It mandates that a list of such facilities be provided. It does not mandate that such facilities exist or that they be within a reasonable distance of the patient (an admittedly perfunctory google search did not turn up a list of such providers).
As well, even if the procedure is no cost to the patient there is still a cost and it is reasonable to question who is paying. Are these facilities paid for through taxes? Through private donation? Will these medically unnecessary ultrasounds take resources away from providing medically necessary ultrasounds to needy patients?
This is the best medical reason: saving the life of an unborn child.
No, it has a very viable medical purpose.
You obviously don’t agree. But when people don’t agree on what laws are wise, in this country, we have a well-established process to settle the question, don’t we?
This stretches the definition of “medical necessity” to absurd levels. How can a procedure possibly be medically necessary if the patient doesn’t want it and her doctor doesn’t think it’s necessary?
You obviously don’t agree. But when people don’t agree on what laws are wise, in this country, we have a well-established process to settle the question, don’t we?
Funny, isn’t it? When it’s the Affordable Health Care Act, the Republicans get all aflutter and faint with the vapors when it comes to what they call “overreach” and meddling with Americans’ God-given right to making their own decisions on medical care. When it comes to abortion, there’s no overreach too far and no amount of meddling is enough for them. Yet it’s somehow all about “women’s health” and “medically necessary information.” We’re not stupid, you know. We can read between the lines of that GOP hypocrisy.
How dare you! How fucking dare you! You think any woman seeking an abortion must be unaware that the fetus is of a “human nature”??? That they’re simply uninformed as to what exactly they’re doing by making their own decision about their own lives and bodies??? So that a bunch of old white men simply MUST take control over her?
If you truly think that, then *this *must be true: ANY woman who votes Republican is just exactly as stupid and incompetent as the Republican Party believes her to be.
You and your ilk make me absolutely sick.
“Oh. Well, this is in advance of terminating a pregnancy.”
“Could you please rephrase that?”
“I’m sorry?”
“We need you to rephrase that.”
“OK, I’m seeking an abortion.”
“We’re sorry, but state law requires you to explicitly use the phrase ‘I want to murder my baby.’ It’s no real intrusion for you to do so. Oh, and once it’s done, we are required to reconstruct the little arms and legs in the middle of your face and force you to look in the mirror at ‘bloody little murdered baby.’”
And even if this “motherhood awareness” campaign doesn’t go that far, lets argue that viability is now theoretically 18 weeks, limit legal abortion to it, and come up with enough “reasonable” hoops for mom to jump through until she never gets them all done, and enforce “reasonable” codes until the clinics are all closed.
Do you have any sort of evidence that this would result in better outcomes that merely requiring a doctor to show sample ultrasound images of a fetus at the same stage of development? A practice which would be less invasive and less resource consuming than requiring an actual ultrasound but would still fulfill the goal of providing informed consent.
Perhaps we should also fight to have obstetricians provide cost breakdowns of raising a child to the age of 18 as well as a percentage breakdown of how many children in their socio-economic class end up in prison or on state assistance, you know, in the name of informed consent.
Tell it! Why is there never any consideration for the “human nature” of the woman? Women are fully-developed HUMAN BEINGS, and are very capable of making up their own minds on health matters without the involvement of politicians. There seems to be a growing sentiment among pro-lifers (not all of them, mind you) that women who have abortions either don’t know what they’re doing, or they enjoy “killing”.
To the contrary: there’s an emotional component associated with MY baby, as opposed to some other woman’s pregnancy. And of course you know that, and you know that the sight will deter some women from having an abortion.
Maybe we should. Go ahead and propose that, and see what kind of support it gathers. See, that’s how we make laws in this country. I’m all in favor of the process.
Asserting a dubious factual premise is not sufficient to move an issue into the wisdom of the law rather than constitutionality of it.
If I assert that money is not speech, is that enough to take the issue out of the Supreme Court’s hands? Of course not. Or if that’s too much of a mix of law and facts, suppose I assert that guns are not useful in self-defense. Is that enough to take gun regulations out of the courts and leave them in the legislatures?
Well, no, I don’t know that. That is why I asked if you had evidence. Even if I stipulate that it will result in a higher number of prospective mothers choosing to keep the child based on a plea to emotion (and it it really a good idea to make such a life altering decision on the basis of emotion?) I would still want to examine the number to see if it makes such a difference as to justify the additional expense and use of resources.
Well, I’m not white, and I said “a human being,” which you somehow managed to read as of a human nature. I hope it wasn’t the estrogen that caused that kind of confusion.
Can you answer the question about the actual legal status, under the current constitutional interpretation set forth in Roe, of the fetus? Since it does not have any more rights than some random clump of tissue, where does the state derive its authority to mandate this test?