A bunch of pre-abortion ultrasound bills in the wings - Any traction?

Re this article itappears that a bushel load of these "look at the baby you are going to kill’ bills are being proposed in various state legislatures. DO these things have any serious traction politically or is it simply grand standing by politicians?

If they have any traction, with the current new power in office it doesn’t look good, though I am hopeful and prayerful, it seems to me that this would be a honest real life presentation which would lead to a informed choice.

Do they require also that Americans see photos of the dead and wounded Americans and Iraqis daily, as they happen? Because in that case maybe it would make some sense.

What the hell do these assholes think? That women don’t give any serious thought to such a decision, they just nip into the clinic for a quickie between getting their nails done and picking up the dry cleaning?

Who’s getting paid to read all these free ultrasounds?

This should lower the rate of abortions among those women who are too stupid to know what an abortion entails. And conservatives complain about liberals wanting to run a “nanny state.”

In answer to the OP, I would expect to be seeing many more of these coming soon. As well as the inevitable Supreme Court case. My legal education comes from TV and reading the newspaper, so I could be very wrong here, but I could see this passing constitutional muster. It hardly represents an undue burden on the woman. The only grounds I could see is that it requires clinics to acquire an ultrasound machine, but I would suspect (though I don’t know) that there are many medical items already legally required in most clinics.

The part I don’t get is what this is supposed to accomplish. I mean, I’ve seen plenty of ultrasound pictures of fetuses, and if it weren’t for someone pointing things out, I wouldn’t even be able to tell which end is which. I can’t see how showing someone an amorphous green (don’t ask me why it’s always green) blob is expected to change anyone’s mind.

When you see it live, you can see the heart beating, which I think is what people think might make the difference.

That’s what I don’t get either. My reaction to my daughter’s ultrasound - the child I had tried to conceive for three years and was dearly wanted was “ugh! get that the hell out of me!” It was alien. I certainly wasn’t one of those people who showed off ultrasound pictures.

Now, her level three ultrasound at seven and a half months was different, there she looked like a baby.

It’s a blatant appeal to emotion. I’m sure a small number of women could be persuaded by it, but at the expense of patronizing and inconveniencing the other 99%. Most of them aren’t retarded and know exactly what an abortion entails.

What’s the point, other than an anti-abortion agenda? None. Nothing about it “informs” the woman of anything meaningful, other than “look at the pretty fetus… with a BEATING HEART!” I don’t know what’s so special about a beating heart that confers any moral status… cows and chickens have beating hearts too, doesn’t stop us from slaughtering them en masse.

I think the issue is since the human status is argued the woman should be presented the reasonably best information on her own child. It’s a lot different when you see someone else child compared to yours.

& Cows and chickens are not humans.

Tell that to the families of the dead Iraqis. I assume you’d support Sailor’s addition to the bill yea?

Because we all want a bunch of politicians in our exam rooms telling us and the doctor what we are supposed to do in all our health decisions.

They do an ultrasound before an abortion regardless, you know. The doctor needs to know how far along you are, and an ultrasound is the best way to determine that.

elucidator, it can’t possibly be surprising to you that many anti-abortion people (like many people in general) assume that everyone would think like they do, if they just knew better. :wink:

Not an expert on medical ethics, but isn’t it pretty bloody basic that a patient has the right to refuse treatment - particularly unnecessary treatment?

Any other procedures you’d like to make mandatory, kanicbird?

If that were the real intention, it would be better served by having a stock selection of in utero photos at various ages, and showing the woman a picture of one at about the same stage of development. Unlike ultrasounds, photographs of fetuses really do look like fetuses, and further do look sort of like born babies, so there’d probably be a lot more sympathy for them.

On thinking about it, though, I’m beginning to suspect that that isn’t the purpose of these bills. I’ve a hunch that the legislators proposing these bills are expecting them to get voted down, whereupon they can use that vote to stir up voters against the legislators who opposed it. See, for instance, the flak Obama caught over the Illinois “born alive” bill, which he voted against because there was already a law on the books that said the same thing.

I didn’t know that, actually, but it makes sense. So the laws are simply of the “rub the sinners’ noses in it” variety. Doesn’t do much to endear me to the idea.

I suppose, but couldn’t the clinic then refuse the abortion, if this ultrasound were made a precondition and was declined by the patient?

I’m not sure it is a medical procedure, are metal detectors at airports medical procedures?

Sort of irrelevant to this discussion unless those families are considering a abortion in the US.