One mobile ultrasound pro-life company claims a nearly 80% rate at stopping abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Victoria33

Guest
One mobile ultrasound pro-life company claims a nearly 80% rate at stopping abortion. 78% actually. If you don’t know how this works, these mobil units go out and give ultrasounds to pregnant women.

Well, just for the record, I am not talking about this company, I am using this for illustration purposes only.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So, that’s pretty impressive. There is probably no way to know that exact percentage… even if it was one-half of that, 40%, I would personally think that is pretty good. A very good cause.

I read about these companies first about 3 years ago. It was just a news article but recently, I actually came across one of these charities personally.
 
Last edited:
If you have ever gotten one, then you know that they are expensive.
  1. Who pays for a mobile ultra-sound?
  2. How exactly does a mobile ultra-sound “stop” a women from obtaining an abortion if that is her choice?
 
  1. It’s a charity
  2. They see it is a real human being. And may hear the child’s heartbeat.
 
Last edited:
  1. Donors.
  2. They enable women to make fully informed decisions by presenting relevant information in the form of ultrasound imaging. I’m not sure why they have such a high success rate, but other commenters have provided some good possibilities.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
They enable women to make fully informed decisions by presenting relevant information in the form of ultrasound imaging. I’m not sure why they have such a high success rate, but other commenters have provided some good possibilities.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that some states make it illegal to show women considering abortions ultrasound. Something like that. How would anyone tolerate such a stance; i.e. deny full information to the woman. If anything, it should be illegal to perform abortion without providing full information to the woman.
 
If you have evidence these are scams, then it is your moral responsibility to bring this evidence forward
 
I haven’t heard of any state making it illegal. I have heard of pro-life legislation brought forward to require abortionists to show the image, and the medical lobby usually manages to defeat it.

@OScarlett_nidiyilii can correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that ultrasounds are required prior to performing abortions to rule out ectopic pregnancy, a contraindication that would make abortion deadly. (That’s why all of those hysterical media articles about legislation for “forced penetration” were dishonest).

The issue here is that providers have been deliberately and paternalistically turning the screen away from women so they can’t see the image and worry their pretty little heads about the humanity of their unborn offspring. Ultrasound legislation seeks to change that.
 
blackforest said:
I haven’t heard of any state making it illegal. I have heard of pro-life legislation brought forward to require abortionists to show the image, and the medical lobby usually manages to defeat it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification.
 
Dobby said:
The numbers of women seeking abortions is just as high in the affluent parts of town.
Click to expand...
Can you support this claim with data?

The only data I know of proves just the opposite, that Planned Parenthood and other abortion clinics target primarily BIPOC women, rendering these demographics most vulnerable to abortion. Abortion rates by race and ethnicity | Guttmacher Institute

This would explain why pro-lifers seek first to provide these women with the financial and emotional support they need to carry pregnancies to term.
 
WE pay for them! Pro-life individuals donate their own money to purchase these opportunities for women to make more fully informed choices. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
And the Knights of Columbus is a group which has consistently supported pro-life activities!.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
You’re right; they cost a bit. But those lives are so precious-worth far more than the cost of an ultrasound. After all, Our Lord gave His life for them.
Women who have seen their babies in the womb are far less likely to kill them.
 
Last edited:
In my state they were proposing legislation to require ultrasounds. I was at 4-5 of the hearings and it was very interesting.
Some of the bills points included
  1. The woman must see the ultrasound and have it be audible. Apparently this wasn’t happening and the ultrasound was being used to determine the developmental status only. ( The complaint raised was what if she didn’t want to see it. The bills sponsor said she could turn her head away. This was a point of contention).
  2. An objection raised was that ultrasound could cause harm due to increased tissue temperature. From what I read this claim may or may not have some merit, but the obvious destruction of a child seemed a little hypocritical. And a trained sonigrapher should be able to manage the appropriate settings if instructed. There was also a point about transvaginal ultrasound, vs external ultrasound, so they modified the bill to clarify external ultrasound met the criteria.
  3. The fines were steep, $100,000 for not providing it. To me this makes sense but I think there were objections to this too.
The bill ended up not passing after passing the house committee, house vote, senate committee, senate vote, but was recalled into the senate for a point of order (or something similar) vote. At which time all the female members (including the pro-life republican ) “walked out” and had a public hug outside the senate chamber. So the bill never made it to its final vote.


As someone who considered medical school once myself I’ll admit to feeling frustrated. I was always given the “don’t go there” stance on reproductive health (I never brought it up anyway). As a middle class white male I can’t say much. But at these hearings physicians in their white coats were there from the university to support abortion and speak on its behalf. The only available scientific interpretation/opinion was from pro-choice physicians. I’ll be honest I was disappointed in the scientific and medical communities for not being able to be objective and provide an unbiased assessment of the safety of the ultrasounds.

I encourage everyone to support lawmakers and show up to those hearings wearing the appropriate color (we wore yellow). The visible support helps with courage for the lawmakers and knowing they aren’t fighting alone.
 
Last edited:
Guttmacher.org does not poll private doctors nor the women who utilize their private and someone expensive services. Your “data” is compiled to target PP and the poor women who can’t afford private doctors who respect their privacy. Your data is not accurate.
 
This is inaccurate and incorrect. The chart was pulled from this article. In it, we learn that:
We used secondary data from the Abortion Patient Survey, the American Community Survey, and the National Survey of Family Growth to estimate abortion rates. We used information from the Abortion Patient Survey to estimate the lifetime incidence of abortion.
Click to expand...
All three of those sources have some pretty solid sampling methods. Can you provide evidence that the surveyed populations are limited to lower-income women?
 
the figure we here at the KofC for the ones we place is 75%, so this is quite in line.

Ours are generally in fixed locations, typically counseling clinics next or across from abortion mills.

The next one in Nevada, though, is expected to be mobile, as we’ seem to have all the big clinics covered . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top