83 Comments - independent - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:45 am: I wish the Catholic Conference would spend more time encouraging Young people to utilize birth control and support funding of Family Planning services as this is the best way to reduce abortions. Of course that will never happen. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:45 am: Answer the question, please. - Downstate Illinois - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:48 am: Abortion is the destruction of human life. Those who want one should know what they are having exterminated. More importantly maybe the images to put further pressure on those who assist abortions and re-ignite their sense of morality. - so... - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:49 am: I voted no, but it’s a tough call. Forcing women to view an ultrasound is needlessly cruel during a very difficult time, in my opinion. But requiring doctors to give them the option is something else entirely. However, it’s still the government interfering with medical decisions for reasons other than patient safety, so I oppose it. - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:51 am: The underlying assumption, that women are uninformed and unable to make a rational decision regarding their bodies without an ultrasound, is false. The decision to have an abortion is neither simple nor taken lightly by most women. If a woman wants an ultrasound, she will ask for one. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:51 am: I don’t want the law to reflect the thinking of any religious organization. - Deana - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:52 am: Forcing an ultrasound on someone has nothing to do with providing “all the facts.” The fact is that someone’s pregnant; obviously they know that already if they’re getting an abortion. Putting an ultrasound does not provide any additional information–it’s a baldfaced attempt to try to shame and guilt the mother out of deciding to abort. - Deana - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:53 am: Skipped a bit there–meant to say “putting an ultrasound under a woman’s nose.” - The Doc - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:53 am: “This bill … is about information and transparency,” Springfield Bishop Thomas John Paprocki. “We know this (abortion) is a difficult decision, and we all know why having all the facts from the outset before making such a difficult decision is imperative.” It most certainly is not, and cloaking the argument in religion makes it more odious. The requirement is unacceptably intrusive. We shouldn’t be making an already agonizing decision any more painful than need be. - Redbright - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:57 am: I vote No. Who will pay for the ultrasound? The Catholic Church? This appears to be another way to increase the financial burden on a woman already in a difficult situation. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 10:59 am: Not only no, but HELL NO. It is a ridiculous law, especially for a privately funded abortion. If an abortion is paid for by public funds, however, the legislature would be within its rights to make such a requirement. One of the quotes above made me laugh, “‘The government should not tell doctors what to do or what to say when they are practicing medicine,’ she said.” I wonder if we would see the same statement when it comes to requiring pharmacists to dispense RU-486… - Ray del Camino - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:01 am: It’s not about providing information. It’s about the Catholic Church (transparently) trying to use the secular government to further its social policy agenda. I can’t believe it is getting any serious play in the media. - Reality is - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:01 am: Pot, obviously at least some of these women are “unable to make a rational decision regarding their bodies” or they would not have an unwanted pregnancy. - Veil of Ignorance - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:02 am: This is strangely similar to the hypo that some posed during the Plan B discussion. Not an expert here, but what are the current restrictions, if any, on abortions in IL? If the State has a compelling interest in preventing abortions and protecting life to the level that it can mandate doctors to show ultrasounds to patients, then surely pharmacists can also be mandated to carry a drug (increase access to it) that would help reduce the overall number of abortions. - Montrose - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:04 am: A big old no. I think Pot calling kettle stated it best. An abortion is not an easy decision. It is a difficult, emotionally painful process. Adding this element makes light of complexity of the decision. I also must add a kudos to Cincinnatus. While I typically disagree with you, I appreciate the consistency in your philosophical grounding. - Seriously??? - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:07 am: Whether or not to perform an ultrasound and whether or not there is a medical need to discuss it with a patient is a medical, not a political or moral, issue. Doctors should be practicing medicine, politicians shouldn’t. - Fan of Cap Fax - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:07 am: Agree with Deana…”it’s a baldfaced attempt to try to shame and guilt the mother out of deciding to abort”. There is so many other issues that need the attention of the Catholic Church. This is a hateful thing to do to a woman. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:07 am: No. Abortion is a legal healthcare procedure. Mandatory ultrasound viewing serves no legitimate medical purpose. It should not be required. - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:07 am: No. If a woman asks to see one, they should have to show her. If she doesn’t, they can offer if they want to, but there’s no logical reason to make them offer. - Fan of Cap Fax - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:09 am: Oh, heavens, I meant….There ARE so many other issues that need the attention of the Catholic Church. - Deana - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:10 am: @Reality — Perhaps your argument would be more convincing if the people behind this initiative weren’t the same people who deny women the tools to make rational decisions regarding their bodies, like comprehensive sexual education and access to birth control. Nobody, not even the staunchest liberal, actually LIKES abortions, you know. - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:10 am: No. The Government should not become involved in determining what the standard of care should be in medical procedures. That does not preclude the medical establishment, or individual practitioner including an ultrasound in the procedure if it is medically necessary. The RU-486 dispute is an example of why these kinds of laws are wrong. Th - As usual - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:10 am: The bill says the doc/clinic has to OFFER to show the patient an ultrasound, does not require them to show it or the patient to view it. How hard can it be for them to say “Do you want to view the ultrasound” “No” “Okay”. Of course they want to discourage people from getting abortions, but the comments should be based on the actual legislation. Many today have not. - bored now - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:12 am: this is fine as long as the churches that support it are willing to fund 100% of the costs of the required ultrasounds. if they are simply trying to impose their own moral standard without ponying up, though, screw ‘em. we don’t need more unfunded mandates — governments are having a tough enough time meeting their current needs without imposing a new, moral requirement upon us… - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:14 am: Re: “The government should not tell doctors what to do or what to say when they are practicing medicine,” she said. Agree whole heartedly but this priniciples runs against the grain of a good deal of healthcare reform and the protocol based Medicine the Feds are only going to reimburse. - Collosus - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:16 am: Ok, Rich, you’ve finally guilted me into EXPLAINING my vote. Having been involved in both an abortion and giving a child up for adoption, I can tell you that there is no harder time in a young person’s life, because the majority of these situations will end up involving young women (and ideally their partners as well). I view this proposal as nothing less than a way to prey upon the fear and insecurity of a young woman who is in emotional turmoil. If we are goign to require doctors to provide an ultrasound, maybe we should also require them to provide information to their patients regarding the long term economic impact of having a child at 18 (or whatever age the woman is) so that we are truly presenting information from both sides, not just the views of those whose stated purpose is to legally bar the woman from seeking an abortion in the first place. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:16 am: re: this is fine as long as the churches that support it are willing to fund 100% of the costs of the required ultrasounds. Careful Board Now ’cause you go down this path I bet you’ll find plenty of Illinoisians willing to pay into a fund for mandatory ultra sounds for women considering abortion. - Cincinnatus - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:17 am: Thanks, Montrose. Let’s watch how others try to square their circle when it comes to consistency between this and the topic from yesterday. It should be both interesting and fun… - Redbird98 - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:19 am: “Reality is,” how about when the unwanted pregnancy is a result of rape or incest? I don’t read any exceptions in the bill. Would y ou still say she had a rational decision about her body then? Not only is it likely a painful decision for most women considering an abortion, but why add insult to injury in those cases? - Loop Lady - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:20 am: As we all know Reality Is, all men make totally rational decisions about sexual activity, it is only women who are always irrational about evreything including sex, who can’t… please go back to whatever century you are from…no woman I know who has ever elected to have an abortion has made that decision glibly…a mandatory ultrasound would only add to the cost, already prohibitive to some women, and would not magically change their minds…let’s keep funding Planned Parenthood on a National level so women can obtain reproductive health services that help those who wish to have childern do so, and those who don’t, prevent unwanted pregnancies, and therefore reduce the need for abortive services… - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:21 am: - Let’s watch how others try to square their circle when it comes to consistency between this and the topic from yesterday. - Pretty simple to people who think logically. If a woman asks a healthcare provider for something, they should provide it. If she doesn’t, they shouldn’t have to. See how easy that was? - cermak_rd - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:24 am: No. This is a medical matter, abortion is a legal procedure and I see no reason for further laws about it. Why does the Catholic Church in IL do this anyway? Fresh off getting stomped on the matter of civil unions, they want to introduce a matter that they know (or at least strongly suspect) they’re going to get stomped on again. Why can’t they put those energies into getting their inactive back in the pews? That would probably have more of an impact on future IL leg than this action will. - Matt - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:24 am: Abortion is a constitutionally protected right, and this ultrasound procedure does absolutely nothing to help a woman’s health. It is the last ditch attempt of the sore loser pro-life movement. I mean for the love of god, talk about putting government between an individual and their doctor! - Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:25 am: ===Fresh off getting stomped on the matter of civil unions=== Did you forget the death penalty repeal? Big win there. - wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:25 am: No, pharmacists and the Catholic Church don’t get to make health care decisions or insert themselves into a doctor/patient equation. If the Catholic Church would like to establish a fund providing for free ultrasounds for pregnant women, that would be swell. They’re not cheap. Cincy, the discussion yesterday was on Plan B, not RU-486. - Veil of Ignorance - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:29 am: Sorry, misread the post initially and didn’t realize that doctors would only be required to offer to show the ultrasound. Less of an intrusion, but still probably against it since there’s no medical reason here, just an inserted argument trying to persuade the patient to change their mind. If they’re at the clinic, then I’d say they’ve made their choice. It would be akin to requiring the pharmacist who must carry/sell Plan B to also provide a pro-life brochure of some sort to the customer I suppose? - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:38 am: Re: Why does the Catholic Church in IL do this anyway? There’s a consistent moral line there. From death penalty to abortion the Church puts live including “life” of the unborn first. If the people backing this rule read this blog, they ought to pick up bored now’s notion of making the Church fund a State manadate. That would be a winner for the Church I think, and an obligation they’d qucikly pick up and run with. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:39 am: Rich, Yes, true on the death penalty–but I think that one wins without the Church. The arguments I heard the most revolved around the expense and the possibility of killing innocent folks. Not a lot about sanctity of every human life. - Think Big - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:39 am: Protecting innocent life is one of the most important functions of govt. Science can’t answer the question of when human life begins, which arguably puts us in the realm of using religion to guide our law-making. However, this regulation doesn’t restrict abortion–it merely provides an option that would potentially protect innocent human life. That, IMO, is a very small infringement given the importance of human life. - Phil - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:50 am: No. I don’t want the Catholic Church’s morality squad impeding a woman’s right to have an abortion. Based on the women I know who’ve had an abortion, it’s a difficult enough decision as it is, without having to satisfy some morally/religously dictated precondition. - Team Sleep - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:54 am: Okay… I am a social conservative. I hate abortion. Please note that I typed my hatred for the action/procedure and not anyone who had or is considering an abortion. But I also realize that the abortion-on-demand precedence was set by Roe v. Wade and, short of an overturning abortion-on-demand or placing severe restrictions on abortions by the Roberts Court, that precedence is here to stay. I do not support any government funding for abortions. But if an abortion is paid out of a private insurance pool or totally out-of-pocket, the restrictions are tougher to define or even impossible to require or force upon the recipient of services. Should a doctor be required to give an ultrasound? The non-denominational Christian in me says yes, but I understand why this would be burdensome, especially since healthcare costs never go down and seemingly always increase past inflation. However, should doctors be required to offer and not actually be forced to provide an ultrasound? I say yes. Doctors are forced to adhere to many standards by multiple government agencies. Offering a service is not the same as requiring said service be done. I don’t find it intrusive, either. - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:03 pm: “- Think Big - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 11:39 am: Protecting innocent life is one of the most important functions of govt. Science can’t answer the question of when human life begins, which arguably puts us in the realm of using religion to guide our law-making. ” No it doesn’t. I won’t have religions making decisions for me. - Precinct Captain - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:08 pm: Abortion providers should not be forced to provide ultrasound results to patients. However, I would support a measure like ISHN describes the Catholic Conference as having which is to “require women to be offered an ultra sound and the opportunity to view it” because women could decline the ultra sound and the viewing opportunity if they choose to have the ultra sound. - cermak_rd - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:09 pm: Think Big said: “Science can’t answer the question of when human life begins…” Actually, science can answer that question. But that’s not the question. The question is, does the woman whose womb is being used, have the right to determine under what circumstances her womb will be used? - dupage dan - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:11 pm: I think abortion happens too often. I think some folk want to deny they are ending a potential human life. I think seeing the fetus as a potential human would make some folk think twice. And isn’t that what we should be doing here, thinking twice? Having said that I think this is a bad idea. To all of the posters who said they didn’t like women being forced to have/view an ultrasound, please read the proposal - it says that the abortion providers will be forced to offer the ultrasound. Nowhere did I read that the woman will be forced to do anything. I voted no altho I do believe people should take a close look at what they are doing before they do it. I’m just not sure this is the way to accomplish the goal here. - OneMan - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:12 pm: I had the exact same thought Precinct Captain, good idea. - Veil of Ignorance - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:17 pm: For what it’s worth, I must correct myself yet again. Plan B, if taken after an egg is fertilized, will simply prevent implantation of the egg which could be considered by most pro-lifers as an abortion since conception has occurred. However, the drug is also designed to prevent fertilization, with its ability to accomplish this largely dependent on how quickly the drug is taken after sex. This makes the whole situation less cut and dry to me, but the risk of an actual chemical abortion occurring the morning after would seem less likely than 2-3 days later…making the wide amount of access all the more important. Ok, done correcting and will just read from here on out! - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:22 pm: ==because women could decline the ultra sound and the viewing opportunity if they choose to have the ultra sound== Why force the doctor have to make the offer? Are women too ignorant to ask for one if they want one? Since the proponents know they can’t have the doctor ask “Are you sure you want to do this?” they have devised this as a work-around. I would rather the Catholic Church put their considerable energies into making sure CHIP is fully funded and child health care universal. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:23 pm: I voted yes-but only symbolically. I am in favor of doing as much as possible to make abortion a last resort but this bill sounds kind of weird. I do agree with its intent. It may make the mother a little uncomfortable to see her baby but not half as uncomfortable as the abortion will make her baby feel. - Ghost - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:28 pm: m opposed. I would note there is a bit of irony in that a group of catholic pharmacists had a judge toss out a womens right to have mdicine in a pharmacy, cliaming that it violates State law to force doctors to offer medicine against their religious beleifs…But now the catholics would propose forcing doctors to offer a medical procedure tht may not follow a docotrs religous beleifs? So catholics are opposed to forcing docotrs to carry medicine, but they support forocing docotrs to provide certain tests? - OneMan - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:38 pm: == But now the catholics would propose forcing doctors to offer a medical procedure tht may not follow a docotrs religous beleifs? == What? How in the heck is an ultrasound against someones religious beliefs? It’s not requiring them to say the fetus has a soul, that they are going to hell if they have the procedure or that the flying spaghetti monster will consume them if they don’t have the procedure. You can argue it’s intrusive, burdensome or intrusive. I could understand that. But it violates someones religious standards? - OneMan - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:41 pm: Also “The government should not tell doctors what to do or what to say when they are practicing medicine,” she said too late for that one. It already does, there are already standards for education and facilities. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:49 pm: It’s worth noting the Catholic Church has been long opposed to mandatory end-of-life counseling in Medicare, but they’ll reverse that on mandatory ultrasounds for mothers. These a consistent principle around “life” in both stands, but for many of use the consistency should be on the Government’s authority to mandate any healthcare procedure (not to mention the Gov’s authority to mandate we buy Health Insurance). If you think the Gov has the right to promote EOL consults onec a year, but no right to promote ultrasounds (i.e. instead of mandate, just order Medicaid to pay big bucks for that ultra sounds and the providers will take care of the mandate); well, then you’re not consistent at all. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:52 pm: @One Man… no where can the Illinois or the Feds mandate anyone to undergo a procedure. That’s different than standards or regulations. Medicare can encourage different things with reimbursements, but no where can the Gov mandate except in the case of Childhood vaccinations, and even there it’s indirect via access to schools. We’re on very new ground here with the Government at many levels attempting to have us under procedures whether it be an ultra sound, or an EOL consult with our doc. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 12:55 pm: Just to refer to the orignial language: “…that would require women to be offered an ultra sound and the opportunity…” An offer Medicaid would pay for too I’m assuming. I call this a sort of backdoor soft mandate from the Gov on a specific Medical procedure or consultation. Whether it be End-of-Life, or an ultra sound, this kind of Government intervention not good. We’ll deeply regret this in the future. - OneMan - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:08 pm: ==no where can the Illinois or the Feds mandate anyone to undergo a procedure== Well I would argue an ultrasound is a test. There is mandatory testing that occurs after birth. We require kids to be screened for all sorts of things before they attend school. TB tests, etc. - Seriously??? - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:08 pm: Rich, what happened to the amendment Rep. Feigenholtz was going to introduce (you talked about it in CapFax last week)? - Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:11 pm: It’s still there. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:21 pm: Ultrasounds are procedures. For that matter almost anything between you and your provider is a procedure in the sense of course of medical action to achieve an outcome. The gov can’t make you get a vaccination but it can make it hard for your kid to go to school if you don’t have one. There’s lines here, but if you’ve bought into Healthcare Reform which is very much about the Gov aggressively encouraging Mandates, then you had better be prepared for a time when the Government sees the kind of procedures you get very differently than you might. This ultrasound issue is a classic. The Church has a consistent logic around defending life as it’s defined it. If arguing against the Church on a Libertarian stand though, and defending Healthcare Reform too, then I think you’re on very shaky ground as reform concedes much power to the Central Planners. Me, I’ll stick with the Libertarians and appose the Church on ultra sound offers, and the administration on EOL consult offers. - Lefty Lefty - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:34 pm: Another day, another nibble at privacy by “small government” types. Wordslinger and so.. and a couple others stated it clearly. There’s a doctor. There’s a patient. The doctor tells the patient what the medical issues are. The patient reacts to this and makes a decision. Where does an ultrasound enter into a medical decision about an abortion? Nowhere under normal circumstances. Where does a pharmacist obtain the power to inflict “moral” decisions on customers while earning his Pharm.D? Nowhere. These are intrusions into the lives of people who are taking care of personal matters as best they can. One more thing–maybe some of the anti-abortion types can take a quiz for me. When did the Catholic Church decide that life begins at conception and abortion is murder? a. Council of Trent in 1560 b. Nicaean Council in 325 c. Pope Pius IX in 1869 Yep, believe it or not, the answer is c. For about 1,850 of the Church’s 2,000-year existence, abortion was not murder. And for about 1,990 of those years, the Church stayed out of non-Catholics’ lives. Oh, for the old days. - OneMan - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:34 pm: == Ultrasounds are procedures. For that matter almost anything between you and your provider is a procedure in the sense of course of medical action to achieve an outcome. == So then Bill, are the requirements to attend school as well as the screenings done immediately after birth wrong since they are required? - GetOverIt - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:41 pm: The question is problematic: Should abortion providers be forced to offer ultrasound results to patients? If we remove the word “forced” and replace it with “required” I think the poll results would be different. Nonetheless, I don’t see how asking a patient if they want to see their ultrasound results is offensive or crossing some nuanced threshold. When I get an ultrasound or CAT scan I want to see what the end product looks like. My doctor often asks if I would like to see either and if I answer “no”it’s left at that. The fact that someone would find the requirement offensive is largely due to the perception of abortion itself, i.e. an offensive act. The word does not conjure up good feelings and the act is certainly one for debate. Caveat, I am pro-life. However, I am also pro-civil union. I do not believe the government has a right to infringe on social issues, i.e. sexuality or religion. And I know pro-lifers will yell, “killing a child is not a social issue,” but I don’t see it that way. My faith would agree with the pro-lifer, but my faith in democracy and democratic principles do not. That is the scientific community has yet to define or make a determination as a cohesive group and in the majority of when life begins. Ah…pro-choice. - zatoichi - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 1:48 pm: No. This is a decision between the people directly involved and the medical people providing care. If “The Church has a consistent logic around defending life as it’s defined it” it needs to follow the same logic for all military operations, any ‘death panel’ discussions, DNR wishes, and any other topic that touches on life/death options in any situation. Some of these options are based on active actions that causes an event. Others are passive actions that simply let an event occur. The outcome is often similar. These are often very difficult, emotional choices that nobody wants to face, but someday that moment to make a tough choice comes. While the Church can be a useful, comforting guide, the actual decision is individual to the persons involved. - Obamarama - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 2:18 pm: ===“‘The government should not tell doctors what to do or what to say when they are practicing medicine,’ she said.” I wonder if we would see the same statement when it comes to requiring pharmacists to dispense RU-486…=== Probably not since pharmacists and doctors aren’t the same thing. Just like a reasonable argument and a straw man aren’t the same thing. To the question: No, abortion providers should not be FORCED to provide ultrasound results. It doesn’t much matter in my opinion, however. I find it hard to believe that a provider would refuse to do an ultrasound if it was asked for. Furthermore, if one really sought to have an ultrasound done, the unavailability of one at an abortion clinic wouldn’t unreasonably burden a patient from receiving one elsewhere. - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 2:22 pm: R: So then Bill, are the requirements to attend school as well as the screenings done immediately after birth wrong since they are required? It’s not a Libertarian policy for sure. There used to be a requirement for a blood draw and std test too before marriage. I’m hardly a Libertarian and I think in the areas of Public Health there’s a case to be made for things like vaccinations. There’s a utilitarian trade off there on the loss of liberty vs public health. As a rule though, I’m accept a patient’s right to govern what’s done to their body, whether it be an ultrasound, or just talk about procedures we may wish at EOL. The Healthcare Reform law violates this rule wholesale IMHO and the EOL requirement just the obvious one. The system riddled with committess setting protocols that will greatly impact our treatment options. If those committees get influenced by those suggesting “offers” on ultrasound, we’ll see just that under the system were currently building. - bored now - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 2:29 pm: Think Big: actually, science can — and does — explain when life begins. life begins in the animal kingdom when they are born. period. it is the church that dissents from this explanation and wants a special exception for the human animal. and there is some biblical justification for this. the bible suggests that human life begins when ruah is provided by God to the human being. strangely, the catholic church won’t tell us when God breathes the breath of life into humans. we don’t know why that is. perhaps they simply prefer an artificial (and non-biblical) explanation. because, you know, the church sometimes believes it is more important than God (or the bible). unlike the anti-intellectual preference that pervades this country (and especially the social conservatives in the republican party), the scientific explanation is better simply because it is easier to apply across the board without so-called wise men being required to understand. people who claim they are christian, but reject the biblical standard for things like human life, merely confuse the situation. much easier to have one, simple, universal explanation (iow, the scientific one) than the multitude of double-standards than stem from church doctrines… - Obamarama - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 2:31 pm: Cue Rich telling everyone to stick to the question instead of debating when life begins in 5…4…3… - Cheryl44 - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 2:48 pm: RU 486 and Plan B are two different things. The first causes abortions, the second causes non-conception. You can’t “kill” a “baby” when no “baby” actually exists. - Think Big - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 3:09 pm: My point about religion wasn’t that it should be used to implement policy. And, with regard to science determining the beginning of human life, when did that happen? The folks who focus exclusively on “womb rights” are ignoring an important part of the question, IMO. In cases where the sexual act was voluntary, the womb owner did something to make another potential human reliant on her womb. I lean slightly left but also believe that rights and responsibilities go together and that innocent life is a very important consideration. Isn’t protecting the most vulnerable a touchstone for lefties? If so, why do so many on the left reflexively dismiss proposals like this one? IMO, there are some important arguments in favor of keeping abortion legal, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. This is sort of reminding me of the NRA discussions where any form of regulation produces a knee-jerk “Second Amendment” response. I don’t know what unintended consequences might flow from this, so I’m not entirely confident in my answer to the poll question. But, again, I don’t see how providing an option to see an ultrasound infringes on “womb rights.” And providing the option could result in few more pro-life decisions. - 3rd Generation Chicago - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 3:16 pm: I voted no, for the simple reason of the expense of ultrasounds. Maybe pictures of babies being cute would be less expensive and possibly more effective? - Bill Baar - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 3:19 pm: Re: I don’t see how providing an option to see an ultrasound infringes on “womb rights.” It’s a requirement a provider “offer” the option to women considering abortion. If Medicaid funds the procedure, you can bet the “offer” will be strongly offered. The Church is very straight forward about why they’re doing this. Ultra sound images have been credited (rightly so IMO) with making many people go wobbly on their pro-choice stands. Look up those responses from the Bishop’s to Pelosi’s gaff on TV over the Doctors of the Church and you’ll see the Bishops very up front on that. I sympathize where the Church is coming from here, and there logic has been very consistent. They feared the EOL consults as encouraging euthenasia. They promote ultrasounds as encouraging women NOT to abort. My problem is public policy should be enforced with this kind of heavy hand on Decisions a patient must make. - bored now - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 3:20 pm: Think Big: this is a democracy (and america is an extremely religious country for the west), so the intersection of religion and public policy has always been there. prohibition might be only the most obvious example of this. and i don’t know how long you’ve been alive, but science has defined what it means to be alive (or when life begins) for, well, your entire life. one would have hoped that your biology teacher would have covered this, but an essential element in the mammal kingdom is the ability to breath on its own. i’m completely on board with the “protecting innocent life” thing, but i’m disturbed that people who claim to seek this seem to require that everyone use their own (selfishly motivated) definition of, well, life. it’s not that hard. at least, i wouldn’t have thought… - Think Big - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 3:44 pm: Bored Now, you have defined human life in a particular way, which makes your position a tautology. Also, my nephew was born early and unable to breathe on his own. According you your view, he wasn’t human until he got off the respirator. Please. - reformer - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 3:50 pm: The law has a legitimate role in discouraging, but not banning, certain activities. Thus we have warning labels on cigarettes and alcohol. - Wensicia - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 4:41 pm: Showing a woman an ultrasound has no medical value to her condition. No, this is wrong and the government DOES NOT have a role in deciding what a woman can lawfully do with her own body. It also violates doctor/patient privilege, in my opinion, and it’s probably unconstitutional. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 5:14 pm: When is the Catholic Church going to start using a projector to show their parishioners what a bad case of genital warts looks like as they admonish them against the use of condoms? - Park - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 5:59 pm: What, Rich? Can’t think of any contraversial topics anymore? - amalia - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 6:09 pm: Stop increasing my health costs by pushing your religious agenda on the people of Illinois. - bored now - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 6:12 pm: Think Big: i’m sorry that you don’t understand the definition of tautology. perhaps you were home schooled? just to re-cap: science defines when life begins. religion defines what it means to be human. science doesn’t really explain the difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom. if you fail to grasp that difference, ask again. sorry to hear about your nephew. it shouldn’t require too much big thinking to realize that science didn’t anticipate his situation when the definition was envisioned… - Think Big - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 9:25 pm: Bored Now, I do indeed understand the definition of tautology–one of my degrees is in Philosophy. I also understand the limits of science. It deals with empirical questions, not philosophical, moral or religious questions. Contrary to some of your over-the-top comments/insults there’s no question that biological life exists before birth (distinct DNA, dividing cells, etc.). That is an empirical fact, something that science can judge. But the real question is when does the biological become human? That, for the most part, is not an empirical question. And, just to re-cap, science doesn’t deal with non-empirical questions. This is my last response to your insult-laden posts. My deepest apologies to other readers for getting so far off the question. That was not my intent. - G. Willickers - Thursday, Apr 7, 11 @ 9:39 pm: Why don’t conservatives want to stop post-birth abortions by seeking stronger oversight against gun violence? Why don’t conservatives support waiting periods and counseling about gun violence and showing would-be gun purchasers graphic photos and videos of innocent children who’ve been shot in the head or, quite frankly, worse? Why the hypocrisy? - Steven - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 9:08 am: I think, as an Illinoisan, that I will stand on the side of choice and women and not force a woman, who has clearly made a difficult decision on her own, to view the ultrasound. We are one of the last states in the Midwest that remains a strong proponent of choice, and I think we need to continue that. Meanwhile, we remain a target from the anti-choice fringe (most Americans remain at least partially pro-choice) in stopping women from coming from more-restrictive states to Illinois for this vital service. I say veto the law, Mr. Quinn. - BeingReal7 - Friday, Apr 8, 11 @ 10:18 am: Yes, women seeking abortions should be given the option to view an ultrasound. Why deny them that additional information? BTW Yellow dog, according to a big NIH study on condom effectiveness against various STDs, condoms don’t provide sufficient protection against HPV, which causes genital warts. But let’s stay on topic. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.