But do the people who passed this law actually know that? And for that matter, they may consider it worth the effort just because it mandates that the woman get a probe stuck up her and in general harassed. She’s guaranteed to find it humiliating, and probably outright traumatic for the rape and incest victims; that’s a plus for these people.
I read an article once where a woman who had had an abortion later on saw a picture of a fetus at the age she had the abortion and said this made her ‘realise’ that she had killed a human being and intensely regretted the abortion as a result and would have done it differently if she’d seen it before the abortion. But it was a highly detailed photograph of a fetus rather than a blobby ultrasound for a start. I suspect in practise this was probably wishful thinking after the fact rather than something that would really have changed their mind at the time.
I suspect stories like this are not uncommon amongst anti-abortion converts, so the hope it that will really make a difference. I also suspect its people transferring their experience of what it was like to see the first ultrasound of a baby they actually wanted and thinking this will be the same as seeing one that well, isnt.
Stuff like that.
The doctors don’t have to take care of babby. They’re forcing a lifelong obligation on the woman and perhaps the birth of a child with major league defects.
Hippocratic Oath?
Or a dead baby, and risking the mother’s health. I can just see some woman with medical issues struggling though a pregnancy, suffering permanent damage only to give birth to a dead baby that the doctors knew was doomed or already dead, but refused to tell her. But hey, the slut suffers so it’s all good.
What if the pregnant woman is blind? Is she forced to feel a relief-map of a printout of the sonogram?
The text says this:
“The introduced version of HB2780 requires an obstetric ultrasound at least one hour prior to an abortion. The physician must provide an explanation of the ultrasound depiction, including a medical description of the embryo/fetus, and the image is required to be visible for viewing by the pregnant woman. It is not required that the pregnant woman actually view these images, however, it is required that the woman provide written certification that the above measures have been taken.”
The ‘at least one hour’ in itself could be argued as a backdoor cooling off period couldnt it? Not sure what the precedents are on that area.
Otara
They already have a twenty four hour “waiting period”, complete with a lecture where they try to browbeat her into not getting an abortion.
I’ve seen a vaginal ultrasound as it was performed on me, and I could barely even identify my own body’s structures on it, much less whether there was anything unexpected in there. (It was done to look for polyps/growths/whatever, rather than fetuses.)
And yes, the vaginal ultrasound is pretty much what you’d expect - very phallic probe about the size of the classic vibrator, condom-like sleeve on it, the tech slides it up into the vagina (well, in my case she asked me to help with insertion, probably to make it easier and less embarrassing) and readjusts position as needed during the scan. Plus often the tech just does the setup, and you’re sitting there with your feet in the stirrups and butt scooched down just past the very edge of the exam table until the doctor comes in to actually do the scan. (In my case I talked with him about the neat imaging equipment that my own department in the hospital has, but I can imagine that women seeing a doctor in Oklahoma pre-abortion might not be quite so relaxed about the whole thing.)
It also creates a financial burden on the clinics to provide all this specialized equipment (that they technically don’t need) and to deal with the hassle of all the paperwork, because you know that the anti-choice people are going to try and shut down clinics by alleging non compliance with the laws.
**Der Trihs **is right. This law is meant to harass and hurt women, and the people providing abortions. It’s sickening.
In my view, the objections concerning no exceptions for victims of rape and incest are red herrings. To test this proposition, let me ask: is there anyone who disfavors this law, but would favor or become neutral to it if a rape and incest victim exception were added?
I would find it less distasteful if the exception were in there. Before you claim that I am weaseling, answer this: If you had no choice in the matter, would you rather be kicked once, or twice?
Ah, the Bricker rhetorical question. I wondered how long it would take to show up.
Bricker: Who gives a flying donut about that? You’re pulling the argument away from the fact that this is a stupid, potentially damaging law. You’re a smart guy, and I wish you’d shy away from these high-school debate club tactics. It’s a cheap shot, something you specialize in in these anti-abortion threads because you don’t have a better argument.
I think the answer to that is pretty much “no” but it is especially sickening to think about forcing a woman who has been raped to undergo a vaginal probe, and it lends a lot of credence to the idea that this law is mainly to hurt women and abortion providers, not to “save babies”.
I mean, you can still ague about it (and I suspect you will) but it’s compelling evidence nonetheless.
Let’s call the ultrasound requirement what it is: Oklahoma state law requires any woman requesting an abortion to be sodomized.
Let’s call the indemnity provision what it is: Oklahoma state law now says that parents have no right to determine the financial, emotional or physical futures of their families.
Let’s call those arguments what they are: Ill informed hyperbole.
I know it’s an emotional, hot button issue, but arguments like that are non-starters.
Oh, balls. It’s possible that many of them are simply assholes, you know.
Once, but why is my opinion relevant if I have no choice in the matter?
And I can tell you this: if I were marshaling arguments against being kicked, I wouldn’t lead with how bad the second kick was.
What’s hyperbolic about it? You know the definition of sodomy. In what way is forcing a woman to have a device put into her vagina without medical necessity anything other than sodomy?
And in what way is withholding pertinent information about potential birth defects not a direct assault against the right of a family to plan their future?
I agree with you. If someone is pro-life, how the life is created is irrelevant.
Even with a rape/incest clause - I am against these laws. These are laws made to try to convince the mother not to have an abortion, by making the mother face the “life” as much as possible. While they MIGHT have a small impact on the number of abortions done (or the number of people changing their minds), I think that the more accurate outcome will be greater mental trauma for the mothers, and some abortions put off until their is a higher risk to the mother.
None of that matters to the pro-lifers. They believe that it is a life, and they will do anything that they can to save that life.
I’m sure all the pro-life people will be here soon to argue against these laws. After all, in the threads about pharmacists dispensing morning after pills, the pro-life people argue passionately that a medical professional should not be forced to do anything if it goes against their moral values.
Since a doctor could very well have a moral objection to shoving a probe up a rape victim’s vagina, or feel that describing a fetus in detail to a woman an hour before aborting it is poor medical practice, I’m sure all these same people who argued so eloquently for the pharmacists rights will be along any second now to argue the same on behalf of the doctors, right?
Right?
Hmmm…