Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Connecticut Governor Rell Signs Bill Banning Ultrasounds Without Medical Reason
Life News ^ | 6/29/09 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 06/29/2009 1:17:56 PM PDT by wagglebee

Hartford, CT (LifeNews.com) -- Under a new bill pro-abortion Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell signed into law last week, an ultrasound of an unborn child can't be done without a medical reason or authorization from a physician. The bill could have a negative impact on pregnancy centers that use ultrasounds to help women considering abortion.

Studies have shown that ultrasounds, which show the humanity of the unborn children throughout pregnancy, convince at least 80 percent of women considering an abortion to keep their baby.

Rell claimed she signed the bill because she is concerned about the health and safety of mothers and unborn children. However, no studies have revealed any negative health affects for either by viewing an ultrasound.

The bill is also an effort to target the new ultrasound "boutiques" that allow parents of unborn children to view an ultrasound and take home their children's first baby pictures of them moving around in the womb.

The new law will take effect on July 1.

The bill follows a warning the Food and Drug Administration put out in May 2004 warning against using ultrasounds for entertainment.

"Ultrasound is a form of energy, and even at low levels, laboratory studies have shown it can produce physical effects in tissue, such as jarring vibrations and a rise in temperature," the FDA said at the time.

The agency said it was encouraging pregnant women to forego prenatal portraits, videos, and CD-ROMs, which are available from specialty photo studios around the country.

Still, the director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, physician Dan Schultz, admitted that ultrasound technology has proven to be safe.

"We don't know what the long-term effects are," Schultz told Knight-Ridder. "We don't know whether a mother is exposed to excessive doses (of) ultrasound energy."

Mel Stratmeyer of the FDA's Office of Science and Technology concedes that animal studies have not shown any evidence of low-dose ultrasounds causing fetal harm.

"But the issue of keepsake videos has to be that if there's even a possibility of potential risk, why take the chance?" Stratmeyer said in an FDA publication at the time.

Pro-life leaders around the country consider ultrasound to be a technological marvel that has saved countless unborn children from abortion. Other states such as New York have considered banning ultrasounds for non-medical reasons.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: abortion; billsigning; informedconsent; jodirell; moralabsolutes; plannedparenthood; proaborts; prolife; ultrasound; ultrasounds
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
Studies have shown that ultrasounds, which show the humanity of the unborn children throughout pregnancy, convince at least 80 percent of women considering an abortion to keep their baby.

The abortionists are terrified that women will find out that they are actually carrying a BABY!

1 posted on 06/29/2009 1:17:58 PM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk; Coleus; cpforlife.org; narses; Salvation; 8mmMauser

Pro-Life Ping


2 posted on 06/29/2009 1:18:38 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 185JHP; 230FMJ; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 06/29/2009 1:19:09 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Let the health care rationing begin!!

And it doesn’t hurt that it ties in well with the radical, racist, pro-abortion agenda.


4 posted on 06/29/2009 1:20:08 PM PDT by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Part of univeral health care coming your way.

The government will decide if you have a need for an ultrasound.

5 posted on 06/29/2009 1:20:17 PM PDT by mware (F-R-E-E, that spells free. Free Republic.com baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

All this after I suspect, tens of thousands of dollars spent of donation funds on ultra-sound equipment for pro-life clinics.


6 posted on 06/29/2009 1:20:35 PM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT 2006; now living north of Tampa Bay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Hmmm - females are more likely to be aborted than males after the sex of the baby is determined especially in some cultures like India and Islamic.

A bow to reality and the building immigrants in the state?

7 posted on 06/29/2009 1:21:18 PM PDT by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I’m not against this. Yes, it’s quite possible this was passed to prevent couples from seeing that there really is a baby inside mom. However, I don’t think that having medical procedures should be about anything not medical. I didn’t want an ultrasound when I was pregnant because I had read that in rare cases, there can be negative side effects. The doctor got really angry, so I had one. It shouldn’t be that way.


8 posted on 06/29/2009 1:21:30 PM PDT by twigs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

God will have his justice on these murderers. Using their positions of authority to limit the information available to a woman making a decision of death over life is unconscionable.


9 posted on 06/29/2009 1:23:21 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Connecticut isn’t a real state anyway. Couples who want vanity ultrasounds can easily drive to a bordering state and get one.


10 posted on 06/29/2009 1:23:50 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twigs
"I’m not against this."

An abortion can be performed at the whim of a pregnant woman simply because she wants one, but an ultrasound cannot?

11 posted on 06/29/2009 1:24:22 PM PDT by Joe 6-pack (Que me amat, amet et canem meum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
...can't be done without a medical reason or authorization from a physician

A nightmare for any doctor and a gold mine for a tort lawyer.

12 posted on 06/29/2009 1:24:34 PM PDT by ex91B10 (The only response now is mass resistance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twigs

Death over life is not a medical issue?


13 posted on 06/29/2009 1:25:02 PM PDT by DallasDeb (USAFA '06 Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: twigs
I didn’t want an ultrasound when I was pregnant because I had read that in rare cases, there can be negative side effects.

So you're OK with preventing others (in CT at least) from making their own decision?

Wow.

14 posted on 06/29/2009 1:25:14 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: twigs

dear twigs:

When is the risk from an ultrasound more dangerous than the abortion option that it might sway a mother away from?


15 posted on 06/29/2009 1:25:21 PM PDT by George from New England (escaped CT 2006; now living north of Tampa Bay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
This is an incredibly cynical move, and it reveals quite clearly the mindset and motives of the death pushers.

Their lie of wanting to make abortion "safe, but rare" is mocked by this law.

16 posted on 06/29/2009 1:27:48 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
An abortion can be performed at the whim of a pregnant woman simply because she wants one, but an ultrasound cannot?

Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? /s

17 posted on 06/29/2009 1:29:12 PM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: twigs
I didn’t want an ultrasound when I was pregnant because I had read that in rare cases, there can be negative side effects.

Yes, the abortionists have been saying this for quite some time, but they have yet to produce even a single case of negative effects on either a mother or child.

Obviously, regular and prolonged exposure to ultrasonic waves are dangerous, but that IS NOT what this is about.

18 posted on 06/29/2009 1:30:21 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: twigs

I agree. How physicians view ultrasound is evolving and they no longer “just” do them for no reason at all.

I had more than I could count with my last child, and we (my husband and I) had a serious talk with the doctor (at her request) about the benefits versus the known and unknown but suspected risks.

Ultrasound is a medical procedure and should not be done by people outside of a medical setting.


19 posted on 06/29/2009 1:30:20 PM PDT by mountainbunny (Mitt Romney: Collect the whole set!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: twigs
I think you are missing the point here.

Under a new bill pro-abortion Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell signed into law last week, an ultrasound of an unborn child can't be done without a medical reason or authorization from a physician. The bill could have a negative impact on pregnancy centers that use ultrasounds to help women considering abortion.

The abortionist don't want an expectant mother to see that child wiggling around inside her. Nobody is saying you have to get an ultrasound.

20 posted on 06/29/2009 1:31:07 PM PDT by McGruff (We are still waiting to see how the situation in Iran plays out - Barack Obama 6/26/2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson