South Carolina House Approves Ultrasound-Abortion Bill by Large Margin

LifeNews ^ | March 21, 2007 | Steven Ertelt

[Between the Lines]

Columbia, SC (LifeNews.com) -- By a lopsided bipartisan margin, the South Carolina state House approved a bill Wednesday that would allow women considering an abortion to see an ultrasound of their unborn child. The bill will likely result in persuading many women to carry their baby to term.

The bill, H3355, goes further than similar laws in other states that merely provide women the option to see one by making it a requirement before an abortion can be done.

The House voted for the measure 91-23 after first defeating weakening amendments that would have exempted women who are victims of rape or incest from seeing the ultrasound pictures.

In arguing against the amendment, Rep. Greg Delleney, the main bill sponsor, said the unborn child deserves protection regardless of whether the pregnancy resulted from consensual sex or sexual abuse.

"Are you saying God makes mistakes with the lives he creates?" Delleney told his colleagues.

But Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat, continued her attack on legislators who support the bill.

"You love them in the womb but once they get here, it's a different story," said the Orangeburg Democrat, a social worker. "You're sitting here passing judgment? Who gave you the right?"

The House will cast its final vote on the bill Thursday and then send the measure to the state Senate for its consideration.

Gov. Mark Sanford has endorsed the proposal and said he would sign it if the legislature gets it to his desk.

"I believe life is sacred, and in the debate over when life begins I believe that as a society we should always err on the side of life," the governor said in a statement he sent to legislators on Monday.

"This new ultrasound requirement is an important one in that I think it has the potential to lessen the number of abortions carried out in South Carolina," Sanford added

The bill enjoys the support of pro-life groups and South Carolina Citizens for Life director Holly Gatling wrote lawmakers urging them to vote for it.

She says this bill "strengthens a woman's right to know the probable age and size of her unborn child before an abortion."

State Sen. Kevin Bryant, a Republican, has sponsored a companion bill in the Senate, 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 said previously.

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

[Moosilauke]

...the South Carolina state House approved a bill Wednesday that would allow women considering an abortion to see an ultrasound of their unborn child.

In which states are pregnant women not allowed to see an ultrasound of their child? Somehow I think this sentence misses the point of the alleged legislation.

[theBuckwheat]

>>
"You love them in the womb but once they get here, it's a different story," said the Orangeburg Democrat, a social worker. "You're sitting here passing judgment? Who gave you the right?"
<<

An the implication of this angry question is what, exactly?

That because a parent must be responsible for their children, and that a few refuse to, we are thus justified in permitting or even helping the parents to kill them?

Who gave you the right? People like you don't hesitate to take the full measure of power that the State, the Courts and the Executive will let you get away with taking to yourself to pass all manner of restrictions and taxes, but in this case you are worried the State might actually protect life and that power scares you?

Lady, your angry questions evidence a very deep moral dysfunction, for in the end, even when the woman has seen the ultrasound pictures, she can still exercise her right to kill the contents of her womb. So, if abortions should be, to quote Bill Clinton, "safe and rare", why all the fuss about helping a woman know the full truth of her situation?

[Norman Bates]

Pro-Life ping*

[HaveHadEnough]

By a lopsided bipartisan margin, the South Carolina state House approved a bill Wednesday that would allow women considering an abortion to see an ultrasound of their unborn child.

The bill, H3355, goes further than similar laws in other states that merely provide women the option to see one by making it a requirement before an abortion can be done.

This is confusing. Is it that the women are "allowed" to see an ultrasound, as the first sentence says, or is that there is a "requirement" that a woman see an ultrasound, as the second sentence seems to say?

[Between the Lines]

This bill would require a mother planning to undergo an abortion to view an ultrasound of her unborn baby beforehand.

Under current law, the state's three abortion clinics already perform ultrasounds to determine the unborn baby's age prior to the abortion, so this would not be an added expense.

I guess I should have posted another article than this one that is more clear.

South Carolina Bill Requires Women See Ultrasound Before Abortion

This bill is expected to pass both the house and the senate easily and Gov. Sanford says that he will sign it.

[omnivore]

"In which states are pregnant women not allowed to see an ultrasound of their child?"

Zero. You're right, this is not at all about "allowing" the viewing of the ultrasound. It's only about the use of the force of government (which always carries with it the implicit right of government to use any method, including violence, to achieve its ends) to force women to view the ultrasound.

Perfect example of Big Government Conservatism. Let's create more rules and more bureaucracy, that'll make people do the things we want them to do. It's the same impulse as the Big Government Libs. "We know better how to live your life than you do. So we're going to use the force of government to force you to do what we want, which we have failed to convince you to do by our mere words. Screw words, we don't need no steenkin words, when we have the state power to force you to do what we want."

But they don't want to admit that they've had to resort to government force to get their way. So they spin it by falsely using the word "allow" when they are talking about "force." Spin, spin, spin. Another word for ... lie.

Don't blame me for simply stating the obvious.

[Giant Conservative]

Obviously, you're pro-abortion.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Perfect example of Big Government Conservatism.

As was banning slavery. This time the South is on the right side of the issue while the North stumbles. God bless the Republican Party and all the legislators in South Carolina who passed this wonderful law!

[Pinkbell]

Is it really that much to ask to make a mother look at a picture of her child when the child's very life is at stake? Such a thing may save childrens' lives.

[HaveHadEnough]

This bill would require a mother planning to undergo an abortion to view an ultrasound of her unborn baby beforehand.

That's what I thought. The first sentence of the article, then, is totally misleading, and is an indication that the author worried that using a sentence like yours would scare people away from supporting the bill.

[JenB]

A state government can require you to take a test before getting a driver's license, pass a background check before buying a gun, wait three days for a marriage license - in general, they can put conditions on certain actions. What's so onerous about requiring a woman to look at what she's about to destroy?

Personally, I'd require her to spend a day at a maternity ward helping nurses with the newborns too. Abortion is too easy. There are thousands of loving couples that have to go to other countries to adopt because we're killing so-called unwanted kids. And since they go places like China and South America you can't tell me there's no interest in non-white babies, either.

[ArrogantBustard]

to force women to view the ultrasound.

Yes. That's right ... before you have your baby dismembered with a dull knife, you have to actually look at him. We can't (yet) outlaw the practice of prenatal homicide, as we ought. But this is certainly a good thing.

[Ursine_East_Facing_North]

Yeah, because mandating fully informed consent for a surgical procedure is such an awful thing.

If I'm having my gall bladder removed, I must be informed of all possible consequences of that surgical procedure, even if I would rather skip it and get the procedure over with (medical emergencies notwithstanding).

Same principle applies.

[omnivore]

Okay, I figured I'd get flak from a bunch of posters, I just don't want to ever hear again about wanting "less government regulation" or how conservative politicians can be relied on to "get government out of people's lives." The enthusiasm for greater government regulation and greater intrusion of government into people's lives is clearly bipartisan. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

I was reminded, by this story, of the scene in A Clockwork Orange. Where the socialist government in England is brainwashing the character Alex. They put metal clamps on his eyelids, to make sure he can't look away from what they're showing him. Perhaps South Carolina hasn't quite yet gotten to the stage of requiring the metal clamps on the eyelids, for the people who are required to watch things the government declares they must watch. But we can see the direction they're headed.

Is abortion repulsive? Of course. Is government regulation more repulsive? Yes, of course it is. Rebuke me if you want. Government regulation is just more of a hot-button issue for me than abortion will ever be, clearly the greater moral hazard in my opinion. I'll never get an abortion. But I'll suffer from excessive government regulation until the day I die. I'm disappointed to see more of it being created.

[Between the Lines]

"In which states are pregnant women not allowed to see an ultrasound of their child?"

""Zero. You're right, this is not at all about "allowing" the viewing of the ultrasound.""

"Pre-Abortion Ultrasound" Measure Approved in the House

Amelia Hines
WNEG NewsCHANNEL 32
Tuesday, March 20, 2007

The Georgia house approved a measure yesterday that would require doctors to offer to show patients requesting an abortion an ultrasound image of the fetus if an image was made.

http://www.wneg32.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WNEG/MGArticle/NEG_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173350303921&path=

If all women getting an abortion are allowed to see and ultrasound of their baby in every state, then why would any state pass a law that requires doctors to offer to show an ultrasound? Because unless a state mandates that an ultrasound be given before an abortion, no ultrasounds are taken or offered.

Eight states Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin require an ultrasound before an abortion and that the ultrasound be made available to the mother. In the other 42 states, mothers are "not allowed" to view a ultrasound because there isn't one given at the abortion mill. To get one they must go to a private doctor or one of the few crisis pregnancy centers equipped to do ultasounds.

[statered]

well if you are going to be consistent I would expect to see you on all threads about medical procedures or some such where gov requires full disclosure. For that matter I guess you can get on the path of getting rid of all the paperwork one must sign when closing on a mortgage. Look forward to seeing you advocate the removal of all those regulations.

Somehow I doubt we'll see that from ya.