The measure initially had sought to mandate a vaginally invasive form of an ultrasound, triggering a national uproar that resounded across political talk shows and TV comedy shows.....Also absent from the AP article are any facts regarding how standard ultrasounds are.
Soon after the uproar, McDonnell had his party remove the requirement for an invasive exam through an amendment.
Sarah Kliff suggests the pro-choice movement blundered by focusing on transvaginal ultrasounds and not their real opposition to the bill.
A Baltimore Sun article about the dropped charges against abortionists Nicola Riley and Steven Brigham has more information on why the charges were dropped.
Rollins said his office had been consulting with an expert, whom he declined to identify. Early in the investigation, the expert told the state's attorney that the termination and removal of the fetuses must have occurred in the same place, said Rollins.It appears Brigham may continue his abortion caravans as New Jersey authorities have no plans to press charges.
This expert, whom Rollins planned to use at trial, then changed his determination, under pressure "from [the expert's] colleagues in the late-term abortion community," he said. The witness decided the termination and removal of the fetus could have happened in different places.
"We've got an expert whose testimony is useless to us because he's said two different things now," said Rollins, who concluded that his office could no longer prove the pregnancies were terminated in Maryland and therefore dropped the charges.
Rollins has said his office is going to review all its evidence and may hire another abortion expert to re-examine the place of termination of the fetuses.
If the state's attorney determines that the terminations occurred in New Jersey, similar charges are not expected there.
"There's no indictable offense in this state that fits what he was doing here," said Jason Laughlin, a spokesman for the prosecutor's office in Camden County, N.J., where Brigham's primary clinic is located.
I like how the New York Times describes the situation regarding the Texas Women's Health Program.
Now, the Medicaid-financed Women's Health Program is in jeopardy. Texas signed regulations prohibiting clinics affiliated with groups that provide abortions from receiving funds, even though the clinics do not perform abortions themselves. The federal government says excluding qualified providers in this way is illegal, requiring it to withhold $35 million — about 90 percent of the program's financing — if the regulations, which take effect on Wednesday, are not rescinded.Which part of the federal government? The Obama administration? Is it really required to withhold the money or is that them choosing to stick up for Planned Parenthood over funding a woman's health program.
Andrew Rosenthal also provides his typically ignorant thoughts on the issue claiming that "Texas is now planning" on shutting down the program. Rosenthal also seems to think that all Title X money goes to Planned Parenthood despite a comment in the NY Times article linked above (and also linked to by Rosenthal) which notes other organizations besides Planned Parenthood get Title X funds.