Ultrasound abortion bill not having intended effects

[General Zod]

Full article

Over the last decade, ultrasound has quietly become a new front in the grinding state-by-state battle over abortion.

With backing from anti-abortion groups, which argue that sonograms can help persuade women to preserve pregnancies, 20 states have enacted laws that encourage or require the use of ultrasound.

Outrage
Alabama is one of three states, along with Louisiana and Mississippi, that require abortion providers to conduct an ultrasound and offer women a chance to peer inside the womb.

Late last month, Oklahoma went a step further. Overriding a veto by Gov. Brad Henry, a Democrat, the Republican-controlled Legislature enacted a law mandating that women be presented with an ultrasound image and with a detailed oral description of the embryo or fetus.

A state judge quickly stayed the requirement pending a July hearing in a suit filed by two abortion providers. But the measure has prompted outrage among abortion rights advocates and raised questions about the impact of ultrasound laws.

In one of the few studies of the issue — there have been none in the United States — two abortion clinics in British Columbia found that 73 percent of patients wanted to see an image if offered the chance. Eighty-four percent of the 254 women who viewed sonograms said it did not make the experience more difficult, and none reversed her decision.

That generally has also been the case in Alabama, which enacted its law, the first of its kind in the United States, in 2002.

“About half of women opt to view them,” said Diane Derzis, who owns the Birmingham clinic. “And I’ve never had one patient get off the table because she saw what her fetus looks like.”

Image 'made me feel it was O.K.'
In some instances, the ultrasounds have affected women in ways not intended by anti-abortion strategists. Because human features may barely be detectable during much of the first trimester, when 9 of 10 abortions are performed, some women find viewing the images reassuring.

“It just looked like a little egg, and I couldn’t see arms or legs or a face,” said Tiesha, 27, who chose to view her 8-week-old embryo before aborting it at the Birmingham clinic. “It was really the picture of the ultrasound that made me feel it was O.K.”

The National Abortion Federation, which sets quality standards for abortion providers, does not require ultrasounds in the first trimester. But many clinics routinely perform them to look for anomalies and to establish a precise gestational age, which can determine the method of extraction.

Abortion rights advocates oppose laws that require ultrasounds, even if viewing the images is voluntary.

“The laws don’t work,” said Vicki A. Saporta, the federation’s president. “They inappropriately interfere with the patient-doctor relationship, and they don’t respect women’s ability to make informed choices.”

The anti-abortion movement has regularly used ultrasonic imagery dating back to “The Silent Scream,” the influential 1984 film that depicts an abortion in progress. More recently, Focus on the Family spent an estimated $10 million to buy ultrasound equipment and provide training for centers that steer women away from abortion.

“To be able to put a face on that baby humanizes this process and really allows the mother to connect,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, a Focus on the Family spokeswoman. “Ultrasound is one of the ultimate examples of informed consent because you are seeing what you are giving permission to happen.”

As with many abortion regulations, state laws regarding ultrasound vary widely. Five states, including two that enacted laws this year, require that abortion providers offer to conduct ultrasounds, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which monitors reproductive health issues. In eight others, providers who perform ultrasounds as a standard practice must offer patients a chance to see them.

Ultrasound bills were introduced in 21 statehouses in 2010, according to the institute. Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, a Republican, must soon decide whether to sign legislation that would require doctors to perform ultrasounds and show and describe the images to patients unless they sign a refusal.

Many leave in tears
Oklahoma’s new law exempts women who need an abortion for emergency medical reasons. But it does not allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest.

During the six days the law was in effect, all of the patients at the Reproductive Services abortion clinic in Tulsa averted their eyes from the ultrasound screen, said Linda S. Meek, the clinic’s director.

But they could not avoid hearing descriptions of fetal length and heart activity, she said. Many left in tears, but none changed course.

The fact that it's causing quite a bit of additional emotional trauma still makes it a horrible law, but I find it interesting that so far it seems like it's not doing a very good job at getting women to actually change their mind. Then again maybe causing emotional trauma was the whole reason the douchebags responsible for this law proposed it in the first place.

[Shinova]

Oh certainly the law's intended to cause emotional trauma and guilt trip women into avoiding the abortion, but it's hilarious that in many cases it's achieving the opposite effect. Shows one just how out-of-touch some policymakers are.

[Temujin]

Then again maybe causing emotional trauma was the whole reason the douchebags responsible for this law proposed it in the first place.

Of course, they ignorantly think that just one look at the "baby" will cause these woman to become filled with shame and remorse, and they'll call off the abortion and hopefully (in their fundy delusions) run to church and become born again crusaders for Gawd. The fact that it's failing just shows how little thought they actually put into this before hand, and how out of touch with reality they are. It's still horrible, but so is everything these fuckers do.

[MKSheppard]

Personally, I can't wait till they identify a gene that becomes widely known as the 'gay' gene, or even better; the 'transsexual' gene.

Then it'll get fun

[Crossroads Inc.]

Personally, I can't wait till they identify a gene that becomes widely known as the 'gay' gene, or even better; the 'transsexual' gene.

Then it'll get fun

Yeah, you would think that... Except the moment it happens I can bet you that well funded groups backed by funides will be looking for a way to "Cure" gays once and for all by removing or changing said gene.

[Temujin]

Personally, I can't wait till they identify a gene that becomes widely known as the 'gay' gene, or even better; the 'transsexual' gene.

Then it'll get fun

Yeah, you would think that... Except the moment it happens I can bet you that well funded groups backed by funides will be looking for a way to "Cure" gays once and for all by removing or changing said gene.

Well we could long for the discovery of a 'Conservative' gene, but all you really have to do is identify anyone with little more than a reptilian brain.

[Bluewolf]

You two just respond to his comment like a train would go through a car. :p Calm down now. Besides, reptiles are lovely critters.

[Temujin]

You two just respond to his comment like a train would go through a car. :p Calm down now. Besides, reptiles are lovely critters.

Sorry, no offense to reptiles or Alyrium.

And yes, I did forget to add a smiley to indicate sarcasm.

[Gil Hamilton]

Careful guys, old Shep, like Message Board Beelzebub, is a tricky one. What he's alluding to is what happens to the conservative position if a gay gene is identified and it bumps heads "showing the mothers the analysis" stuff conservatives like. Suddenly, you'll have some very nervous conservatives getting "do you still oppose abortion if genetic fingerprinting demonstrates the fetus is likely to come out gayer than Christmas" and all the young conservative women very quietly getting abortions to firing out a gay kid. That will make real hypocrites out of them, when they support describe the fetus in full to make the mother not want to terminate.

[Questor]

You two just respond to his comment like a train would go through a car. :p Calm down now. Besides, reptiles are lovely critters.

Not to mention that it flew over their heads. I've done that thought experiment with a conservative audience a time or two myself (usually fun for making them look like idiots, and even makes the hypocrisy apparent in the "all sins are equal" stupidity visible):

1. You oppose abortion because it is murder.
2. You oppose the act of homosexual sexual intercourse because it is a sin.
3. You believe murder to prevent a sin is not a sin.
4. What if a gene/structure that guaranteed homosexuality were discovered?

Its sick, its wrong, and its a deplorable scenario, but if I even got one person to THINK about the hypocrisy, I don't apologize for it.

[Temujin]

Your both right. While my response was supposed to come across as more tongue-in-cheek (forgot the smiley damn it ), I did miss the obvious point Shep was making. And while I'm fairly new to posting, I've been lurking the board from the beginning, so I should be more aware of Shep's posting subtleties.

Edit: Fixed spelling

[MKSheppard]

Suddenly, you'll have some very nervous conservatives getting "do you still oppose abortion if genetic fingerprinting demonstrates the fetus is likely to come out gayer than Christmas" and all the young conservative women very quietly getting abortions to firing out a gay kid.

You make the critical failure of assuming that only evil KKKonservatives would quietly get abortions instead of firing out TEH GAY. Liberals would be lining up as well -- for all their talk about gay equality, they're more comfortable with it as long as it's someone else's kid who is TEH GAY not, JOHN LEYLAND HOWARD IV.

[Temujin]

Suddenly, you'll have some very nervous conservatives getting "do you still oppose abortion if genetic fingerprinting demonstrates the fetus is likely to come out gayer than Christmas" and all the young conservative women very quietly getting abortions to firing out a gay kid.

You make the critical failure of assuming that only evil KKKonservatives would quietly get abortions instead of firing out TEH GAY. Liberals would be lining up as well -- for all their talk about gay equality, they're more comfortable with it as long as it's someone else's kid who is TEH GAY not, JOHN LEYLAND HOWARD IV.

I'm sure there are some so-called 'liberals' who would do that, after all I've known my share of supposedly left leaning people who when push comes to shove only pay lip service to their so-called beliefs. That said, I wouldn't consider these people truly liberal, but members of the mindless middle who just happen to lean slightly to the left.

[Junghalli]

Yeah, you would think that... Except the moment it happens I can bet you that well funded groups backed by funides will be looking for a way to "Cure" gays once and for all by removing or changing said gene.

IIRC we can't even do that for things like Tay-Sachs disease, so I wouldn't hold my breath for something like that to come along anytime soon if I were them.

[Bluewolf]

I'm sure there are some so-called 'liberals' who would do that, after all I've known my share of supposedly left leaning people who when push comes to shove only pay lip service to their so-called beliefs. That said, I wouldn't consider these people truly liberal, but members of the mindless middle who just happen to lean slightly to the left.

It depends really. There is such a thing as left centre and on top of that, a lot of people lack conviction in their beliefs so you often see people fold under pressure on them at times. I don't think every single are the "mindless" (ugh) middle but I would say many don't really back up their true feelings or ideas. People are herd like and don't like being put in the spotlight or to be confrontational

[Temujin]

The problem is, in America the 'middle' or center is decidedly conservative, so I can't see a lot of true liberal principles being supported by these people. As for other more liberal countries (like in Europe), I could see a lack of conviction being more the case.

[Samuel]

Obviously, the solution is to let gay parents find a way to insert the gene to make up for the losses. I wonder what would happen to bisexuals? Heck, any nonstandard mental profile. On the bright side sociopaths would probably be the first thing people try to purge from the gene pool.

[Bluewolf]

Of course, the political alignment of the US and the cultural and societal aspects that feed into it's politics are something that cannot be forgotten. Mainstream left wing parties being right in the eye of the world etc. For a Liberal that is more to the Europe style left, Democrat style liberals would seem to be supporting actual right wing idealogical views. This is not to say the Democratic party has nothing of value to a firm left winger nor to say that Democrat supporters are bad but in the end the party is right wing with it's own right wing supporters and that is another thing you are probably seeing given Democrats tout their "left-centre" views/

[Temujin]

Obviously, the solution is to let gay parents find a way to insert the gene to make up for the losses. I wonder what would happen to bisexuals? Heck, any nonstandard mental profile. On the bright side sociopaths would probably be the first thing people try to purge from the gene pool.

Well I don't think its that simple. Common belief is that you are either 100% hetero, 100% homo, or bi and thus 50%/50%. However, more realistic is the idea that on either end of the spectrum are people who are 100% homo or hetero (say 10% of the population), and the 80% in between range from being more heterosexual to being more homosexual; and the only reason we don't see that behavior openly is because of cultural and social norms that suppress it.* It does help to explain why some straight people like myself will have homosexual fantasies, experiment, or even have some brief relationships with members of the same sex. It also explains why we see a lot of closeted homosexuals in certain circles (coughRepublicancough).

As for sociopaths, if I understand the physiological reason behind it (problems with the amygdalae and other parts of the brain), and am remembering correctly, it should be possible to not only identify the abnormality but also correct it given advancements in medical technology. Though it may be something that has to be done when the child is still very young.

*Note: I'm not saying these percentages are correct, I'm just using them as an example.

[mingo]

Remember, fundies fiercely deny that anyone is BORN gay, because this would mean that God made them that way and homosexuality is not a sin but an accident of birth, like red hair or being able to curl your tongue. Because of this they deny ANYTHING that hints at a gay gene with global warming denying, birther type frenzy.

[Alphawolf55]

Suddenly, you'll have some very nervous conservatives getting "do you still oppose abortion if genetic fingerprinting demonstrates the fetus is likely to come out gayer than Christmas" and all the young conservative women very quietly getting abortions to firing out a gay kid.

You make the critical failure of assuming that only evil KKKonservatives would quietly get abortions instead of firing out TEH GAY. Liberals would be lining up as well -- for all their talk about gay equality, they're more comfortable with it as long as it's someone else's kid who is TEH GAY not, JOHN LEYLAND HOWARD IV.

I'm sure there are some so-called 'liberals' who would do that, after all I've known my share of supposedly left leaning people who when push comes to shove only pay lip service to their so-called beliefs. That said, I wouldn't consider these people truly liberal, but members of the mindless middle who just happen to lean slightly to the left.

You can be a perfectly accepting and loving liberal and still prefer to not have gay kids due to the fact that most people would rather have kids that are more like you, it's wrong but it doesn't exclude from being a true liberal.

Plus I don't know if conservatives would abort, they're willing to have kids with down syndrome, so I could see them be willing to have gay kids and convince themselves Jesus could cure them.

[Temujin]

You can be a perfectly accepting and loving liberal and still prefer to not have gay kids due to the fact that most people would rather have kids that are more like you, it's wrong but it doesn't exclude from being a true liberal.

Well that depends on how strictly you personally choose to define such a concept. For me, liberalism equates to the concept of enlightenment (not in a religious sense), the point being to identify and move beyond such built it preferences, to move beyond your baser human nature. Of course its easier said than done, but by being able to identify and accept your flaws, and continually strive to improve them, and not just make excuses for yourself, not only sets you apart from but actually does make you a better person than people who just talk the talk but choose not to walk the walk.

Plus I don't know if conservatives would abort, they're willing to have kids with down syndrome, so I could see them be willing to have gay kids and convince themselves Jesus could cure them.

They may not abort, but they will likely make the child's life a living hell trying to cure them of the gay; ultimately resorting to another stereotypical overzealous closeted Republican hypocrite crusader.

[Alphawolf55]

True I could agree with alot of that. Like for example my brother and sister are fairly liberal (or at least libertarian I'm trying to figure it out still). Like me, my sister was head of her schools Gay Straight Alliance, except she did it at a Catholic Highschool rather then me doing it at public, she identified as a lesbian for most of her life, her husband though is a pretty liberal but all american guy, landscaper, plays football. They just had a healthy baby boy that they love, but if you told them their son was gay, I'm sure they'd love it after the fact, but that the father would kind of be disappointed that his son isn't a red blooded straight guy like him, though if it turned out his second son was gay and he had a first straight son. I'm he'd cope better. The point? I guess like what you said, people have a hard time putting away their flaws and wanting to have a child just like us is one of the biggest.


I also doubt the kid would turn into a gay closeted republican. He'd more likely these days just rebel against his parents or keep it quiet most his life to his parents. Remember, these days there are far more gay communities online for kids coming out of the closet to look for guidance from.

[Temujin]

I also doubt the kid would turn into a gay closeted republican. He'd more likely these days just rebel against his parents or keep it quiet most his life to his parents. Remember, these days there are far more gay communities online for kids coming out of the closet to look for guidance from.

Well that's the most extreme (and most undesirable) case to be sure. Though I think if ultra conservative parents did choose not to abort, they would be much more motivated to essentially brainwash their child. Literally from birth the child would learn that gay = bad, and the conditioning would likely be orders of magnitude more extreme than would normally be the case. They also may work to actively monitor their child for such behavior and/or block access to any such resources as best they can. It may ultimately not work, but it certainly won't be healthy for the child's mental state.

[Alphawolf55]

True, I'm just saying that these days kids have far more potential influences to draw from to help form their frame of minds in this country.