Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 3:51:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2018 17:43:46 GMT
|
|
AmeliaBloomer
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,842
Location: USA
Jun 26, 2014 5:01:45 GMT
|
Post by AmeliaBloomer on Oct 6, 2018 19:55:12 GMT
What's the harm in an ultrasound? You’re asking people to prove a negative. Instead, why should a woman be required to have the procedure? Abortion is legal in this country. When the state legislates a required vaginal ultrasound for the purpose of requiring a woman to see the fetus and hear the heartbeat, the avowed intention is make the woman reconsider her options. Nope. The law is the law. The choice is hers. She already chose an option. Legislating hoops to jump through in order to exercise that freedom is both legally and medically contraindicated. It goes against the spirit of the SC decision. [Plus, vaginal ultrasounds are weird at best. Others upthread have described them as traumatic at worst. For me, who had made a choice to keep a baby conceived consensually, it was awkward and startling (I wasn’t told beforehand). It was basically a phallus covered with a condom and lubricant that a man was wiggling around inside me while my husband watched. It’s not at all hard for me to imagine that an unnecessary test like this could be upsetting, even triggering, for certain women and girls.]
|
|
|
Post by christine58 on Oct 6, 2018 20:12:24 GMT
50-48 DAMN it...some of those senators are cowards
|
|
|
Post by heather on Oct 6, 2018 20:13:13 GMT
What's the harm in an ultrasound? You’re asking people to prove a negative. Instead, why should a woman be required to have the procedure? Abortion is legal in this country. When the state legislates a required vaginal ultrasound for the purpose of requiring a woman to see the fetus and hear the heartbeat, the avowed intention is make the woman reconsider her options. Nope. The law is the law. The choice is hers. She already chose an option. Legislating hoops to jump through in order to exercise that freedom is both legally and medically contraindicated. It goes against the spirit of the SC decision. [Plus, vaginal ultrasounds are weird at best. Others upthread have described them as traumatic at worst. For me, who had made a choice to keep a baby conceived consensually, it was awkward and startling (I wasn’t told beforehand). It was basically a phallus covered with a condom and lubricant that a man was wiggling around inside me while my husband watched. It’s not at all hard for me to imagine that an unnecessary test like this could be upsetting, even triggering, for certain women and girls.] I had to have one to see if my pregnancy was viable, and quite frankly it hurt like a son of a bitch. They kept jabbing it up further and further until they could see something. Violated is a good word to describe it, especially if it’s something that you don’t need or want.
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 6, 2018 20:13:17 GMT
Perhaps, but it wasn't the ones who voted for confirmation that were cowards but those Dems who voted against it.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 7,456
Jun 26, 2014 23:58:32 GMT
|
Post by sassyangel on Oct 6, 2018 20:15:18 GMT
What's the harm in an ultrasound? You’re asking people to prove a negative. Instead, why should a woman be required to have the procedure? Abortion is legal in this country. When the state legislates a required vaginal ultrasound for the purpose of requiring a woman to see the fetus and hear the heartbeat, the avowed intention is make the woman reconsider her options.
Nope. The law is the law. The choice is hers. She already chose an option. Legislating hoops to jump through in order to exercise that freedom is both legally and medically contraindicated. It goes against the spirit of the SC decision. [Plus, vaginal ultrasounds are weird at best. Others upthread have described them as traumatic at worst. For me, who had made a choice to keep a baby conceived consensually, it was awkward and startling (I wasn’t told beforehand). It was basically a phallus covered with a condom and lubricant that a man was wiggling around inside me while my husband watched. It’s not at all hard for me to imagine that an unnecessary test like this could be upsetting, even triggering, for certain women and girls.] It absolutely is. Its a blatant (IMO cruel) attempt at emotional blackmail, wholly sanctioned by the state.
|
|
pyccku
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,817
Jun 27, 2014 23:12:07 GMT
|
Post by pyccku on Oct 6, 2018 20:20:30 GMT
Maybe before a man can have his ED medication, we should force him to watch porn in his doctor's office just so we can make sure he isn't faking his difficulties and really does need the meds. And just to be sure that we've got all of the info, if he can't get it up watching straight porn, we're going to need to show him some other types of porn just to be 100% certain.
Then we should require a note from the female partner stating that she is a willing partner and does wish for him to get the medication. Just in case.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Oct 6, 2018 20:21:01 GMT
As a sexual assault survivor, a forced vaginal ultrasound is incredibly invasive and harmful. I did not have any with three pregnancies, and I’m glad my doctors supported my choice. I will preface what I am about to say with this: I am very much pro choice. I will never, ever, ever be okay with Roe vs. Wade being overturned. Never. I also am not "pro abortion" as many like to say about those who are pro choice. I would never want my children to have an abortion, but I support their right, along with every other woman's right to have a safe one.
I have never had an abortion, but I have had plenty of vaginal ultrasounds due to difficult pregnancies/several miscarriages. I can't imagine that is any more invasive, or traumatic, than the tools/equipment used in having an abortion.
I had a friend in college who had an abortion. Years later, she was married and pregnant, and had an ultrasound at the same week she had her previous abortion. She actually said that if she had had an ultrasound before the abortion, she may have changed her mind because back then, she really had no idea what a baby was like at that early stage. She thought it was just a 'clump of cells' and was shocked to discover a tiny baby with a beating heart.
I'm not saying that all women will change their minds. But for someone who is conflicted, it might save them a great deal of heartache later if they have an ultrasound before the procedure. I am assuming she specifically said vaginal ultrasound because early in pregnancy, that is the only way to get a good look at the baby. In my mind, pro choice also means having all of the necessary knowledge to make an informed choice so that you don't suffer from trauma and regrets later.
I don’t have a problem with a doctor offering (offering, not extorting) but for the state to require it ... it’s the first step toward living The Handmaid’s Tale. There is no medical reason for every woman and girl seeking a legal medical procedure to be required to have an unwanted, unneeded, intrusive test first.
|
|
|
Post by christine58 on Oct 6, 2018 20:27:39 GMT
Perhaps, but it wasn't the ones who voted for confirmation that were cowards but those Dems who voted against it. so the Democratic senators who voted NO are cowards? Yeah ok
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 6, 2018 20:28:29 GMT
What's the harm in an ultrasound? You’re asking people to prove a negative. Instead, why should a woman be required to have the procedure? Abortion is legal in this country. When the state legislates a required vaginal ultrasound for the purpose of requiring a woman to see the fetus and hear the heartbeat, the avowed intention is make the woman reconsider her options. Nope. The law is the law. The choice is hers. She already chose an option. Legislating hoops to jump through in order to exercise that freedom is both legally and medically contraindicated. It goes against the spirit of the SC decision. [Plus, vaginal ultrasounds are weird at best. Others upthread have described them as traumatic at worst. For me, who had made a choice to keep a baby conceived consensually, it was awkward and startling (I wasn’t told beforehand). It was basically a phallus covered with a condom and lubricant that a man was wiggling around inside me while my husband watched. It’s not at all hard for me to imagine that an unnecessary test like this could be upsetting, even triggering, for certain women and girls.] Absolutely yes!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by #notLauren on Oct 6, 2018 20:29:04 GMT
Yes. And the one's who voted no despite the fact that their constituents were overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation are just plan not doing their job. They are doing what you decry: putting politics first.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Oct 6, 2018 20:31:54 GMT
Perhaps, but it wasn't the ones who voted for confirmation that were cowards but those Dems who voted against it. so the Democratic senators who voted NO are cowards? Yeah ok Be nice. Sometimes she just can’t think of a decent comeback that actually makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 6, 2018 20:33:48 GMT
so the Democratic senators who voted NO are cowards? Yeah ok Be nice. Sometimes she just can’t think of a decent comeback that actually makes sense. Lol!!!
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Oct 6, 2018 21:11:04 GMT
As a sexual assault survivor, a forced vaginal ultrasound is incredibly invasive and harmful. I did not have any with three pregnancies, and I’m glad my doctors supported my choice. I will preface what I am about to say with this: I am very much pro choice. I will never, ever, ever be okay with Roe vs. Wade being overturned. Never. I also am not "pro abortion" as many like to say about those who are pro choice. I would never want my children to have an abortion, but I support their right, along with every other woman's right to have a safe one.
I have never had an abortion, but I have had plenty of vaginal ultrasounds due to difficult pregnancies/several miscarriages. I can't imagine that is any more invasive, or traumatic, than the tools/equipment used in having an abortion.
I had a friend in college who had an abortion. Years later, she was married and pregnant, and had an ultrasound at the same week she had her previous abortion. She actually said that if she had had an ultrasound before the abortion, she may have changed her mind because back then, she really had no idea what a baby was like at that early stage. She thought it was just a 'clump of cells' and was shocked to discover a tiny baby with a beating heart.
I'm not saying that all women will change their minds. But for someone who is conflicted, it might save them a great deal of heartache later if they have an ultrasound before the procedure. I am assuming she specifically said vaginal ultrasound because early in pregnancy, that is the only way to get a good look at the baby. In my mind, pro choice also means having all of the necessary knowledge to make an informed choice so that you don't suffer from trauma and regrets later.
1. Most women of childbearing age are well aware of what a 12-week fetus looks like. I'm sorry your friend was not better informed. 2. Choice means choice. Telling women they can only have a choice after they've had an invasive and medically unnecessary procedure is another attempt to shame and punish women who are making a choice you (general you) don't like. It's also incredibly condescending and paternalistic, because it assumes that most women have no idea how human reproduction works and must be educated about it.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 6, 2018 21:14:34 GMT
I will preface what I am about to say with this: I am very much pro choice. I will never, ever, ever be okay with Roe vs. Wade being overturned. Never. I also am not "pro abortion" as many like to say about those who are pro choice. I would never want my children to have an abortion, but I support their right, along with every other woman's right to have a safe one.
I have never had an abortion, but I have had plenty of vaginal ultrasounds due to difficult pregnancies/several miscarriages. I can't imagine that is any more invasive, or traumatic, than the tools/equipment used in having an abortion.
I had a friend in college who had an abortion. Years later, she was married and pregnant, and had an ultrasound at the same week she had her previous abortion. She actually said that if she had had an ultrasound before the abortion, she may have changed her mind because back then, she really had no idea what a baby was like at that early stage. She thought it was just a 'clump of cells' and was shocked to discover a tiny baby with a beating heart.
I'm not saying that all women will change their minds. But for someone who is conflicted, it might save them a great deal of heartache later if they have an ultrasound before the procedure. I am assuming she specifically said vaginal ultrasound because early in pregnancy, that is the only way to get a good look at the baby. In my mind, pro choice also means having all of the necessary knowledge to make an informed choice so that you don't suffer from trauma and regrets later.
1. Most women of childbearing age are well aware of what a 12-week fetus looks like. I'm sorry your friend was not better informed. 2. Choice means choice. Telling women they can only have a choice after they've had an invasive and medically unnecessary procedure is another attempt to shame and punish women who are making a choice you (general you) don't like. It's also incredibly condescending and paternalistic, because it assumes that most women have no idea how human reproduction works and must be educated about it. ❤️
|
|
Just T
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 5,587
Jun 26, 2014 1:20:09 GMT
|
Post by Just T on Oct 6, 2018 21:51:43 GMT
Oh goodness. I didn't express my thoughts very clearly. I think an ultrasound can be a good thing, but I don't think it should be forced. It should be offered. I will say again, I think women need to have all choices so they can make informed decisions they don't later regret when they find out something they didn't know.
I guess my daily on the job experiences color my thoughts a little bit. I work for an organization that provides support to families who experience a miscarriage, stillbirth, or newborn death. I often talk to women on the phone who are greatly suffering emotionally from an abortion they had when they were younger, and they will say that they had no idea that a baby has a heartbeat at 7 weeks, along with other things. They will say they had no idea what they were losing until they now had a loss of a baby they really wanted. Yes, hindsight is always perfect vision, and while we don't offer abortion support, I always help them find resources that can help them if they are struggling.
Again, my point was pro choice encompasses all choices. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear.
I guess the example I used of my friend in college was a bad one. First of all, it was in the early 80s and I don't think they even had transvaginal ultrasounds back then. The first time I had one was when I was miscarrying for the third time in 1992, but I really don't know when they were first used. And yeah, she might have turned one down if it was offered, but again, choices.
I mainly started out responding to the comment about how traumatic a vaginal ultrasound can be, and I was confused since having an abortion is physically traumatic as well. I didn't realize that most abortions are performed with medications, not surgically.
Thank you to those who kindly tried to set me straight. I really do not women to be forced to undergo any procedure at all.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,200
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Oct 6, 2018 21:52:32 GMT
Yes. And the one's who voted no despite the fact that their constituents were overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation are just plan not doing their job. They are doing what you decry: putting politics first. I'm not sure what evidence you have about constituents being overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation? All the polls I saw indicated the exact opposite - that the majority of people did NOT want him confirmed.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Oct 6, 2018 22:02:21 GMT
Yes. And the one's who voted no despite the fact that their constituents were overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation are just plan not doing their job. They are doing what you decry: putting politics first. I'm not sure what evidence you have about constituents being overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation? All the polls I saw indicated the exact opposite - that the majority of people did NOT want him confirmed. The troll does not deal in facts, just bullshit. Just like trump et am., just throws out a bunch of verbal diarrhea and hopes it sticks. Typical gaslighting and lies.
|
|
moodyblue
Drama Llama
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 6,200
Location: Western Illinois
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2014 21:07:23 GMT
|
Post by moodyblue on Oct 6, 2018 22:19:20 GMT
I'm not sure what evidence you have about constituents being overwhelmingly in favor of confirmation? All the polls I saw indicated the exact opposite - that the majority of people did NOT want him confirmed. The troll does not deal in facts, just bullshit. Just like trump et am., just throws out a bunch of verbal diarrhea and hopes it sticks. Typical gaslighting and lies. Please - I may agree with you on most political positions, but I don't want to be used as part of your ongoing battles. I don't think your name-calling and preemptive "warnings" about "trolls" are necessary, and I think those posts don't help anyone, including you or the rest of us liberals. They are a distraction from the discussions, and we are not blind or stupid enough to need warnings or reminders about other posters.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 6, 2018 23:15:27 GMT
BK had less then 50% approval before he was nominated. Only Bork's nomination approval rating was lower. BK never reach the level of the next lowest nominee....
ETA: On CNN earlier today someone they were discussing Roe v Wade will be gone in 2 years. It will then be up to the states to decide. Estimates of at least 12-14 states will make all abortions illegal. Others may make more restrictions, others no restrictions.
I am from the time of back street procedures, dirty coat hangers and all. Where women/girls bled to death on the street literally, some trying to get help or to get home. Those with funds could go else where, fly to Europe or the islands. Do not think that will not happen if Roe v Wade is overturned.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 6, 2018 23:35:48 GMT
His road may get bumpy again............... Chief Justice John Roberts has been sitting on ‘more than a dozen’ judicial complaints against Kavanaugh for three weeks: report Bob Brigham BOB BRIGHAM 06 OCT 2018 AT 15:03 ET United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has not referred judicial misconduct complaints against Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a judicial panel for investigation, The Washington Post reported Saturday. Judge Kavanaugh currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A fellow judge on the panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, forwarded more than a dozen misconduct complaints to Roberts after concluding that the reports were substantive enough that they should not be investigated by fellow judges on the same panel. “The complaints do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge,” Henderson said in a statement. “The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.” “The situation is highly unusual, legal experts and several people familiar with the matter said,” The Post explained. “Never before has a Supreme Court nominee been poised to join the court while a fellow judge recommends that a series of misconduct claims against that nominee warrant review.” Roberts was appointed by then-President George W. Bush, who revealed in his memoir that Kavanaugh had helped him decide to nominate Roberts to the court. “If Justice Roberts sits on the complaints then they will reside in a kind of purgatory and will never be adjudicated,” New York University Law School Professor Stephen Gillers explained. “This is not how the rules anticipated the process would work.” www.rawstory.com/2018/10/chief-justice-john-roberts-sitting-dozen-judicial-complaints-kavanaugh-three-weeks-report/
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 6, 2018 23:48:19 GMT
His road may get bumpy again............... Chief Justice John Roberts has been sitting on ‘more than a dozen’ judicial complaints against Kavanaugh for three weeks: report Bob Brigham BOB BRIGHAM 06 OCT 2018 AT 15:03 ET United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has not referred judicial misconduct complaints against Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a judicial panel for investigation, The Washington Post reported Saturday. Judge Kavanaugh currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A fellow judge on the panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, forwarded more than a dozen misconduct complaints to Roberts after concluding that the reports were substantive enough that they should not be investigated by fellow judges on the same panel. “The complaints do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge,” Henderson said in a statement. “The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.” “The situation is highly unusual, legal experts and several people familiar with the matter said,” The Post explained. “Never before has a Supreme Court nominee been poised to join the court while a fellow judge recommends that a series of misconduct claims against that nominee warrant review.” Roberts was appointed by then-President George W. Bush, who revealed in his memoir that Kavanaugh had helped him decide to nominate Roberts to the court. “If Justice Roberts sits on the complaints then they will reside in a kind of purgatory and will never be adjudicated,” New York University Law School Professor Stephen Gillers explained. “This is not how the rules anticipated the process would work.” www.rawstory.com/2018/10/chief-justice-john-roberts-sitting-dozen-judicial-complaints-kavanaugh-three-weeks-report/![](http://i1168.photobucket.com/albums/r481/2peasrefugees/Smilies/handovereyes.gif)
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 6, 2018 23:49:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 6, 2018 23:51:29 GMT
Well, it explains the 50 yard dash to swear him in. Now the complaints will sit untouched and unheard.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 7, 2018 1:14:41 GMT
Well, it explains the 50 yard dash to swear him in. Now the complaints will sit untouched and unheard. ![:thumbdown:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/SCylSBljj3e3QKjxF2vn.jpg) Wonder how the rest of the court and Judicial Panel will feel about it?!?!?! Remember the SJC democrats sent information to Garland for review......
|
|
|
Post by thundergal on Oct 7, 2018 3:35:22 GMT
His road may get bumpy again............... Chief Justice John Roberts has been sitting on ‘more than a dozen’ judicial complaints against Kavanaugh for three weeks: report Bob Brigham BOB BRIGHAM 06 OCT 2018 AT 15:03 ET United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has not referred judicial misconduct complaints against Judge Brett Kavanaugh to a judicial panel for investigation, The Washington Post reported Saturday. Judge Kavanaugh currently serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. A fellow judge on the panel, Karen LeCraft Henderson, forwarded more than a dozen misconduct complaints to Roberts after concluding that the reports were substantive enough that they should not be investigated by fellow judges on the same panel. “The complaints do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge,” Henderson said in a statement. “The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.” “The situation is highly unusual, legal experts and several people familiar with the matter said,” The Post explained. “Never before has a Supreme Court nominee been poised to join the court while a fellow judge recommends that a series of misconduct claims against that nominee warrant review.” Roberts was appointed by then-President George W. Bush, who revealed in his memoir that Kavanaugh had helped him decide to nominate Roberts to the court. “If Justice Roberts sits on the complaints then they will reside in a kind of purgatory and will never be adjudicated,” New York University Law School Professor Stephen Gillers explained. “This is not how the rules anticipated the process would work.” www.rawstory.com/2018/10/chief-justice-john-roberts-sitting-dozen-judicial-complaints-kavanaugh-three-weeks-report/Oh wow. I had to go silent today. No news. Very little Twitter. You know, self-preservation and all. But I'll be reading up on this...thanks for posting!
|
|
scorpeao
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,521
Location: NorCal USA
Jun 25, 2014 21:04:54 GMT
|
Post by scorpeao on Oct 7, 2018 3:46:53 GMT
As a sexual assault survivor, a forced vaginal ultrasound is incredibly invasive and harmful. I did not have any with three pregnancies, and I’m glad my doctors supported my choice. I will preface what I am about to say with this: I am very much pro choice. I will never, ever, ever be okay with Roe vs. Wade being overturned. Never. I also am not "pro abortion" as many like to say about those who are pro choice. I would never want my children to have an abortion, but I support their right, along with every other woman's right to have a safe one.
I have never had an abortion, but I have had plenty of vaginal ultrasounds due to difficult pregnancies/several miscarriages. I can't imagine that is any more invasive, or traumatic, than the tools/equipment used in having an abortion.
I had a friend in college who had an abortion. Years later, she was married and pregnant, and had an ultrasound at the same week she had her previous abortion. She actually said that if she had had an ultrasound before the abortion, she may have changed her mind because back then, she really had no idea what a baby was like at that early stage. She thought it was just a 'clump of cells' and was shocked to discover a tiny baby with a beating heart.
I'm not saying that all women will change their minds. But for someone who is conflicted, it might save them a great deal of heartache later if they have an ultrasound before the procedure. I am assuming she specifically said vaginal ultrasound because early in pregnancy, that is the only way to get a good look at the baby. In my mind, pro choice also means having all of the necessary knowledge to make an informed choice so that you don't suffer from trauma and regrets later.
I know many women who have had abortions, and not a single one has regretted it. In fact, I had one at 16 when I was 8 weeks along. I went on to miscarry at 19 weeks pregnant when I was 27. Not once did I regret my decision at 16. Did I feel bad that I had to make the choice? Absolutely! And when the doctor started the procedure I started crying and he stopped and got a counselor in the room to make sure it was the right decision for me. This was at Planned Parenthood in 1987.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 3:51:13 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2018 3:53:29 GMT
Cuz womminz are tooooo stooooopid to understand what an abortion is or what an embryo is. Lots of them just think they're getting an extended mani-pedi. They need someone to shove a phallic-like device up their vagina so remind them what an abortion is for. ps - which is the human embryo? pps - not quite like the bloody fetus pix that the forced-birth crowd uses. They like to pretend the vast majority aborted embryos and fetuses look like the ones in their pix when, in fact, something like 85% of abortions occur LONG before that stage (many medically) and abortions AT THAT STAGE are for dire reasons. ![](http://www.exploratorium.edu/files/exhibits/embryo/images/embryo.jpeg)
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Oct 7, 2018 4:16:24 GMT
I am prolife. But I 100% agree with the way Elaine put it in this thread. *I* don't want to be forced to do anything with my body. If we allow men autonomy, we need to allow women autonomy.
I had bleeding at 6-7 weeks with both my pregnancies. The first time I had one of those vaginal ultrasounds. The second time I refused it. *I* deserve to make that choice myself. I went on to have two healthy babies.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 11, 2018 2:46:35 GMT
Chief Justice Roberts transfers Kavanaugh misconduct complaints to 10th CircuitBy Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter Updated 8:19 PM ET, Wed October 10, 2018 (CNN)Chief Justice John Roberts said in a letter on Wednesday that he had transferred judicial misconduct complaints related to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Judicial Council of the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals for further review. Although the complaints were originally lodged with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh's former court, the circuit executive of that court asked Roberts to transfer the matters to another circuit out of a "concern that local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process." The complaints relate to testimony that Kavanaugh gave last month during his confirmation hearings, according to a source familiar, and do not pertain to his conduct as a sitting judge.In a letter addressed to Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, the chief circuit judge of the Denver-based 10th Circuit, Roberts said he had selected the court to review the identified complaints and "any pending or new complaints related to the same subject matter." Tymkovich can handle the complaints himself, dismiss them or appoint a special committee to examine them. According to the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings, any person may file a misconduct complaint against a federal judge in the circuit in which the judge sits. In his letter, Roberts referred to more than a dozen complaints that had been filed between September 20 and October 5. Last weekend DC Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson mentioned the complaints in a news release. She said they "do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a Judge." "The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States," she wrote in the release. According to a source familiar, Henderson dismissed some allegations because she found they lacked sufficient evidence but chose to forward others along. Tymkovich is a George W. Bush appointee who is on Trump's Supreme Court short list. www.cnn.com/2018/10/10/politics/kavanaugh-complaints-judicial-misconduct-john-roberts-transfer/index.htmlPERJURY? ? ? Hey, at least Roberts didn't bury them!
|
|