Censoring comic stip Doonsberry..

In a move that is not exactly the most surprising of moves, several newspapers have pulled the syndicated comic Doonesbury from its funny pages for the next week because its creator, Gary Trudeau, will be tackling the issue of yet another state law (this time in Texas) requiring women to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion. While some papers will run old Doonesbury strips during the duration of the story, one paper has agreed to run the new strip online while running reprints in the actual newspaper. They cited “different audience expectations” for print vs. online. Uh huh.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/op...use-women.html


Also see:

When States abuse women:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/op...omen.html?_r=1

HERE’S what a woman in Texas now faces if she seeks an abortion.

Under a new law that took effect three weeks ago with the strong backing of Gov. Rick Perry, she first must typically endure an ultrasound probe inserted into her vagina. Then she listens to the audio thumping of the fetal heartbeat and watches the fetus on an ultrasound screen.
She must listen to a doctor explain the body parts and internal organs of the fetus as they’re shown on the monitor. She signs a document saying that she understands all this, and it is placed in her medical files. Finally, she goes home and must wait 24 hours before returning to get the abortion.
“It’s state-sanctioned abuse,” said Dr. Curtis Boyd, a Texas physician who provides abortions. “It borders on a definition of rape. Many states describe rape as putting any object into an orifice against a person’s will. Well, that’s what this is. A woman is coerced to do this, just as I’m coerced.”
“The state of Texas is waging war on women and their families,” Dr. Boyd added. “The new law is demeaning and disrespectful to the women of Texas, and insulting to the doctors and nurses who care for them.”
That law is part of a war over women’s health being fought around the country — and in much of the country, women are losing. State by state, legislatures are creating new obstacles to abortions and are treating women in ways that are patronizing and humiliating.
Twenty states now require abortion providers to conduct ultrasounds first in some situations, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization. The new Texas law is the most extreme to take effect so far, but similar laws have been passed in North Carolina and Oklahoma and are on hold pending legal battles.
Alabama, Kentucky, Rhode Island and Mississippi are also considering Texas-style legislation bordering on state-sanctioned rape. And what else do you call it when states mandate invasive probes in women’s bodies?
“If you look up the term rape, that’s what it is: the penetration of the vagina without the woman’s consent,” said Linda Coleman, an Alabama state senator who is fighting the proposal in her state. “As a woman, I am livid and outraged.”
States put in place a record number of new restrictions on abortions last year, Guttmacher says. It counts 92 new curbs in 24 states.
“It was a debacle,” Elizabeth Nash, who manages state issues for Guttmacher, told me. “It’s been awful. Last year was unbelievable. We’ve never seen anything like it.”
Yes, there have been a few victories for women. The notorious Virginia proposal that would have required vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion was modified to require only abdominal ultrasounds.
Yet over all, the pattern has been retrograde: humiliating obstacles to abortions, cuts in family-planning programs, and limits on comprehensive sex education in schools.
If Texas legislators wanted to reduce abortions, the obvious approach would be to reduce unwanted pregnancies. The small proportion of women and girls who aren’t using contraceptives account for half of all abortions in America, according to Guttmacher. Yet Texas has some of the weakest sex-education programs in the nation, and last year it cut spending for family planning by 66 percent.
The new Texas law was passed last year but was held up because of a lawsuit by the Center for Reproductive Rights. In a scathing opinion, Judge Sam Sparks of Federal District Court described the law as “an attempt by the Texas legislature to discourage women from exercising their constitutional rights.” In the end, the courts upheld the law, and it took effect last month.
It requires abortion providers to give women a list of crisis pregnancy centers where, in theory, they can get unbiased counseling and in some cases ultrasounds. In fact, these centers are often set up to ensnare pregnant women and shame them or hound them if they are considering abortions.
“They are traps for women, set up by the state of Texas,” Dr. Boyd said.
The law then requires the physician to go over a politicized list of so-called dangers of abortion, like “the risks of infection and hemorrhage” and “the possibility of increased risk of breast cancer.” Then there is the mandated ultrasound, which in the first trimester normally means a vaginal ultrasound. Doctors sometimes seek vaginal ultrasounds before an abortion, with the patient’s consent, but it’s different when the state forces women to undergo the procedure.
The best formulation on this topic was Bill Clinton’s, that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.” Achieving that isn’t easy, and there is no silver bullet to reduce unwanted pregnancies. But family planning and comprehensive sex education are a surer path than demeaning vulnerable women with state-sanctioned abuse and humiliation.

Girl you are on top of everything, I was just reading about this and posted the comic strip on my blog just in case some guys don't get it in their daily news. I think it is true to life and in no way is exaggerating the humiliation that some people in our government want to put some ladies through. Just because she has made the decision not to carry a child to term.

Honestly, I am all for abortion, we have to many people on this earth as it is. Unless these people are willing to support these unwanted kids after birth rather than putting more strain on the government, they should be telling a woman what she would do with what is in her body.

Censorship of the press is old hat. Happens all the time.

It's not censorship unless the government forbids a newspaper to run the strip. If a newspaper decides to not run the strip, it is freedom of the press. They can decide what to print, or not. If you disagree with their choices, you can choose a different newspaper. But it is not censorship unless the government is doing it.

It's not censorship unless the government forbids a newspaper to run the strip. If a newspaper decides to not run the strip, it is freedom of the press. They can decide what to print, or not. If you disagree with their choices, you can choose a different newspaper. But it is not censorship unless the government is doing it. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Then why are all these titty babies crying abour Rush Limbaugh?

Then why can't you stay on topic? It's ok to complain, but it is not censorship unless the government is doing it. Why do you always have to bring something else up? You think it makes you look smart, but it really only shows your ignorance.

Then why are all these titty babies crying abour Rush Limbaugh? Originally Posted by WTF

You mean the tittie baby lefties who are decrying a Limbaugh excess while condoning the exact same behavior from numerous degenerate lefties? It's a macht nichts hoopla created by the lefties.

BTW, Trudeau is used to this shit; he's successfully pushed the limits his entire career.

You mean the tittie baby lefties who are decrying a Limbaugh excess while condoning the exact same behavior from numerous degenerate lefties? It's a macht nichts hoopla created by the lefties.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yea those too!

Then why can't you stay on topic? It's ok to complain, but it is not censorship unless the government is doing it. Why do you always have to bring something else up? You think it makes you look smart, but it really only shows your ignorance. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Are you trying to supress my freedom of speech COG? Wait, only the government can do that right?

Nobody ever intimidates others into not speaking. That just never happens does it? Of course the left is trying to railroad Rush, just like the right tried to do the same to the Dixie Chicks.

My point is wtf are we bitching about. That is a freedom we all still have....as of now

You can bring it up. I don't have any authority to stop you from posting, although it would be in your best interest to stop until you can focus long enough to complete a rational thought. But if you stopped because of me, it still wouldn't be censorship.

Take a break. Come back when you make sense.

You can bring it up. I don't have any authority to stop you from posting, although it would be in your best interest to stop until you can focus long enough to complete a rational thought. But if you stopped because of me, it still wouldn't be censorship.

Take a break. Come back when you make sense. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If you were to follow your own advice, this would be your last post.

Pompous blowhard. Yup. Exactly.

OMG you guys derail threads before they are even started. Seriously, can we talk about something with it turning into a pissing match.

It's not censorship unless the government forbids a newspaper to run the strip. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I wouldn't necessarily agree with the idea that censorship can only come from government interference. Take, for instance, the "Hays Code" which heavily censored content in films in the thirties. This censorship was not enforced by the government but rather associations like The Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America or MPPDA. Now it's true that the formation of this group was brought on by fears of federal interference (such as three congressional bills way back in 1914 which had attempted to institute a Federal Motion Picture Censorship Commission). However, when all is said and done, its groups like the MPPDA who created the guidelines of the censorship and subsequently enforced them.

Only the government can censor. The First Amendment says "CONGRESS shall make no law." If the motion picture industry or other industry wants to impose standards, it is not censorship. The Hays Commission had no authority to censor, but they could impose standards.

I suppose it is splitting hairs, and the Hays Commission got very close. However, only government can censor. I bring it up mainly to stop those idiots from saying "You're trying to censor me!" I can't censor anyone. But I can try to shout louder, or make you uncomfortable with your speech by asking questions you can't answer. But censor? Nope.