An ultrasound image of an unborn child.
Posted on 05/05/2010 10:25:37 AM PDT by NYer
.- Oklahoma’s attorney general has temporarily blocked enforcement of a new state law that requires abortionists to give an ultrasound to pregnant women and describe their unborn children before they get an abortion.
Tony Lauinger, state chairman of Oklahomans for Life and vice president of the National Right to Life Committee, said his group was sorry to see the law’s implementation delayed.
"This has been a long process and apparently it will be a little longer," he continued, according to the Associated Press.
He said that a pregnant woman should have all available information before she makes the irrevocable decision to terminate her pregnancy. He was “confident” that the law is constitutional.
The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) was prepared to argue for a temporary restraining order Monday. However, attorneys for both sides agreed to accept the order before the court hearing, reported Oklahoma County District Judge Noma Gurich, who signed the order.
Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmonson agreed to the order to give his office more time to retain Teresa Collett, a University of St. Thomas Law School professor who represented the state when a similar 2008 law was challenged by the CRR.
Collett is presently the Republican nominee in Minnesota’s Fourth Congressional District election this fall, the Associated Press says.
The law requires doctors to conduct a vaginal ultrasound, which is clearer than a regular ultrasound. Doctors are also to describe the unborn child in detail, including its size, whether its arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity.
The doctors also must turn a screen depicting the ultrasound images towards the woman so that she can see them.
The pro-abortion CRR is challenging the law on behalf of Nova Health Systems, the operator of Reproductive Services of Tulsa, and Dr. Larry Burns, reportedly an abortion doctor in Norman.
Officials at Reproductive Services have said that the implementing the law had drawn emotional responses from patients. Some left the ultrasound room in tears because of what they heard.
In a statement last week, CRR argued that the requirement for an ultrasound “profoundly intrudes” on a patient’s privacy and forces a woman to hear information “that she may not want to hear.”
It has also characterized the law as an intrusion on the doctor-patient relationship.
Collett, a native of Norman, Oklahoma, said the Oklahoma statute is consistent with standard medical practice.
"It would be remarkable if a woman would undergo a medical procedure and a doctor would not have an obligation to describe the procedure and the results of that procedure to the patient," she commented, according to the Associated Press.
She said the lawmakers required abortionists to describe the ultrasound images because of some doctors’ “unusual failure” to give this information to pregnant women.
Last week, Lauinger of Oklahomans for Life spoke with CNA in an interview.
He contended that the law will help “empower” women.
“Many women suffer severe psychological and emotional trauma as a result of having had abortions,” he explained, saying the state has a right to ensure that women receive sufficient information for them to give fully informed consent.
He characterized abortion clinics as engaging in “an assembly-line, mass-production type of process” that is “extremely impersonal” and has “virtually no interchange between the abortionist and the woman.”
If the doctor is the staffer who explains the images of the ultrasound screen, he noted, the law will actually increase the amount of contact between the doctors and the patient.
In his view, the law was a “commonsense” measure.
“We don’t do pregnant women any favors when we hide the truth from them,” Lauinger said.
The doctors also must turn a screen depicting the ultrasound images towards the woman so that she can see them.
Impressive!
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
OK people have rejected Edmondsons in the paast, but they always keep one around for bad memories, I guess.
oh no don’t do an ultra sound after all the woman will see it is a baby she is killing
ARF
right if a woman does not want the baby then my wife and I will be more than happy to adopt the child and save their life
we were blessed with 3 children but would be mroe than happy to adopt
I hate this part of the woman’s movement...
Women should be equal everything, they can do everything men can do..however, it’s too traumatic for them to know what exactly they are doing when they get an abortion? It’s insulting to women to fight this. If you’re old enough to be having an abortion, you’re old enough to know what exactly it means. And as some of you know, I am still begrudgingly pro-choice. But I think it should be incredibly difficult to get one and if you have to go through some mental agony about it...tough. Maybe it’ll stop some women from opening their legs to everyone.
I believe the Christian church (not talking denomination) is missing a calling on this part. Why aren't Christians stepping forward en mass offering to adopt every baby put up for adoption?
Aren't we called to take care of widows and orphans? Well, these are orphans by intent, but orphans none the less. And they are far better off being raised by Christians than non-Christians or simply murdered.
I won't beat you up on this but I don't think anyone should have the choice to kill someone else...but that is the current law, as immoral as it is.
Maybe it’ll stop some women from opening their legs to everyone.
Perhaps a good addition would be to show a bunch of these videos in schools, at the same age that liberals are inserting their sex education at so the kids know what is being talked about and what a possible result is each time they open their legs or partake of that occasion.
VERY good point. And if you’re interested, the doctrine you’re referring to is most apparent [IMO] in a passage in the first chapter of James.
James is not a long book, only 5 chapters, but it is quite convicting; I would say that it is a church-smackdown book, as any person utterly disgusted with Organized American Christianity need only point to that book’s writings to condemn it.
There are no shortage of adopters. There is no such thing as an unwanted baby (though there are loads of unwanted older children).
Abortion isn’t happening for lack of adopters - it’s happening because of convenience.
I agree. Nobody can make “CHOICES” for themselves unless they have all the facts and anyone who is against giving people information has other agendas, and we all know that.
The American "Church" in general is far from where it needs to be. I could write a book on it, and have actually considered doing so.
A few years ago I become privy to a large church's discussion and planning process and their goal was growth. I was able to, although an outside to the process, provide input about the error of that goal but to little or no avail. I no longer attend that church, so maybe they've change...I hope they have.
As an aside, I argued their goal should be to develop a genuine church passion for God. People are drawn to sincere passion, and I argued that God would honor that passion with growth...but even if He didn't grow that particular church it'd still be a win in the lives of the members and the community.
I still think the Church should make it a campaign to make it undeniable that every single child that needs adoption will find a home with Christians.
I bet some people who choose abortion do so for fear of being "stuck" (punished, to use Obama's language) with a baby.
Where’s Orel Robert’s organization on this one...crickets...figures “Prosperity Gospel” POS Org.
I guess we can look at the bright side, the kids would be better off raised in a Christian home over a prosperity gospel home.
bump!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.