Posted on 04/17/2005 9:31:06 PM PDT by eeevil conservative
Legislation Seeking to Criminalize Ultrasounds without Doctor's Order Moves in Springfield
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
By The Leader-Springfield Bureau
SPRINGFIELD -- Pro-abortion forces won a victory in the Illinois House Wednesday as State Rep. Rosemary Mulligan (R-Park Ridge) successfully passed HB 2492 which would make it a criminal offense for an ultrasound to be administered without a doctor's order
Mulligan said that Planned Parenthood and the Illinois State Medical Society encouraged her to sponsor the legislation because there was a concern about long exposure of fetuses to ultrasound waves.
"There's a new little industry that does ultrasound videos on babies before they're born for entertainment purposes," the Cook County legislator told her colleagues. "There is concern about the neurological development with long exposure."
When asked by State Rep. Randy Hultgren (R-Wheaton) whether or not it would effect crisis pregnancy centers who have recently begun doing ultrasounds on women considering abortion, Mulligan said she wasn't familiar with the practice in those agencies, and deferred a clear response.
"I am assuming those agencies have doctor's orders to perform the ultrasounds, so I don't know whether this would change their policies or not," she responded.
Mulligan, who is a strong abortion advocate, said that an ultrasound should not be done for political reasons to make anyone change their minds about any particular purpose.
Hultgren called the proposal "disconcerting" that the bill was being promoted as a minor bill. "This is very serious," Hultgren said. "I encourage everyone to vote no. A person shouldn't be charged as a criminal for doing a two minute ultrasound on an expectant woman."
State Rep. Coreen Gordon (D-Kankakee) asked for specific studies indicating the harm an unborn baby would face for prolonged exposure to ultrasound.
Mulligan said that the Federal Drug Administration had warned that muscle and nerve development could be affected by long exposure.
"We should be concerned about the long term health of the fetus," Mulligan, who has voted against a ban on partial birth abortion, said.
The bill passed with bi-partisan support with 76 yes votes and 32 no votes.
Six voted present.
The legislation would make it a Class A misdemeanor for an ultrasound to be performed without a doctor's orders.
It now moves to the Illinois Senate, where it will go through committee before a floor vote.
One more example that this not about being pro-choice, this about being pro-death. Wouldn't want someone considering an abortion seeing a picture of a small human that is going to be sucked out.
"Is an ultrasound that saves a baby's life "unnecessary" ?"
Here is the problem. The ultrasounds that are being referred to are not of diagnostic value. They are not done to measure femur length, cranial size, cardiac function, etc. They are being done without medical justification. They are being done by individuals without proper training or medical supervision. They are being done because mom and/or pop want a cutesy view of baby for their scrapbook. Nothing more.
Ultrasound is a diagnostic tool. In theory it doesn't save anyone's life. What's unnecessary is to expose the unborn to ultrasound for little cutsey pictures. Hell, if your going to do that why not have a CT scan, PET scan or an MRI or even a simple Xray of the abdomen.
Are you willing to have your unborn baby scanned multiple times for vanity reasons not knowing what the long term effects of ultrasound are?
The proposed bill has nothing to do with abortion.
"Only took 3 hours to blame Bush!"
Blame Bush? Geeze, people are so rabid. The legislation is to PROTECT the unborn from those individuals that are not qualified to perform ultrasound. Additionally, it's to prevent the unborn from exposure to potential long term effects of ultrasound.
Blame Bush? Hell NO!! I'm giving him credit. It's one of the few good things Bush did as governor of Texas.
People have explained why PP is involved: they want a tool against the crisis pregnancy centers.
In New York and other States, PP has tried to get the CPC's shut down for doing urine pregnancy tests - claiming that the use of a test that's non-invasive, legal and available over the counter is "practicing medicine without a license. In New York, especially, they used the State AG to attack CPC's for their phone book ads. Spitzer has been their best and most aggressive advocate, since PP donates so much to him. (I'm afraid he's very sympathetic to abortion advocates.) They have begun complaining about the US use, even though a doctor is the medical director for the ones I know with US. And, it's not like the test done in CPC's is a vaginal US.
And YOU know THIS how?
Can you please share which studies were utilized by these lawmakers, which conclusively support their allegations made and used as the foundation of thier DIMWITTED bill....which conclusively states, that the use of ULTA SOUNDS will adversely affect the normal development of a fetus?
And, please tell us, that if the foundation which this bill was built and passed is TRUE, then why for HEAVEN'S SAKES is this LAW not also being applied across the board?
Should not the use of any ULTRA SOUND be BANNED?
And YOU know THIS how?
Can you please share which studies were utilized by these lawmakers, which conclusively support their allegations made and used as the foundation of thier DIMWITTED bill....which conclusively states, that the use of ULTRA SOUNDS will adversely affect the normal development of a fetus?
And, please tell us, that if the foundation which this bill was built and passed is TRUE, then why for HEAVEN'S SAKES is this LAW not also being applied across the board?
Should not the use of any ULTRA SOUND be BANNED?
Bear with me-- it may take a while to compile that list. I will put it ina from that can just be copied and and pasted right into the TO: box on an email....
"" It's one of the few good things Bush did as governor of Texas.""
He also got Parental Notification through the Legislature in 1999. And this year, we're going to follow 25 other States and win (back) the right to Parental Consent.
"Should not the use of any ULTRA SOUND be BANNED?"
Only the used of non-diagnostic ultrasound should be eliminated. There are 100's of studies out there that show that the long term effects of ultrasound are not known at this time but studies do indicate that there in an increase in fetal temperatures uo to 4 degrees higher than normal. Ultrasound used in a controlled clinical setting is fine but the vanity keepsake ultrasounds are completely uncalled for.
I suggest you do a Google search using the phrase "keepsake ultrasound." Be prepared to read...there are thousands of articles on the subject.
It goes to show you just how EFFECTIVE the ultrasound is in preventing abortions. PP must be losing money; GOOD!!
Belive me, the people who are trained to do ultrasounds in clinics offering alternatives to abortion are not doing them for entertainment purposes. I'd say they are absolutely diagnostic. They are diagnosing a BABY for these women who are being pressured by the outside world to kill their children because they are inconvenient. They are being lied to about the development of their babies.
The people who are doing the ultrasounds in the local pro-life clinic are both RN's and both had to attend extensive training in order to be able to operate it.
"He also got Parental Notification through the Legislature in 1999. "
Very true and a good legislation it was. Kudos to GWB as governor of Texas.
What's unfortunate is that Planned Parenthood has latched on to this in Illinois. As I said, this is about consumer protection, not abortion.
List of emails: ( I have not double checked them to be sure they all work- but here ya go!)
ronen@senatedem.state.il.us, ilsenate29@sbcglobal.net, crotty@senatedem.state.il.us, hunter@senatedem.state.il.us, martinez@senatedem.state.il.us, raoul@senatedem.state.il.us, senatorraoul@sbcglobal.net, schoenberg@senatedem.state.il.us, carole@pankau.org, Tsieben@geneseo.net, Info@SenatorDaveSyverson.com
Now- to get Righter, the ONLY thing I could find is this page:
http://www.senategop.state.il.us/index.php?option=com_contact&Itemid=68
"Only the used of non-diagnostic ultrasound should be eliminated. There are 100's of studies out there that show that the long term effects of ultrasound are not known at this time but studies do indicate that there in an increase in fetal temperatures uo to 4 degrees higher than normal. Ultrasound used in a controlled clinical setting is fine but the vanity keepsake ultrasounds are completely uncalled for.
I suggest you do a Google search using the phrase "keepsake ultrasound." Be prepared to read...there are thousands of articles on the subject."
I might have a tendency to agree to ban TUPPERWARE'LIKE ULTRA SOUND PARTYS....However, this law is not aimed directly to that catagory, although it certainly USED the entertainment aspect as a foundation!
That's fine! I have NO problem with banning the use of ULTRA SOUNDS for *ENTERTAINMENT* purposes, until such time as conclusive evidence can be obtained to support and prove, that the use of ultra sound is SAFE and will not adversely affect the normal development of the unborn baby!
Even if there is no current conclusive evidence to support its use is unsafe! However, I do then OBJECT to the terminology utilized in this bill, which only mentions the *entertainment* aspect, but specifically focus' on ALL FORMS AND USE of Ultra sounds, not authorized by a doctor, but which is utilized in legitimate and appropriate settings.
Not to mention that it is RARELY if EVER, *the doctor* who operates an ultra sound machine!
This bill/LAW has used an UNFAIR broad brush to prevent all other LEGITIMATE use of the ultra sound! So, either the wording of the bill must be changed, or throw it out all together!
I agree under those circumstances. What I was talking about was the anecdotal evidence that many woman upon seeing an ultrasound of their baby declined abortions. I think this is the reason the bill was written to stop this. Under those circumstances a life was saved. I think there is a middle ground somewhere. What do you think?
It is a very nuanced problem.
I ALSO meant to add-
In addition to either wording the bill so as not to paint with the (purposefully intended)broad brush, or get rid of the bill completely......I would then EXPECT that the bill should be responsibly changed to include the ban on ALL ultra sounds, given the increased likelyhood of adversely affecting the normal development of the unborn baby, until such time as the safe use of ultra sounds can be established, given the outcomes obtained by so many studies!
Why take a chance on adversely affecting the normal development of any baby, given the standards you and this bill have provided? That would be very IRESPONSIBLE on the part of these LAW MAKERS, to not ban the use of all ULTRA SOUNDS, don't you agree?
"Belive me, the people who are trained to do ultrasounds in clinics offering alternatives to abortion are not doing them for entertainment purposes."
The legislation presented in Illinois is to simply regulate those "boutiques" that offer ultrasound as entertainment, not diagnostics. It's truely unfortunate that Planned Parenthood has latched on to this to create such controversy. If the legislation has loopholes that allows PP to use it to their advantage it should be shot down.
The legislation passed in Texas during the Bush governorship did not have such problems. I suggest you take a look at this http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=885
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.