Ultrasound Requirements and the Battle Over Abortion
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-22/ultrasound-requirements-and-battle-over-abortion
The Virginia legislature has approved a bill requiring women to undergo an ultrasound and 24-hour waiting period before having an abortion. Virginia's governor had expressed support for the bill but appeared to back off following protests. If signed into law, clinics would be required to ask women if they wanted to see the sonogram. Seven other states have some kind of ultrasound requirement. Supporters hope seeing an image of a fetus will make women change their mind about terminating their pregnancy. Critics say it's an effort to shame and harass women who have a legal right to an abortion. Ultrasounds and the abortion battle.
Guests
Carol Tobias
president, National Right to Life Committee.
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
Nancy Keenan
president of NARAL, Pro-Choice America.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Please have your guests clarify on the difference between an exterior ultrasound and a transvaginal ultrasound. I doubt that most providers are performing transvaginal ultrasounds, an entirely different procedure.
I worked in an abortion clinic for close to two years. The experience left me confident that I would not want to have abortion unless absolutely necessary and equally confident that it is a very personal decision that women make for a number of reasons and that should be guaranteed to them as a basic health right.
The foster care is full of children born to drug addicted parents. These children often face incredible developmental and mental health obstacles and are always under served. They are the first to fill the prison system later. No, abortion is not pretty. Neither is the reality of a child born to meth addicts or alcoholics. There are children on every street corner in America fighting for their right to life. It would be nice to hear the Santorums and Operation Rescues of the world concerned about these children.
The requirement of contraception coverage dates to EEOC 2000 ruling. George W. Bush's admin took a pass on it. John Ashcroft--JOHN ASHCROFT--said during confirmation that they were fine with the ruling and would not challenge it.
And some 25 states do this already.
The Catholic hierarchy's feelings didn't get hurt by any of that until a black Democrat was elected to the White House. I wonder why?
Oh, and to whoever said contraception coverage is "provided for free"? I earned that salary and benefits in lieu of it. It's not being given to me. It is part of my total compensation.
Hasn't the speaker of this sentence ever been given this spiel by an employer?
The argument that abortion should be outlawed because some women later regret having had an abortion is not valid. Not all women who have had abortions regret this decision, and not all suffer depression or suicidal thoughts. Some do, and one feels for them. People may regret many decisions they have made in their lives; we can't legislate everything that might cause some people pain.
I hear some disinformation here.
If 4 of 5 abortions are performed after a clinic-required ultrasound, 1of 5 is not. Thus choice still exists - another clinic may offer the choice if mandated by the first clinic. A vaginal probe may be offensive to some women.
Is it not true that RU-486vprevents implantation of a fertilized egg, and will not abort an established embryo?
Isn't a medical decision and medical information and advice, privately provided, distinctly different than state control of that advice and information?
Being held hostage is an unpleasant situation. When you are visibly held hostage, at least people know what you went thru, and understand. Having been held hostage myself, for real, and not visibly, and having no way to cry out for help, I am sensitive to people of all ages, and the innocent and 'undeserving' poor, being held hostage, and the old "Inquisition" techniques of Shame used, The Waterboarding, easily offended types, like the Newt, I will call out when I see people held hostage, powerless to point to who offended you. Newt and Governor MacDonald, will always be offended by the poor, innocent, etc., who are frequently the wives and family of able bodied seamen, not sophisticated in t he ways of The Old Dominion, having been raised in the Heartland, where everyone knew you and you were understood. This is not the way of the Old Dominion. They are entrappers, taxers of the poor, they have all sorts of "gentlemanly ways" of still being MASTER in Chief. I am so sorry to offend the sensibilities of the graduate of CBN University, our Governor, but never a line officer. Think he worked for some private hospital concern. Maybe has blind stock in the makers of unltrasound penetrators. They need the business. And they love to gather and mock the 'undeserving'. That is what makes them so Special, So High Class, so Blessed, so Caring with tax deductions. So Holy like Newt. Holy like a Bishop. So High Church. So smelling of their own Incense. Holy. Holy. Holy. Carry-on with the Inquisition tactcs, put them in the Stocks of Williamsburg.
When birth control is fully funded to all, then the need for abortions will be less. All children should be born to loving parents that want them, not to a women forced to have a child she doesn't want because someone else knows what is right for her.
This is a personal choice for a woman, the goverment should not have anything to do with this.
I am so tired of the anti-abortion people trying to be tricky and come thru the back door with legislation to take away someone else's rights.
Does an unborn child have ANY existential human rights? Should an unborn child have any manner of human rights?
I am not active on either side of this debate but I do see the aftermath of women who have had abortions. They end up in my church and they are pretty unhappy when they arrive. I think we should try this law out for a certain period of time and see if it has an effect. If it changes women's minds and they go ahead and have the baby, that seems to be a good thing. Don't we all agree on that? It's called Pro-Choice now, not Pro-Abortion.
ditto- How about we take care of the children already born and allow the women manage those not born yet.
To the degree that the anti-abortion people align with the anti-"Obamacare" people is another frightening bit of hypocrisy, requiring expensive unnecessary technical tests in abortion clinics only, make it financially unavailable in all other circumstances. A young woman with no money or job would actually be driven to choose a termination with poor prospects for future health care for herself or anyone else.
Ms. Tobias has referred to the emotional trauma that occurs within women who have had abortions--perhaps it is the emotionally charged framing of the pro-life movement that evokes this response and tends to "prey" on women. I would be interested to hear the science or real statistical evidence of these references.
I have two concerns. First, doesn't this new law forcing a transvaginal ultrasound against the consent of the patient, fit the federal definition of rape? Second, why not have it be voluntary for the women who want it? Why are people ok with assuming women don't know what pregnant means
All great points, I have known a few women over the years going back to the 50's who have elected abortions for one or more reasons and not a one would have said that it was an easy decision. If the social conservatives were truly concerned about a womans state of mind preceding or following an abortion they would be working to provide mental health support.
What I don't understand is that if I go to my physician and need a surgical procedure, to the best of my knowledge, there are few if any state laws that tell the doctor what test to perform prior to doing the surgery. Certainly, there are standards of care taught by medical schools or established by private groups such as the AMA or certification boards and often an insurance company will play a part in what is allowed. But the ultimate decision rests with the physician and the patient.
It's amazing how the GOP can reject all "government run" health care on the grounds that government shouldn't be involved in health care but at the same time require government intervention in women's health issues. This is the height of hypocrisy.
It's amazing how the GOP can reject all "government run" health care on the grounds that government shouldn't be involved in health care but at the same time require government intervention in women's health issues. This is the height of hypocrisy.
Neither States, not the Federal government, should be in the business of legislating women's health issues. Make no mistake, this is a religious issue, and as such, becomes unconstituional to legislate. It's really that simple. but the religious right thinks their beliefs should become law. Religious extremeist like Rick Santorum want to legislate birth control. Where does it end? It is a woman's right to decide for herself, without the sly legal contraptions like the untrasound laws.
First of all, I'm 8 months pregnant and continue to be staunchly pro choice.
I have a few points:
1) If a woman is raped, forcing her to be "probed" with a transvaginal ultrasound is akin to raping her again. I'm not sure how that's ok.
2) Why do the same people who want the government "out of my life" insist on making decision about my uterus? It's hypocrisy at its finest.
3) I'm not sure why men have a right to even about this. Let's force them to have something put in their genitalia before taking Viagra.
We are talking about a fetus not a child, there is a difference.
Seriously! Women will be experiencing state sponsored RAPE. It is done against her will and it is penetration! Imagine the lawsuits! I hope the court system is up to the deluge of lawsuits claiming RAPE....The state is forcing women to be violated!
If Pro Choice America were succesful in making abortion illegal, what legal penalties would your pro choice guest and her political allies then demand against women who then have an unsafe back street abortion. Prison time?
If the goal is to provide as much information as possible, then why not give the woman data on the poverty rate of children born out of wedlock, or that of single mothers, along with the information of an ultrasound?
Listening to Ms. Tobias' comment about how regretful some women have been about having an abortion and how the legislation requiring an ultrasound prior to the procedure is designed to prevent future regret is just silly. Both men and women regret decisions they make and wonder how their lives would be different if they had taken another path. Ms. Tobias makes it sound as if this is exclusive to women who had abortions. But, it's not the government's job to second guess how people will feel in the future. If that were the case. then there would be waiting periods and counseling required before marriage, divorce, conception, etc. The Constitution talks about freedom of religion--I want freedom FROM religion!
This country badly needs moral guidance, premarital sex is never a good thing for a multitude of reasons. Evidenced by the 50% rate of out of wedlock births, are we nothing more than unrestrained sexual savages.
Is there ANY evidence the supporters of this bill can provide that indicate if a woman requested one of these ultrasounds that she would be refused access to it without this bill being in place? If not, then they have no leg to stand on. Keep your laws off my body.
And the ones who haven't had side effects? Aren't morose, depressed and such? How many of them you've seen in your church?
I've worked in a hospital. ER doctors don't conclude "All the patients I see who've gone skiing have broken bones" and say something widespread about the "aftermath of skiing".
First of all I am very pro choice on this matter. How dare any congressman get between me and my doctor, any doctor, or dentist! My second observation is where is the restriction of service to men, who is paying for their reproductive services, such as their viagra prescriptions or vasectomies ?
I had an abortion in 2001, and did have an ultrasound. The ultrasound was very heart wrenching, but did not change my mind. I was 40, my husband and I were using birth control. We had 2 kids, and were in the process of filing bankruptcy to avoid foreclosure...it was the hardest decision we have made. My husband was born out of wedlock, so it was very personal to him. I was raised Catholic, so it was very personal to me. Afterwards my husband vowed never to discuss it, and it has eventually torn our marriage apart as my husband has now told me that he feels this was all my decision and not his (even though he was with me through the conception to the abortion, at all the appointments). The ultrasound had little to do with changing my mind, but I think it haunts my husband.
I am just wondering if your guests think that it is ethically ok to require a woman to undergo a procedure that is vaginally intrusive if she has become pregnant due to Rape (which is another form of vaginal intrusion). It seems to me that the result of these forced vaginal ultrasounds could be increased post traumatic stress from the rape that they endured. It seems very unethical to me for any woman to HAVE to undergo such stressful procedures.
Every child should have the right to be born planned, wanted and loved. If a person requires an unwanted child to be born, they should be prepared to take responsibility for the support and care of that child. It makes no sense that there is so much to do about bringing the child into the world and so little consideration is given that child after they are here.
Legislators should have to look at pictures of children who have died as a result of abuse or neglect before they are allowed to vote on these bills.