Texas Senate panel OKs abortion sonogram bill

I agree with this - the pro-life political groups seem to be more focused on legality rather than looking for effective ways to reduce abortions. Highly ineffective and misguided.

That said - does that thought apply to this law? After all (again, ignoring financial issues), the only abortions this law would actually stop are ones where a woman changes her mind voluntarily.

The proposed law doesn't actually do that, though. No woman has to view a sonogram under this law.

 

We all bring baggage and perspective to every discussion....let's not pretend I'm the only one in that boat.

 

Absolutely....I'm not, in any sense, for judging the women who are struggling over this....not in the least.

 

i'm fine with it when we're talking about seat belts...not so cool when we're talking about what may potentially be the existence of human life.

 

Which makes a difference, how? You don't think the MD will ask the woman if she wants to view it? You don't think going through the procedure, a procedure she doesn't want, won't be humiliating and emotionally upsetting? Do you have a clue as to how emotionally difficult getting an abortion is for a woman? To have to go through this procedure is a massive invasion of her right to privacy.

 

Dude, you are arguing for Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature. That alone should give you pause.

Do you think these guys would ever vote to require sex education, support counseling for unwed mothers, public paid medical and nutrition support, pre-school for under-privileged children, rehabilitation for troubled delinquents, rehabilitation for non-violent offenders, work programs for the unemployed, medical care for uninsured seniors.... No?

 

i'm never arguing for Rick Perry

 

you won't hear me argue against that. it creates a huge mess.

 

It makes a difference in that's it is factually incorrect. You said the state would be forcing women to view sonograms. They aren't. You specifically italicized the word "choice" in contrast to being forced to view them. You either didn't know what the bill did - in which case, I'd hope you'd want to know the facts. Or you did and were engaging in hyperbole in an already emotional issue, which is never helpful.

Sure - that sounds like a choice to me. A woman who is not interested can say no. If a woman says yes, it sounds like she was interested in seeing it - on what planet is that a bad thing that she then gets to see a sonogram she wants to see?

I already stated that this is a major potential concern of the bill. I'm not arguing with that.

 

I'm still a bit confused as to who is paying for these $250 sonograms.

 

Actually I fully understand the context of viewing a sonogram which is why I stated you have to know ahead time what you are looking for. In both of your cases you were shown a sonogram of something that you were expecting, the doctor talked you and your wives through what you were viewing and most importantly you wanted to see that. That is something different than being told to view a sonogram of something that you didn't really want to see. My point is for a woman who wants an abortion showing her a sonogram like the pic I posted earlier may not cause her to rethink the abortion since she doesn't want to be pregnant and in the situation where an embryo / fetus doesn't look recognizably human might have no affect on her decision.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. You do raise an interesting point though that you I am not sure whether you had in mind. In regards to sonograms what if a woman intending to bear the fetus to term once she sees the sonogram decides to abort it because the sonogram reveals some sort of birth defect? I am not an expert on this but my understanding of these kind of imaging technology is that there is a lot of interpretation involved. So what if based on an interpretation of a sonogram someone decides to abort what are y'alls (and here I am addressing this to the board in general) feelings about that?

 

Rereading the article you are right that the current bill doesn't force a woman to view a sonogram. The original one did. As I said earlier in response to Madmax's point I think it is a good argument for this on medical safety grounds but based on that I found this part of the bill unusual.

[rquoter]A committee substitute introduced Wednesday would not compel the doctor to perform the sonogram or detect a heartbeat if a woman's pregnancy was the result of sexual assault or incest or if the fetus has an "irreversible medical condition or abnormality."[/rquoter]

If part of this argument is for medical safety and in the words of the bill's author, "to empower women to get the information they are entitled to" why then no sonogram in those other instances? It seems to me if you are going to determine a fetus has an irreversible medical condition or abnormality a sonogram would be part of the process of determining that.

 

A poor choice (no pun intended) of words on my part. I haven't read the entire thread and was thinking of (apparently) the original bill. I'll repeat that forcing a woman to get a sonogram, whether she views it or not, is a gross invasion of privacy. Requiring a woman to have one at least 24 hours before an abortion is an unnecessary delay, an imposition, and a gross invasion of privacy. Did I say that OK?

 

I've read/heard several times that 90% of parents of fetuses with down syndrome terminate their pregnancy. considering how polarizing this issue is, that percentage shocks me.

 

Random question but who actually pays for these sonograms?

 

Can somebody provide me data that shows how these sonograms impact abortion decisions? TIA brahs

 

liltex was always an idiot, but he used to at least put up a bit of a fight. he's like a crippled old man now. total pwnage in this thread. OMG. LOL. TIA for your next post, bra.