, the wounded.'”

“After that article came out, Trump attacked Milley on social media, kind of a rambling post, but suggested that milley deserved the death penalty. You’re a veteran– what’s your response?” she asked.

“It’s just the latest in a pattern of outrageous attacks on the people who keep the country safe,” the Biden administration official replied.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

After pointing to fellow vets who suffered horrific injuries, he added, “These are the kind of people that deserve respect and a hell of a lot more than that from every American, and definitely from every American president.”

“And the idea that an American president, the person to whom service members look at as a commander in chief, and the person who sets the tone for this entire country could think that way or act that way or talk that way about anyone in uniform, and certainly about those who put their bodies on the line and sacrificed in ways that most Americans will never understand, and I guess wounded veterans make president Trump feel uncomfortable.”

Watch below or at the link.



Continue Reading


‘Scared to Death’: Trump’s Prison Panic Admission Means He Knows He’s Doomed Says Legal Expert



Reacting to a report that Donald Trump has been quizzing his attorneys about what type of prison he likely will be sent to, former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner stated that is not only an indication that he knows he’s going to be convicted but also an admission of guilt.

Speaking with MSNBC host Jonathan Capehart, the attorney was asked about a recent Rolling Stone report about Trump’s prison panic.

As Rolling Stone reported, Trump asked if he’s “be sent to a ‘club fed’ style prison — a place that’s relatively comfortable, as far these things go — or a ‘bad’ prison? Would he serve out a sentence in a plush home confinement? Would government officials try to strip him of his lifetime Secret Service protections? What would they make him wear, if his enemies actually did ever get him in a cell — an unprecedented set of consequences for a former leader of the free world.”

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

According to the attorney, Trump is revealing himself by asking for so many details.

“What does this tell you about Trump’s mindset?” host Capehart asked.

“It tells me he is scared to death” Kirschner quickly answered. “It tells me he has overwhelming consciousness of guilt because he knows what he did wrong and he knows he is about to be held accountable for his crimes. So it is not surprising that he is obsessing.”

“If he was confident that he would be completely exonerated, would he have to obsess about what his future time in prison might look like?” he suggested. “I think the last refuge for Donald Trump can be seen in a recent post where he urged the Republicans to defund essentially the prosecutions against him. which, to this prosecutor, Jonathan, smells a lot like an attempt to obstruct justice.”

Watch below or at the link.


Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading


‘Vulgar and Lewd’: Trump Judge Cites Extremist Group to Allow Drag Show Ban



A federal judge in Texas known for a ruling that attempted to ban a widely-used abortion drug is citing an extremist anti-LGBTQ group in his ruling allowing a ban on drag shows to stay in place.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a former attorney for an anti-LGBTQ conservative Christian legal organization, and a member of the Federalist Society, in his 26-page ruling dated Thursday cited the “About” page of Gays Against Groomers to claim, “it’s unclear how drag shows unmistakably communicate advocacy for LGBT rights.”

Judge Kacsmaryk, appointed by Donald Trump twice before finally assuming office in 2019, suggests the First Amendment does not provide for freedom of expression for drag shows, calls drag “sexualized conduct,” and says it is “more regulable” because “children are in the audience.”

READ MORE: ‘The Public Deserves to Know’: Abortion Pill Banning Judge Redacted Details About Millions of Dollars in His Stock Portfolio

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern adds, “Kacsmaryk’s conclusion that drag is probably NOT protected by the First Amendment conflicts with decisions from Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Montana which held that drag is constitutionally protected expression. It also bristles with undisguised hostility toward LGBTQ people.”

Calling the judge “a proud Christian nationalist who flatly refuses to apply binding Supreme Court precedent when it conflicts with his extremist far-right beliefs,” Stern at Slate writes that Kacsmaryk ruled drag “may be outlawed to protect ‘the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.’ In short, he concluded that drag fails to convey a message, while explaining all the reasons why he’s offended by the message it conveys.”

Stern does not let Kacsmaryk off the hook there.

“From almost any other judge, the ruling in Spectrum WT v. Wendler would be a shocking rejection of basic free speech principles; from Kacsmaryk, it’s par for the course. This is, after all, the judge who sought to ban medication abortion nationwide, restricted minors’ access to birth control, seize control over border policy to exclude asylum-seekers, and flouted recent precedent protecting LGBTQ+ equality,” Stern says.

READ MORE: Far-Right Judge Under Fire for Failing to Disclose Interviews on Civil Rights – but LGBTQ Community Had Warned Senators

“He is also poised to bankrupt Planned Parenthood by compelling them to pay a $1.8 billion penalty on truly ludicrous grounds. And he is not the only Trump-appointed judge substituting his reactionary beliefs for legal analysis. We have reached a point where these lawless decisions are not only predictable but inevitable, and they show no sign of stopping: Their authors are still just settling into a decadeslong service in the federal judiciary.”

West Texas A&M University President Walter V. Wendler penned the letter that sparked the lawsuit.

Titled, “A Harmless Drag Show? No Such Thing,” Wendler wrote: “I believe every human being is created in the image of God and, therefore, a person of dignity. Being created in God’s image is the basis of Natural Law. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, prisoners of the culture of their time as are we, declared the Creator’s origin as the foundational fiber in the fabric of our nation as they breathed life into it. Does a drag show preserve a single thread of human dignity? I think not.”

Journalist Chris Geidner concludes, “It’s an extremely biased ruling by a judge who has established that he does not care about being overturned — even by the most conservative appeals court in the nation.”

READ MORE: ‘Corruption of the Highest Order’: Experts ‘Sickened’ at ‘Definitely Bought’ Clarence Thomas and His ‘Pay to Play’ Lifestyle



Continue Reading


Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.