Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Plummer again refuses to release tax returns - J3 with 54-32 lead over Halvorson
Next Post: *** LIVE SESSION COVERAGE *** Gov. Quinn’s Budget Address
Posted in:
* The House Agriculture Committee approved HB 4085 yesterday. The bill requires physicians to offer women who are about to have an abortion “an opportunity to receive and view an active ultrasound of her unborn child.” From the News-Gazette…
Tuesday’s hearing included an emotional exchange between Jakobsson and the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joseph Lyons, D-Chicago.
“(Y)ou are hoping that after a woman sees this, you are hoping that she is discouraged from having an abortion?” Jakobsson asked.
“I think it gives the human face to the procedure, when they see the heartbeat and see that it’s not just a procedure like getting your tonsils taken out or having an appendectomy,” Lyons said. “It’s the idea of trying to put a face, a touch, on the whole process. And if it saves one life, Naomi, is that a bad thing? If it saves one life, would that be a bad idea?”
Jakobsson responded, “I think what you are getting at is trying to discourage the woman from trying to protect her life.”
Lyons called the legislation “a pro-choice bill. A woman has the choice to say no. Most women will. This doesn’t force this on any woman. It just says, would you like to see the ultrasound?”
* The Question: Should the General Assembly intercede between a patient and her doctor in this instance? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 10:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Plummer again refuses to release tax returns - J3 with 54-32 lead over Halvorson
Next Post: *** LIVE SESSION COVERAGE *** Gov. Quinn’s Budget Address
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Clearly this bill has little to do with ‘information’ as it does with trying to cause women to NOT get an abortion.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 10:55 am
No news here but this issue is dominated by extremists on both sides. This is reasonable. I will never forget seeing the first ultrasounds of my children.
Comment by I don't want to live in Teabagistan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 10:55 am
the state has a legitimate role in medicine deciding who may qualify to practice medicine. but the state has no right to require doctors to perform specific, intrusive, unnecessary procedures in an attempt to contravene the decision the doctor and patient have already arrived at.
Comment by langhorne Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 10:56 am
Although I am opposed to abortion, (and I think that as science progresses the humanity of the fetus will be more and more prominent), I am opposed to government interference n such a matter. I would also oppose legislation that PREVENTED the physicians from offering the option.
And what does the Agriculture Committee have to do with this?
Comment by JustaJoe Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 10:57 am
langhorne, this allows the patient to make a MORE informed decision. why would you be against that? What is intrusive about a little jelly on your abdomen.
Again, extremists dominate the issue.
Comment by I don't want to live in Teabagistan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 10:59 am
No. This is just political grandstanding, putting a hand out for campaign contributions.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:04 am
This coming from the Ag Committee says a lot about how its supporters view women.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:06 am
Agree with JustaJoe. I am not a proponent of abortion; however, other than ensuring that the procedure is safe for those who choose it, I would like the government (state and federal) to stay out of it.
Comment by wizard Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:07 am
I’m quite tired of the efforts of the right wing to continually chip away at a woman’s right to privacy between herself and her doctor. The government doesn’t belong anywhere near my uterus.
I’m in my fifties and I’m getting furious about this need for government to interfere or try to prevent access to women’s health care. The women that are in an age group more directly impacted by this are angrier than I am. Unless they want a whole lot of us to turn into single issue voters in 2012, they need to back off.
Comment by Aldyth Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:08 am
My computer isn’t letting me vote, but I would vote no and completely second exactly what Langhorne said.
This is an option now (as it should be, if you want it), but I am incredibly insulted as a woman to be told that if I make a decision, I wouldn’t have the intelligence to get all of the information first or to know what I’m doing without The State “helping” me.
And, at the stage of pregnancy when most abortions occur, an ultrasound isn’t always as easy as “a little jelly on your abdomen”. I’m just saying.
Comment by Katiedid Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:11 am
This shows just how little respect those who oppose abortion have for women. They make the assumption that women treat the decision to terminate a pregnancy as little more than a decision to color their hair (let’s show you a picture of what “misty sunset” would look like on you before we actually color it).
Comment by Chevy owner/Ford County Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:12 am
well said @10:55. Be a different story if the bill required women to view the ultrasound rather than offering a choice.
Most women will likely say no, understandably not wanting to make things more difficult than they already are.
But for some of the small number who do choose to view the ultrasound, it may help prevent a life-long regret similar to that expressed by Norma McCovey (aka Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade).
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:15 am
= The House Agriculture Committee approved HB 4085 yesterday. =
El oh el, Ag Committee.
Comment by Dirty Red Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:17 am
All of this legislation is designed to obstruct a woman’s right to exercise their own judgment in consultation w/ family and doctor. It is an effort by one philosophical group to impose their beliefs. It’s absurdity is illustrated by legislation being introduce in other states such as this bill to regulate vasectomies. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/georgia-vasectomy-ban_n_1293369.html
Comment by D.P. Gumby Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:20 am
The only reason to support this bill is if you believe that women are blithering idiots who don’t know what an abortion entails.
Teabagistan, this procedure provides ZERO additional information that can help a woman make an “informed” choice. All it does is add extra time, cost, and pressure to a woman’s ability to exercise her right to make her own health decisions.
Comment by South of Sherman Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:20 am
No, unless male patients seeking Viagra are asked if they’d like to view pictures of genital warts, herpes, and other venereal diseases, in graphic color close ups.
Why is it only women need to see visual reminders that their health care decisions have consequences?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:23 am
Then again, I’d prefer to see Jakobsson put as much effort into fixing our budget, pensions, worker’s comp. issues.
I wonder if he’s introduced any legislation regarding that yet? Time to check,
…
My sincere sentiment is that every minute spent debating divisive social issues in these dangerous times is a minute better spent addressing our fiscal challenges at the moment.
How about spending all that time and energy instead making sure we have the funding and proper plans in place to care for the most vulnerable among us right now? That seems like a more pressing priority.
Plenty of time later in session to address other issues, assuming everyone puts on their big boy & big girl pants and gets some good work done.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:24 am
No. I have never known a woman who had an abortion who took the decision lightly.
Comment by Way Way Down Here Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:25 am
Dang it! Correction: I mean Lyons, the bill’s sponsor. Would prefer to see Lyons put this time into addressing our state budget issues first and foremost.
There are a lot of people outside the womb who need help right now, and will need good advocates looking out for them in this budget.
Comment by Shock & Awww(e) Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:26 am
I am not seeing what type of ultrasound, but what is being pushed by the conservative movement is the transvaginal ultrasound which is not just “jelly” it is a probe inserted. Imagine a woman who was raped having to undergo this additional trauma. Most women who decide on an abortion make an informed choice and know what is involved. The implication that a government mandate is needed to force a “woman” to think about such a personal and already thoughtful choice is over the top.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:30 am
I oppose any government intervention invading the privacy of my doctor/patient relationship.
I’m disappointed it has become so politically popular to create legislation involving women’s reproductive rights and practices, and the organizations that provide for us.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:31 am
I didn’t respond because I don’t know if women currently have this option. If they do not, they should probably be allowed it, if they do why are they introducing a bill to allow something that already exists?
Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:32 am
Finally some female legislators, tired of government intervention in their reproductive issues, are fighting fire with fire. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/georgia-vasectomy-ban_n_1293369.html
Comment by Chevy owner/Ford County Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:49 am
Let’s clear up a statement that Shock & Awe made…”it may help prevent a life-long regret similar to that expressed by Norma McCovey (aka Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade).”
Norma McCovey never had an abortion. Not one. She was pregnant three times, any put the babies up for adoption all three times.
In regards to the topic of regrets, an unwanted pregnancy always results in regrets regardless of the outcome. When a woman places a child up for adoption, she also will have regrets. When a women decides to keep the baby, the sacrifices necessary to do so will also create regrets for lost opportunities. It’s a difficult decision riddled with remorse no matter what the outcome.
I’m sure they must exist, but I have never talked to someone who was actually “pro-life”. A more accurate label would be pro-conception. The politicians and activists who claim to be pro-life are the same ones who want to slash or eliminate so many programs which benefit the life of a child after it is born. It seems to me that their policies imply that life begins with conception and ends with birth.
And of course, the birth control debate that has occurred over the past few weeks shows us that there is a lack of seriousness on preventing unwanted pregnancies by those on the pro-life side.
I agree with Aldyth. I’m tired of having to fight this battle over and over again. But like Aldyth, I will. And here’s something women our age have learned; fighting for our reproductive rights made us formidable. Fighting for the rights of our daughters and granddaughters will make us invincible.
Comment by Mom Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 11:56 am
Government that lacks the ability (or willingness) to competently and responsibly manage its finances certainly lacks the ability to weigh in on complex metaphysical and philosohical issues concerning the beginning of human life and the rights of women to reproductive choices. My suggestion is that government develop a millenia or so of a track record in successfully dealing with issues concerning those that are indisputably alive.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:04 pm
Having been involved in an abortion along with the person I eventually married I can say that there was a certain amount of rationalizing that went on. I can’t say this happens with all folk who abort but it seems fair to say that you can more easily make that decison if you think in abstract terms about the decision.
Years later my wife and I were blessed to have a baby dupage dan. Seeing the ultrasound makes the whole issue become VERY different. Granted, our viewpoint was changed. However, forefront in my mind and heart was our earlier decision - and it remains with me to this day.
I heartily agree that women are perfectly capable of making the decision regarding a pregnancy - it is their choice. I would also agree that as we all know they are perfectly capable of making the decision, they are also perfectly capable of considering the offer of viewing the ultrasound, choosing to view or not, and incorporating the whole process into their decision-making. I have heard some anecdotal evidence that the experience of viewing the ultrasound had an impact on the decision resulting in no abortion. This, again, is the choice of the woman.
I am mildly uncomfortable with the idea that the doctor is forced to offer, but since it is only an offer and the viewing is optional, I don’t see a major problem. More information can’t be bad.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:17 pm
Of course, as PP and most abortionists already do ultrasounds, there is no added cost. Just an offer need be made.
IL can make people wait three days to buy a gun, but it can’t make a doctor offer to see a scan that is already there ??
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:17 pm
BTW, my father was the result of a date rape. His biological mother gave him up for adoption. My father found her when she was quite elderly. She had so regretted giving him up that several years later when her fiance ran out on her after she got pregnant, she refused to give him up and raised him. My father met this wonderful family and treasures that to this day. He is 89 years old.
Regrets occur in life. It is what we do with them that forms and identifies our character.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:22 pm
“but the state has no right to require doctors to perform specific, intrusive, unnecessary procedures in an attempt to contravene the decision the doctor and patient have already arrived at. ”
So, should the state *require* that any man seeking ED meds be offered the option of a colonoscopy? *REQUIRE* it, as in risk prosecution if the doctor determines that it is medically unnecessary, and therefore would not be covered by insurance?
Who’s going to pay for all of these ultrasounds, too? Sounds like yet another unfunded mandate, to me.
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:29 pm
No, the ultrasounds are ALREADY being done. PP does them.
So, its just letting them be seen is all.
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:36 pm
Every time I read somewhere someone calling Planned Parenthood ‘abortionists’ as if that’s all they do, I send them another $10.
This is starting to turn into real money.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:41 pm
Pat, you’re wrong.
Planned Parenthood does provide ultrasounds. It’s a common procedure generally employed on most women around their 20th week of pregnancy.
Planned parenthood does not routinely use ultrasounds on women who have decided to have an abortion unless there is a medical basis to do so.
Putting aside the arrogance of forcing doctors to add to the emotional distress of women, it is also an unnecessary cost that someone will have to pay for.
Comment by Mom Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:47 pm
I trust that if a woman wants an ultrasound, she will ask for one. It’s her body and the decision should be up to her and her doctor. This is an endless list of options that could be offered up prior to a patient receiving any surgical procedure. The state does not require that the doctor go through such a list with each patient for each procedure. This is all about putting pressure on a woman whop is already making a difficult decision. Should we require men getting a Viagra prescription to read articles on overpopulation?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:49 pm
The government should not be in the practice of medicine. Simple as that. Does not matter whether federal, state or local. Does not matter what the reason is.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:52 pm
It’s ironic that Naomi has personally adopted and foster-parented more children than the rest of her colleagues put together. In doing so, she has demonstrated a concern for youngsters after they are born.
Comment by reformer Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 12:52 pm
“When a woman walks into a gun store, socially conservative legislators … treat her as rational, well informed, and fully capable of making her own decisions without a lot of “bureaucratic red tape.” But if the same woman walks into an abortion clinic, suddenly she’s an addled dimwit who hasn’t given her decision two seconds’ thought, and somebody needs to make her.”
A. Barton Hinkle
Comment by Aaron Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:02 pm
I am not wrong. There was a study done (by a pro choice group!) That surveyed abortion clincs. 99% did ultrasounds prior to drug or surgical abortionist.
Over 100 PP clincs were surveyed.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.lifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ultrasoundstudy.pdf
See for yourself. No added cost, just a risk that the “wrong choice” will be made.
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:04 pm
Plutocrat03; Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc. Government is intimately involved in the practice of medicine.
Comment by I don't want to live in Teabagistan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:15 pm
Mrs. Vole tells me we can’t move to Missouri because of all the crackers over there.
Comment by vole Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:25 pm
@Chris 12:29pm
I’m trying to wrap my head around the connection between a man seeking Rx for erectile dysfunction would, in ANY way, be linked somehow to a colonoscopy. That is so off the mark that the straw man just burst into flames.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:28 pm
The government should have NO say between a person and his/her doctor. PERIOD…
We all must take care of ourselves. If we get to a point of invalidity, then family can take care of him/her. If there is no one left to take care of the person, then the government can provide assistance but not decide for the person.
Comment by ah HA Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:35 pm
For a number of reasons I think this is a bad idea but I also take issue with the phrasing of the question. Abortions are not performed by a woman’s family doctor or her ob/gyn at an office visit. I think it is a bit misleading to talk about getting between “a woman and her doctor”. This really is talking about getting between a woman and the doctor who works as an abortionist.
Comment by girlawyer Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:42 pm
Those who claim the government should have no involvement in the relationship between patients and doctors are conveniently ignoring the fact that the government has a large degree of involvement already. Are you assuming there are no current laws which govern the practice of medicine?
This is a clear effort to aid women who are seeking abortion to better understand the decision they are making. I do not understand why critics are opposed to someone having more information prior to making a medical decision (except for the valid point raised above that it necessitates an additional cost which must be incurred by someone).
Comment by clark in cook Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:50 pm
Many women can afford to and do have an abortion procedure done by their ob/gyn, the one they see year in and year out.
Women without insurance or funds use clinics like Planned Parenthood for their health care when the necessity arises. Visits are less regular than a women with means or insurance, and the option of seeing the same doctor every visit is basically nil.
So what girlawyer is saying, if you belong to one economic group, you have a doctor, but if you’re poor you have an abortionist.
To replace the term doctor with abortionist is one more way to denigrate poor women and the doctors who care for them.
Comment by Mom Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 1:59 pm
@ DuPage Dan
Well said.
Comment by What's in a name? Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:08 pm
==But for some of the small number who do choose to view the ultrasound, it may help prevent a life-long regret similar to that expressed by Norma McCovey (aka Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade.==
It’s an admirable goal to remain regret free throughout the lifespan, and I appreciate so many in government want to help with this. Is there a state agency I can phone if I’m considering answering a booty call or going on a bender?
Comment by yinn Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:10 pm
I knew the numbers would be against me when I voted “yes.” I was astounded at how strongly negative the vote is running.
Any other medical procedure and the doctor is required to give you a list of possible consequences — a parade of horribles — a list of things that might go wrong. The consequence of an abortion is that a child will never be born. Why is it so terrible to advise the patient, in a meaningful way, of just what the consequences of her act include?
And just a question to Plutocrat03, who said, “The government should not be in the practice of medicine. Simple as that. Does not matter whether federal, state or local. Does not matter what the reason is.” Does this mean you’re against Obamacare? HIPAA? Medicare? Licensing doctors in the first place?
Comment by Anon (because in threatened minority) Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:17 pm
==This is a clear effort to aid women who are seeking abortion to better understand the decision they are making.==
Don’t infantilize me. Aid me in understanding the risks and proper aftercare.
Comment by yinn Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:17 pm
I completely agree with Shock & Awww… “My sincere sentiment is that every minute spent debating divisive social issues in these dangerous times is a minute better spent addressing our fiscal challenges at the moment.” This is the same kind of ploy that’s going on in the national scene- abortion, like the contraception debate nationally, is being used to stir up the base, raise campaign funds, and deflect from the dire issues at hand. This kind of deflection is not leadership.
But please, someone tell me who thought this would be a great thing to send to Ag? Why did Leadership think this needed to get to the Floor? Don’t they have enough divisive topics to argue about right now?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:25 pm
—…it may help prevent a life-long regret similar to that expressed by Norma McCovey (aka Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade.==
Just to keep the history straight, Norma McCovey never had an abortion, as has been pointed out earlier.
In 1969 Texas, abortion was illegal except in cases of rape and incest. McCovey claimed rape, but the Texas authorities didn’t buy it so she was not allowed a legal abortion.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:25 pm
Joe should stick to coaching the softball team and leave the 18th century to! Clown! Clothes or GmanJim
Comment by CicularFiringSquad Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:27 pm
=”This doesn’t force this on any woman. It just says, would you like to see the ultrasound?”=
Sounds like it would be putting them in an awkward position they already don’t want to be in. Sounds like it would force them to me.
Comment by Pleading the Fifth Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:31 pm
I dont’ have the stats at hand but my impression is that men, usually conservative men, overwhelming would be in favor of this legislation but women, of either persuasion, are overwhelmingly against this or similar legislation. If anyone has evidence to support (or refute) this, please post it.
Note that I said “evidence”, not your rant for or against.
Comment by Springfield Skeptic Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:33 pm
Oh and if Joe Lyons really wants to reduce abortions, how about he stands up to the bishops trying to get out of providing birth control coverage on insurance to women employed at Catholic-affiliated universities like DePaul and Loyola?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:38 pm
Having an abortion is, by all accounts, a difficult decision. A little awkwardness prior to the procedure can be seen, in this light, as a minor issue. A smiple question asked and answered. Like those forms we fill out every time we see a new doctor. Medical history and such.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:38 pm
hisgirlfriday,
Can you really believe that the Catholic institutions not providing birth control funding in their insurance program would be a TOTAL barrier to a woman, even one with a low income, being able to access birth control free of charge? Really?
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:41 pm
S Skeptic,
And your point is……?
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:43 pm
If the aim is to reduce abortions, just tax them instead. Much more effective and raises revenue.
If the aim is to be jerks to distressed pregnant women, protestors usually accomplish that quite nicely without legislation.
Comment by Dirt Digger Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:53 pm
–A little awkwardness prior to the procedure can be seen, in this light, as a minor issue. A smiple question asked and answered. Like those forms we fill out every time we see a new doctor. Medical history and such.–
A little awkwardness? Give me a break. You make the idea seem so benign and routine.
The sponsor’s expressed goal is for the government to require doctors to make a last-ditch attempt to persuade women from having legal abortions.
It’s nothing like having to fill out a form as to whether you ever had the chicken pox or are allergic to peanut butter.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:53 pm
@ Anon 2:17
=The consequence of an abortion is that a child will never be born. Why is it so terrible to advise the patient, in a meaningful way, of just what the consequences of her act include?=
Do you really think that a woman seeking an abortion doesn’t already know this?
Comment by chitownHV Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 2:54 pm
Oh goodie, even more Lessons in Paternalism, courtesy of the Republican party. You can try to frame this as “trying to make sure women have the information they need to make a decision,” but framing it as such is paternalism in its purest form.
Maybe we should require that doctors show albums of baby pictures to any male patient seeking a vasectomy. You know, in case they weren’t aware of the consequences of their actions. They probably “need” the information before they’re capable of making such a big decision.
Also, while it is of course a happy moment in your life as a willing parent to first see the child you have actively been trying to create, have you considered how horrific that moment might be to a rape victim? The argument that “Eh, wasn’t bad for me, so it’s fine,” is pretty offensive.
Even wrapped in this pretty paternalism, this is so obviously yet another attempt to simply put obstacles between women and a perfectly legal medical procedure.
Comment by HiredGun Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 3:02 pm
@dupagedan:
Joe Lyons explained his support for these ultrasound requirements as: “If it saves one life, is this such a bad idea?”
By that logic, if we are throwing out concern for personal conscience and privacy and inserting government between a doctor-patient relationship… then why can’t we insert government between an employer-employee relationship in the case of religious-affiliated universities?
Joe Lyons is saying with this bill that the ends justify the means when it comes to preventing abortions.
Well… you can prevent A LOT more abortions by making access to birth control as affordable and easy for as many women as possible.
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 3:07 pm
@chitownHV — Yes, sometimes I really think so. I think people are encouraged to think (and I repeat the word with some hesitation) of the unborn as just a mass of insensate superfluous tissue, like tonsils, that magically becomes a person only when wanted and only when born. An ultrasound shows that this is a wishful fantasy.
Obviously, this makes me a knuckle-dragging reactionary Neanderthal. I regret if that really is what I’ve become. I also regret the sloganeering and name-calling and non-sequiturs that are substituted for serious discussion of any issue these days.
Comment by Anon (because in threatened minority) Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 3:20 pm
–Obviously, this makes me a knuckle-dragging reactionary Neanderthal.–
Another victim heard from. Clearly, many share your views. Why the persecution complex?
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 3:25 pm
It will be a great day when the General Assembly will not regulate anything to do with my uterus.
Thankfully at my friend’s abortion they asked if she wanted to see the ultrasound. She said, “yes” - and it didn’t change her mind a bit. She knew why she came to the clinic. Seeing the cell mass on screen only made it more believable of the 18+ years of responsibility and drama ahead of her if she chose to keep it. No, thanks!
—You only go to a clinic for one reason. Rarely do protestors outside or ultrasounds inside deter a mind made up.—
Good luck.
Comment by Junior Rabbit Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 3:34 pm
word,
I didn’t indicate any lightheartedness regarding the abortion itself, if that is what you are suggesting. There are going to be moments during the initial process where there is going to be some awkwardness - no doubt. I merely suggested that some short question would not cause any more awkwardness than already exists.
Previously, I also stated I was somewhat uncomfortable with forcing the doctor to have to ask the question. We are debating here, not voting on a bill, so we can toss respectful comments around with that in mind.
It is a difficult decision - it should be. More and more each day we learn about the development of the fetus during even the first trimester. My experience catches up with me every time I look at my son. A little awkwardness at this stage would result in no severe harm, IMO.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 4:28 pm
hisgirlfriday,
Apples and Oranges. Stick to the subject please.
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 4:29 pm
How is that apples and oranges. If the “pro-life” people were honestly pro-life, they’d be fighting tooth and nail for all women to have access to affordable birth control, for all pregnant women to have access to affordable pre-natal care, and for all mothers and children to have access to affordable health care and education.
But I’ve never seen any evidence anyone who insists they are “pro-life” care about the baby once it’s past the stage the pregnant woman can make a choice about carrying it to term.
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 4:41 pm
–A little awkwardness at this stage would result in no severe harm, IMO.==
You keep saying awkwardness, like that’s the issue.
Go back to the thread question; the issue is the bill.
You equate the government forcing doctors to attempt to persuade women from having legal abortions with the routine taking of medical information.
That’s your rationalization for a government intrusion that coincides with your current beliefs.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 4:49 pm
@Cheryl44
Excellent point!
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 4:59 pm
@dupagedan:
Since we are supposed to stick to the subject, as you said, why are you bringing your son into this discussion?
Comment by hisgirlfriday Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 5:09 pm
People seeking abortions know they are carrying a baby - that’s why they want the abortion. Sheesh.
How come these pro-lifers are never in favor of health insurance for mothers and children? Child care subsidies? Good special education for kids with complications? Good public schools for all kids? Life may begin at conception, but it does not end with birth.
Comment by Lakeview Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 5:17 pm
Oh, and Cheryl44 is my heroine here.
Comment by Lakeview Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 5:29 pm
Um, can we assume that a woman who wants to see the ultrasound could say, “I want to see the ultrasound”? I don’t think we need the Agriculture Committee to provide this “option.”
Comment by soccermom Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 5:41 pm
I don’t get how this is related in any way to the Agriculture committee. Really, there should be rules, if there aren’t, that bills should go to the correct committee.
That said, the legislature has no right to get involved in the discussion and decision a person/woman makes with her physician. What’s next? Are they going to have a bill that says a man should have a look at his privates before he decides to get a vasectomy? Sheesh.
Comment by Wickedred Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 5:57 pm
Alana Goodman of Commentary Magazine says Planned Parenthood provides the following on a telephone hotline:
“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound….”
She goes on to write, “From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies….”
Surprise!!! 98% of the time a abortion is performed, there is already an ultrasound. All this legislation does is to offer the woman an opportunity to view the ultrasound. Sounds reasonable to me!
Comment by Surpirse!!! Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 8:38 pm
===All this legislation does is to offer the woman an opportunity to view the ultrasound. Sounds reasonable to me!===
Again, if this is so reasonable, what is the problem that requires legislation? I know Joe is retiring and probably wants to get right with the Church, but if your premise is correct, this is a solution in search of a problem.
I’m sure every woman who’s had an ultrasound prior to terminating her pregnancy understands it is her option to view it. Why do we need a law for this?
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 8:55 pm
ultrasound in the first three months only by trans vaginal device? like in Virginia? the use against a woman’s will of such a device meets the Virginia standard of sexual assault. so is it this way in the Lyons bill, first three months required? cause if it is, that’s medical rape. which is horrible but imagine if the potential person forced to undergo this procedure had been raped once already. totally unacceptable to force a woman to do undergo a medical procedure that is not necessary.
Comment by amalia Wednesday, Feb 22, 12 @ 10:34 pm
Did you ever stop and conside that some women who have requested to see their ultrasound have been denied? It has happened here in Illinois, even though they were paying for their ultrasounds. This guarantees that those who wish to see the ultrasounds have the opportunity to do so. Very reasonable!!! What an insult to these women when they are not allowed to view the ultrasounds!
Comment by Surpirse Thursday, Feb 23, 12 @ 2:52 am
BTW the legislation does not apply before 7 weeks gestation. None of this is done against the woman’s will, so there is no “sexual assault”. No one is forced to have an ultrasound. Some states already have laws which have been upheld require the screens to face the women.
Comment by Surpirse Thursday, Feb 23, 12 @ 3:04 am
–Did you ever stop and conside that some women who have requested to see their ultrasound have been denied? It has happened here in Illinois, even though they were paying for their ultrasounds. This guarantees that those who wish to see the ultrasounds have the opportunity to do so. Very reasonable!!! What an insult to these women when they are not allowed to view the ultrasounds!–
The only insult is your ridiculous spin. Rep. Lyons is clear on the goal of the bill. He wants the government to require doctors to attempt to persuade women not to have legal abortions.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Feb 23, 12 @ 7:20 am
To hear the heartbeat of an unborn child and to see that child move may indeed save that child’s life and eliminate remorse of the mother.
Of course we can take the ‘guiltless’ option of never seeing this living child.
Comment by Sunshine Thursday, Feb 23, 12 @ 8:02 am