South Carolina to require ultra sound prior to abortion...

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 06:55 PM

S.C. alone in abortion ultrasound plan
If law is passed, state would be only one to require the procedure before an abortion will be performed
By SEANNA ADCOX
The Associated Press
Women seeking abortions in South Carolina would first be required to view an ultrasound image of the fetus under a proposal gaining support from lawmakers. If enacted, it would be the first law of its kind in the nation.

Some states make ultrasound images available to women before an abortion, but South Carolina would be alone in mandating that women see the pictures.

Proponents say women would change their minds after seeing an ultrasound and choose instead to keep the child or offer it for adoption.

To reduce abortions, women need “as much background as possible when they’re making decisions,” said Oran Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council, the state affiliate of Focus on the Family.

Critics consider the proposal a tool to intimidate women who already have made an agonizing decision.

“The women of South Carolina would rather talk to their doctor about information they need to make private, personal medical decisions. This is not a place for interference by politicians,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

The bill’s chief sponsor, Rep. Greg Delleney, considers the bill a natural addition to the state’s informed-consent law, which requires that women be told about fetal development and offered alternatives to abortion. The law requires a woman to have at least an hour to think about the information before ending her pregnancy.

Marie Connelly of Columbia, who had an abortion more than four years ago, said she now wishes she could have seen an ultrasound of her fetus before undergoing the procedure. She said she recently went back to the clinic to get “the only picture I will have of my child.”

“This legislation will serve as one last chance for those women who, like myself, unknowingly choose against their better judgment,” said Connelly, a director at the family council.

Similar legislation has arisen across the nation over the last few years as states try to strengthen abortion-counseling requirements, said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research center on sexual and reproductive health.

At least seven states have laws concerning abortions and ultrasounds. For example, women in Oklahoma, Utah and Wisconsin must be told an ultrasound is available. In Arkansas and Michigan, if an ultrasound is performed, women must be given the opportunity to view it.

Ten other states are considering similar legislation. Mississippi is reviewing a proposal that would allow women to listen to a fetal heartbeat in addition to seeing the ultrasound image.

Delleney’s proposal would require patients to certify in writing that they viewed the ultrasound.

Democratic state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter plans to lead the fight against the legislation when it comes up for debate later this month in the GOP-dominated House. But she said she expects the legislation to pass because even lawmakers who don’t like the bill will be afraid to vote against it.

The measure has picked up 20 co-sponsors in the House. A matching bill in the Senate remains in a committee.

WHERE THEY STAND

Abortion and gun control are key indicators of how palatable a candidate is to religious conservatives in South Carolina. None of the top candidates in either party favors gay marriage. But some Republicans and nearly all Democrats back civil unions, a legal distinction that enables gays to gain some rights afforded to married couples.

Republicans

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.: anti-abortion; opposes gay marriage and civil unions; opposes gun control.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani: for abortion rights; opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions; favors some gun control.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: anti-abortion; opposes gay marriage and civil unions; opposes gun control.

U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.: anti-abortion; opposes gay marriage and civil unions; opposes gun control.

U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.: anti-abortion, but has taken different positions on the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion; says he opposes gay marriage but voted against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage; has given conflicting statements about civil unions; opposes gun control.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney: once favored abortion rights and gay rights; now opposes abortion rights, gay marriage and civil unions; has supported some gun control.

Democrats

U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.: for abortion rights; opposes gay marriage; did not respond to request for position on civil unions; favors some gun control.

U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.: for abortion rights; opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions; favors gun control.

U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.: for abortion rights; opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions; favors gun control.

Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.: for abortion rights; opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions; favors some gun control.

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: for abortion rights; opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions; favors gun control.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson: for abortion rights; opposes gay marriage but favors civil unions; has voted for some gun control but generally has opposed such laws.

The State | 03/18/2007 | S.C. alone in abortion ultrasound plan

I have no issue with this whatsoever. I think if someone is going to have an abortion they need to make an informed decision.

What I find hilarious is the left and hard core pro choicers say leave it up to the woman, give her the information and let her choose. It is her body etc etc, but now that a state wants to require more disclosure and make women more fully aware of the decision they're going to make the far left has rallied against it. It makes zero sense to me.

I'm a pro lifer, but and it is a big BUT, I have no desire to take away Wade nor should it it be repealed. What I am for is full disclosure something that rarely if ever happens wtih our current system with regards to abortion.

Thorgrim · 03-21-2007, 07:02 PM

Its cruel and brutal arm twisting

It's along the lines of a terminally ill patienet in a vegatative state, the family wants to pull the plug and the government comes in making the entire family watch family videos for a few hours before pulling the plug

Why do you have to FORCE someone to do something, if, god forbid, my fiance was raped and the doctors told me the baby would have multiple developmental problems and probably wouldn't live past a year, and they FORCED HER to watch an ultrasound, I'd want to punch that guy square in the nose

We shouldn't she have gone through enough?

Just a step towards Theo-fascism...

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 07:06 PM

You're taking an extreme case of rape and making it out to be the norm. If people are going to have unprotected sex and then get an abortion they need to know what their doing, they need to see all the facts, not just what someone with an agenda thinks they should see.

If someone were raped you could definately make an exception to this law. IF they were raped.

Thorgrim · 03-21-2007, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

You're taking an extreme case of rape and making it out to be the norm. If people are going to have unprotected sex and then get an abortion they need to know what their doing, they need to see all the facts, not just what someone with an agenda thinks they should see.

If someone were raped you could definately make an exception to this law. IF they were raped.

To find out the "whole truth" you'd need a team of doctors and healthcare professionals weeks to find out EXACTLY what led to a pregnancy that would be invasive, wasteful and wouldn't last a day popularity wise...both in "well was she really raped?" and "what are ALL the health issues in detail?"

They can get a handout with all the information, if they can not read a nurse can inform them of all the information

You can put whatever your little heart desires in the handout, but dragging people and forcing their heads to watch ultrasounds when they are already stressed over one of the most important decisions is cruel, if there was an exception for rape I bet you'd see many girls wait until the tell-tale signs of rape fade, and getting later abortions and claiming they were raped...is that what you want?

Diesel66 · 03-21-2007, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

if there was an exception for rape I bet you'd see many girls wait until the tell-tale signs of rape fade, and getting later abortions and claiming they were raped...is that what you want?

Doesnt really change anything. But this law is retarded.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Doesnt really change anything. But this law is retarded.

Why is this law retarded?

Scrum · 03-21-2007, 09:17 PM

This law is a bad idea. You are forcing more info on the woman who may not want to know.

I would be fine if they were required to offer one, but making them get one is wrong. People have a right to not know certain things.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

This law is a bad idea. You are forcing more info on the woman who may not want to know.

I would be fine if they were required to offer one, but making them get one is wrong. People have a right to not know certain things.

Thats an interesting point, but what about wanting people to make an informed decision? What about the fact that most women suffer a great deal emotionally after abortions and many feel they were not properly informed? Why is require the entire picture a bad deal?

Scrum · 03-21-2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Thats an interesting point, but what about wanting people to make an informed decision? What about the fact that most women suffer a great deal emotionally after abortions and many feel they were not properly informed? Why is require the entire picture a bad deal?

An ultrasound does nothing to add information to the already difficult decision of having an abortion.

It's a state sponsored last minute attempt to sway them based on religious morals.

Do you think someone who has a tumor should have to have an ultrasound before it's removed? I know a tumor isn't the same thing as a baby, but the physical procedure is close.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

An ultrasound does nothing to add information to the already difficult decision of having an abortion.

It's a state sponsored last minute attempt to sway them based on religious morals.

Do you think someone who has a tumor should have to have an ultrasound before it's removed? I know a tumor isn't the same thing as a baby, but the physical procedure is close.

But you just said it yourself a tumor is not the same thing as a baby. Or for that matter a "fetus" so perhaps someone might change their mind, might enjoy years of joy from their child and avoid a bunch of unecessary emotional pain by not having the abortion?

If you and I were in the legislature I'd say your earlier post was a good compromise, that having one available at no additional cost would be a good option but perhaps not a requirement, but for the sake of argument and since we dont have to compromise I'm thinking that it should be required. Getting all the information before having such a procedure seems like a necessity especially if MY tax dollars are going to fund it in any way shape or form.

Scrum · 03-21-2007, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

But you just said it yourself a tumor is not the same thing as a baby. Or for that matter a "fetus" so perhaps someone might change their mind, might enjoy years of joy from their child and avoid a bunch of unecessary emotional pain by not having the abortion?

Or perhaps make them feel worse than they already do by being forced into a medical procedure?

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If you and I were in the legislature I'd say your earlier post was a good compromise, that having one available at no additional cost would be a good option but perhaps not a requirement, but for the sake of argument and since we dont have to compromise I'm thinking that it should be required. Getting all the information before having such a procedure seems like a necessity especially if MY tax dollars are going to fund it in any way shape or form.

These are only publically funded abortions? I thought it said all abortions in SC?

Again, people don't have to have absolutely all available info before making a decision if they don't want to.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Or perhaps make them feel worse than they already do by being forced into a medical procedure?

These are only publically funded abortions? I thought it said all abortions in SC?

Again, people don't have to have absolutely all available info before making a decision if they don't want to.

Good point on feeling worse, however, how are they being forced into the abortion? Thats the whole point of gathering all the data so you dont feel forced either way...

I think it is ALL abortions in SC not just publically funded abortions.

RMNIXON · 03-21-2007, 10:08 PM

Maybe they just need John Edwards to hear the voice of the unborn child?

thomez · 03-21-2007, 10:09 PM

People have every right to be uninformed of such things as an ultrasound will provide. Forcing such is absurd.

thomez · 03-21-2007, 10:12 PM

Should I have to watch a video of a sweatshop so that I can buy my next pair of Nike shoes? Should I watch someone slaughter a cow before I can eat a cheeseburger? If I need a heart transplant and I'm taking it from someone who has been in a car accident and is a vegetable, should I have to watch them remove it and end his or her life?

People have every right to hide themselves from emotional aspects of decisions.

Diesel66 · 03-21-2007, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Why is this law retarded?

If you feel the fetus is a protected human, this does nothing to stop the murder.

If you feel the fetus isnt a protected human, this is a waste of time.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-21-2007, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

If you feel the fetus is a protected human, this does nothing to stop the murder.

If you feel the fetus isnt a protected human, this is a waste of time.

But I bet it would stop some abortions because people would see first hand the human life inside of them...how would that not have an impact? Talk to a woman who just got her first ultrasound. They're almost always amazed by it.

thomez · 03-21-2007, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

But I bet it would stop some abortions because people would see first hand the human life inside of them...how would that not have an impact? Talk to a woman who just got her first ultrasound. They're almost always amazed by it.

Who cares if it would stop them? Triggering an knee-jerk emotional reaction despite all amounts of reasoning isn't something the state should be promoting. People should make this kind of decision with whatever evidence they would personally like to consider and any applicable health risks, not state-sanctioned emotional torture.

Diesel66 · 03-21-2007, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

But I bet it would stop some abortions because people would see first hand the human life inside of them...how would that not have an impact? Talk to a woman who just got her first ultrasound. They're almost always amazed by it.

most abortions happen before the fetus looks like a human.