Bill would require ultrasound before abortion

[_Abyssinia]

A bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound before they can receive an abortion was filed this week, the first move to create new abortion regulations since the passage of a constitutional amendment earlier this month.

Rep. Rick Womick, R-Rockvale, prefiled the bill Thursday. The main requirement of the bill calls for a woman to receive an ultrasound within 24 to 72 hours of when she plans to have the abortion.

Abortion-rights advocates and critics waged a well-publicized and well-financed fight earlier this year regarding a proposed amendment to the constitution. After a 2000 state Supreme Court ruling said the state constitution preserved the right to abortion services, anti-abortion rights supporters have pushed to change the constitution.

tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/14/bill-require-ultrasound-abortion/19026477/

 

[SuperLuigi]

Pass the bill!

 

[Nelka]

Pass the bill!

Pass it to UK too.

 

[Valdemar]

It’s a great policy.

The least that can be done.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Given that almost 90% of women who see their child before the abortion chose not to abort, I am 500% in favor of this bill, and pray that it passes.

 

[tawny]

Pass the bill!

Amen.

 

[Isca]

Hope it is passed and hope we do the same over here.

 

[Personanongrata]

Who is paying for it?

 

[YADA]

Who is paying for it?

The bill being offered or the ultrasound?..

If you are asking about the ultrsound then it would be either the person’s Insurance, The state, the Fed gov., the person paying for the abortion consult … Any and all of the above …the same people paying for all the abortions currently …

One wonders why you ask … If it saves a life its a worthy expense

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Pass the bill!

 

[estesbob]

Who is paying for it?

Whoever is paying for the abortion

 

[NeedsMercy]

Given that almost 90% of women who see their child before the abortion chose not to abort, I am 500% in favor of this bill, and pray that it passes.

Actually, that was my first question: how well does this tactic work? I ran across the data that you cite, but this study has been overshadowed by a much larger, more recent study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology:

Voluntarily viewing the ultrasound image may contribute to a small proportion of women with medium or low decision certainty deciding to continue the pregnancy; such viewing does not alter decisions of the large majority of women who are certain that abortion is the right decision.

slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/09/ultrasound_viewing_before_an_abortion_a_new_study_finds_that_for_a_small.html

journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2014/01000/Relationship_Between_Ultrasound_Viewing_and.13.aspx

So, while, on its face, mandatory ultrasounds sound like a good idea, they don’t really accomplish what one would think. My guess is that prayers work better.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Actually, that was my first question: how well does this tactic work? I ran across the data that you cite, but this study has been overshadowed by a much larger, more recent study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology:

slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/09/ultrasound_viewing_before_an_abortion_a_new_study_finds_that_for_a_small.html

journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2014/01000/Relationship_Between_Ultrasound_Viewing_and.13.aspx

So, while, on its face, mandatory ultrasounds sound like a good idea, they don’t really accomplish what one would think. My guess is that prayers work better.

Regarding the study, this has been noted:

After carefully reading the abstract of the Obstetrics & Gynecology study, it seems that, according to their methodology section, none of the researchers ever actually set foot inside an abortion clinic in conducting research for the study. (And, in fact, all the data was gathered from one, single abortion clinic) All of their data was collected, not by the researchers themselves, but from records provided directly by one abortion clinic with no oversight of any kind.

liveactionnews.org/abortion-records-ultrasounds-and-the-truth/

Another thing of note is that these medical records from an abortion clinic wouldn’t count women who may have had abortion as a consideration but went to a crisis pregnancy centre or a mobile unit where women could get a sonogram, and could change their minds about abortion by getting an ultrasound this way. But there may be multiple things about pregnant women’s interactions via these that might change their mind on abortion.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Regarding the study, this has been noted:
After carefully reading the abstract of the Obstetrics & Gynecology study, it seems that, according to their methodology section, none of the researchers ever actually set foot inside an abortion clinic in conducting research for the study. (And, in fact, all the data was gathered from one, single abortion clinic) All of their data was collected, not by the researchers themselves, but from records provided directly by one abortion clinic with no oversight of any kind.

liveactionnews.org/abortion-records-ultrasounds-and-the-truth/

Not having read the methodology itself, I can neither deny nor confirm this author’s statement that the researchers were not physically present at the clinic. However, this should have no bearing on the results. In fact, it would rule out any biases that the researchers might pick up by actually meeting the staff or patients. Terzo is alleging some kind of dishonest record-keeping. What she uses as a basis for this argument, she does not mention.

I was not in the abortion clinic. I do not know what happened. Although, it doesn’t seem that the researchers really did either. Were the records gathered in an honest fashion? Were they truthful? I can’t prove that they weren’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m against abortion, but I don’t go for this type tactic. If you’re going to accuse researchers of dishonestly, you’d better back it up with facts. It isn’t fair to the authors of the study.

Another thing of note is that these medical records from an abortion clinic wouldn’t count women who may have had abortion as a consideration but went to a crisis pregnancy centre or a mobile unit where women could get a sonogram, and could change their minds about abortion by getting an ultrasound this way. But there may be multiple things about pregnant women’s interactions via these that might change their mind on abortion.

Not sure I understand this point. All the women studied had sonograms. All had the choice of seeing the sonogram images. And every woman had the right to change her mind. It is likely that the researchers wanted a study that did not include the “interactions” you mentioned because the study was particular to studying the effects of seeing the images only, without the (name removed by moderator)ut from others e.g. staffers, other patients, etc.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Not having read the methodology itself, I can neither deny nor confirm this author’s statement that the researchers were not physically present at the clinic. However, this should have no bearing on the results. In fact, it would rule out any biases that the researchers might pick up by actually meeting the staff or patients. Terzo is alleging some kind of dishonest record-keeping. What she uses as a basis for this argument, she does not mention.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m against abortion, but I don’t go for this type tactic. If you’re going to accuse researchers of dishonestly, you’d better back it up with facts. It isn’t fair to the authors of the study.

I haven’t accused the researchers of dishonesty. Is Sarah Terzo accusing the researchers of dishonesty? She is raising some questions, but she is not directly accusing them of dishonesty.

It surely would of been more comprehensive if the researchers had looked at statistics for numerous clinics, and not just in one state either.

Not sure I understand this point. All the women studied had sonograms. All had the choice of seeing the sonogram images. And every woman had the right to change her mind. It is likely that the researchers wanted a study that did not include the “interactions” you mentioned because the study was particular to studying the effects of seeing the images only, without the (name removed by moderator)ut from others e.g. staffers, other patients, etc.

There could be so many variables that could impact whether seeing an ultrasound could impact the decision on abortion a pregnant woman could make. I haven’t read the full study, and I am not even sure if the researchers looked at this, but did the nurse/doctor/other employee in the one abortion clinic describe what was being seen on the ultrasound rather than just give the woman brief or even a long look at the image? Did the pregnant women get to see a real time image of the ultrasound rather than a printed image of the ultrasound? Certain things may be more impactful in contributing to women deciding not to have an abortion.

 

[estesbob]

Actually, that was my first question: how well does this tactic work? I ran across the data that you cite, but this study has been overshadowed by a much larger, more recent study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology:

slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/09/ultrasound_viewing_before_an_abortion_a_new_study_finds_that_for_a_small.html

journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Abstract/2014/01000/Relationship_Between_Ultrasound_Viewing_and.13.aspx

So, while, on its face, mandatory ultrasounds sound like a good idea, they don’t really accomplish what one would think. My guess is that prayers work better.

So all studies indicate that at least some women decide not to abort after viewing an ultrasound. So how many children’s lives have to be say before this “tactic” is good.

BTW- there is nothing in this law that precludes us from supporting the law and continuing to pray for the end of abortion

 

[adawgj]

Sounds reasonable to me, I’d say pass it.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

No brainer.

 

[Path_Finder]

I have read the wikipedia articles on abortion in various countries.

I don’t know if the law is always followed but a number of those countries even considered “liberal” in Europe seem to have waiting periods, counseling is required upon someone considering abortion. It almost seems like the way a lot of the American laws on abortion are, it is too easy to obtain on demand.

Obviously, in many states, we are now getting far away from that and good.

 

[NeedsMercy]

I haven’t accused the researchers of dishonesty. Is Sarah Terzo accusing the researchers of dishonesty? She is raising some questions, but she is not directly accusing them of dishonesty.

No, no, no. I wasn’t speaking to you. I was speaking to Terzo. She directly accuses the clinic of dishonesty and indirectly accuses the researchers with zero evidence. This is unacceptable.

It surely would of been more comprehensive if the researchers had looked at statistics for numerous clinics, and not just in one state either.

Yes, it would have been more comprehensive, but the methodology would have been pretty convoluted. And if someone like Terzo questioned “oversight” with just one clinic, can you imagine what she’d say about a study covering a dozen?

There could be so many variables that could impact whether seeing an ultrasound could impact the decision on abortion a pregnant woman could make. I haven’t read the full study, and I am not even sure if the researchers looked at this, but did the nurse/doctor/other employee in the one abortion clinic describe what was being seen on the ultrasound rather than just give the woman brief or even a long look at the image? Did the pregnant women get to see a real time image of the ultrasound rather than a printed image of the ultrasound? Certain things may be more impactful in contributing to women deciding not to have an abortion.

Perhaps someone could do the study with just real-time imaging involved. It would be interesting to see if the results change.