Actually, the amendment states that if an ultrasound is not required, "the physician must inform the woman in person that ultrasound imaging services are available" and at the woman's request, the health professional must perform the abortion or provide a "list of health care providers, facilities, and clinics that perform ultrasounds free of charge."

Planned Parenthood cannot provide free ultrasounds, at least not here. While the amendment is great that it will not require a woman to view the images, it does send them to the crisis pregnancy centers who do offer free ultrasounds. While getting that free ultrasound, they will become traumatized by their reactions and lies told to them.

Please note, this is only done on the Senate bill 84, not on the House bill 3355. There is another part of the same amendment on S.84 that states the above would be void if they decide to require the viewing while consolidating the bills together.

Our Attorney General, Henry McMasters came to the first subcommittee meeting and said it was constitutional to force a woman to view the images, cause "she could close her eyes." Candy Kern-Fuller, a State NOW member and attorney, pointed out that the case law he cited was incorrect and had nothing to do with the bill. Less than a week later,he issued a letter to the subcommittee saying that it was "illegal and improper" to force a woman to view the image. Magically, it was unconstitutional.

Then again, look at the tactics of the anti-abortionists - http://www.thestate.com/169/story/30161.html - (Sorry, I don't really know how to link it to the text, I should work on that.) Anyway, the few liberals in the state are still trying to end this. But then again, when Rep. Cobb-Hunter was trying to get a vote on an amendment to the House bill for rape and incest victims, the conservative fundamentalists were on the sidelines screaming about how God doesn't make mistakes.

So, thank you for posting about this bill. The more coverage it gets, hopefully, the less likely it is to pass.

Actually, the amendment states that if an ultrasound is not required, "the physician must inform the woman in person that ultrasound imaging services are available" and at the woman's request, the health professional must perform the abortion or provide a "list of health care providers, facilities, and clinics that perform ultrasounds free of charge."

Planned Parenthood cannot provide free ultrasounds, at least not here. While the amendment is great that it will not require a woman to view the images, it does send them to the crisis pregnancy centers who do offer free ultrasounds. While getting that free ultrasound, they will become traumatized by their reactions and lies told to them.

Please note, this is only done on the Senate bill 84, not on the House bill 3355. There is another part of the same amendment on S.84 that states the above would be void if they decide to require the viewing while consolidating the bills together.

Our Attorney General, Henry McMasters came to the first subcommittee meeting and said it was constitutional to force a woman to view the images, cause "she could close her eyes." Candy Kern-Fuller, a State NOW member and attorney, pointed out that the case law he cited was incorrect and had nothing to do with the bill. Less than a week later,he issued a letter to the subcommittee saying that it was "illegal and improper" to force a woman to view the image. Magically, it was unconstitutional.

Then again, look at the tactics of the anti-abortionists - http://www.thestate.com/169/story/30161.html - (Sorry, I don't really know how to link it to the text, I should work on that.) Anyway, the few liberals in the state are still trying to end this. But then again, when Rep. Cobb-Hunter was trying to get a vote on an amendment to the House bill for rape and incest victims, the conservative fundamentalists were on the sidelines screaming about how God doesn't make mistakes.

So, thank you for posting about this bill. The more coverage it gets, hopefully, the less likely it is to pass.

Because everyone knows that life altering decisions should be made based on emotional pressure.

okay, i'm confused. is the revised bill saying that a woman has to have an ultrasound but not actually view it?

Mae, thanks for all the details on this.

"Planned Parenthood cannot provide free ultrasounds, at least not here."

Just another good reason to keep writing PP checks. They do fantastic work, but the more funding they get (and these days it's not going to come from the feds), the more they can provide a comprehensive list of services to rival what the "crisis" centers offer. Those groups are very well funded -- we have to step up and help out PP.

Yes, it's GREAT NEWS that women don't have to view those pesky ultrasound pictures of the little fingers and toes of the babies they're selfishly aborting.

That's really good news.

Heya everyone! Long time lurker, first time poster. Love the site!

I just had to respond to the above absurdity...

Woody, methinks you have never seen a first trimester ultrasound. No fingers or toes to be seen. Pretty much just an indistinct blob. Heck, even in a third trimester ultrasound body parts are hard to discern.

Heya everyone! Long time lurker, first time poster. Love the site!

I just had to respond to the above absurdity...

Woody, methinks you have never seen a first trimester ultrasound. No fingers or toes to be seen. Pretty much just an indistinct blob. Heck, even in a third trimester ultrasound body parts are hard to discern.

Heya everyone! Long time lurker, first time poster. Love the site!

I just had to respond to the above absurdity...

Woody, methinks you have never seen a first trimester ultrasound. No fingers or toes to be seen. Pretty much just an indistinct blob. Heck, even in a third trimester ultrasound body parts are hard to discern.

Heya everyone! Long time lurker, first time poster. Love the site!

I just had to respond to the above absurdity...

Woody, methinks you have never seen a first trimester ultrasound. No fingers or toes to be seen. Pretty much just an indistinct blob. Heck, even in a third trimester ultrasound body parts are hard to discern.

And sometimes abortion is an act of untimate selflessness.

Oy vey! So sorry for the multiple posts... puter is screwy today!

And oops, I meant "ultimate". Brain is screwy, too... :P

Yeah, woody, because all women who have abortions are selfish whores, right? In fact, I got an abortion last week because my due date conflicted with getting my nails done! Ha ha! {/snark}

As noodlegirl said, you seriously haven't seen an ultrasound before. And I'm betting you don't have a uterus either.

I have seen pics of zygotes/embryos/fetuses and I agree with noodlegirl and micheyd.
Fingers and toes are not even developed until around the 10th week (and still not necessarily visible in an ultrasound at that time).
According to the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm

In 2003 (the latest year listed),61% of abortions were performed at 8 weeks or less and 88% percent by 13 weeks.

So, Woody, the majority of women in the country have abortions so early that it is not even POSSIBLE to see "little fingers and toes."

I'm sure Woody doesn't have a uterus -- that's why he's wants to control other people's.

Hey Woody-

I had an abortion within the first trimester in 2001. Medical termination means you take one pill that stops cells from dividing, then a couple days later, they smear a crunched-up pill onto your cervix which will induce muscle spasms to push out the tissues.
What came out of me (nearly in public!) had no little hands or toes or ears...it was like a hunk of ketchup-covered hot dog. I didn't cry, I thought it was alternately cool and gross. My fiancé agreed.

Well, abortion is rightly seen as control over a child's life, which pales in comparison to control over someone's uterus.

At any rate, another informed consent provision bites the dust. As we all know, if women actually KNOW what they are doing before having an abortion, they won't do it, which will undermine the pro-abortion movement.

If you really think that women are making a sound, well-thought out, informed choice, then ultrasounds won't matter. If you really think that it's a lump of tissue, then a woman who sees that on an ultrasound would feel better, not worse. Remember, there's those pesky pro-lifers out there who tell you that your baby already has a heartbeat. They even use terms like "baby" instead of "ball of cells." Why not take the opportunity to prove them wrong? Shouldn't this be a bipartisan measure, if each side is convinced it is right about prenatal development?

oeono said: “As we all know, if women actually KNOW what they are doing before having an abortion, they won't do it, which will undermine the pro-abortion movement.�
I think it is wrong to assume that ALL (any?) women don’t “know what they are doing� when they have abortions. I think that most women become informed about fetal development and what different abortion procedures entail before they have them. First of all states require women be informed about the procedure, and secondly when making a difficult decision such as whether or not to have an abortion most women try to figure out “what they are doing� on their own. Contrary to what oeno seems to believe about women, I think they are capable of making informed choices. There are plenty of places for women to find out about fetal development and see pictures of zygotes, embryos and fetuses at different stages.
Also, there is no such thing as a pro-abortion movement. Noone is “for� abortion, we are “for� women being able to make their own decisions about their bodies and their fertility, which encompasses way more then just abortion (contraception, accurate sex education, etc).
oeno: “If you really think that women are making a sound, well-thought out, informed choice, then ultrasounds won't matter.�
It only matters because the purpose of the ultrasounds is not to make women more well informed, but to EMOTIONALLY MANIPULATE THEM into not aborting.
The article makes this clear:
“Proponents believe women would change their minds after seeing an ultrasound and choose to keep the child or offer it for adoption.�
It isn’t about making women more informed, it is about trying to convince women NOT to have abortions by saying, ‘Roe isn’t overturned yet, but we want it to be, so we are going to do everything in our power to make having an abortion harder for you and to make you feel incompetent and like you are doing something wrong..�

i'm thrilled that this proposal was dropped. i think the fewer things that are forcefully happening at any reproductive clinic, the better. i think it's fine to allow women to see their ultrasounds, to let them know that they can, for reasons listed above (a static-y blur might calm a woman who had "i love you mommy don't kill me" screamed at her by an 80 year old man on her way into the clinic) but what good can come out of forcing it?
we can rehash the abortion debate same as we have in the comments of other postings, fine. but, like i said, i'm thrilled. i'd prefer legislation that improves the lives of women and other born people rather than enforces guilt and imposes an act like this on any woman.

Personally, I was very concerned by the fact that an extremely poor state was wasting time on something like this instead of fixing their many other problems, and I was also concerned that this would drive up the cost of abortions even further.

At any rate, another informed consent provision bites the dust. As we all know, if women actually KNOW what they are doing before having an abortion, they won't do it, which will undermine the pro-abortion movement.

If you really think that women are making a sound, well-thought out, informed choice, then ultrasounds won't matter.

I completely disagree with the assumption that women don't know what they're getting into when they get an abortion (which I think is a bit patronizing) and the corollary that there's no harm done in making an invasive and difficult procedure even more long, complicated, and invasive in the hopes of shaming a woman into changing her mind (which I also think is patronizing).

Just my thoughts.

Hey I'm all for showing potential abortion patients ultrasounds in the interest of arming them with information about what they're doing. So long as they get to watch videos of painful childbirth and screaming toddlers too. The latter should be included in all sex ed courses too.

EJ -- I agree whole-heartedly. If women are truly informed (usually they are -- and they'll be even more so if we can stop stigmatizing abortion), an ultrasound is not going to change things either way. Laws like this reveal that the anti-choice side often doesn't believe women are capable of making informed ethical choices by themselves.

EJ, I agree with you and FrChris, but like I said before, I think this is going to drive up the cost of abortions markedly unless these women go to crisis pregnancy centers for free ultrasounds, where the staff will shame them and lie to them.

And yeah, informed women will decide they don't care and go ahead with the procedure anyway, but most poor women do not have the time to go to two different places because the state thinks that they have to look at their fetus (which is indistinguishable to the layperson's eye.)

Plus, I don't trust crisis pregnancy centres. I can see them going, "Look, the fingers and toes are over here! Isn't that exciting?" when there is no such thing on the monitor.

I apologize, my friend has since corrected me. Planned Parenthood includes the cost of the ultrasound in the bill for the abortion. They automatically do an ultrasound in case of false positives and for things that could cause an medical complications. There is no additional cost because they have to do them anyway for liability reasons, if nothing else.

An added bonus is that since crisis pregnancy centers are not licensed medical facilities, the woman would still have to go to a doctors office or abortion clinic and pay (at the doctors office) for another ultrasound before obtaining the abortion anyway.

When I had an abortion, they did show me the ultrasound. I wasn't expecting it - the nurse just sort of turned the monitor in my direction. You couldn't see anything - just a blob. It definitely did not change my feelings at all. I was ambivalent and sad before AND after the abortion, but that ambivalence did not have anything to do with seeing an ultrasound.

So, the real problem here isn't informed consent. The ultrasound has nothing to do with that. Instead, it's a first amendment thing: requiring a woman to perform a certain expressive task with no rational connection to a medical procedure, in order to obtain that medical procedure. The government should not be able to force that kind of symbolic performance on anyone.

Apologies for a post that was misunderstood. There was some sarcasm there that did NOT come across well.

My basic point is that if the embryo is just a blog of cells (contrary to pro-lifer's claims about fingers and toes), then an ultrasound will hopefully strengthen their decision to abort. Women who abort, believing that they are removing a relatively unformed mass from their bodies, will not later be traumatised if they hear pro-lifers who describe fetal development.

Right?

I can COMPLETELY understand the issue regarding financial implications of ultrasounds. I also understand that we don't like patronising people. OTOH, informed consent can, in some ways, be construed as patronising, but I think it's a great thing. For anyone struggling with a tough decision, informed consent and full pre-decision considerations will lessen post-decision difficulties. Psychologically, there's a lot less regret if you go into something knowing exactly what you are doing.

My last four words don't mean that women have zero clue what this whole abortion thing is. It does mean that, depending on how far along they are, abortion - for many people - takes on different meanings. Most people have no qualms about Plan B but most people don't like late-term abortion.

Perhaps a better solution is for the physician to estimate how long she is and to explain that stage of fetal development.

My (long, rambling) point is that:
1) informed consent is a great thing and I really dislike people who infringe upon it.
2) If each side is convinced that it is right about fetal development when most abortions are performed, each side, as a rational actor, should want to prove it. I wonder why this is a pro-choice v. pro-life issue.

I don't see how this is a matter of informed consent, oenophile. Informed consent would be offering/allowing a look at the ultrasound if the woman wishes to see it, which many clinics do. Forcing her to view it is another matter entirely. Or do you fail to see or understand the "consent" part of "informed consent"?

"Consent" refers to consent to the procedure (here, abortion), not the types of information being given out. When I have surgery, I need to read and sign forms acknowledging that I have been given certain information. I certainly did not "consent" to such information being given to me. Your argument is misguided.

Again, state laws and regulations govern a lot of informed consent provisions. There is almost no patient "consent" as to what he/she will be forced to learn about the upcoming procedure. At least in my (sadly, very extensive) experience, there are very few times when you are explicitly told, "We can do this if you so request, but if you don't, just forget about it."

Mandatory informed consent isn't an oxymoron, for which I am happy. I mean, I would be frightened for less educated people who were too afraid to demand/request certain parts of informed consent, if it existed entirely of optional information.

If you believe that ultrasounds should be an optional part of mandatory informed consent (i.e. mandated by the state), then we're only in minor disagreement. I think that people should have procedures fully explained to them. If abortion is really not a moral issue, then no amount of information - real information - is going to make a woman feel badly about it. That's why I feel like pro-choicers are talking out of both sides of their mouths: abortion can't be both the moral equivalent of tumour excision and something that women will shrink from when given unbiased* information.

Likewise, if you find this particular portion of informed consent to be patronising, I'll support that judgment call 100%, even though I happen to disagree with it.

*By "unbiased information," I mean something like an ultrasound. That's about as medical and dry as it gets. I would really oppose a requirement that, for example, the doctor attempt to distinguish fingers and toes and eyes on the ultrasound, as that involves a significant amount of interpretation of raw data. The data itself, however, are not something to which I object.

Umm, oenophile, I'm no stranger to surgery. And when you sign forms to show you've been given information, it's only information that regards the procedure about to be performed on you. That is, what they are going to do to your body and possible physical repercussions from that. An ultrasound does not fall under that banner.

Kimmy,

I respect your opinion but disagree on the point of whether or not the ultrasound constitutes knowledge of the procedure to be performed. If I'm reading you correctly, you don't think that the state of the fetus or embryo is relevant to knowing how the procedure is performed, correct? For me, since the procedure involves the embryo/fetus - in a kinda crucial way - I think it's part of informed consent.

From a practical standpoint:
Some of the strongest arguments against the pro-choice agenda are as follows:
1) women who have abortions, are told that it's a "blob of cells," later find out differently, and sue to shut down Planned Parenthood. Or just complain loudly and get a lot of pro-life attention.
2) this is not a "blob of cells," but rather a cute baby who only needs a pacifier to be in Gerber commercial.
3) Women who get abortions later regret them, especially when they get pregnant later in life (especially right after delivery).

I see ultrasounds as something which, politically, would negate all three arguments. Think it's a baby? Well, you saw it beforehand. Evil pro-choicers telling you that it's not a blob of cells? See for yourself. When you have babies later and feel like you killed something that is the developmental equivalent of the baby in front of you - well, you saw on the ultrasound what you aborted.

Not to go all Ayn Rand, but in a debate where the principles are clearly outlined and adhered to, the side that is more consistent wins. That's my main (largely theoretical) puzzlement at the pro-choice calls against ultrasounds: they demonstrate adherence to principles (i.e. development and therefore worth of the fetus).

I don't think that women are stupid, but I do think they are scared and, unless they happen to be active in pro-life/choice issues, unaware of fetal development. That's a recipe for utter disaster, especially when combined with an emotionally difficult surgery and, likely, lack of support from their boyfriends or husbands.

Uh, I didn't say anything about the larger issues here. I was just taking issue with your comparing the ultrasound to the information one normally receives regarding surgery. The two are not the same. Surgerical information refers only to the procedure about to be performed (what they are going to do, that you want them to do it, and that you accept the risks involved). Abortion providers already do that, so the two are already equal. The doctors tell the women what procedure they will be performing and what the risks are. Burden met.

Whether a woman ought to see the ultrasound or not is a different discussion, and I wasn't commenting on it. Just pointing out you were wrong on the surgical consent issue. Fetal development is only related to the surgical consent issue insofar as it effects which procedure for abortion will be used. Otherwise, the two are not directly related.

How a woman feels about what she is doing and about the development at that length of pregnancy is a totally different topic of conversation than surgical information and consent.

To the extent that a lot of women would make a different decision at different stages of pregnancy, I see it as an informed consent issue. If it directly affects her decision, it's informed consent. You keep mentioning the procedure to be performed on her body, but pregnancy is one of those situations (well, that and anything involving Siamese twins) where another body is affected by the decision. It seems quite odd to me to not extend informed consent to the nature of the being inside of her.

The second part of my last post wasn't directed at the specific informed consent issue, just whether or not ultrasounds are, practically speaking, a good idea.

I will say this one more time, very carefully, and maybe it will be clear.

I was not stating whether it would be a good idea for a woman to see an ultrasound or not. I was not stating whether that should be part of the decision making process in order to have an abortion.

I said one thing only. You brought up the information one receives about surgical procedures and stated that the ultrasound was the same kind of information. It is not. Information given prior to an ordinary surgical procedure relates only to the procedure and possible risks. Period. Therefore, comparable information for an abortion would relate only to the procedure and possible risks. Period.

The ultrasound question rests outside the one of normal surgical consent (please not that I keep saying surgical consent, not informed consent, because we have two different issues here and therefore I'm using two different phrases).

I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer. It is possible that informed consent for an abortion ought to require a lot of information about the stages of pregnancy, etc. It's possible it ought not.

It is not possible, however, that showing a patient an ultrasound can be equated with ordinary surgical information and consent, because they are not the same.

It is possible that informed consent for an abortion ought to require a lot of information about the stages of pregnancy, etc.

What I find interesting is how the rhetoric of pro-forced-birthers seems to assume that so very much is required for informed consent to an abortion--waiting periods, forced ultrasounds, etc.--but the same people will often turn around and argue that consensual sex means that the woman implicitly consented to pregnancy. Shouldn't "informed consent" also apply to pregnancy? How can we be sure that the woman is making an informed decision about being pregnant unless we bombard her with information about the effects pregnancy and childbirth will have on her body and health?

God, don't suggest that EG! I see the hilarity of what you're proposing, but they might take it seriously. "From here on out, all fertile women must attend mandatory 'here's what could happen to you if you have sex' classes." It's so condescending, you just KNOW it would catch on among the politicians.

"Hey I'm all for showing potential abortion patients ultrasounds in the interest of arming them with information about what they're doing. So long as they get to watch videos of painful childbirth and screaming toddlers too."

That reminds me, aren't the majority of abortions in the U.S. obtained by women who have already been through painful childbirth and already raised screaming toddlers?

EG, don't forget lectures on FAS before every wine tasting with female guests...

That reminds me, aren't the majority of abortions in the U.S. obtained by women who have already been through painful childbirth and already raised screaming toddlers?

Mina, I know that and you know that but a lot of the compulsory pregnancy brigade subscribe to the notion that all women melt as soon as you place that squalling bundle in their arms. Their minds can't countenance women deliberately rejecting motherhood in any situation.