Virginia's Mandated Ultrasound Law

So now you're opposed to the religious liberty of churches that are pro-choice? Make up your mind....

The first rule of the NCR Comment code is "Be respectful. Do not attack the writer. Take on the idea, not the messenger." I lament, Michael, that your post does not live up to this rule. Indeed, I am disappointed by lack of respect for women and the medical professionals upon whom they depend.

Daniel Callahan chose his words carefully, I believe, when he used the phrase "a potential human life." While some images of a fetus look like a small child, other images look grotesque because of genetic or developmental problems. In some cases, the body of the mother recognizes the problems and the woman has a "spontaneous abortion." The "potential" was not going to become actual, no matter what the woman may have desired. In other cases, by the time the mother's body would recognize this and take steps to end the pregnancy, the pregnancy itself becomes dangerous to the mother -- even deadly.

For such women, a medically-induced abortion is what the doctor might advise. Even if the woman wants to have a child, the doctor knows that what is growing in her womb will not be that child, and trying to delay the inevitable will put the woman's own life in danger.

It's hard enough for a woman who looks forward to putting a newborn to her breast to hear from her doctor that what is growing in her womb will not develop to be that newborn child. Is forcing her to see just how undeveloped and mis-developed the fetus is going to help her in any way? Will it make her decide "Stop! Wait!" All it will do, in such cases, is reinforce the doctor's advice -- and perhaps add vivid images to the grief the woman feels.

I've seen ultrasounds of healthy fetuses. Sadly, I've also sat with parishioners who have miscarried and others who have had induced abortions for reasons as I've described above. The grief and pain and loss is real for these women, and I shudder to think of the additional pain and even anger they would feel at being forced to look at images that look nothing like the cute baby sucking his thumb in the womb that is plastered on "choose life" billboards. Looking at the ultrasound will not change the medical prognosis, either for the fetus or the woman, and being forced to do so will only add additional pain to an already painful situation.

Biologically speaking, the fertilization of an egg and sperm is no guarantee of human life. It is, as Callahan so accurately phrased it, "a potential human life."

As long as you are looking for people to quit using euphemisms, you might look in the mirror. Not every fertilized egg is perfect, and not every union of egg and sperm will grow into a living, breathing child. Not every woman is healthy enough to carry a pregnancy to term, or even to a point where a c-section might offer help. By pretending otherwise, as you do in this post, you show an enormous lack of respect to the doctors and women who have to grapple with the difficult issues before them.

I am wondering if it is even worth speaking out but I will try.
Medicines may need to be approved by the FDA but not by a legislature which does not know what it is talking about.
When my sister was told that she would die if she did not terminate this pregnancy, did she need an ultrasound to make it more painful for her? She chose to continue the pregnancy: the fetus died; she was in the hospital for two months and the idiot priest told her husband not to worry, "God will send you a woman to raise your motherless children-5-if she dies."
You don't know what you are talking about!

The moral authority and credibility of the "Pro-Lifers" continues to be undermined by their fundamental dishonesty. In the referenced article,
the bill's supporters talk about legitimate medical concerns and so on.
Such subterfuges and reliance on specious arguments create legitimate
suspicions in the minds of the women who they're attempting to persuade
to carry a child to term.

If they'd just be honest and say "we want to make it as difficult,
expensive, and inconvenient as possible to terminate a pregnancy"
they'd be more credible.

What next? Why not require a woman to negotiate an obstacle course to
enter a clinic?

The bill will serve only to increase medical costs without, in all
likelihood, stopping a single abortion.

So much for the importance of conscience exemptions, huh? After you've railed for a week now about the violation that the Obama administration is doing to individual consciences by simply requiring that employers provide health insurance plans that cover contraception, we can see that you're not particularly concerned about the consciences of women in Virginia.

this politically motivated requirement draws funding, time, resources and energies from other services which are urgently medically required, but not politically mandated.

Saving the life of the mother? first have a Kodak moment.
Dudes, Kodak went bankrupt, like this requirement.

This law will have difficulty passing the undo burden test in Casey. It depends on how Kennedy votes.

Conservatives should be leery of the law, however, since if it succeeds in dissuading abortion, it will add fuel to the fire to pay more money to families to support each additional child, either through living wage requirements or increased tax credits (and tax rates) to support families. Once women fall in love with their children in the ultrasound room, they won't be giving them up for adoption. They will want to keep them and demand financial support to do so. T

he tenor of the pro-life movement will be tested based on how they respond to this demand. It will show whether their movement is about affirming life or controling sexuality (since most pro-lifers, when faced with the prospect of increased benefits for families suddenly become interested in personal responsibility).

Finally, ultrasounds will reveal the extent to which many of these children were already dead due to genetic abnormalities. We had two D&Cs because ultrasound examinations showed no fetal heartbeat when there should have been one. Because we had insurance, we had them in hospitals. If we had not, we would have been in a Planned Parenthood Clinic, with self-righteous demonstrators praying at us as we went in.

"we in the pro-life movement"?

Really -- have some respect for women, MSW.

The person above who said the objective is really "we want to make it as difficult, expensive, and inconvenient as possible to terminate a pregnancy" is absolutely correct. You should also add in that for those who state that they are pro-life the ends justify the means; so providing disinformation through abortion "alternatives" centers (the good ones that offer true information and real choices are outnumbered by the bad ones) as required in Texas is just fine.

I am in favor of informed choice (with accurate information), and a full range of fully-funded choices. We as a society vote against that every day by denying health care to people who cannot afford it, denouncing paid maternity leave as "socialist", and claiming a living wage is abusive to employers. Those who oppose contraception reduce those choices further, and ultimately end up encouraging a larger number of abortions -- not fewer. Where is the will to provide real and actionable choices to all? Not here. Not today.

We cannot return to the days when women who became pregnant out of wedlock (or with children they could not support) became sources of children for others. Further, not every child found a "happy home" then anymore than they do today. Not every pregnancy resulted in a happy, healthy baby then anymore than it does now. Women do not go out and get abortions because they see it as a fun thing to do on a given day. The reasons they so choose are as numerous as the women, and each case is a world unto itself. Laws such as this not only increase the expense, but insult women's intelligence. See what the second commenter wrote.

Actionable, real choice (accurate sex education, contraception, universal healthcare, a living wage for all, meaningful support for those who choose to keep their children, adoption, AND abortion) must be available to all. Those countries who have all those have a LOW rate of abortion. If we can ever get with the program as a society, we might have a low rate as well. With the kinds of laws that are getting passed -- not a prayer. The result will be more late abortions, and more unplanned children being born with the usual consequences in the absence of meaningful and actionable choice.

--Andy Jo--

When persuasion fails, implement coercion.

How is the medical risk to the fetus done by an ultrasound, justified as a persuasive argument to be used against the mother?? one would suppose that logical words would be better than a medical procedure, in trying to influence a woman's mind...

Ah, the true colors of your readers are shown. Let's be honest, you all think it is ok to kill a baby in the womb. Just say it: in your eyes, on the scales of moral judgment, a women's right to shirk responsibility outweighs the right of a baby to live. It's as simple as that. Nice display of charity.

Ok, let me get this straight. The state will be mandating the "trans vaginal ultrasound" of a woman. This is known as a probe. So the state is mandating the forced vaginal probing of a woman. Isn't that rape with an object? Wow, if the government gets this power over us, what is next? Think about what you are "thrilled" about. I think you'd feel differently if your gender were different.

As someone who has had at least 12 transvaginal ultrasounds (average of one a week) during the first trimester of a high risk pregnancy I can tell that the few ultrasounds you say you have seen are later in the pregnancy. First trimester ultrasounds only show a little circular fetal sac and then may be a stick looking thing on that circle a little later in the first trimester. They really do not look like a baby. With that said, I do not think it is right to force any medical procedure on a person and to force with coercion a transvaginal ultrasound is nothing less than rape.

Why are people aligning themselves with this forced violation of women's bodies?

I continue to lack the understanding why a woman is valued less than a man, and find that acceptance of laws that illustrate this is growing.

Do I support abortion? No. Do I support a women's choice in these matters? Yes.

Do you all not support or trust GOD's abilities and judgment? I think he can take any issues up with a woman or a man during or after their life on this planet.

https://www.google.com/search?q=transvaginal+ultrasounds&hl=en&prmd=imvn...

Please allow me to introduce comments from the primary pro-life group in Virginia, of which I am the President, on this matter. Thank you and let me add that as a woman that had an abortion I welcome these restrictions on the behavior of abortionists.

“Virginia Society for Human Life is grateful that the Senate supported the right of women to have access to this critical and relevant medical information about their own bodies and their unborn children before they make the irreversible decision for an abortion,” said Olivia Gans, President of VSHL.

VSHL is glad that there is still a requirement in the law passed that will guarantee that women will undergo an ultrasound before abortion, thereby protecting them from unscrupulous abortionists who would otherwise keep vital information from the women of Virginia.

Tragically, the result of the pro-abortion lies and distortions surrounding this bill meant that the facts were deliberately obscured, including the fact that 98% of abortion facilities routinely perform ultrasounds before performing an abortion, including the hotly debated trans-vaginal ultrasound, according to data from various studies and pro-abortion groups, themselves.

“The awful truth is that, in fact, the abortion procedure itself, which employs curette knifes, vacuum suction machines, and deadly drug cocktails designed solely to end her child’s life, and may also harm her, is far more invasive then any type of ultrasound technique to be used before an abortion.” said Olivia Gans.