South Carolina Bill Would Allow Women an Ultrasound Before Abortion

Life News ^ | 1/11/07 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Columbia, SC (LifeNews.com) -- A bill filed in the South Carolina state legislature would allow women considering an abortion the opportunity to view an ultrasound of their unborn child before having an abortion. Ultrasound viewing have proven effective in changing the minds of women contemplating an abortion.

State Sen. Kevin Bryant, a Republican, is the prime sponsor of the legislation, SB 84, that calls on abortion businesses to use an ultrasound to determine the gestational age of the unborn child and to review the ultrasound pictures with the mother.

“I’ve always been pro-life, so I thought, let’s do something that might reduce abortions since changing the law in the near future doesn't look possible,” Sen. Bryant told the Anderson Independent Mail newspaper.

He said he expected pro-abortion groups to oppose the bill by claiming it interferes with legalized abortion.

The legislation has been referred to the Medical Affairs Committee and Sen. Bryant says he has both Republicans and Democrats who have said they will support the legislation.

Christopher Hollis, vice president for governmental and political affairs at Planned Parenthood Health Systems, told the newspaper he hasn't reviewed the bill.

Representatives of local pregnancy centers told the Anderson newspaper they already offer free ultrasound viewing to women who visit them.

Lenna Neill, CEO of Piedmont Women’s Center, said ultrasounds are effective because so many pregnant women who see them decide to keep their baby.
“We believe we can help them both (baby and mother), but we really want to minister to the woman who finds herself in a crisis because of fear and lack of information,” Neill said. “I think it would be a wonderful expression of compassion to offer this valuable piece of information. Decisions often are made in haste without factual information.”

Statistics from Focus on the Family show that 84 percent of women decide against an abortion after seeing an ultrasound of their baby.

Kim Conroy, is the sanctity of life director for the pro-family group and says this service is needed and is benefiting women.

"Women deserve factual information regarding their pregnancy," she explained in a press statement provided to LifeNews.com.

"There are significant health risks with abortion, and at the very least they have a right to know the truth regarding this risky procedure from professionals who will not benefit financially from their decision. They also need to know there are positive alternatives for them and their babies," she added.

Her group has helped more than 200 pregnancy centers get ultrasound machines and estimates it has prevented over 6,300 abortions.

Related web sites:
Option Ultrasound - http://www.heartlink.org
Focus on the Family - http://www.fotf.org

[wagglebee]

The ultrasound should be a requirement, not an option.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[MHGinTN]

It is actually shocking to realize that a significant political party is so vested in keeping the truth from women ... while claiming they are all abour women's rights. The answer is so mundane though ... they cannot afford to allow truth out because it will expose their decades of advocacy for something so wrong it would end the trust American voters have had in them for so long. What a sad reason to continue defending the indefensible.

[concerned about politics]

Every woman who "chooses" to brutally dismember her own child should at least be forced to look at it before it dies.

Better yet, they should be forced to watch the torture happening (with the new 3D ultrasound equipment).

[cgk]

The ultrasound should be a requirement, not an option.

I agree. I don't see anyone who CHOOSES to abort their baby CHOOSING to see it first.

[paudio]

I'm trying to understand the importance of this bill. Are abortion clinics against offering ultrasound to women?

I'm pro-life. Just wonder why such bill is needed.

[wagglebee]

Are abortion clinics against offering ultrasound to women?

Yes.

[Delphinium]

The ultrasound should be a requirement, not an option.

That is exactly what I was going to say when I saw the headline.

That is about as worthless as telling the abortionist he has to give the woman a website to go to if they want to be informed.

I think the woman should be fully informed about the baby in the womb and all of the many different things that might happen as a result of an abortion.Not only to the mother, and the baby, but for babies that might be born in the future.

"Epidemiological evidence of an association between abortion and breast cancer has existed for almost a half century. 29 our of 38 worldwide epidemiological studies show an increased risk of breast cancer of approximately 30% among women who have had an abortion."

Patients have the right to know and give, or deny consent before undergoing medical treatment. This includes notification of potential adverse effects. While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link, there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly plausible.

If this was any other medical procejure there would be no question that the doctor would have to fully inform the patient.

[supercat]

Are abortion clinics against offering ultrasound to women?

Yes they are. Indeed, some abortion advocates have complained that if a woman is show a picture of her unborn child and consequently decides to carry it to term, that woman has been denied her "choice".

[Old Professer]

All this will do is tick off the "Close lid before flushing" crowd.

[Neidermeyer]

Are abortion clinics against offering ultrasound to women?

---

Sure they're against it ,,, it cuts into their sales...

All clinics should have ultrasound equipment available as it is used to determine the gestational age of the child (and the fees to charge for the abortion and what methods should be used) HOWEVER they NEVER allow the woman to see the onscreen images as a huge percentage of women would walk out despite the clinics "no refunds" policy.

[paudio]

OK.. thanks. Yeah, I should have known that they're against ultrasound.

[dayglored]

> ...HOWEVER they NEVER allow the woman to see the onscreen images...

Could you please provide a credible reference for that piece of data, to demonstrate that it's not hearsay? I'm unaware of the survey you refer to. And I know one young woman who had contemplated having an abortion, who told me she WAS able to view her ultrasound at a local Planned Parenthood office.

I'm not saying you're flat wrong -- I think you're probably right, on average. I just want to know where you got your statistics.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[Lesforlife]

Colorado Right to Life has decided to never again support legislation which ends with, "and then you can kill the baby!"

This measure seems to fit that definition.

[Kickass Conservative]

We should start using the term "informed choice". Since the Democrat Party owes its existence to the "ignorant voter", it only seems appropriate.

[Lexinom]

At sixteen, Jennifer was forced by her mother to abort her unborn baby in her six month of pregnancy. She recalled the physical force that her mother threatened. She remembered someone on the abortion clinic staff slapping her face when she tried to look at the ultrasound image of her baby. She described how her another denied her request to leave the abortion clinic and whispered threats into her car just before Jennifer signed a release.

Here's one anecdote. If that's not enough I can dig up more for you. But common sense would dictate their vested interest in keeping the screen hidden from patient's sight. What you cited is an exception.

[dayglored]

> ...Here's one anecdote. If that's not enough I can dig up more for you. But common sense would dictate their vested interest in keeping the screen hidden from patient's sight. What you cited is an exception.

I suspect so -- common sense certainly says so. And I don't doubt there are anecdotes and exceptions of all kinds. Unfortunately, the awful incident you mention is notable more for the coercion and violence suffered by the girl at the hands of her mother and staff, than for them not letting her see an ultrasound display; that almost seems tame by comparison with the other horrors they visited upon her.

The earlier comment was "...they NEVER allow the woman to see the onscreen images..." That's what I'm trying to find support for -- a clear pattern of refusing women the right to view their ultrasounds when they request it. If you have that, I'd be appreciative of links or cites that I can use. What I am hoping is that someone has documented, overwhelming -statistical- evidence of abortion providers refusing women who asked to view their ultrasounds. That's what would make for a stand-up slam against the providers in this regard.

Thanks.

[Lexinom]

I have seen several such anecdotes. I don't have a list handy, just what's in my head - and some of that comes from books and will not be available on the Web. If you feel this is a special calling for you it would prove a valuable service for the pro-life cause, for conservatism, and indeed human dignity itself. I would heartily support your effort.

Here is a site full of anecdotes of peripheral violence surrounding abortion:

ProChoiceViolence.com

Probably the most comprehensive overview site w/webboard on abortion is Abort73.com.