So a woman is carrying a child deemed to be defective, somehow. The doc tells her this....but she refuses abortion. She gives birth, then sues this doctor for failing to convince her to have abotion?
The new law specifically disallows this, correct? Like the doctor tells me my unborn baby is...I dunno, blind, ugly even. He warns my unborn baby is not only blind, but retarded even, or else maybe really, really ugly.
I don’t abort but after my horribly ugly child is born I then sue that doctor for failing to convince me how really ugly that child was....calling it a “wrongful birth”? Am I understanding this correctly?
Seriously...someone who made it to position of Governor vetoed disallowing this practice?
And why the mandatory ultrasound? I mean it’s okay with me but what’s behind that concept?
Recent legislation in the several U.S. states now requires women to have an ultrasound before they may legally consent to an abortion. These laws are motivated by the proposition that if a woman sees an ultrasound image her baby, she will be more likely to think of it as a human child instead of a lump of tissue, and so choose not to abort it.
“And why the mandatory ultrasound? I mean it’s okay with me but what’s behind that concept?”
Perhaps so the mother can see what her “clump of cells” really looks like.
John Edwards earned the inner circle in Hell, and got millions suing baby docs that did nothing wrong over birth defects, and completely destroyed charity pre natal care in his state by forcing so many OBs to leave the state.
Our last child we saw on 2D ultrasound, it is quite stunningly beautiful. Every prolife center in the country would like to have 3D/4D ultrasound, because every mother who sees it opts not to kill. Here is a video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1uKCchuIjM
And why the mandatory ultrasound? I mean it’s okay with me but what’s behind that concept?
Because the detail of the 3D ultrasounds available now can change the mind of a woman carrying a child. It HUMANIZES the ‘fetus’ (as if it wasn’t before), so they actually have to understand they are killing a child rather than just cutting out a ‘malignant mass’, or ‘tumor’.
I think every mother should see who she's going to dismember alive before she does it. In fact, they should explain the entire dismemberment procedure while she's looking at her little baby being shown on the screen. That way, she knows EXACTLY what she's planning on doing, and she gets to meet the little infant she's about to kill.
A significant portion of women who see the ultrasound, and hear the heartbeat (it sounds like a clothes washer, actually), are less likely to go ahead with the abortion than those who make decisions under the misnomer that their baby is still “just a bunch of cells.”
The ultrasound would probably serve two purposes —
1. When I was pregnant with my first child my AFP (Alpha-Fetal Protein) count was high which could have indicated Spina Bifida. A “level II” Ultrasound (this was in 1991) was then ordered by my doctor to confirm or refute the blood tests. The ultrasound showed that although the values were high, my daughter was developing perfectly fine — we counted her fingers, toes, saw her corneas developing, and her fingernails! It was AMAZING to tell you the truth! Forcing an ultrasound before an abortion could prevent the abortions of those moms who like me have high screening values, but whose babies do NOT have birth defects. (My daughter is totally healthy and just turned 18 last December).
2. Ordering an ultrasound would automatically prove to the mother that her “mass of fetal tissue” is actually a Baby — often with a beating heart already, and clearly human form. I can’t imagine agreeing to an abortion after seeing an ultrasound that disproves the abortion providers lies about it being a “mass of cells”. (Then again even when I got pregnant at 18 1/2 with my daughter I never even CONSIDERED it as an “easy way out”... Praise God I didn’t — hubby and I have now been married for 17 years and have 4 beautiful daughters together...)
Because one of the ways a lot of abortion businesses pressure potential clients into aborting is by lying to them about the nature of the fetus. They tell potential clients that it's nothing but a "blood clot" that doesn't remotely resemble a baby, that the pictures they have seen of actual aborted babies or babies in the womb are forgeries, or other, similar lies.
They fear that if they were honest with their clients, they would lose business.
A law forcing them to show the ultrasounds to the prospective clients forces them to a level of honesty that they currently avoid.