Politics

New pre-abortion ultrasound law in Louisiana

Photo credit: jeredb on flickr

Starting August 1, 2012, abortion clinics in Louisiana will be required to conduct ultrasounds and then give women 24 hours to make a decision regarding an abortion, thanks to a new bill passed this last legislative session. This bill sets certain guidelines for what is required for the ultrasound and actually requires that the woman be given the opportunity to hear her child’s heartbeat.

The original law already on the books in Louisiana required the abortion doctor to “offer” an ultrasound, but after August 1, a simple offer isn’t going suffice. No, an ultrasound will be a requirement:

Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman; simultaneously display the screen which depicts the active ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them; and make audible the fetal heartbeat, if present, in a quality consistent with current medical practice. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the pregnant woman from not listening to the sounds detected by the fetal heart monitor, or from not viewing the images displayed on the ultrasound screen.

Once the ultrasound has been conducted and the woman has heard her baby’s heartbeat, the doctor must then explain the ultrasound “in a manner understandable to a layperson” and must give the woman an opportunity to have any questions answered. Furthermore, the doctor must give the woman the option of requesting a printed ultrasound picture.

The abortion facility will be required to inform women of their rights under this law and must have them sign a paper that explains their rights. To safeguard the requirement that the woman be allowed to listen to her baby’s heartbeat, a woman who declines to hear the heartbeat must initial that section of the form, to show that she was given the option but did not want it.

The legislature looked to the recent 2012 Fifth Circuit case, which upheld a similar law that Texas passed:

[T]he provision of sonograms and the fetal heartbeat are routine measures in pregnancy medicine today. They are viewed as ‘medically necessary’ for the mother and fetus. … Denying her up to date medical information is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.

A twenty-four-hour time requirement between the ultrasound and an abortion will replace the two-hour requirement that is currently the law. These requirements can be bypassed only in cases of emergency, rape, or incest.

The Senate and House overwhelmingly passed this measure, with ninety-six representatives voting for the measure and only one against in the House and thirty-three senators voting for it with three against it in the Senate! This bill was signed into law last week.

The Louisiana legislature passed several pro-life bills during their last session, including a bill banning abortion after 20 weeks.

Live Action on Facebook
  • Guest

    This bill sets certain guidelines for what is required for the ultrasound and actually requires that the woman be given the opportunity to hear her child’s heartbeat.  The original law already on the books in Louisiana required the abortion doctor to “offer” an ultrasound, but after August 1, a simple offer isn’t going suffice.

    So previously the woman could have an ultrasound it she wanted it, but now she is required to have it even if she doesn’t want it?  Huh.  By this logic the individual mandate of the  ACA is merely an “opportunity” for individuals to get health care: they have to have insurance, but no one is making them go to the doctor.  And the ACA doesn’t even make you initial anything stating that you chose not to take advantage of your opportunity.

    I notice that you chose not to mention that while women have the right to not accept their ‘opportunity’ to hear the fetal heartbeat, most women do not have the right to decline to listen to the doctor’s description of the fetus.  Rather, the woman must sign a form certifying that she understands that “I am required by law to hear an oral description of the ultrasound images,” unless the pregnancy is due to rape or incest.  According to the section of the Louisiana code cross-referenced in the law, someone who does not comply with the law is liable for a punishment of a fine of not more than a thousand dollars and/or a prison term not exceeding two years.  Clearly the authors of the law intend for a woman who puts in earplugs during the ultrasound to be punished, because otherwise there is no point in making her certify her understanding that the law requires her to hear the description.  So just out of curiosity, Heidi, do you think that a woman who chooses not to hear the description should only pay the fine, or do you believe that she should go to prison too?

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      There’s a pretty big and obvious difference between the two: the ACA imposes mandates on people running their own lives and making their own healthcare decisions. This bill makes the ultrasound mandate a condition of depriving *someone else* of his or her right to life, an act which itself falls outside of the protections of both natural law and the Constitution.

      • marge

        But you so obviously have a problem with “people running their own lives and making their own healthcare decisions”. Oh wait, your problem is only with women doing those things…

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          I like how you’re not even trying to present a substantive or honest counter-argument.

      • marge

        But you so obviously have a problem with “people running their own lives and making their own healthcare decisions”. Oh wait, your problem is only with women doing those things…

  • Anonymous

    Gee, more chipping away at women’s rights. Somehow I’m not surprised. I sure hope the doctor is also required to tell the woman that she’s “14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion”. (Source: Reuters 
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123 )

    • Guest

       I sure hope the doctor is also required to tell the woman that she’s “14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion”.

      As Calvin pointed out above, they’re not really interested in the well-being of the woman.

      You’ll notice that everyone has ignored the question of punishment for women who try to evade the requirement to hear the doctor’s description of the ultrasound.

      • Guest

        I think it makes total sense. Before I got my wisdom teeth pulled (a much less invasive procedure), I had to watch a detailed video describing what wisdom teeth were, what they looked like, and a detailed video of what the procedure looked like. My doctor showed that BEFORE I signed any waver so that he LEGALLY made sure I knew exactly what I was doing. 

        Hearing a child’s heartbeat, understanding that the ultrasound shows a head, legs, arms, fingers, a living human person… should be a requirement before any woman ends that life. 

        • Anonymous

          What I’m saying is that if you believe that, then you should also believe that the woman has the right to know that abortion is safer for her than the alternative.

    • JudeLawGuardian

      OMG!! Thank you for pointing that out. Because it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. 

  • peach

    This completely violates a patient’s rights. Patients have the right to refuse any test or treatment, even if it means a bad outcome.
    “Denying her up to date medical information is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.” You can’t deny someone who doesn’t ask for it.

    • AGAINST ABORTIONS

      what does it exactly hurt she has 24 hours to think about what she just seen and what she is thinking about killing where is that tiny little babys rights? huh? even though it is inside her its still HUMAN

      • Anonymous

        Actually, the waiting period can be a big problem. Most women have to travel a good distance to get to a clinic (thanks to people who like to set them on fire and stuff). Since most women who need abortions are impoverished, they often can’t afford to take the time off of work, get a hotel room, or pay for transport to a clinic on two separate occasions. That’s the point of the waiting period, to make it difficult for poor women to get abortions. 

        • Evamarcum54

          who cares they shouldnt be going any distance to kill there child. and i think this is a great thing but i also think that a women who chooses abortion should be awake and aware through the whole thing and have the whole thing explained to them as it is happaning. just my openion. but you are inclined to yours too. im not attaking you i just take this matter very close to my heart.

          • Amwhalen44

            100% agreed

          • JudeLawGuardian

            If it ever gets to the insane point in this country where we’re dragged back to the Victorian era in which women are basically chattel once more, I will personally figure out some way to organize some sort of “underground railroad”, ala the civil war era for people wanting to escape slavery, in order to transport women to safe havens for abortion. WITHOUT ULTRASOUNDS.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            “the Victorian era in which women are basically chattel once more”

            Sounds like somebody’s trying too hard to pretend he’s pro-woman………

          • Anonymous

            “Sounds like somebody’s trying too hard to pretend he’s pro-woman……… [sic]”

            Sounds like somebody’s projecting his own barely-suppressed misogyny on to others…

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Examples, please? Evidence?

          • Anonymous

            Um, that post? It appears you have no problem with returning to an era when women had very few rights, that’s all. By continually rolling back women’s rights (and not only reproductive rights either), that’s where we’re heading. 
            I don’t even know why you’re so sure that JudeLawGuardian is a man in the first place…? 

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            You misunderstood the question. I asked for something called “evidence,” not “sophomoric bumper-sticker invective and mischaracterization.”

            Care to try again?

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-M-Williams/1021964754 Michelle M. Williams

             Plenty of women are awake and aware during their abortions. You might be in line at the grocery store with a woman who his having an abortion. It isn’t that traumatic or freaky and it’s called RU 486.

          • Melodyannschultz

            AND what if they were rape  why should she be punnished for for 9 months and then the rest of her life having. just because now there is a life inside of her .
            really ask your self this if your 13 year old child was out with her friends one day and was kidnaped and raped 7 weeks latter found out she was with child would you really know what she is going throw or have the right to force her to have  the baby then how would you feel about it by the way i not saying i for abortion or not for it i just saying

        • MoonChild02

          It’s the same with many elective surgeries, but those still have waiting periods, too. The point of the waiting period is not to make it difficult for poor women to get abortions, but for them to make a more rational, thought-out decision. If one has surgery on the spur of the moment, that surgery, however minor, could affect the person’s entire life. Unless that surgery is needed for an immediate life-threatening or severe pain-causing situation (read: they are bleeding out due to a deep gash, have broken a bone, have a ruptured organ, etc.), there should be a waiting period.

          • JudeLawGuardian

            No, there shouldn’t be a waiting period. It’s a completely different situation. It’s like waiting for surgery on a fast-spreading cancer–you don’t go, “Oh, let’s WAIT a few months and THEN remove this…” Like cancer, TIME IS A PRIORITY. (And please—spare me the “comparing a baby to cancer” garbage. BOOHOO. To women who DON’T want a baby, that’s EXACTLY what it’s like. So DEAL with it.) The majority of women have already DECIDED. This time-delay garbage is designed only to make it more difficult for women to obtain a legal abortion so that by the time they DO get to that point, it’s too late. They don’t need you or a doctor–or the government–to help them make a “rational” decision. It’s treating women like they’re five years old & can’t make a decision without the help of the government. Why don’t men have to go through all the hassle for a vasectomy? BECAUSE IF MEN COULD GET KNOCKED UP, ABORTION WOULD BE A SACRAMENT. And all those old white men without vaginas are the ones making these crackpot decisions about things that are NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

          • MoonChild02

            First off, please stop yelling. It makes it difficult to read. Note that I don’t write in anger, but with compassion.

            Most women don’t get abortions for health reasons, though. Also, no most women have not decided, or those standing outside the clinics praying and handing out literature would not make a difference. Most women are coerced or forced into it, or make the decision irrationally, based on being frightened at the thought that a decision they made is going to change their life. It’s not treating women like they’re five years old, it’s asking them to think rationally about a life-changing decision. That one day makes all the difference in the world. One day doesn’t matter. It won’t be too late, because most abortions happen around eight to ten weeks. States don’t start cutting off until 20 weeks, but most don’t have a cut-off.

            No, children are not like a fast spreading cancer, so I’m not going to “deal with it”. Cancer will kill you. I have known several people with cancer, one who died from a very rare, very fast acting cancer. With fast-acting cancers, by the time the person realizes s/he has cancer and gets to the doctor, there’s usually nothing they can do, because the cancer has spread too far to be able to do anything about it. There is no analogy. Making such a comparison is insulting to those who have suffered from cancer, and those of us who have loved ones who have suffered and/or died from cancer. Furthermore, even world-renown scientist Christopher Hitchens called such comparisons “nonsense”.

            With the technology we have in the US, there is no real reason for abortion. With ectopic pregnancy, there’s a salpingostomy or salpingectomy. With pre-eclampsia or other high-blood pressure or heart illnesses, there’s medication and pre-term delivery. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 1% of all
            abortions occur because of rape or incest, 6% of abortions occur because
            of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and
            93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is
            unwanted or inconvenient).

            Abortion itself carries very high risks: uterine perforation, cervical laceration, septic shock, endometritis, pelvic inflammatory disease, severe hemorrhage, peritonitis, pelvic pain, pelvic abscesses, infection, embolism, stroke, respiratory distress, acute pain, chronic pain.
            There are risks to future pregnancies: placenta previa, ectopic pregnancy, uterine fibroids, hypertension.
            Not to mention that it increases the risk of several different forms of cancer: breast (over 30 studies), cervical, endometrial, ovarian, and gestational trophbloastic neoplasia.
            Then there are the psychological risks: depression, anxiety, post-abortion stress syndrome (don’t tell me it doesn’t exist, because my aunt had it and drank herself to death over it), self-destructive behavior, night terrors, substance abuse, narcissism (as I often see here).
            http://www.abortionrisks.org/

            Abortion is four times deadlier than childbirth:
            http://afterabortion.org/2000/abortion-four-times-deadlier-than-childbirth/
            Abortion raises maternal mortality rates:
            http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/permissive-abortion-laws-may-be-hazardous-to-mothers-health-per-new-report
            http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/a-ground-breaking-abortion-study-from-chile
            Education, not abortion, reduces maternal mortality:
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120510141909.htm

            In all truth, abortion is selfish, and those who argue for it don’t want to take responsibility for the actions they chose to make. Actions have effects, and many come with responsibilities. Drinking comes with the responsibility to watch how much you drink, and to not operate heavy machinery. If you drink and drive, you might hit someone. If you do, you’ll go to prison for a very long time. One wrong choice can completely change your life. Having sex outside of a committed, stable relationship is risky behavior. If one’s partner has an STD, s/he is stuck with it for life. Similarly, everyone knows that the biological reason for sex is reproduction.
            Having sex when one does not want children, and especially if she knows
            she is or may be fertile, is also very risky. In taking the risk to have sex, just like in drinking, one must accept the responsibilities that come with it. If one does not want to accept responsibility for one’s actions, one should not engage in adult activities.

            Furthermore, it is everyone’s business when one’s choice affects the lives of others, especially when one person decides to end the life of another. If the government can intervene in what we eat, drink, and the medications we take, then they can intervene in other choices, as well.

          • Shelley

            No, I’m sorry, but it absolutely is treating women as being incapable of making their own decisions. To say that most women make this decision as a result of coercion or irrational fear is highly insulting and has no basis in fact. 

            And abortion is absolutely safer than pregnancy and childbirth, according to a recent study published in an unbiased source that someone else already mentioned (unlike all of your sources, which are pushing an agenda): http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123

            Now of course it states that ”We wouldn’t tell people, ‘Don’t have a baby because it’s safer to have an abortion’ “ since risks of death from both things are low in this country and most developed nations, but continuing to allege that abortion is unsafe for women is simply not true. 

          • mythought

            Shelley, you skip over all the emotional and psychological risks of abortion when you say it’s not unsafe.  You exaggerate your own side’s claims to simply say it’s not unsafe.  There are still women who die, become infertile, or are physically disabled from abortion.  And of course, how can abortion be safer when one person always comes out dead?

          • MoonChild02

            Reuters isn’t biased? Are you kidding me? They publish small articles on large events closing down a major thoroughfares of San Francisco and Washington D.C. every year on January 22, but publish large articles with many photos showing the crowds on the front page of every news paper when the gay pride parade comes to town. Sorry, but that’s not objective.

            Also, Science Daily is a scientific journal, not a political news source. So, let’s look at that link again:
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120510141909.htm

            T

          • mythought

            Whoaaa…someone has a bias against men.  I’m a woman, and a feminist, and I support abortion being made illegal.  Many women (and yes I know this from personal experience) rush into a decision in favor of abortion without accurate information.  That’s wrong for them and it’s wrong for their child.  Not to mention that a decision like abortion can never be reversed.  

        • Epo97702

          Need Abortions?

        • Amwhalen44

          Awww poor women have to take time off work to murder their child ,i feel so bad ……..i think that they should hear their childs heart beat  and not make any irrational descisions.

        • JudeLawGuardian

          Have you ever noticed the correlation of grammatical/punctuation/spelling errors to the anti-choice comments on here? That has to tell you something about the I.Q. level of individuals with an anti-choice agenda.

          • Shelley

            Yes, I’ve noticed this as well. It’s very difficult to take some of these people seriously…

          • mythought

            Have you ever noticed that all the writers who provide content for you to comment on are also pro-life?  Clearly, writing articles with proper grammar (as most of them do) is not evidence of a low I.Q.  Just sayin…

      • Freckles

         How many unwanted kids have you adopted?

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TQBQ7GVDTZ5ZAUAMVJKXARBNKM LeRoy

       You are correct. The baby who is subject to being “terminated” has not been informed or asked. It is also a denial of the basic, intrinsic human right to life.

      • Shelley

        You try asking an eight-week-old fetus what it wants. Let me know how that goes for you.

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          About as well as it’d go to ask a patient in a coma what he or she wants…..

          • peach

             In which case you’d go to next of kin. For a fetus, I think that would be the woman who is deciding to abort. 

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            The patient’s relative is making a decision based on what the patient wants, or at least his/her best guess. The decision to abort is based on the mother’s wishes, not the baby. A better comparison would be a patient having them pull the plug on Grandma because Grandma’s too much of a hassle to care for anymore.

          • grdawg

            Why is she a higher “next of kin” than the baby’s father?  (And don’t say because she’s carrying the baby…that does not make her more closely related.)  Also, did you know that some courts will specifically not allow certain people to be “next of kin” when it’s known that they do not have the person’s best interests in mind.  And killing an innocent baby is clearly not in their best interest.

    • MoonChild02

      Most surgeries have requirements before going through with the surgery. These include blood work, x-rays, and EKGs.

      In the case of ultrasounds, Planned Parenthood has stated before, “Medically necessary ultrasounds are already a routine part of abortion care.” A study done in 2003 (Benson J, et al. Early abortion services in the United States: a provider survey. The Medical Journal of Contraception 67 (2003) 287–294) states that, from a survey of 113 Planned Parenthood affliates,

      “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed before the early surgical abortion at 59 (83%) sites, under certain conditions at 11 (16%) sites, and never at one (1%) site,” the study noted. “Vaginal ultrasound was always performed after early surgical abortion at 18 (26%) sites, under certain conditions at 46 (66%) sites, and never at 6 (8%) sites.”

      Therefore, this is nothing new under the sun, it is just requiring that the ultrasound be done to prevent any harm coming to the woman, and allowing her the chance to see it. It requires the abortionist to allow her to see the ultrasound, it doesn’t require the woman to actually look at it. As mentioned in the article, from the actual law itself:

      Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman; simultaneously display the screen which depicts the active ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them.

      Note that it doesn’t say that she must view the ultrasound, but that she may view the ultrasound.

      Also see:
      http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/24/if-ultrasound-is-rape-arrest-planned-parenthood-staffers/
      http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/planned-parenthood-rape-myth-debunked-99-do-ultrasounds/
      http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/texas-senate-voting-on-sonogram-bill
      http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/21/ultrasounds-va-planned-parenthood-abortion-procedure/

    • guest

      Please refrain from comment until you have read the article, which clearly states, quoting the law:

      “Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prevent the pregnant woman from not listening to the sounds detected by the fetal heart monitor, or from not viewing the images displayed on the ultrasound screen.”

      The article also clearly states that the woman may refuse to hear the heartbeat or view the images – she merely has to sign a form saying that she was given the opportunity.

      I think everyone, whether pro-choice or pro-life, can support a woman having all of the information necessary to make this choice. This law merely requires abortionists to give women information before they make this decision, and to oppose this law is not to be pro-choice but downright anti-woman.

      • peach

         If a woman is seeing an “abortionist” then I’m pretty sure she’s already made her decision.

        • Anonymous

          But, but, but women aren’t capable of making these kinds of decisions!

    • mythought

      Not true.  You can indeed deny someone who doesn’t ask for it.  If a starving person walks up to you and you have a backpack full of food – but they don’t know this – and you keep that information to yourself, have you just denied them food?  Yes, because you had it, it was in your power to give it, and you refused.  

  • Pingback: New PreAbortion Ultrasound Law in Louisiana - Gulf Coast Rising News

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002949750713 Kimberly Ann Marie Barnhart

    They need to ban abortions. Unless it fall under insest, Rape, or it could kill the mother and the baby. Im sorry if u dont agree but if i can open ur legs for some guy then u can deal with it its ur mistake not the babies and how about the baby they can feel everything thats happening. How about the fact that in some cases it can make u less fertil! how about adoption?

    • Anonymous

      And you need to learn to speak and write English, apparently…

      • JudeLawGuardian

        THANK YOU. My point exactly.

  • Klorissathompson10

    they need t5o have this bill everywhere in the United States but its a start that some states are having this Bill

  • Chrisandjosh4ever

    Wow. We as a society are actually starting to see the fetus as a person instead of property. I am in awe of this revisement. I have 4 beautiful little girls and I could never view them as my property. It was my choice for them to be here and they are an eternal blessing. I know I’ve made the right choice.

    • JudeLawGuardian

      Wow. We as a nation are actually getting DUMBER and more repressed by the second. And it’s really nice that you were able to have a choice to have kids. Not everyone wants them. Those people have the right NOT to have kids if that’s their choice. And most of them know that THEY’VE made the right choice too. REGARDLESS of how they got pregnant.  So, no crap about “well then they should have just kept their legs shut…” It’s a crap argument. S**t happens. We don’t all have to suffer for 18 years because of it.

      • Coloradochick07

        You could try sterilization instead of coming to these sites to make your choice seem “okay.” 

        • Freckles

           You could try adopting all these unwanted children…….

  • Kcmunafo48

    I think that if you can’t afford a child and u r just going to abort it keep ur legs shut and if u can’t afford the child than have the child and give it up for adoption cus at the moment the sperm meets the egg it becomes your baby a part of you your responsibility and for the wemon that can’t handle more than one child that has one and is prego give up the first one let them murder the first one keep the second and tell me how u feel about that could you do that seriously I want to know because murdering the unborn is just like killing the first born

    • JudeLawGuardian

      Too bad you can’t punctuate or spell. One more good argument for abortion–it cuts down on the illiteracy rate.

    • JudeLawGuardian

      It’s too bad you can’t afford a tutor to learn how to spell, punctuate, construct a sentence, etc., because your run-on “sentences” are next to impossible to decipher. Plus your rationale is completely nonsensical. 

      • mythought

        Oh, so kill people who can’t read?  That’s your next strategy?

  • Danielle

    I’m glad about this. At least this way they cannot be lied to that the baby is just a “clump of cells”. They need to know all the facts, and see it for what it is.

    • JudeLawGuardian

      The fact is that at a certain stage, it IS a clump of cells. 

      • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

        A clump of cells that happens to be a live, individual human being.

      • mythought

        Every human being, you could argue, is a clump of cells.  That is, after all, what each of us are made of.  I am a clump of cells typing on my computer.  However, I am a unique person with my own DNA.  That is exactly what an unborn child is – and what each of us are – at every stage of life.

    • peach

       The majority of abortions occur before 9 weeks. Have you seen an 8 week ultrasound? It looks like a sneeze.

      • Shelley

        I know, right? Not to mention that in early stages, it also looks like the embryos of most other vertebrates.

      • mythought

        You call this a sneeze?  This is undeniably human – even at 8 weeks old:  http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+an+8+week+fetus&view=detail&id=B1B51EE5EE71B6B2544ADE505D978D38EBBA1EDF&first=1.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_TQBQ7GVDTZ5ZAUAMVJKXARBNKM LeRoy

    What an outrage! Any girl or woman in Louisiana who wants to kill her baby, must now live with the fact that she knows it is alive and moving, and has a beating heart. I mean, this makes it like it is real, and might play on her emotions, swaying her from cold calculations, and the persuasions of those who profit from helping her with her difficult decision.

    • JudeLawGuardian

      Or maybe she just doesn’t like/want kids and already has enough resolve in her own decision to know that she isn’t going to be swayed by anyone’s sob story or recommendations forced on her at the hands of a bunch of twisted old men trying to pass judgement on her.  Whatever the case, it’s her decision to make. Everyone else needs to stay the hell out of it.

  • Epo97702

    save the trees, kill the children

    • Epo97702

      53,000,000 + humans murdered since abortion became legal in the US, this is us, so sad!

      • JudeLawGuardian

        Wow. 53,000, 000 blastocysts removed since 1973? And that’s not even counting spontaneous abortions, i.e. miscarriages that no one ever even knew about since many women have miscarriages without ever having known they were pregnant. At least that’s a step in the right direction for zero population growth…

        • mythought

          Consider studying biology.  When the baby is in the “blastocyst” stage, a woman doesn’t even know she’s pregnant.  Once the baby has implanted, he’s referred to as an embryo.

    • JudeLawGuardian

      At least trees contribute oxygen to the planet.

  • Pro-LOVE

    Amazing! :) And it does not violate any patient’s rights what so ever. They have to sign a paper saying they were offered the ultrasound and to hear the heartbeat, but chose not to. It will change a lot of young women’s minds about what they are about to do.

    • Shelley

      Did you read this at all? It says the doctor HAS to shove a probe inside a woman whether she wants it or not, which sure sounds like a violation to me! It says it right there in the column:  ”The original law already on the books in Louisiana required the abortion doctor to “offer” an ultrasound, but after August 1, a simple offer isn’t going suffice. No, an ultrasound will be a requirement.” 

      • http://www.facebook.com/ashley.whalen.92 Ashley Whalen

        HOw do you think she got pregnant if she can get pregnant and shove a penis in herself than she can give her child shes about to murder at least 5 min to make a hopefully good desicision not to murder him or her

      • Beverly

        For the life of me, I cannot understand this opposition to ultrasounds. Pro-choicers claim that they are concerned about women; does it not occur to anyone that having an ultrasound will help the doctor carry out the abortion, so that s/he knows about any potential complications beforehand?

        Also, as pro-choicers frequently point out, most abortions are done very early on in the pregnancy, which necessitates a transvaginal ultrasound. Instead of being pleased that women will have safer abortions, they ludicrously liken it to rape. …And they say that the *pro-life* side is the one that doesn’t care about women and ignores science.

        • JudeLawGuardian

          You must either be retarded or have never had to undergo an internal ultrasound. Or both. I have news for you–it’s NOT pleasant. I’ve had one. I sure as h**l would NOT opt for one for an unnecessary reason like this. You act like it’s some walk in the park, when it’s one more pain in the a** that women sometimes have to go through. THIS is not a good enough reason to do that, especially not on the whim of a bunch of old men making up rules as to what I will do with MY BODY. NOT HAPPENING.

          • mythought

            I’ve also had an internal ultrasound.  It’s not that bad at all.  Not saying it’s my favorite thing in the world, but it’s certainly the best way to see a baby and figure out her size, age, etc. at an early stage.  You must not be aware that all abortion doctors who are following proper medical procedure have to perform an ultrasound prior to an abortion anyway.  Do you have any idea how unsafe it is to do an abortion without knowing the size and age of the baby?  So, uh, this has nothing to do with old men making up rules.  It’s all about pro-choicers blaming a medical procedure that already happens on pro-lifers.

      • JudeLawGuardian

        Yup. It’s a total violation for something totally unnecessary. It’s amazing how all these anti-woman people spin this B.S. Too bad women can’t just sign a paper to opt out of this ridiculous requirement as well as the stupid “heartbeat” clause. 

      • Pro-LOVE

        Not all ultrasounds are a freaking probe going up in you. Most are done just on the belly. If you continue to read on past that part, it plainly states that the woman can sign a waver….so they don’t have to if they really don’t want to.

        • Shelley

          Okay, no, the ultrasound is mandatory, not listening to the heartbeat is the part the can be avoided with the signing of a waiver. They still have the probe. 

          And at the point at which most abortions occur, the best view of the fetus is through a transvaginal ultrasound, not an abdominal one. Those are more useful later in pregnancy. 

      • mythought

        Shelley, are you aware that an abortion doctor has to do an ultrasound before an abortion anyway?  At least, the clinics that follow proper protocol and medical procedures have to do one.  It’s very medically unsafe to do an abortion without an ultrasound first.  If the doctor is unaware of the actual size and age of the baby, a LOT can go wrong.  So, to use your words, in common medical practice “the doctor HAS to shove a probe inside a woman whether she wants it or not.”  It’s part of the procedure, not a scheme by evil pro-lifers.  Have you ever read what an abortion itself does?  I think a few more things than a probe are stuck up there…

  • Amwhalen44

    Moving in the right direction.So many women are given the oppurtunity to get an abortion as is with out a that requirement,and end up all depressed and pissed off with their desicision,and parents are able to have that option also to make their kids get one and it can destroy a young girls heart ,everyone i know that has got one have depression issues or a drug/drinking prblem ,i think killing a piece of them was def part of it if not the whole problem

  • http://www.facebook.com/ashley.whalen.92 Ashley Whalen

    Its not the womens body anymore theres two and she shouldnt make a descision for him/her to murder him/or her,i should know im about to pop,this guy has a mind of his own!

  • Jeas1234

    A woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body right up until the time that her choice interferes with someone else’s right to live. She had the right to choose birth control, or better yet, she had the right to choose abstinence. She surely knew the consequences of her actions before she conceived, and if she didn’t, she was too young to be doing it. Abortion IS NOT a form of birth control, nor is it a matter of convenience, and a woman DOES NOT have the right to take the life of an innocent baby who did not ask to be conceived, but once he or she is conceived has the right to live. It is NOT the woman’s right to KILL her own unborn child while it is still in the place that should be the safest place in the world…in it’s mother’s womb. My only wish in this law is that it could not be the same doctor who is going to benefit monetarily from this abortion who performs the ultrasound. We wouldn’t want them slanting the odds in their own favor in how they perform this service or how they explain it.

  • Ward Ricker

    Heidi, do you know if Louisiana is the first state to do this, or are there other states that require sonograms?

    • Anonymous

      I’m not Heidi, but I know that many other states have these laws. The ones that come to mind immediately are PA, VA, and TX…I’m certain there are more. If you just google “mandatory ultrasound laws”, I’m sure you’ll find a list.

      • Ward Ricker

        Thank you, “Anonymous”, and in answer to my own
        question, the Guttmacher Institute

        http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf,  (no friend to us, of course, but I assume
        their information in this regard is accurate), lists nine states — Alabama,
        Arizona, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and
        Texas — that have laws requiring a sonogram to be performed, although only the
        last three require the sonogram to be shown to the woman seeking the abortion,
        and the North Carolina and Oklahoma laws are noted as “temporarily
        unenforceable pending a court decision”. 
        Some other states have other laws regarding sonograms and abortions.

      • Ward Ricker

        Ohh!  I noticed after
        I posted that last comment that the Guttmacher page does say that Virginia has
        a law that “is scheduled to go into effect later in 2012″.  (It was signed into law on March 7.)  You mentioned Pennsylvania.  I found that SignOn.org has a petition up to
        try to stop the Pennsylvania law from passing, so apparently it hasn’t been
        decided in PA yet.

  • Freckles

    Get your nose outta my womb.  

  • Freckles

    Who is gonna pay for this?

  • http://www.facebook.com/hailey.rudd Hailey Pantone

    abortion should be illegal unless its some kind of defect, or the baby has a life threatening disease. this is pitiful they have come to this point to try to make women reconsider such a selfish act. its disgusting.theres alot of women out there like me who have children that passed away before they were born and want to adopt. please consider this before you decide to end your childs life. 

  • Melodyannschultz

    I have on thing to say on this and a ? to ask
    i live in bc and you have allways need a ultra sound brfor you can get the abortion it dos not really stop the women from having one seeing her baby is a choice she is not going to be forced to look at it now for the ? maybe some one will be able to answer
    now please remember this is just a ? you dont know if this is happen so please no hate
    if you go for a abortion and just as they are ready to do it you yell stop i have changed my mind i dont want to do it then is that illegeal if they still take the baby out after you have said not to do it

  • Pingback: State Legislatures Stay Busy On Abortion Laws « War on Women