Florida ultrasound bill passes mostly along party lines

Mostly along party lines. The Florida legislature passed the ultrasound bill in a vote of 76 -44.


What does this mean? It means a few things. One, the passage along party lines means that, in Florida atleast, to be a Republican is to be pro-life AND pro-choice (pro-choice in a good way, letting women choose to see what is alive in their wombs). To be Democrat, is to be pro-abortion. Here are a few telling quotes:

"Until you start growing ovaries or have them, you don’t need to be involved in making a decision about what women do with their bodies," said Rep. Janet Long (D-Seminolestand down if you don’t have ovaries.”

"How do you tell me what I do with my body?" questioned Rep. Betty Reed (D-Tampa). "I am very upset about this because I don’t believe that if a man decided to have a vasectomy, he has to get an ultrasound. Why is that? Why doesn’t he have to have an ultrasound?"

Two, the pro-abortion Democrats are very afraid of pregnant women actually seeing the living baby they are carrying. In my door to door salesman days, I approached an office in a building that had the sign “Pregnancy Services” on the door. In my naivete, I wondered just what kind of business this was - worried that I was about to enter a pro-abortion organization. When I entered I noticed the models showing the various stages of the unborn baby inside the womb - clearly this was a pro-life organization. A pro-abortion organization would never want anyone to see what is really in the womb, and that is why they voted against the ultrasound bill in Florida.

My challenge to those on this forum - and you know who you are - is to ask, “why do you continue to vote for a party that is stubbornly pro-abortion?” How do you justify it? Is social welfare and liberal politics, party identity more important that the unborn? Or, does hatred for Republicans outweigh you hatred for abortion?


How do you see this as "letting women choose to see what is alive in their wombs. It’s not as if they couldn’t ask a doctor to show them before. This they’re forced whether they like it or not. This is basically “LOOK AT IT!!! LOOK AT WHAT YOU’RE KILLING YOU BABY KILLER!!!” Which is NOT the right way to handle it. I always hear about the right wanting the government to stay out of peoples lives but I guess that only applies to your lives, not anyone else. It’s OK to pass laws that only apply to people you don’t agree with. Typical.

Basically this is all about trying to lay down guilt trips on women and making it harder for them emotionally to make the decision. Now it’s about enforcing the “choice” that pro-life groups want them to make. They know it’s already and emotionally difficult decision, now they just want to make it harder by putting up road blocks like this. I think it’s a disgusting tactic on the side of anti-abortionists becuase it just makes it harder for women to make medical decisions for themselves. This is just about causing enough emotional distress to get a desired result.

My my my…where to start in reply.:hmmm:

QUOTE: “Or, does hatred for Republicans outweigh you hatred for abortion?” The word "hatred’ is quite an overload, and probably a long way from how most people think of the issue. But it does happen to be the case that many Catholics will vote for the Democrats, is spite of their pro-choice platform, rather then vote for the Republicans with an agenda many Catholics find distasteful:tsktsk:

Now, as far as the ultrasound requirement goes, it will get tossed out sooner or later by an appeals court. Why? Because the real purpose of the requirement is to discourage women from having an abortion, which the Supreme Court has stated is not to be done. The cost of the ultrasound is to be paid for by the woman. Another no-no. Does the phrase “undue burden” ring a bell?

Did the Florida legistures who voted for this bill know that it will be tossed out by the courts, sooner or later, probably sooner? Of course. :rolleyes:

The whole thing is moral posturing to win brownie points from conservative voters. Amen amen, I say onto you, they have already had their reward. :shrug:

I believe women can opt not to look at what’s in their womb. Its quite simple: pro-abortion people don’t want to admit what’s really happening - that indeed a human life (albeit embryonic) is being snuffed out when an abortion occurs. It is a human life, its wrong to abort it, and if women are given the chance to see what it really is, then they might stop what they are doing. I would regard that as a good thing. This is absolutely the right way to handle it. I am not surprised that someone who is pro-abortion would be against this. The NAZIS referred to the systematic killing of the Jews as “the solution of the Jewish question.” Today, pro-abortion people refer to abortion as “the termination of an unplanned pregnancy.” The ultrasound shows the truth of the humanity of the being that’s inside the womb. Of course the truth is the enemy to those who favor abortion rights.


If they succeed in doing nothing more than increasing the knowlege and awareness of what is really inside the womb then they have done something good. If the bill said they could have this ultrasound done free of charge then would you support it? Btw, I do hate abortion, as it snuffs out the life of an innocent human being. The Democrats overwhelmingly support it. The Republicans mostly oppose it. How about you?


Don’t even dare try to compare people who opt for abortions to Nazi’s. I would have some choice words for you but they’ll probably get me banned. This is nothing short of the religious right trying to impose it’s will upon others and restrict their ability to make decisions for themselves. A pregnant woman is already well aware of the life inside of her.

Another term you guys like to use is “pro-abortion”. Guess what genius, there’s no such thing as a pro abortionist. This is a biased label created by religious folks given to people who want to make their own decisions about whether they are going to have a baby or not. That’s why it’s pro-choice, no pro-abortion. Pro-abortion implies that you go around trying to get people to have abortions all day long which of course isn’t the case but I guess that truth doesn’t really matter to you.

But like I say, this is pretty typical of the right. Denying the rights of others is your rallying call after all.

Click Here: Abby Johnson.

Abby Johnson was the director of the Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas for several years. I mean, she was there every morning, opening the place until it closed.

One day, when (assisting?)-she was present during an abortion, and happened to glance at the ultrasound screen, and saw the baby attempting to move away from the suction tube.

When she returned to her office, she sat there thinking: I can’t do this anymore.

I believe if women saw the lie of a “wad of cells” as it really is, abortion would be rare.


There would be less abortions, anyway. Planned Parenthood knows that. This is why they lie.

Confession of an ex-Abortionist
<-A Very Important Read, that’s for sure.

Former Abortionists Speak Out

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

Well, I’ve never heard of the term ‘pro abortionist’ either. If there’s a union specific to abortionists, then maybe, but… :shrug::rolleyes:

Semantics are tossed about like there’s no tomorrow in the debate for abortion, perhaps none more so than the notion of ‘personhood’. I appreciate the fact that you call a baby what it (he/she) is. In any case, whether one says ‘it’s a baby’ or ‘it’s not a person’, there is are few undeniable facts:
from the moment of conception, a separate being has come into existence with DNA that corresponds exactly to that of homo sapiens, shares genes of the biological mother and father, and has his/her sex already determined. This means that the zygote/blastocyst/embryo/foetus is both a human being, his parents’ child *and *son/daughter.

One way we can solve this pro-choice / pro-abortion issue is through setting up an equation:

Pro-life = Keeping the infant(s) OR Adoption/Fostering

Pro-choice = Keeping the infant(s) OR Adoption/Fostering OR Abortion

So we cross out what they share…

Pro-life = -]Keeping the infant(s)/-] OR -]Adoption/Fostering/-]

Pro-choice = -]Keeping the infant(s)/-] OR -]Adoption/Fostering/-] OR Abortion

Therefore, since the shared elements are taken out of the equation, we can deduce that:

Pro-choice = Abortion

PP, NARAL and the like are not known for encouraging pregnant mothers to keep their pre-born children or to put them up for adoption (or fostering), but they are very well-known for promoting abortion.

God bless.

It was a Republican governor who vetoed the bill and who said that he would not support women getting lectured when procuring an abortion. I was there and heard it with my own ears.


Br. JR, OSF :slight_smile:

**What comes to mind when one thinks of Nazi’s?
Answer: The Holocaust.

50,000,000 deaths-in our Country-since Roe -v- Wade constitutes a Holocaust.
Like the Nazi’s, they are called “unwanted.”**

Definitions of Holocaust


  1. Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire.

a. Holocaust. The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: “Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe” (Emanuel Litvinoff)
b. A massive slaughter: “an important document in the so-far sketchy annals of the Cambodian holocaust” (Rod Nordland)

  1. A sacrificial offering that is consumed entirely by flames.

(usage note)
Usage Note: Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans. Ninety-nine percent of the Usage Panel accepts the use of holocaust in the phrase nuclear holocaust. Sixty percent of the Panel accepts the sentence As many as two million people may have died in the holocaust that followed the Khmer Rouge takeover in Cambodia. But because of its associations with genocide, people may object to extended applications of holocaust. When the word is used to refer to death brought about by natural causes, the percentage of the Panel accepting drops sharply. Only 31 percent of the Panel approves the sentence In East Africa five years of drought have brought about a holocaust in which millions have died. In a 1987 survey, just 11 percent approved the use of holocaust to summarize the effects of the AIDS epidemic. This suggests that other figurative usages such as the huge losses in the Savings and Loan holocaust may be viewed as overblown or in poor taste. ·

When capitalized Holocaust refers specifically to the destruction of Jews and other Europeans by the Nazis and may also encompass the Nazi persecution of Jews that preceded the outbreak of the war.

**Yes, when thinking of Nazi’s, one must think of the Holocaust.

Yes, 50 million+ “unwanted” slaughtered in their mother’s womb- constitutes a Holocaust.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn**

Crist is no longer a Republican - he left the party to run for Senate, so you are factually wrong. I would say his support for the pro-abortion crowd distances him even further certainly from the ideals of the overwhelmingly pro-life Florida Republican party.

Charlie Crist the independent vetoed the ultrasound bill. I wasn’t there, but I read it with my own eyes.


Hey genius.

The decision to have a baby or not should become before sex. Once you have sex, you should be man enough to take on the potential responsibilities that may arise from you’re actions.

Pro-choice is the pansies way of saying I wanna do what I wanna do without consequences. Man up, quit promoting a society of wuss’s.

I think you misunderstood me. I don’t compare the women who choose to have an abortion to NAZIS. I compare the use of language of the pro-abortion crowd (NARAL, and their supporters) in describing abortion with use of language of the NAZIS in referring to the murder of the Jews. The NARAL crowd reduces the act of abortion ( sucking the baby out of a womb) - to a mere “choice” or “terminating an unplanned pregnancy”. Similarly, the NAZIS referred to murdering Jews as “cleansing” and “resettlement”. In both cases the two groups employ euphemisms to hide the truth about what is really taking place. Abortion rights supporters aren’t necessarily Nazis, but they employ many of the same tactics.

But the intent of this thread is to ask catholics how they can vote for Democrats in light of their overwhelmingly pro-abortion rights platform and history.


Yeah, the Nazis didn’t kill nearly as many people.

You know what… you may think it’s the wrong way to handle it but personally, since I was in this situation 26 years ago, I think this is EXACTLY the right way to handle it.
I was 15 and pregnant. I had EVERYONE telling me to get an abortion so I could finish school, because I was too young etc etc etc. I had an appt made for me to get an abortion from my mom and my boyfriend, without telling me that they did it and they literally tried to get me in the car to go to the appt, I refused because I didn’t know what was going on and I was upset that they did this behind my back. I then went to my dr, who also tried to talk me into an abortion.
Finally I went to a pro life place (not knowing that’s what they were) to talk about an abortion. I got there and realized after seeing pictures of a baby inside the womb that what was in me was not just a piece of tissue, that it was a living human being. I was told so many times (as I’m sure so many girls are that headed to get an abortion) that it’s just a piece of tissue. But guess what it really is… it’s MURDER.
I think seeing their baby on ultrasound will let them know it’s not just a blob or tissue, it’s a real person they are about to murder.
Back to my story, because I realized I would be killing a baby, my baby, I never had the abortion. Now I have my wonderful daughter who’s since married and given me two grand kids. I thank God for being shown what I was shown and for helping me see what I was about to do.

Well, let’s take a look at what the Nazi’s did.

They defined a living, healthy, unique member of the genus homo sapien as being something other than fully human, not a legal person with innate human rights.

It passed laws making it legal to exterminate such newly defined ‘sub humans’ via inhumane methods.

It legalized medical experiments using these ‘less than humans’

Their policies resulted in the deaths of millions; or at least it was millions if you consider who they killed to be human.

Hmmm, no comparision? :rolleyes:

You may be right, or could it be that this is the way to ensure that the call from the left that it is only a lump of cells is not exactly true…??? What does it hurt? If it is only a lump of cells it won’t matter, however if the woman is not really sure and is being pressured by a others or told lies that it is not a human…well why not let her see it? Give her an informed point of view…she can still make the same Choice?

Well if he won’t I will…both where and or are innocent…that is a direct comparison…Nazi’s claimed the legal authority to do what they did…So does Planned Parenthood… It is a comparison that CAN and SHOULD be made…to not make it is irresponsible or at least trying to ignore history…and those that ignore history due tend to repeat it… Germans voted Hitler to power and he DID what he DID… Others vote Pro Death candidates into power…they have done what they have done…HOPEFULLY they don’t hide behind lies, but instead have the stomach and the courage to defend their position in the open and the clear and stand up along other people that held the same beliefs and forcefully proclaim their own justice and rights just like Joseph Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, and Margaret Sanger.

Compare…you don’t have to be mad…just be fair…it is a death of innocents…legal positions… Tell me that I should not compare Sanger to Himmler? Why they where BOTH saying the same things…tell me not to compare Sanger to Planned Parenthood? She founded it?..come on of course their is a direct comparison…be at least honest with yourself…:shrug:

I invoke Godwin’s Law…:yawn:


…and hearby drop out of this thread.:sleep:

Don’t call me, I’ll call you:whistle:

So by your reasoning, in a discussion of the Cambodian holocaust, we couldn’t reference the Nazi holocaust? Or would that be allowed? When is it appropriate to compare what people do now with what the Nazis did in the 30’s - 40’s? Never? Sometimes? When you (or Goodwin) decides its relevant? The Nazis manipulated language to achieve their heinous crimes and so do the supporters of abortion so it makes total sense to compare the two groups. The Nazis had the “final solution”. Abortion rights supporters want people to be able to “terminate an unplanned pregnancy”.

If the shoe fits…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.