« CT legislator reveals rape in support of EC | Main | ND House passes abortion ban »
March 23, 2007
South Carolina forces women to see ultrasound before abortion
There’s nothing like a little woman-punishing to get legislators all hot and bothered.
A bill approved in the South Carolina House this week would force women to see a fetal ultrasound before they have abortions.
After three hours of passionate debate, the House voted 91-23 to require women to sign a statement swearing they had seen an ultrasound image of their fetus before getting an abortion.A half-dozen other states offer ultrasound images to abortion patients, legislative staffers said. But those states do not require abortion patients view them.
You know, because it’s ridiculous.
And if you had any doubt that this law was about punishing women, and somehow making them “face” their transgression, check this out:
Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, railed against Republicans for opposing his amendment to exempt victims of rape and incest from the required ultrasound viewing.
This logic goes to show that this isn’t about making sure women are informed—it’s about punishing them. So women who were raped shouldn’t have to have their noses rubbed in their pregnancies and be punished any further--that’s just for the “bad” women who wanted to have sex. Ugh.
Posted by Jessica at March 23, 2007 9:54 AM
Comments
Unlike the choice being proposed in Georgia, this is not only wrong, it is medically unethical.
Ultrasounds are not without some possible nasty side effects.
Someone should be keeping track of the specific lobbyinsts for this bill, as well as the ones who end up voting for it. They're all likely to be the targets of a class action lawsuit, along with any physicians who go along with it.
Posted by: Chimera at March 23, 2007 6:43 PM
The legislators are practicing medicine without a license when they FORCE women to undergo an unnecessary medical test that most REAL doctors are required to obtain consent forms before performing an ultrasound on a patient. It is also a violation of the 4th amendment of the Constitution by forcing an unreasonable search on the body of the woman and assaulting her body integrity. I am appalled that NARAL and the ACLU have not confronted the SC government with this information and put a stop to this lunacy now. And just who is going to have to pay for these ultrasounds? Most likely the woman herself - the state won't provide funds.
Posted by: Shelley at March 25, 2007 2:29 AM
This is an outrage. I live in South Carolina and go to Winthrop University. In one of my classes just today we did a simulation and talked about this issue. It is a scarey world in which our rights and freedoms are being taken away and we are being punished for our decisions. I think many conservatives have forgetten "seperation of church and state".
Posted by: Abby at March 29, 2007 12:19 PM
I am currently doing a research paper explaining the pros and cons of this topic. I am only fifteen but nevertheless i still believe that women should not be required to view an ultrasound of the fetus before an abortion is performed. Personally i believe that abortion is wrong and immoral and murder which may seem interesting to most people since i said that i don't think that women should be required to view an ultrasound before an abortion. I think this simply because it would not alter their decision to have an abortiion at all. Whoever is passing this law must think that women are simply dumb, this is basically an insult to women because if you think about it women already know what the ultrasound is going to look like they know what they are doing when they decided to have an abortion. Forcing them to view the ultrasound is a waste of time and money. If a women is going ot have an abortion then she is going to have an abortion that is her decision, just because some people may think that abortion is wrong, as i do, dos not mean that they should force women who think that abortion is okay to view an ultra sound.
sorry if none of this made sense
im only fifteen what do i know?
Posted by: David at April 3, 2007 12:52 AM