Posted on 05/24/2010 3:12:30 PM PDT by rhema
Last year, in the dead heat of the summer, I developed pneumonia. When my doctor suspected the cause of my fatigue and shortness of breath, he ordered an X-ray and in a short while we were examining the picture of my lungs. This window to an erstwhile unseen world provided by modern medicine allowed my doctor to confirm his diagnosis and provided the information I needed to make decisions about my treatment.
A dozen states are considering laws that require abortion clinics to provide ultrasound images for women seeking abortion. Obstetric ultrasound is a safe and noninvasive procedure using high frequency sound waves to provide a picture of the moving fetus on a monitor screen. A "transducer" is placed on the abdomen and moved to capture different views inside the uterus. The fetal heartbeat can be viewed as early as four weeks, and other fetal measurements can be made accurately from the images on the screen.
Opponents of these laws, like the editors at USA Today, say the ultrasound mandates "cross a line" and force "unnecessary medical procedures" on women. Yet the reality of abortion in America suggests this rhetoric is off the mark.
There are far too many stories of women who were not fully informed before their abortion and are suffering now because of it. In fact, there are women in court today suing abortion doctors for lying to them about the state of development of their child. The people in various states considering these laws have the right to decide that women deserve factual information before an abortion and that the best information about fetal development is an ultrasound picture.
Florida's proposed law prescribes an ultrasound prior to every abortion. Women must be allowed to view the live ultrasound images, though they must also be informed that they have the right to decline to view them under the law. In either case, the law requires that the physician or sonographer review and explain the images. (Most obstetric ultrasound procedures are performed topically, as described above. An alternative is the transvaginal ultrasound, which produces an enhanced image quality but is not a common prenatal procedure. The Florida measure does not require this more invasive procedure.)
The fact is, ultrasounds are used today by abortion clinic doctors (they actually make abortions safer) but the screen is turned away from the woman. Proponents of bills like the one in Florida believe, quite simply, that the information an ultrasound provides ought to be in the hands of the person who is making the abortion decision, not only the person who stands to profit from it. And there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the information an ultrasound provides is relevant and meaningful to that decisionmaker. Various studies suggest that about 80 percent of women change their mind about abortion after seeing an ultrasound. If women themselves say ultrasounds make a difference, "prochoice" politicians shouldn't stand in the way of making this information available.
Some charge that providing ultrasound images equates to emotional blackmail for a woman who has already made an agonizing decision, but a recent study published in the European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care would suggest otherwise. In an article entitled, "Women's perceptions about seeing the ultrasound picture before an abortion," the authors report that women presenting for medical and surgical abortions at two urban clinics were asked if they wished to view an ultrasound image. Of 350 participants, 72.6 percent chose to view the ultrasound and, of those, 86.3 percent found it a positive experience.
Abortion proponents could adopt this standard of practice voluntarily, of course, but they won't. Abortion clinics are for-profit ventures, and notoriously underregulated — animal hospitals and beauty salons are better regulated than some abortion clinics. They will always oppose laws that strengthen a woman's right to know because when women are empowered, they tend to choose life for their children. That's good medicine, but bad for business.
WHAAAAAAT?!?
ABORTION is an unnecessary "procedure"!!!
The prtoblem is that we have baby killing to start with...
Some charge that providing ultrasound images equates to emotional blackmail for a woman who has already made an agonizing decision, but a recent study published in the European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care would suggest otherwise. In an article entitled, "Women's perceptions about seeing the ultrasound picture before an abortion," the authors report that women presenting for medical and surgical abortions at two urban clinics were asked if they wished to view an ultrasound image. Of 350 participants, 72.6 percent chose to view the ultrasound and, of those, 86.3 percent found it a positive experience.
Leftist freaks WANT as much baby killing as possible and will not permit any law requiring ultrasounds. It’s not about “choice”, it’s about death. They hate humanity as they hate themselves.
And we Rightists should know that a law “requiring” a medical procedure is immoral, unconstitutional, anti-freedom and, therefore, anti-life.
My son’s ex wife left him when she got Jungle fever.
When we went to court she had killed her child by my son. She said she had miscarried, but the stupid wench forgot to stop her mail at my son’s home and he got the Insurance companies statement for a procedure in Baltimore.
When we went to court we had the lawyer file a brief for the results of this procedure. Of course Planned Parenthood would not release the info, but after 3 briefs and a court order stating that they would either send the results or appear in court for contempt they sent the ultra-sound of his baby.That Ultra sound cost me 3,000 dollars in lawyers fee’s to get.
The skunk claimed she was merely paying rent at the boyfriends apartment. I guess she was, and I know what she was paying it with. We got sole custody of my Grandchild, but just to show how unfair these things are to men she pays $250, dollars child support, and misses that half the time and the courts have done nothing. If she were a man it would have been at least a thousand dollars and she would be in jail for not paying.
“Ultrasound images should be shown to women seeking abortion”
If they can look their own baby in the face and still kill it.....that’s pretty cold.
“it CAN be passed with help from Our Father through the reception of the Eucharist, and help from Our Mother through intercessory prayer.”
Whose mother?
Your post had confused me because you appeared to place Jesus and His mother on an equal plane.
Your post had confused me because you appeared to place Jesus and His mother on an equal plane.I did not see it that way, but some non-Catholics will read that into a Catholic's invitation to prayer.
Any law that protects life is moral. Unless I’m mistaken, an ultrasound isn’t very dangerous for the mother.
You are a bit too defensive of your “Rightism.”
This proposed law would mandate that the woman who volunteers to lie down on a operating table to have her ‘products of conception’ removed, will be able to see the ultrasound image that the doctor looks at while he is doing the procedure. The sonogram wand is on the woman’s abdomen as a part of the procedure.
Have you ever wondered why the pro-abortion crowd are so willing to NOT give the potential client an informed “Choice.”
Videos of uterine ultrasounds are as hidden from the public as CIA secrets. Why?
Also, the only immoral part is requiring the taxpayers to foot the bill. The thing is, we will already be required to pay for baby killing thanks to “health care reform”. I would much rather be forced to pay for a routine diagnostic procedure than for killing wouldn’t you?
You can reject baby killing and this law and remain consistent.
Accepting a law like this is accepting the leftist' premise. You should reject it.
A law like this sets a precedent that the left would love to pounce on. Next thing you know, you'll be required to watch baby seagulls drowning in oil before you fill up your gas tank. They'll make you watch the Al Gore movie before you buy light bulbs. Want some steak? Watch this video by PETA first.
The reason we are where we are is because we've been playing by the left's rules for too long. No, it is NOT OK to have a law to force you to have an ultrasound (and, btw, likely paid for by someone else). It may be the right thing for doctors to suggest, but it is not right to force it by law.
Have you been under the care of any medical provider recently? Have you signed paper after paper that you have given your consent for whatever procedure you are having done? And consent for your provider to share your information with insurance companies, etc. That is all being done because of laws.
I believe that anyone who is considering taking the life of her unborn child should be shown a picture of said child, and a law to that effect does not trouble me one bit.
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.