That 15 minutes of reflection time is why it's always important to bring a book to a doctor's appointment. You never know when you might get held up.

There is currently a bill in the SC House (and Senate too) that would require ultrasounds on all women who seek an abortion (even if they've been raped, victims of incest, etc.). It would also require that ultrasound images be presented to the patient at least one hour before the abortion is performed. It's disgusting.

I find it really sad and kind of strange many people just assume that women simply haven't thought about the consequences of an abortion, as evidenced in the proposed Georgia law. It's like they think women will have an abortion on a whim. You know, today I think I'll get my hair cut, grab some burgers, oh, and terminate my pregnancy. What the hell?

For the love of god! When will people stop trying to tell doctors what to do! Leave their businesses alone!

If only there was an indefinite reflection period before a pointless legislation procedure is executed... although I suspect that most of the legislators' minds would be racing at a mile a minute (cue black and white cartoon of tired mule swatting flies with his tail).

what are the chances of it getting through the senate? does anyone know? there wasn't much info in the article.

*snort @ norbizness*

I like this part, "why not support a bill that gives a woman all the facts before she makes such a critical decision?"

Facts? Hee haw!

I'm really not sure what the problem is here. I'm sure some women who've had abortions may actually want to see the ultrasound photos, but were not allowed to because of office policy, etc. What is wrong with requiring a doctor to ask a patient if she would like to see a picture (which has already been taken) of what is going on inside her body? Women are not forced against their will to view the photos and doctors are not required to provide pictures unless they were already planning to use an ultrasound as part of the proceedure.

While I don't think women made the decision to abort without serious consideration, I know that not every single one is 100% certain that it is the right decision for them. For the woman that still has some lingering doubts, the ultrasound photos may either help ease her concerns and reasure her that she has made the right decision or help her realize that she needs more time to consider her options. Not that I believe the intent of this bill was to provide women with more options, but it seems that that's ultimately what it does - and without putting an additional strain on doctors.

Manda, here's the problem: no one has suggested that there is any practice in the US where "office policy" would prevent a patient from getting to see her own ultrasound. Now look at some of the language:

If the primary concern was women, I think "unborn child" wouldn't not have been chosen over the medically accurate "fetus".

And ponder this:

(f) An ultrasound or sonogram examination shall not be required pursuant to this Code section where a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.

Why the exemption? If this were only about guaranteeing a woman's right to see an ultrasound that's right there in front of her, what would the exception be for?

The problem is that you cannot legislate 100% certainty about anything. The woman who has lingering doubts is not being forced to go through with it. The purpose of this bill is to make life just a little bit harder for women who seek abortions, unless they were good women who didn't want to have sex. We do not need any more time spent in legislatures restricting women's medical options.

The problem I have with this bill besides the anti-choice language that Kaethe pointed out is that it seems so pointless. Women already have a right to view an ultraound of the fetus. I don't believe that there is an abortion provider that would deny that service.

Also, this sentence caught my eye: "All facilities in which abortions are performed shall have functional ultrasound or sonogram equipment on site or shall have access to such equipment through other facilities." The wording sounds like it's meant to limit clinics that provide abortion services. I'd like to know what legally constitutes 'access to such equipment'. Is giving a referral to another clinic or hospital with an ultrasound considered access? Is a single ultrasound machine that is shared among several clinics considered to be access? When I had my abortion a few years ago, the local Planned Parenthood did not have an ultrasound machine so I was given a referral to another women's health clinic. I suspect the smae problem may arise in other rural clinics.

I'll never understand the anti-choice love affair with ultrasound. Do they really think a woman who has already decided to terminate her pregnancy is going to suddenly go all gooey and maternal at the sight of a blurry picture of the fetus? Awww, I can't possibly kill it now--it's such a cute little blobby-wobby!
Please. Showing a woman a picture isn't going to make her any more able to afford to support said baby, or make her abusive hubby/bf any less likely to beat the shit out of her, or otherwise change any of the various circumstances that compel women to choose abortion as their best option in the first place. Women don't have abortions because they hate babies, or because they're too stupid to grasp that they've got a potential person growing inside them. They have them because they are better than the fucking alternative.

We get that it's a potential human being, okay? It's because we get that that we choose not to have them if we can't care for them, or provide them with a life that's not made up of poverty, misery and abuse, or because we value the actual human lives of our existing children over the life of a single potential one. And no fuzzy photo is going to change that.

The exception for rape victims seems obvious, though. If I was carrying my rapist's spawn, I think seeing an ultrasound of it would be not unlike watching that scene from Aliens, and thus make me all the more keen to kill it, and fast.

I agree with Manda, no one is requiring women to check out the ultrasound. And I do believe that a woman should have the option of seeing it. She should be able to weigh all of the science and emotion and religion and whatever else she needs in making an informed choice. Honestly, it might increase a woman's comfort knowing that the fetus is so small and undeveloped since so much anti-abortion propaganda erroneously states the size/development of aborted fetuses.

As for the 'accuracy' of the language issue that Kaethe raises, that's totally a value-driven debate. As far as I'm concerned, unborn child and fetus are synonymous. I choose to call it a fetus, but that's completely a political choice.

Here's a good question (or three) for all y'all feminists to ponder... Why is the pro-choice community so hesitant to admit that having an abortion does, indeed, end a potential viable life? Because that's what it is. Would the movement be better served to be a little more callous and staunch in one's resolve rather than arguing semantics like whether abortion terminates a 'fetus' or 'unborn child'? Or are we afraid of what it might say about us if we admit that we are sacrificing a potential life to save an actualized life?

I don't agree w/ Vervain that "We get that it's a potential human being". I think there are quite a few people who are absolutely in denial of that, probably for self-preservation purposes. I also don't agree w/ her that women don't have abortions b/c they hate babies. I would totally have an abortion for just that reason. ;) Heh!

The next step will be to force a woman to look at her ultra-sound while having to learn how to knit a baby booty. Only when she's completed the booty (in the gender-normative color of pink or blue) will she be allowed to have her abortion.

This is meant to guilt trip women who have already made their decision based upon a number of factors, not excluding how they regard the fetus growing inside them, using their life-support system.

Feminist Review wants to know, why we pro-choicers (I prefer Reproductive Rights Advocates, because my mission is broader and more incompassing than just the single issue of abortion, though that's the biggy considering your side's rabid work toward its elimination). In anycase, you ask, why we don't talk about the killing of the life. Well, I will. There is human life outside the the womb, which is in part independent (independent of my organs and blood supply) yet still dependent upon our social networks and ecosystem and there is completely dependent life--that of a fetus attached to my organs and life-supporting processes. Outside of the womb, no one can make another give up an organ or donate blood--those things have to be freely given--yet inside of the womb, these "humans" according to your logic, have the right to demand the use of my body. How is it that I no longer have to give consent to this? Well, you'll claim because only God creates life (or, many "pro-lifers" will claim that). The thing is, you have a theological idea encountering a biological reality--and you're theology should not be able to control MY BIOLOGY. So, I will say that abortion extinquishes a potential independent life--and a life form in the womb of absolute dependence. That life requires my permission to use my body--and when I do decide to give permission to just such a life, I'll be very happy indeed. But until then, no other person, born or unborn may use my body without my permission. That is my right to decide.

Here's a good question (or three) for all y'all feminists to ponder... Why is the pro-choice community so hesitant to admit that having an abortion does, indeed, end a potential viable life?

Uh...I did just say that, didn't I? Granted, I know a lot of people use the "just a clump of cells" argument, which I have no problem with, because it is also true. But I concur that it is, at least, a potential life, and abortion negates that potential. I think most people recognize this, but avoid admitting it because it's a less defensible counter to the other side's claim that women use abortion for birth control, or have them casually and/or selfishly. I find these assumptions piss me off the most, because women are conditioned in our society specifically to be selfless--we're taught that it's our duty as women to put others first: work to put hubby through school, give up our dream career to raise children, sacrifice our free time to care for aging parents, etc, etc, etc--any time we do anything for ourselves we're branded as "selfish" for daring to put our desires over someone else's. It's bullshit. And the "abortion as birth control" argument--yeah, right. Really expensive, hard-to-get birth control that requires taking time off work is soooo much easier to rely on than condoms or pills. Suuuure.

I'm sure there's someone out there has had an abortion for a selfish reason or used it as birth control, but I honestly think the majority choose it as the lesser of evils, for the sake of their existing children or for the sake of the unborn child, who they feel deserves the best possible life they can give him/her, and which they just can't at that point in time provide.

Maybe some people are in denial about the fetus growing inside them being a potential baby (what do they think it is, a watermelon seed they swallowed by accident?) but I do think most women are smarter than the average anti-choicer seems to think, and we are in fact perfectly capable of grasping the concept. I'm sick of the anti-choice assumption that we're too stupid to know what we want, as implied by their asinine ultrasound and waiting-period requirements. It just buys them more time in which to bully us into doing what they want, not to decide what we want.

As for hating babies, I think you can not like babies personally and still be unwilling to casually dispose of a potential life. Some people hate dogs, but they don't go out of their way to drown puppies for fun because of it. They just don't keep them as pets.

Well, of course abortion ends a potential, viable life. There wouldn't be much point in having one otherwise, would there?

I think there are quite a few people who are absolutely in denial of that, probably for self-preservation purposes.

So what if they are? If they're at the point where they're thinking of a fetus a a clump of cells rather than a potential life because they need to in order to cope, perhaps that's not the time to give them shit about what they call the thing within their own bodies.

As for the rest, gosh. She's probably been so busy finding somewhere to get an abortion, figuring out if insurance will cover it and how to pay for it, arranging it on a weekend or getting time off work (or how to skip school), figuring out who is trustworthy to accompany her, and how to get to the office itself, that she hasn't had fifteen minutes to spare to consider the implications! Gosh, it's sweet of polticians to give her that time...

Is anyone else just as, if not more, bothered by the "15 minutes of reflection time." It just smacks of 'now go sit in the corner and think about what you've done'. Not to mention that it's purely symbolic. When was the last time you went to any doctor for anything and didn't have to wait atleast 15 minutes? It's like the bills authors just wanted to advertise their belief that women only think about things when forced by law.

Um, actually there is legislation pending in South Carolina that would REQUIRE a woman considering abortion to view the ultrasound.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2957599

I'm curious what form of coercion they suggest for blind women.

"But I concur that it is, at least, a potential life, and abortion negates that potential."

Yeah, I agree. Contraceptives and abstinence also negate the potential of potential lives. In all three cases, living human cells (fertilized eggs, unfertilized eggs, sperm cells) are killed before their DNA and other molecules get to become part of a newborn baby.

"And the 'abortion as birth control' argument--yeah, right. Really expensive, hard-to-get birth control that requires taking time off work is soooo much easier to rely on than condoms or pills."

The "abortion as birth control" argument just reminds me of the USSR and the Joy Luck Club. Weren't condoms and pills popular but scarce commodities in those cities where people waited hours and hours and hours in line for other popular commodities like milk and bread? Also, didn't one of the characters in JLC resort to constant abortions because her husband or in-laws would confiscate her contraceptives or something? That part of the story seemed sadly plausible to me. :(

And no fuzzy photo is going to change that.

Not for a thoughtful, feminist-educated person. But there are people for whom it would change their mind, because they've been told their entire lives that it's wrong. And that's who they're after. If everyone had good training in the philosophy of abortion, it wouldn't be much of an issue. But forcing them to look at pictures, then sit in the corner and think about what they've done, is meant to be the crushing blow to the woman who has already been lied to her entire life.

And for the record: this pro-choicer admits it ends a potential viable life. So what?

Also, didn't one of the characters in JLC resort to constant abortions because her husband or in-laws would confiscate her contraceptives or something? That part of the story seemed sadly plausible to me.

Wow, I don't think so... You must have it confused with some other novel, because I certainly don't remember this happening in the story. I highly doubt it would get approved as 9th grade Literature reading if that was the case. I know one of the characters drowns her baby in order to get back at her cheating husband though.

i had an excellent bioethics teacher at PSU who used an example that really stuck with me. she used the example of a person who needs to use specifically *your* body to survive. this person needs to, say, be hooked up to your kidneys. regardless of whether this person is already hooked up to your kidneys or not, regardless of whether this person is famous or talented or just some dude, regardless of whether they need your kidneys for half an hour, nine months, or infintely, regardless of whether they were hooked up to your kidneys against your will, through your ignorance, or even if you once chose to allow them to be hooked up... regardless of all these things, you have no ethical obligation to allow this person to become or to remain hooked up to your kidneys.
we are autonomous beings. no one has a right your body outside of the rights you give them. that "no one" includes a fetus. the point of this is that yes, abortion does end a life. however, there is no ethical imperative to allow the use of your body by someone else. very simply.
on an unrelated note, georgia totally sucked yesterday. anyone else read about "Confederate Heritage Month"?

That argument works fine, but I still prefer the "if you can kill a pig, you can kill a fetus" one. Gets more of a reaction.

feminist review:
in terms of the language issue, automatically calling (for instance) a 7 week fetus an 'unborn child' bothers me for many reasons, not the least of which is that it insinuates that upon delivery, it would go from a viable pregnancy to a tiny little living born babychild. when, in fact, it would just be a mess.

and in response to, why don't y'all admit that pregnancy termination terminates a pregnancy:
"Well, of course abortion ends a potential, viable life. There wouldn't be much point in having one otherwise, would there?" makes me want to clink glasses with you, EG. cheers.

and lastly, for now: i agree that for some women seeing that globby little blur on the screen or printout might be a deal breaker. how many women who didn't know they had a twin pregnancy will reconsider upon seeing two feti? for real. at least temporarily, when the 'specialness' outweighs all the reasons she has decided not to continue thinking it was just one. Or the woman who has looked at the ultrasounds of her previous wanted pregnancies and now associates the image she's being forced to look at and think about with the born kids she has and loves.
to have the option to see your ultrasound? sure. but forcing it just smacks of suuuuch distrust of women's forethought. and feelings.

"Well, of course abortion ends a potential, viable life. There wouldn't be much point in having one otherwise, would there?"

Oddly, when I made exactly that point a few months ago, I was told that abortions don't involve life or potential life. :)

That's because we hate you, Oenophile. :)

Anyway, I agree with jeff (whose name I happen to share) , the best argument (unless you're arguing with a vegan) is "if you can kill a pig, you can kill a fetus."

Also, I would advise people to be wary of using the argument that abortion simply prevents life. That is exactly the argument that some anti-abortion people use. Finally, "un-born child" is absolutely horrible to use simply because most people have a positive reaction to the word "child."

"that's the biggy considering your side's rabid work toward its elimination"

Am I really being mistaken to being pro-life? Or did Heather just not read my full post?

"But I concur that it is, at least, a potential life, and abortion negates that potential."

Yes, and that is my point exactly. It DOES end the potential, but people in 'the movement' are very hesistant to acknowledge that because it presents them in an unflattering light. I'm not necessarily talking about an individual who is in the moment of making the decision to have an abortion. I'm talking about people who are organizing for abortion rights, whose voices are framing the debate.

I want to reassert my statement that language is hugely influenced by politics and personal protection.